Sitting of 16 July 1990

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

    Menopausal Facilities
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what menopausal facilities, other than clinics, are available for women in Wales in national health service hospitals.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Clinics in a range of medical specialties are the main form of provision, but detail on the services provided for menopausal women, either in clinics or otherwise, is not available centrally.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will be pleased to learn that East Glamorgan hospital, in co-operation with the Amarant trust, of which I have the honour to be chairman, is about to open the first dedicated menopause clinic in Wales. It will be entirely free for the women in that area. The funds to pay the salaries of the doctor and nurse at that clinic have been raised entirely from the private sector, while the health service is providing the space and back-up facilities. Because of the great demand for the service by women in Wales, will my hon. Friend consider sponsoring training fellowships, so that the well-known Welsh gynaecologist, Dr. Peter Bowen-Simpkins, can undertake the training of more doctors who would like these facilities to be available?
    Mr. Grist: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her announcement and thank her for the interest that she has been able to arouse in the subject and for her chairmanship of the trust. Training goes a little wider than the matters on which I can comment, but obviously we would consider any proposal such as that suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: The plea by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for better menopausal facilities in Wales may be laudable, but does the Minister agree that our health authorities are faced with a funding crisis and that there is pressure on them to close wards and whole hospitals? That has caused great anxiety in our local communities. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are still waiting for an up-to-date list of hospital closures to be placed in the Library?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that health authorities in Wales are receiving record funding. They have never received so much, nor have they
    664
    ever been able to treat so many patients. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if his health authority has any proposals on closures, it must present them in the ordinary way when they will be a matter of public record.

    Salmonella
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish his Department's report on the salmonella outbreak in Flint; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: The Department's report will be published as soon as possible.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern over the delay in the publication of the report, which the Welsh Office originally promised would be in April? Will my hon. Friend be more specific about the publishing date? Will he scotch rumours that the report does not face up to the central issue of the outbreak—the need for one person to be put in overall charge, preferably the medically qualified director of public health medicine?
    Mr. Grist: We shall have to wait for the report's final version before answering the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. The time taken to publish the report was caused largely by the fact that we had to send it in draft form to Delyn borough council and Clwyd health authority, and the borough council in particular replied at considerable length. In addition, we sent out an associated draft guidance circular on public food poisoning, and we are trying to sort out the responses to it. We shall have to wait until we have managed to do those things before publication can take place. I promise my hon. Friend that we shall do it as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rhodri Morgan. The question relates to Flint.
    Mr. Morgan: It is about salmonella.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had better read the question.
    Mr. Morgan: I am asking a question about the importance of discovering the causes and effects of salmonella. As a further sign of how important it is, I should like to point out that an outbreak at Ely hospital, a large hospital in my constituency, has resulted in 62 cases of salmonella or suspected salmonella poisoning. I press the Minister on the urgent need for him to find out the exact causes and effects of salmonella. In the meantime, may I say to him how strongly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have let the hon. Gentleman get away with that, but the question was about a report on the salmonella outbreak in Flint.
    Mr. Grist: I have already asked for a report on that matter. I gather that 40 patients are affected, although the hon. Gentleman mentioned 60, but obviously that can be sorted out. It is a matter for South Glamorgan health authority, but clearly it is of public interest, and I shall find out precisely what has happened.

    Water Quality
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Welsh Water plc to discuss water quality.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I met Mr. John Elfed Jones, in his capacity as chairman of the Welsh Language Board on 9 July. I look forward to meeting him and his colleagues in Welsh Water plc on 6 September.
    Mr. Michael: When that meeting takes place, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to discuss his welcome and long-overdue assurance that we shall have statutory water quality objectives for all rivers and estuaries in Wales? Will he go further and discuss with the chairman of Welsh Water how that will be paid for? Will he give an assurance that the contribution invested by the Government will continue at the same level as in the period just before privatisation?
    Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the chairman of Welsh Water and the company to give up the idea of a flat-rate charge, or water poll tax as it is known, and to retain the present system at least until after the next general election, when the long-term future of the water industry will be determined?
    Mr. Hunt: I understand that Welsh Water made clear exactly what its preferred method of charging was early in 1989. It was clearly laid down then and was set out in the prospectus. The hon. Member will know that Dwr Cymru has laid down an investment programme of £1.75 billion over the next 10 years. That is a record level of investment, and it will be maintained. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the last time his party was in office there was a 50 per cent. cut in investment.
    Mr. Livsey: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of Welsh Water plc, will he point out that the company is perhaps even more leaky than the Cabinet discussing German matters? One third of the water supply goes down the drain which is a cause of concern for water quality, and which badly affects Welsh Water's profits. Will he ensure that consumers will not have to pay for essential repairs but that money will come from the company's profits?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject which I know exercises the mind of the chairman of Dwr Cymru and his colleagues. The amount of leakage is serious and too high. I know that it will be one of the subjects that I shall discuss with Welsh Water when I meet the chairman on 6 September. It is certainly a problem which needs to be solved.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best guarantees of improvement in water quality are the National Rivers Authority and increased investment, neither of which would have taken place without the privatisation of the industry?
    Mr. Hunt: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that. I wish sometimes that we could have a more even-handed approach from the Opposition, and that they would pay tribute to the important reforms that we have introduced.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: When will all untreated sewage be prohibited from entering Welsh coastal bathing waters?
    Mr. Hunt: As soon as possible, all significant discharges of sewage to coastal and estuarial waters will be treated.
    Mr. Wigley: Is not the Secretary of State aware of the tremendous variations in the quality of drinking water in Wales? In such circumstances, it is ridiculous for a uniform charge to be made on the pretext of the same price for the same service, when it is clearly not the same service. There will be a massive revolt against even pricing. Is not it time to nip this in the bud and stop it growing into an enormous problem?
    Mr. Hunt: Welsh Water made clear its preference early in 1989. We are talking about a range of services to be supplied and the method of charging. The hon. Gentleman has overexaggerated the problems that it will cause because many people in Wales had been expecting such an announcement. It is for the director general, Mr. Byatt, to consider charging from the point of view of the consumer.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on levels of unemployment in Clwyd and north Wales generally.
    Mr. David Hunt: Unemployment in both Clwyd and north Wales has fallen substantially. In May 1990 the unemployment rate in north Wales stood at 5.7 per cent., whereas four years ago it was 15.2 per cent. The rate in Clwyd is 4.9 per cent. whereas it was 14.7 per cent. four years ago.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for those figures. Leaving aside the fact that they have been fiddled something like 29 times since 1981—each time downwards, apart from once—does the Secretary of State acknowledge that if 1,200 jobs are lost at Brymbo, they will increase the figure for male unemployment by 17 per cent. in Clwyd alone? If the right hon. Gentleman is to have any credibility as Secretary of State for Wales, he must do something about Brymbo, and do it soon.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman knows about the range of activities in relation to Brymbo. The Welsh Development Agency is, with my full support, exploring a number of options to secure the future of that important community. I wish that the Opposition would start to pay tribute to the achievements of the people of Wales in having created a success story which has meant such dramatic falls in unemployment.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Labour party should choose to raise that issue at this juncture? Is not it a fact that employment in Clwyd is one of the Government's most glittering success stories, and is not that due to the policies that have been pursued by three successive Secretaries of State for Wales in making the maximum use of the instruments available to them? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an achievement of which we should all be proud?
    Mr. Hunt: I quite agree. Lord Crickhowell and my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), laid a tremendous foundation

    667
    for the future prosperity of Wales. I sometimes wish that Opposition Members would join their colleagues in local government—
    Dr. Thomas: Not all of us.
    Mr. Hunt: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I sometimes wish that Labour Members would join their many colleagues in local government in working in a positive partnership—as some do—to secure the future of the people of Wales and to improve their conditions even further.
    Mr. Barry Jones: With the long recess imminent, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that the excellent Brymbo work force has a steelmaking future? They have fought so spiritedly and so hard for more than two months and need a word of encouragement about steelmaking from the right hon. Gentleman. We do not want him to be impotent in this instance. The right hon. Gentleman's former colleague in Cabinet, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, did Wales a disservice in his infamous interview with The Spectator. The right hon. Gentleman may know that there are 43 West German companies in Wales and 900 in Britain, and that one sixth of West Germany's manufacturing companies here are located in Wales. Was not the right hon. Gentleman glad to see his former Cabinet colleague go, having done such damage to Britain's interest?
    Mr. Hunt: To answer the only question that falls within the limits of the tabled question, I advise the hon. Gentleman that I have had the opportunity of meeting representatives of the work force at Brymbo and have been able to assure them that I am aware of the tremendous progress that they have made, individually and collectively, in terms not only of the quality of their work, but of productivity. However, it is right not to raise hopes to a false expectation. Suffice it to say that every possible effort is being made to find a solution that secures the future of that community.

    Earnings
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average pay in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: The average gross weekly pay of full-time employees on adult rates in Wales in April 1989, which is the latest date for which figures are available, was £215.90 compared with £87.20 in April 1979.
    Mr. Flynn: Although we are happy to pay generous tributes to local authorities, the Welsh Office and everyone else who has encouraged the good news on employment in Wales in the past few years, we must not be blinded by the glitter referred to by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). Is the Secretary of State aware that what has really happened and what masks the reality is that a plague of unemployment has spread over Wales during the past decade? We have slipped to the disgraceful position in the new earnings survey to which the Secretary of State referred of having the lowest average pay of any region in Britain. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge, as his predecessor did not, that low pay does great damage? To be paid a low wage is an insult. It is demeaning and it produces a demoralised work force.
    668
    When will the Secretary of State return us to the level in Wales of a decade ago? The poverty of unemployment has been replaced by the poverty of those in low-paid jobs.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my reply. The figures that I gave show a 17.6 per cent. real-terms increase in rates of pay since 1979. I recognise that we have problems in Wales, caused by low pay in certain instances and by a low gross domestic product per head, and that we have pockets of poverty. My predecessors and I set a target of raising the quality of life throughout Wales and of spreading prosperity. That is a commitment to which I am securely wedded.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received about Welsh language teaching.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning the use of the Welsh language in primary schools in Dyfed.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): We have received 27 representations about the use of the Welsh language in primary schools in Dyfed since June 1989.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage Welsh language and culture is through a sensible, balanced and moderate policy which does not involve compelling parents to accept it? Does he also agree that the best way of ensuring freedom of choice for my constituents would be to allow generous exemptions from compulsory Welsh in secondary schools and to look again at the categorisation policy in some primary schools in Dyfed which means that some children are immersed in Welsh at the age of five without the opportunity of learning their mother tongue of English?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The word "compulsion" is anathema to me, as it is to my hon. Friend. He must recognise that in schooling there is an element of compulsion to learn school subjects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has consulted on exemptions from Welsh in the national curriculum. He is considering the results of that consultation and we shall make an announcement in due course. Categorisation of schools in Dyfed is primarily a matter for the local education authority.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister agree that every child has a right to an education in its mother tongue as far as reasonably possible? Does he realise that in Dyfed since last September, when, without consulting parents, the local authority made all schools in rural areas Welsh speaking, thousands of English-speaking infants have been deprived of the right to an education in their mother tongue?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: It is important to understand what happened in Dyfed. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986—not the Education Reform Act 1988—the local education authority is required to state its policy on secular education. I understand that consultations have been held with the governors of about 333 primary schools

    669
    and that only two changes were proposed. There will be consultation with parents during the summer and in the early autumn.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the row in Dyfed has more to do with county policy than with the Education (No. 2) Act or the national curriculum?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Yes, it is precisely as my hon. Friend says. The dispute arises from the county's policy, which is geared to the 1986 Act. It is an independent authority, but I understand that 27 of its members belong to the party of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that it was a great shame that the hon. Members. for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) interfered with the teaching of Welsh in one of my schools in north Pembrokeshire? The parents of 50 out of 56 children at that school are in favour of the present policy. Will the Minister advise those two hon. Gentlemen to behave themselves and to act like statesmen?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I understand that the parents concerned in one school are the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). Surely the House is not averse to right hon. and hon. Members stating their views or those of their constituents. We are here to try to resolve any difficulties that may arise.
    Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answers about the Welsh language will cause dismay and confusion in Wolverhampton? A separate language is a clear sign of distinct racial characteristics, and my hon. Friend's answers, allied with the revelation that members of the Cabinet have been considering the distinct racial characteristics of the German race, flies in the face of all that the people of Wolverhampton have been taught for 25 years by successive Governments and by the race relations industry—that there are no such things as racial characteristics.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I wished that his predecessor as Member of Parliament for that constituency were here, because he was a distinguished Welsh scholar. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that linguistic differences are the same as racial differences. After all, I can proudly boast that I speak Welsh and German, and I have a smattering of English.

    Family Practitioner Services
    Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made to finance the family practitioner services budgets in Wales.
    Mr. Grist: More than 90 per cent. of the provision for family practitioner services is not subject to cash limiting. Cash limits for family practitioner committee administration budgets have already been issued and provisional allocations have been made in respect of a proportion of GP practice staff costs and cost-rent schemes. I hope to finalise allocations in the next few weeks, after information received from family practitioner committees has been evaluated.
    Mr. Coleman: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that there is great anxiety among medical practitioners in
    670
    Wales over the uncertainty that the Minister outlined again this afternoon about the provision being made by the Welsh Office? Will the hon. Gentleman get the Welsh Office to move more quickly, so that doctors can be doctors, not book-keepers?
    Mr. Grist: Doctors in the hon. Gentleman's constituency may have encountered some problems in receiving initial allocations from their family practitioner committee, which I believe adopted a slightly different policy from some others. The inherited commitments were not available to FPCs until well into the current financial year, and they had to be dealt with first, although there is an allowance for an increased payment above the inherited commitment. Nevertheless, the fact remains that allocations arrived late as a consequence of bunching in the previous financial year.

    NHS Reforms
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the area health authorities in Wales to discuss the Government's national health service reforms.
    Mr. David Hunt: I met the chairmen of the health authorities in Wales on 10 July. I look forward to meeting them again collectively in October.
    Mr. Davies: Is not the reality that few people in Wales support the so-called reforms? They will lead to the worst kind of chequebook medicine and divert real resources that should be used to heal the sick to useless exercises such as form filling and counting pills. Is it not time that those so-called reforms were abandoned?
    Mr. Hunt: No, it is not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that funding for the Welsh national health service has risen from under £500 million in 1979 to more than £1,500 million today. The reforms now seek to target those substantial resources more effectively. The right hon. Gentleman should also consider the clear objectives that ministerial colleagues and I have set the health service in Wales—I shall send him a copy if he likes. Everyone knows that we have set a target to become the best in Europe, and we are well on the way towards achieving that.
    Mr. Rowlands: But if the resources are available and the policies are so successful, why are beds lying empty in hospitals in Merthyr because of lack of staff, while qualified staff are unable to get jobs and, at the same time, the area authority is employing agency staff? In the name of heaven, what has that to do with the reforms? Let us make the present system work more effectively rather than creating stupid and foolish competition within the health service.
    Mr. Hunt: What we are doing is to make the present system work more effectively. No one can dispute the tremendous additional resources that have gone into the health service in Wales. I hope that even the hon. Gentleman will admit that there has been a substantial real-terms increase in the amount of resources devoted to the health service in his constituency. We must now follow the clear target that we have set, of adding years to life and quality of life to years.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread recognition in my constituency of the Government's record on the national health service, as seen in the renewal and upgrading of each of our four cottage or community hospitals? People recognise just how much the Government have spent compared with the previous Government who cut—slashed, indeed—public expenditure on the health service. In Delyn we recognise the need for the Government to get value for money in terms of the NHS reforms.
    Mr. Hunt: How right my hon. Friend is. We will always win any argument about resources, because we have put substantial, additional resources into the NHS. We now have to have a meaningful, clear policy towards which we can all work—everyone involved in the NHS. We have now set that target, and we believe that we are the first health service in Europe to do so. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) should be proud of that, and not seek to make party political points out of health.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on reversing his predecessor's decision on Project 2000? I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his decision not to axe the community health councils—another of his predecessor's proposals. However, will the Secretary of State now decide to give the appropriate authorities sufficient funding to enable care in the community to become a reality? I speak for the elderly and the mentally ill and in the cities and towns of Wales, it is clear that all is not well. What will he do to make care in the community a reality, not a Government slogan?
    Mr. David Hunt: Obviously, an announcement will be made about the subject to which the hon. Gentleman has devoted himself. I hope that he will recognise that the point of a consultation exercise is to listen carefully to the points made. After hearing the results of the consultation, I decided not to proceed with reducing the number of community health councils.
    I regard Project 2000 as a vital element in the strategy we have been debating. It is important that that project is up and running in Wales. I recently had the opportunity to meet the nurses, and I told them the importance we attach to Project 2000.

    Young Farmers
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet leaders of the farming unions in Wales to discuss the problems of young entrants to the agriculture industry.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend met the leaders of the unions on 27 June, although this subject was not discussed. He has also agreed to meet them and the young farmers' clubs during his visit to the Royal Welsh show next week.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He and his colleagues will be aware that the number of young people engaged in agriculture has dropped significantly in recent years, and that the number of students attending colleges of agriculture has also dropped alarmingly. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we need a comprehensive range of packages for young farmers, including more starter holdings, low-interest
    672
    loans, which are available in France, and a milk quota pool for new entrants. As a result of discussions at the Royal Welsh show will the Minister assure us that the Welsh Office will take a bold initiative on behalf of young Welsh farmers?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The smallholdings, which are available for young entrants to the industry, are not a central Government responsibility, but a responsibility of the local authorities in Wales. During the five years from 1984 to March 1989, the number of smallholdings in Wales remained nearly constant—they increased in total size. A number of measures are being taken to encourage young entrants into agriculture, but some of them are dependent on suggestions from the industry. With regard to the availability of loans, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that loan subsidies are available in some continental countries, but the choice facing us was to have either subsidised loans or capital grants, and we opted for capital grants because they have advantages.

    Earnings
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission a survey of incomes in the border counties of Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: No, Sir. There is already sufficient information available in the new earnings survey details.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the earnings survey details show a remarkable convergence in average incomes between counties on both sides of the Welsh border? In the light of that, does he agree that there might well be a case for looking again at the economic, financial and other incentives available to individuals and businesses for moving to the Welsh side of the border?
    Mr. Hunt: In Avon, the relevant figure, which we were comparing before, is £241.30, and in Gloucestershire it is £230.10, as opposed to a figure in Gwent of £212.20. Therefore, I do not accept my hon. Friend's initial premise.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that, as regards Mid-Wales, the activities of the Development Board for Rural Wales will be as fully supported during his tenure as Secretary of State as they were under previous Administrations? Will he ensure that there are sufficient resources for the board's economic and social programme, in view of the potential competition from over the border in Telford?
    Mr. Hunt: As it happens, I was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency yesterday with the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales, Mr. Glyn Davies, and I was able to reassure him once again of the importance that I attach to the work of the board, and my strong commitment to its future work.
    Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. Friend answered an earlier question on incomes in Wales, which related closely to this question, he gave an undertaking to the House that his first priority was to improve the quality of life for the people of Wales. We all know that, once he was appointed by the Prime Minister, the House had a good Secretary of State for Wales. If he says that he intends to improve the quality of life in Wales, he will certainly do so.
    Mr. Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend.

    Corlan Housing Association
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to meet the chairman of Tai Cymru to discuss the collapse of the Corlan housing association.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend is meeting the Board of Housing for Wales tomorrow.
    Mr. Morgan: Would the Under-Secretary of State agree that, following the collapse of the Corlan housing association and the Government's determination to give housing associations a greater role, which was previously occupied by council housing, the Government's housing policy in Wales is now in a shambles?
    Mr. Grist: That is an extraordinary statement. I should have thought that for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, for mine and for those of other hon. Members in Wales, the hon. Gentleman should have expressed appreciation for Tai Cymru and for the Wales and West housing association for the remarkable job that they have done in safeguarding the homes of so many of our constituents.
    Mr. Murphy: But does the Minister accept that housing associations, and Tai Cymru in particular, simply do not have enough money to cope with the problems of Welsh housing and that that is really a matter for Welsh local authorities? When will the Government give local authorities the right to spend their own money on building houses for people in need in Wales? When will he put someone representing local government on the board of Tai Cymru?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that local authorities' gross provision for housing this year has increased by 15 per cent. and that Tai Cymru's has gone up by 42 per cent. Local authorities are allowed to use their allowable money on new build, if they so wish. For instance, one of the hon. Gentleman's neighbouring authorities, Newport, has gone into new build consistently for several years, whereas for some reason, his own local authority seems to have ceased to do so.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Arts Council
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what discussions the Commissioners have held with the Arts Council about Church property.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): None, Sir.
    Mr. Bowis: May I invite my right hon. Friend to encourage the leaders of the Church to discuss with Mr. Peter Palumbo his imaginative proposals for enabling this generation to repair the major national institutions and buildings, be they theatres or churches and cathedrals, as we approach the next century? If he does so, will he suggest looking into the fabric of the buildings and the security of
    674
    buildings so that we can avoid such intrusions as occurred at Westminster abbey recently, when stained glass windows were broken?
    Mr. Alison: I note, not without sympathy, my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I draw his attention to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in the debate on arts and heritage in the House on 4 July at column 1094, when he expressed his enthusiasm for the idea that something special might be done to help the cathedrals and said that he proposed to address the matter in the forthcoming White Paper. My hon. Friend may therefore be pressing at an open door.
    Mr. Frank Field: Would the Commissioner agree that the greatest contribution that the Church makes to the arts and the development of the arts is in the maintenance of Church buildings? In that regard, will he congratulate the Priory parish in Birkenhead on spending £1 million on restoring its parish church? Does he agree that that contrasts vividly with the dilatory way in which the diocese has dealt with another outstanding church on the other side of the river—Christ church, Bootle?
    Mr. Alison: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The £1 million that he mentioned is a staggering sum for a local parish to raise. That is in stark contrast to the other parish, and the failure of the diocese to help is manifest in what he said. The Church of England, through its various funds, spends about £70 million a year on the refurbishment and maintenance of parish churches, and that is a considerable sum.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much has been spent by the Church Commissioners on assistance with community charge for archbishops, bishops, clergy and others; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: An estimated £8.5 million for the year beginning 1 April. The clergy and their spouses have no domestic rates savings to offset against their personal charge liability, and the Commissioners' contribution provides some three quarters of the costs of special stipend increases to help them meet the charge. The extra tax and national insurance on those increases amounts to about £4 million per annum, which is included in the Commissioners' contribution.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that clergymen, including archbishops, must take on a second home—they cannot own their main home—and are therefore required to pay the community charge twice? Will he press the Government to help them or to absolve them from payment on their second homes? On whom has he put his money for the next Archbishop of Canterbury? That is a matter of much interest.
    Mr. Alison: On the second point, I certainly could not afford a stake on that hazardous betting lottery.
    On my hon. Friend's main question, I share his sympathy for the predicament of clergy who are charged the standard community charge—often twice—on the second homes that they are buying. Such second homes are

    675
    often indispensable, because the houses that they live in as clergy are tied to the job; they must quit them when they retire. They must buy their retirement houses early to be able to afford them over the lifetime of their ministry. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will take note of this point when he considers the future of the standard community charge, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to his attention.
    Mr. Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, in an effort to reduce the injustices and absurdities of the poll tax, the Government gave a lump sum for the upkeep of Church buildings, which by definition mainly assisted the established Church. Is he aware of any means of compensating the nonconformist Churches?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out a limitation of the substantial sum—more than £3 million—that the Government made available through English Heritage towards the support of Church buildings. He is right to say that a number of the buildings of the free Churches do not qualify for such help. I shall take careful note of his criticism of that limitation, and inquire whether anything can be done to help the free Churches. I cannot commit myself to an affirmative and positive answer.

    Lambeth Palace
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the Commissioners' contribution to the upkeep of Lambeth palace during the past five years.
    Mr. Alison: As the owners of Lambeth palace, the Church Commissioners are wholly responsible for the upkeep of the buildings, which has cost some £329,000 over the past five years.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of this country need an Archbishop of Canterbury who will preach evangelical Christianity rather than socialism?
    Mr. Alison: I am entirely in favour of having an archbishop who is conservative all round. If I had to accept a limitation on that, I would prefer him to be theologically conservative, whatever his politics might be.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Management Consultancy
    Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals have been put forward so far in the management consultancy exercise on the House of Commons conducted by Sir Robin Ibbs.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission): None, Sir. The House of Commons Commission has asked Sir Robin to offer his advice to it by the beginning of the next Session of Parliament.
    Mr. Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the problems of dragging this place into the 20th century so that it is a modern, professional legislature, is that its lines of accountability are rather blurred, there are few clear budgeting functions and responsibility is split between the
    676
    Commission, the Services Committee and its subcommittees and the Department of the Environment? Will he undertake to ensure that the Ibbs report covers those matters so that we can be clear about where responsibility lies and about how to get things changed in this antiquated place?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, Sir. I told the House that Sir Robin's terms of reference were to examine whether the responsibilities at present divided between the Commission, the Services Committee, the Department of the Environment and Leader of the House could be brought together
    "with a view to ensuring that so far as possible there is a co-ordinated management and decision-taking structure under the control of the House".—[Official Report, 23 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 179.]
    Mr. Soames: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the likely findings of the Ibbs report—contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—is that the Palace of Westminster copes in the most remarkable manner with the obligations that are increasingly thrust upon it? Does he also agree that one of the tremendous strains on the House is imposed by a battalion of so-called research assistants, who appear to clog our proceedings greatly?
    Mr. Beith: The Commission would not have appointed Sir Robin if it had thought that it knew all the answers to all the questions that he has been asked to consider. Many people contribute most effectively to making the House run well. Many work within it—not just its employees, but those who assist Members as secretaries and research assistants. We believe that the work that Sir Robin is doing may assist us to have better systems for doing those things well in the future.

    Secretarial Allowances
    Mr. Stern: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick on Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the average delay between receipt of a bill for payment on behalf of hon. and right hon. Members out of the secretarial etc. allowance and its payment.
    Mr. Beith: Direct payments to third parties authorised by hon. and right hon. Members to be made out of their office costs allowances are paid each week, normally on a Thursday. Depending on the day of the week on which a claim is received, the Fees Office would normally expect to make payment that week or the following week.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. I am sure that he will join me in praising the Fees Office for the work that it does with the resources at its command. Nevertheless, it sometimes has to decide which bills are to be paid this week and which are to be delayed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is deplorable that a temporary secretary should have to wait two months to receive the salary for which she has worked, and should still be waiting for her P45?
    Mr. Beith: If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I hope that he will bring it to my notice. It is the practice of the Fees Office to seek to ensure that Members' staff, in particular, are paid promptly. The only circumstance that I can think of in which that cannot

    677
    happen is where a claim is made for payment on the ensuing year's allowance, rather than the allowance for the current year.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not an isolated incident? There has been an abundance of cases of delay in payment of allowance, of delay in implementation of an increase in salary and of Members' salaries being lost in the post and not being caught up with for months. That suggests there may be understaffing in the Fees Office, or that the system needs reviewing. One of those possibilities needs to be looked at.
    Mr. Beith: Representations do not seem to confirm the widespread nature of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—least of all the problem of hon. Members not being paid. However, if cases are brought to my notice, I will certainly ensure that the Fees Office attends to them immediately.

    Trade Union Side
    Mr. Carr: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, when he last met trade union representatives of the House of Commons staff to discuss terms and conditions of employment.
    Mr. Beith: Negotiations between management and trade union representatives of House of Commons staff are delegated by the House of Commons Commission to the Board of Management and the Administration Committee, and take place within the framework of the House of Commons Whitley committee. Consequently, the Commission's involvement in negotiations is required only on significant occasions such as the breakdown of the agreed disputes procedure or the signing of recognition agreements. The last such occasion—the latter case—was on 10 March 1986.
    Mr. Carr: Has the hon. Gentlman met trade union representatives of staff employed by hon. Members, especially in respect of health and safety provisions? If not, will he do so?
    Mr. Beith: The Commission would certainly wish to be aware if there were problems of which representatives of staff members were aware. There are channels through which these can be brought forward. There is no current case of any dispute between the Commission and any trade union.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem for the Refreshment Department and that it would be better—for security reasons alone—if there were more permanent staff? Does he agree that, because of the wage scales of the refreshment staff in the restaurants, the turnover is very high, and that most people think that what those staff are paid is well below what they could earn outside? Is it not time that we paid people more, got better staff and kept them?
    Mr. Beith: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's wish that the staff of the Refreshment Department should be well paid, and should have security and continuity of employment. I believe that to be in the interests of the House. Evidence to date suggests that the rates of pay in
    678
    the Refreshment Department are in accordance with those paid outside the House, but the matter is under consideration by the Commission.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Private Bills
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to introduce plans to change the private Bill procedure; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We shall look for an early opportunity to bring forward legislation to implement the proposals in our recently published consultation document, taking into account comments received in response to this consultation.
    Mr. Skinner: I know that the Leader of the House has been very busy lately, what with all the problems surrounding the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and so forth, but why does he not get on with the job? When I came here 20 years ago, about 10 Bills would receive parliamentary time; now, there are as many as 30. Will not history record that, in 1990, while the Germans were taking over the Common Market and the rest of Europe, this Tory Government were pottering about with Bills about closing pits, running racing circuits and opening crematoria?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the contrary. I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman has noticed the upsurge in the number of private Bills being introduced. If he studies them more closely, he will see that they are to do with the promotion of private enterprise in many sectors and are representative of the tremendous expansion of enterprise and activity in this country as a result of the policies of the past 10 years.

    Members' Offices
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any proposals to improve safety and access for hon. Members whose offices are outside the main House of Commons building.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The existing pedestrian crossing at the south-east corner of Parliament square is to be upgraded to a controlled crossing as part of a package of measures designed to improve the movement of pedestrians and traffic in Parliament square. This has been agreed between both Houses and Westminster city council.
    Mr. Michael: Before chaos descends on Parliament square and elsewhere, may I ask the Lord President whether he has noted that his previous reply suggested that the main objective of Westminster city council is to accelerate traffic? That will present increasing danger to hon. Members who have offices across the road. Even the so-called traffic refuge seems to be used more as a private motorway for motor cyclists than as a safety resort for pedestrians. It seems that no hon. Members who have offices on the other side of the road have taken part in consideration of this matter. Will the Lord President give fresh consideration to the safety of Members rather than risking by-elections, which might pose a greater danger to his party?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that some hon. Members feel strongly about this matter, and I have had an opportunity to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee and the appropriate Committee of the other place have looked at the problem, which has also been carefully considered by Westminster city authorities. The object of the exercise is to regulate traffic into and out of Parliament square so as to provide more effective controlled opportunities during which traffic ceases to move. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Westminster city council is investigating the possibility of an additional central refuge.

    Gymnasium
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he last paid an official visit to the Westminster gymnasium.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I visited the Westminster gymnasium on Monday 16 October 1989 in course of a tour of the parliamentary estate. I did not stay long.
    Mr. Atkinson: I am not suggesting that my right hon. and learned Friend should make unofficial visits to the gymnasium. Is he aware of the growing number of hon. Members who visit the gymnasium and of the long waiting list of staff who want to visit it? Will he lend his considerable weight to current discussions about transferring as soon as possible the facilities in Norman Shaw South to the greatly enlarged premises vacated by the old Cannon row police station?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the present accommodation is considered inadequate for the demands that are placed upon it. Relocation is being considered, and I understand that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has given approval in principle for the present gymnasium to be relocated in alternative accommodation within the parliamentary estate—in the place described by my hon. Friend.

    Physical Education
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any plans to grant-aid the cost of courses undertaken by hon. Members who pursue physical education activities; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no such plans.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that money spent on grant-aiding hon. Members to undertake physical education would be well spent because it would make us fitter to do our demanding job, reduce the weight of many overweight Members, and make us all more efficient in pursuing our tasks?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: If my hon. Friend goes on advocating that cause with his customary zeal, I cannot see any case for spending public money on it.

    Members' Staff
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for improving the provision of personal staff to hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The provision of Members' personal staff is a matter for Members themselves. I have no proposals to change the financial and administrative arrangements that govern that provision.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Lord President for the work that I know he has put into setting up the review into Members' services. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the review takes account of the previous exercises which have been undertaken, in which it was suggested that hon. Members could have an office in their constituency that would be staffed by the House of Commons Commission, so that hon. Members could do their job in this place and in their constituencies to an even greater degree and in even greater depth than they can at present?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's commendation of the establishment of the Ibbs committee, which is examining administrative matters within the House generally. His supplementary question goes beyond that and would require much wider consideration by hon. Members generally. It would go beyond the present principle of financing secretarial services within the present rules.

    New Members (Induction)
    Mr. Carr: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the induction procedures for new hon. Members for a general election.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: New Members will receive, in advance of their arrival at the House, an updated briefing pack describing the services provided by Departments of the House. In addition, Heads of Department and senior Officers of the House are available for consultation. Induction in the Chamber will be in accordance with well-established procedure.
    Mr. Carr: I have had the benefit of most valued advice from fellow Members since my arrival here about five weeks ago. It occurs to me that, in the event of a general election, when many new Members will be attending the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."] Yes, obviously Labour Members—the lack of any proper method of induction is an anachronism. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to consider redressing this problem?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: To sustain the quality of advice that will be given to the many Conservative Members who may enter the House after the next election, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question deserves consideration. If he wishes to raise any matters that come within his own experience, I shall be glad to examine them.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in the United States, Harvard university runs a course every two years for newly elected members of the

    681
    Congress? Will my right hon. and learned Friend give some thought to whether something of that sort might be appropriate here?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a novel suggestion in the British context. As it has the authority of my right hon. Friend, I shall examine it with care.

    Stationery
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement concerning the recyclability of paper used for the official documents of the House.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: All the paper that is provided by HMSO for official use in the House of Commons can be recycled. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has given approval for a number of items of stationery containing recycled paper to be introduced to the House.
    Mr. Janner: How many thousands of tonnes of paper are used by the House during a year, and why is not much more of it recycled, bearing in mind the fact that we should be setting an example?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not have the figure at my fingertips. As the hon. and learned Gentleman was told on 5 February, all the paper that is provided for official use in the House can be recycled. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Comittee is considering ways in
    682
    which recycled material can be used more widely. The matter is under active consideration, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish.

    European Legislation
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in implementing the revised proposals for the consideration of EEC legislation.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Having heard the views expressed in the debate on 28 June on the Procedure Committee's report on the scrutiny of European legislation and the Government's response to it, I hope to put detailed proposals for change before the House very shortly with a view to operating the new arrangements from the start of the next Session.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, when three rather important directives on milk, meat and cadmium will have to be approved or disapproved by the House this evening in about 30 seconds, it is a bit of an insult to the democracy that many of us believe in? Does he agree that, if we go to the intergovernmental conference and agree to the control of our economy by a central bank, we may as well close this place down?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises a wide range of questions, which go well beyond the question that I have answered. I hope that he will derive some satisfaction from the fact that the arrangement which the House in general approved will be put in place at a fairly early date.

Federal Republic of Germany
3.34 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"relations between Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany and related matters concerning the role of a unified Germany within the European Community."
My application is specific because it relates to the Prime Minister's failure to sack the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) following his appalling remarks about Germany, published in The Spectator last week. Her failure to act immediately shows that privately she agrees with the right hon. Gentleman's views, if not his language.
The application also relates to the minutes of a confidential Chequers meeting on Germany in March, published in yesterday's The Independent on Sunday. The minutes of the meeting, which was attended by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, revealed grossly over-simplified and insulting views about the German national character. The Prime Minister evidently thinks that German characteristics include angst, aggressiveness, assertiveness, bullying, egotism, an inferiority complex and sentimentality. I submit that these xenophobic opinions, more appropriate to a football hooligan than to a responsible Prime Minister, have to be repudiated by the House of Commons as soon as possible.
My application is important because it concerns Britain's relations with Germany—our ally in NATO, a
684
fellow member of the European Community and our chief trading partner. It is vital that the House takes the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to good Anglo-German relations as soon as possible.
My application is urgent because the Foreign Secretary is attending the European Community Foreign Affairs Council, which meets today and tomorrow. British trade Ministers will also be present at the Internal Market Council. Ministers representing this country ought to be reinforced by the views of this House. Therefore, it is essential that the House should be given the opportunity as soon as possible to disown the anti-German views of the Prime Minister and to reassure Germany of our friendship and co-operation in the European Community and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"relations between Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany and related matters concerning the role of a unified Germany within the European Community."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether a debate should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter which he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.38 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the House last met, a very senior and, we hear, much-loved-by-the-Prime-Minister member of the Government has resigned in the most disgraceful circumstances, due to outdated xenophobia.
You have just ruled that the House cannot debate the matter under Standing Order No. 20. The Prime Minister has neither the guts nor the candour to come here and make a statement. There ought to be circumstances, through either those procedures or other procedures of the House, in which the Opposition have the opportunity to cross-question the Prime Minister about this state of affairs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has made clear, British Ministers are currently embarked upon exercises to try to restore the credibility of the country and the Government in the European Community, NATO and elsewhere. Ought we not to have an opportunity to discuss this matter? Will the country understand that these matters can be discussed in Brussels and Strasbourg but not in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister, who has a duty and responsibility to build up the reputation of the country in a widening and developing Europe, displays attitudes of bigotry and malevolence?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to put my view on this matter. I have to take into consideration all sorts of matters when taking decisions on Standing Order No. 20 applications. One of them is other opportunities that the House may have for discussion. There is such an opportunity tomorrow at Prime Minister's Question Time and possibly an opportunity later this week on an Opposition Supply day.
Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even if it is not within the knowledge of the shadow Leader of the House, is it not within your knowledge that the Prime Minister will be submitting herself to cross-examination in this place tomorrow and the new Secretary of State will be submitting himself to cross-examination by the House at Question Time on Wednesday? Is it not further the case that Wednesday is an Opposition Supply day when they could perfectly well choose to debate this matter? Indeed, many Conservative Members hope that the Opposition will choose to debate this issue on Wednesday.
Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I also submitted a request for a debate today on grounds not dissimilar from those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), but he was chosen first to make his application. These are completely new events that have come to light since the House last met. There is the document and the resignation. This is a day, as has been said, when the Foreign Secretary is speaking for us in Brussels, and tomorrow the future of Germany is to be discussed.
It is always open to the Opposition to use their Supply days, but this is an immediate occasion when all the news media in the world are allowed to discuss the issue but not
686
the House of Commons. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, we have surrendered our legislative power to Brussels in many respects. Now, evidently, we are to surrender our right to be what we were originally—the great forum of the nation.
I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to defend the right of Parliament to have a voice. There are many different opinions on both sides of the House on these matters; there is not unanimity on the Conservative Benches or on the Opposition Benches. It is not true to say that the only choice is between nationalism and federalism. There are people who take a wholly different view about the future of Europe. It is all very well to say that we can cross-examine the Prime Minister for 15 minutes tomorrow or that the Opposition can change their business for Wednesday when we are supposed to be discussing care in the community. Dare I say it—I demand that the House be allowed to express a view when its survival is at stake and when the media are concerned with what may be exciting but secondary matters compared to the function of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct: the public may not understand the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nor do we."] Hon. Members do understand the criteria and they also know that I am precluded by the Standing Order from giving the reasons for my decision. In fact, they have been stated by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow).
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). An important point arises from the seminar which was held on the racial characteristics of the Germans.
For the past 20 or 30 years, we have all been taught that there are no differences between the nations of Europe, that we are all the same, and that we must all become as bland and as similar as possible. The seminar was based on the proposition that there are distinct racial characteristics and that, from time to time, the nation states may represent a threat to each other. We may have heard such statements in private discussions—rather like kids going behind the bike shed for a smoke—but no one has heard them in public. We are all so shocked by the revelation that there are such things as nation states that perhaps my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will explain why she talked privately about such wicked things.
Mr. Speaker: That may be so, but it is not a matter for me.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will face a difficulty if we try to find out precisely what happened at the seminar. I hope that you can help the House. I think that, if hon. Members tabled questions to find out what advice was tendered at the seminar and whether the leaked reports were correct, the Table Office would refuse to allow them on the ground that they were about advice tendered to Ministers. If we wanted to ask questions about what the entire resources of the Foreign Office were telling the Prime Minister about the state and characteristics of Germany, and if that advice were completely different from and much better put together than the advice at that

687
extraordinary seminar, we would not be able to table questions because it would be ruled that we were asking about advice tendered to Ministers.
As it is now apparent that the Prime Minister is seeking some extraordinary advice and is looking mainly for advice that confirms her prejudices, this leaves a gap which makes it difficult for us to challenge what is going on. I wonder whether in some way we can be allowed to table questions on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter at the moment. If the hon. Member were to table questions, we would look at them.
Mr. Roger King: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that Her Majesty's Opposition have allowed the Leader of the Opposition to leave the country to travel to the United States on an official visit. Will you confirm that, traditionally, a leader of a major political party who is travelling abroad never indulges in attacking the Government and Prime Minister of his country? Is there anything that you can do to remind the Leader of the Opposition of his responsibilities?
Mr. Speaker: I am responsible for order in the Chamber, not for what any Member of Parliament says when he is away from this place.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The unusual feature of this matter is that yesterday the Foreign Secretary discussed on television a memo of a Cabinet meeting at Chequers. He did not deny it but went through it point by point. It is outrageous that the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister do not come to the House so that we can discuss that matter and the resignation of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has asked to make a statement tomorrow. The House should be allowed to discuss these matters today.
Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to order the Prime Minister to come to the House, but she will be here on Tuesday and Thursday this week and on Tuesday next week.
Sir Peter Hordern: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an unusual turn of events and the House would like to discuss them. As I understand it, there will be an opportunity to do so on Prime Minister's questions and a further excellent opportunity to do so on Wednesday, which is an Opposition Supply day. Should we not ask why the Opposition will not take advantage of that excellent opportunity?
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You decided, as is your right, not to allow the Standing Order No. 20 request; but many hon. Members have friendships with people in the Federal Republic of Germany and feel grossly embarrassed by the insulting language used by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In the absence of the opportunity for the House to debate the issue, can you make it known to Dr. Rita Süssmuth, the president of the Bundestag, that the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) are held not by anything like a majority of Members of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting the president of the Bundestag, but I met the East German Speaker this morning and had a conversation with her. I shall be visiting Berlin and Bonn during the summer recess—in a private capacity.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Most unusually, I rush to the assistance of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) gave the House a graphic warning about the way in which its powers were being taken away by the unelected reject politicians of the Berlaymont building. We know that the Conservative party has a coherent European policy, agreed by all members of the party; we are Europeans and we want to do the right thing, sensibly and cautiously, with regard to Europe.
If we had a debate on this subject, the Opposition would be able to bring forward the myriad strands of their policy on Europe. We know that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen go grovelling for the nearest crumbs from the Commission's table, whereas the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield take a diametrically opposite view.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minutes of the meeting held on 24 March were confirmed by the Foreign Secretary when he was interviewed yesterday. As I understand it, if a document comes into the public domain it should be placed in the Library. There is no doubt that there was a meeting. It is somewhat of a surprise that the Cabinet discussed the national characteristics of other countries, but the meeting on 24 March was devoted to the German character. The document was leaked—rightly or wrongly. It has now been confirmed that such a meeting took place. Can you, Mr. Speaker, arrange for the minutes of that meeting and all supporting documents to be placed in the Library? If the document has been leaked and can be read in the press, surely we should be able to look at the minutes to see whether there is any conflict between what was leaked to the press and what was in the minutes?
Mr. SpeakerOur rule would preclude that. Our rule is relevant to state papers quoted in the House, but not to papers quoted on television.
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the Opposition, through the Leader of the Oppostion, would usually have the right to ask a private notice question in these circumstances. Will you consider—while my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is abroad winning friends for Britain and the Prime Minister stays at home sulking and losing friends for Britain—whether it would be possible for the deputy Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), to ask such a question tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: The rule is clear. The Leader of the Opposition never puts a question on the Order Paper for oral answer, and if he submits a private notice question the factor of urgency is not insisted upon. That is clearly stated in "Erskine May", on page 297. No such privilege is automatically given to any other hon. Member.
Dr. Cunningham: That is what I am asking you to re-examine, Mr. Speaker, because my right hon. Friends and I are very unhappy about the circumstances in which Parliament is being denied the opportunity to discuss this matter. For all any Conservative Member knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition may have been ill at this time or so far away—as he is—that he is unable to return to Paliament in time. The Opposition's constitutional right is being denied. That is what I am asking you to examine, Mr. Speaker, and to report on tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with one point at a time.
I have already considered this matter in some detail this morning. I am quite clear that the concession—the privilege—that is given to the Leader of the Opposition, for the reasons that I have already stated, does not apply to any other hon. Member. Of course, the cause of the Leader of the Opposition's absence at any time—for illness or for any other reason—would be a factor that I should have to take into consideration. However, that does not apply in this case.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: If this matter is as important as the Leader of the Opposition says—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]—and if it is of such national moment, why has the right hon. Gentleman decided to go to America to sell his country short instead of doing what he would call defending his country at home?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that, although you cannot tell us the criteria for accepting an application for a Standing Order No. 20 debate, one of the considerations that would be uppermost in your mind would be whether it was a matter that could not be agreed between the usual channels? On this occasion, I think that we can safely say that the matter falls within that category. I expect that the chances are that Members of the German Parliament would have an opportunity to debate this matter if they wished.
As people are now complaining about the Common Market, many of us look forward to hearing why people such as the ex-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and other Conservative Members, and perhaps even some Opposition Members—are now changing their views about the Common Market when we told them all this 20 years ago.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is always helpful on matters of procedure. I am, of course, very much in favour of the usual channels coming to agreements about the management of business in this House.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the whole house has sympathy with you, Mr. Speaker, in the problems that you face in dealing with Standing Order No. 20 applications. We know that you
690
cannot give your reasons to the House, but today you almost suggested that a remedy lay in the fact that questions will be put to the Prime Minister tomorrow. I am sure that you will agree that the opportunity to ask four or five questions in 15 minutes is totally inadequate for dealing with an issue of this gravity.
When you have turned down Standing Order No. 20 applications in the past, you have, on occasions, stated that you might consider an application on the following day unless various things happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said that there would be an opportunity for the usual channels to rearrange the business so that there would be a debate. Will you give careful consideration to whether, if such a debate does not take place, arranged by the usual channels, you might be sympathetic to a Standing Order No. 20 application being made tomorrow, on the basis not only of the grounds set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but also because we have failed to debate the subject today?
Mr. Speaker: I consider every application under Standing Order No. 20 on its merits, but if tomorrow I were to grant a debate for the following day, I should be taking the decision away from the Opposition, whose day it is.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Why are we beating about the bush? We all know what has been going on. I have no doubt that the people in Croydon feel just like my constituents in Ashfield. My ears are sore with listening to what has been happening in the past few days. The person responsible lives in the flat upstairs at No. 10. We want her to be here,. We want her at the Dispatch Box so that she can answer to Members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: I took the opportunity to go to my constituency on Friday and Saturday, and again yesterday where I heard many views expressed about the matter.

BILL PRESENTED

  GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN)
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Dr. John Reid, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Thomas Graham, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafes, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of eighteen:
  And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 185.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Ordered,
That the draft Weights and Measures (Various Foods) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  As amended, (in the Committee and in Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Finance Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: new Clauses other than new Clauses 2 and 3, Amendments to the Bill, new Clauses 2 and 3.—[Mr. Lilley.]

  Finance Bill
    New Clause 7
      EXPENSES OF ENTERTAINERS
      'The following section shall be inserted after section 201 of the Taxes Act 1988—

      Expenses of entertainers
      201A.—(1) Where emoluments of an employment to which this section applies fall to be charged to tax for a year of assessment for which this section applies, there may be deducted from the emoluments of the employment to be charged to tax for the year—

      (a) fees falling within subsection (2) below, and

      (b) any additional amount paid by the employee in respect of value added tax charged by reference to those fees.

      (2) Fees fall within this subsection if—

      (a) they are paid by the employee to another person,

      (b) they are paid under a contract made between the employee and the other person, who agrees under the contract to act as an agent of the employee in connection with the employment,

      (c) at each time any of the fees are paid the other person carries on an employment agency with a view to profit and holds a current licence for the agency,

      (d) they are calculated as a percentage of the emoluments of the employment or as a percentage of part of those emoluments, and

      (e) they are defrayed out of the emoluments of the employment falling to be charged to tax for the year concerned.

      (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

      (a) "employment agency" means an employment agency within the meaning given by section 13(2) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, and

      (b) a person holds a current licence for an employment agency if he holds a current licence under that Act authorising him to carry on the agency.

      (4) The amount which may be deducted by virtue of this section shall not exceed 17.5 per cent. of the emoluments of the employment falling to be charged to tax for the year concerned.
      (5) This section applies to employment as an actor, singer, musician, dancer or theatrical artist.
      (6) This section applies for the year 1990–91 and subsequent years of assessment.".'.—[Mr. Lilley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.1 pm
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: (a), in line 10, after 'paid', add
      '(whether during the year or subsequently)'.
      (b), in line 21, at end add—
      '(2A) a fee shall be regarded as satisfying the condition set out in subsection 2(a) above if it is calculated on a sliding scale such that the amount of the fee payable increases as the amount of the emoluments increases; including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, a fee calculated on the basis of a fee of £X per £Y, or part of £Y of emoluments, or a fee calculated as a specified percentage of the first fraction of the emoluments and a different percentage of successive fractions.'
      (c), in line 33, after 'artist', insert
      692
      'or employment of a substantially similar nature as an entertainer'.
      Mr. Lilley: In Committee, both Conservative and Opposition Members made a persuasive case that we should take a further sympathetic look at the taxation of actors. I acknowledged that in some respects actors taxed under schedule E were in a difficult and perhaps unique position. In particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) emphasised that most actors engage an agent and that the fees that they pay to their agent, at some 10 to 15 per cent. of their income, are often their most important single cost. Those fees do not qualify at present for tax relief under the rules of schedule E.

      693
      Therefore, I re-examined the matter. As I said in the debate in the House on 27 January, I hoped that the industry would take it upon itself to rearrange its contractual relationships so that the agent's fee never became part of the performer's income and the performer was not liable to tax on it. My talks with the industry, with my hon. Friends and with Opposition Members persuaded me that it would not be easy or, in the industry's view, desirable to make the necessary changes in the contract to bring about that effect.
      Therefore, I announced in Committee that I proposed to introduce on Report a new relief for agents' fees paid by actors and other theatrical artists. The new relief introduced by the new clause will apply to fees paid by an actor, singer, musician, dancer or theatrical artist to agents operating commercially and licensed under the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Fees paid in respect of earnings received after 5 April 1990, and the VAT paid on them, up to a limit of 17.5 per cent. of earnings in all, will qualify for relief. That will give all members of the profession who are assessed under schedule E a significant and worthwhile measure of tax relief. There has been consultation with the industry on the precise form of the relief, so it should properly reflect the special circumstances in which agents' fees are paid by actors. I recommend it to the House.
      The reason why it is possible to introduce such a major concession is that it is directed only at the particular circumstances of actors and other artists. Most types of employment agencies cannot charge fees to people who are looking for work. However, in the case of the entertainments industry, regulations made under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 permit a licensed agent to charge the artist rather than the employer. That exception shows that the fees are unique. The Revenue will consult the industry on the best way in which to implement the new relief. It may be possible eventually to set up arrangements to give the relief at source through the employer, to minimise the paperwork and to enable those qualifying for relief to receive it at the earliest opportunity.
      Meanwhile, if the House approves the measure, and following Royal Assent to the Finance Bill, theatrical artists who believe that they are entitled to the new relief should claim it from their tax office.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I must begin by offering my warm congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Cabinet which, I suspect sadly for him, is delayed by two days to deal with the Finance Bill. I congratulate him especially because I always like to see my constituents doing well. As he falls into that eminent and extremely praiseworthy category, I am pleased for him. We shall miss him in our debates on future Finance Bills.
      I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman gets his feet under the table at the Department of Trade and Industry, he will seek to reinvigorate its work, because that is badly needed. The right hon. Gentleman's performance at the DTI will be judged not on the degree of any adherence he may have to the Prime Minister's views on Europe but on what he does for British industry—and for the promotion of manufacturing industry and trade in particular. We wish him well in that all-important task.
      694
      As the right hon. Gentleman said, new clause 7 deals with the expenses of actors in following their profession. Earlier this year, the Inland Revenue switched its treatment of new and younger actors in the theatre from assessing their tax liabilities on schedule D to a new system under schedule E. The key problem brought about by that switch is that many of the expenses incurred by actors—especially items such as touring allowances, audition expenses and agents' fees—cannot be offset against their tax liability. Under the previous schedule D arrangements, they would have been. The crucial difference is that expenses are permissible under schedule D if they are wholly and exclusively incurred in the performance of a profession. Under schedule E, they must be wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred. That crucial difference between the inclusion or exclusion of the word "necessarily" causes the problem.
      In an attempt to make the Government see reason, and to ensure that financial penalties are not unnecessarily visited upon the acting profession, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and my hon. Friends proposed in Committee new clauses to improve the situation. I am sad to say that the Government rejected our proposals, as they did those of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. However, the Government indicated that they would make one important concession, which is enshrined in new clause 7, whereby when, under particular circumstances, an actor pays an agent to operate in a general manner for him year by year, he will be able to offset his agent's fees against his tax liability. That change is welcome. However, I reiterate the point made in Committee: that is by no means enough because it does not completely tackle the problem.
      Shortly after our debates in Committee, I received a letter from the British Actors Equity Association dated 11 July, which said:
      "Although Equity, as the organisation representing actors and other artists, welcomes this concession"—
      the concession now before the House—
      "the agents' fee represents only a small part of the considerable expenses which our members incur as a result of their professional activities."
      Therefore, although the relief is welcome, the profession believes that it is not sufficient to tackle the problem of the expenses that must be incurred in the course of an actor's work. The Government's concession is not adequate, for example, when considering touring allowances and audition expenses, which will continue to be taxable. Only agents' fees are covered and we believe that that is an insufficient concession by the Government.
      We have tabled amendments (a),(b) and (c) because of other minor deficiencies in the new clause. Amendment (a) deals with the year in which the emoluments are earned. Paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (2) mean that fees are not deductible if they are paid after the year in which the emoluments that are being taxed were earned. We believe that that might present a problem for actors if an agent's fee was paid, for example, in the subsequent year—because of the precise wording of the clause that fee would not be deductible. The amendment seeks to put that matter right.
      Amendment (b) deals with fees that are not paid on a lump sum, straight percentage or figure basis, but rather on some sort of sliding scale. It is conceivable, for example, that fees might be paid to an agent on the basis of 20 per cent. of the first £1,000 of earnings, 10 per cent. of the next £4,000 and perhaps £85 per £1,000 or part thereof

      695
      thereafter. Such a sliding scale is perfectly normal in many parts of the business world and an agent might reach a similar agreement with an actor. It is not entirely clear within the terms of the new clause whether such a sliding scale of fees paid to an agent would be wholly deductible on an averaged basis, year by year, against tax. Our amendment seeks to clarify that.
      Although we appreciate that the Government want to draw the net of the new clause reasonably tight so that only genuine actors and entertainers who will benefit, none the less there are a number of people who, perhaps unintentionally, the Government might exclude by their definition of such people. The most obvious example is a stand-up comic who is clearly engaged in the entertainment business. That person frequently tours for a living and frequently engages an agent to secure bookings. Under the terms of the new clause a stand-up comic would not be included—I do not, of course, want the definition of a comic to extend to hon. Members. To ensure that everyone whom we believe the Government want to assist by the new clause can be so assisted, we believe that amendment (c) should be accepted as it would ensure that the definition is broader than that set out in subsection (5) of new clause 7. Those are our detailed amendments and we hope that the Government will either reassure us on those points or accept our amendments.
      I reiterate that we remain disappointed by the scope of the Government's action. It is a small step in the right direction to provide assistance for new, young actors, who are coming forward in the acting profession and providing some of the essential life blood of the theatrical work in our country, but it is far less than actors want, need or deserve. We are disappointed by what the Government have done, but we welcome the step that the new clause represents.
      4.15 pm
      Sir Michael Marshall: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I do so with a sense of humility because I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Friends put forward a number of the arguments in Committee. I shall now get myself slightly confused as I refer to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, alias my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has encountered the arguments relating to the new clause. I add my voice to those who warmly congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Is it a record to be a Financial Secretary as well as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Perhaps, with our mutual love of cricket, we can at some stage, have a detailed examination of that point.
      It would be churlish not to recognise the spirit with which my right hon. Friend approached this difficult problem. In putting forward his arguments today in Committee, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has tried to assist in a process in which the House recognises some of the special claims of the acting profession.
      I also declare my interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Society of West End Theatre. In this cause, the theatrical managers are at one with British Equity, the actors' union, of which I am also a member. I declare that interest conscious of the gaze of the hon. Member for
      696
      Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who, I suspect, has a far better chance than I of picking up fees for performing. I perform on the radio; his experience covers a much wider spread.
      I must declare another interest because my stepdaughter is currently appearing in a play in Guildford. I shall not advertise the play except to say that it is an excellent play called "The Dressmaker", and is on all week. As I have those interests, I am sure that the House will understand why I have watched with the closest interest and care what was proposed in Standing Committee and what appears before us in the new clause.
      I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand if I seek to point to some of the remaining practical problems and concerns. My right hon. Friend said—I think that I heard him aright—that those who sought relief in claiming agents' fees should do so as soon as they incurred those expenses. But the Inland Revenue press release of 6 July, which he kindly sent to those following such matters, states:
      "It will not normally be possible to determine finally the amount of relief due until after the end of the tax year when the total amount of earnings assessable under schedule E for the year, and the agents' fees paid out of them, are known. But where during the year it is clear that some relief will be due, tax offices may include provisional relief in PAYE code numbers."
      If my reading of that is correct, what my right hon. Friend had to say earlier was not as helpful as actors may have assumed from his words. Therefore, there will be a squeeze in terms of the time that elapses between when the agents' fees are collected, normally at source, when fees come in, and the time when that relief is due.
      I welcome the fact that, in an earlier paragraph of the same press release, the Inland Revenue said that it
      "is consulting with the theatre industry about the best way to implement the new relief and, in particular, on whether it might in the longer term be possible for the tax relief to be given, at source, by employers in broadly the same way as tax relief for employee pension contributions."
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this opportunity to reassure the House that that review will continue. I strongly support relief given at source as much the best way to ease the problem.
      I do not propose to rehearse the arguments that we have heard before about the broader considerations of schedules D and E, but they should be placed in a context that my right hon. Friend understands. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that those who are paying agents' fees are, by definition, established, or are beginning to be established, in the profession. The worry for many fledgling actors and actresses is that it usually takes quite a long time to get an agent. Until they are established, they have the problem of getting an Equity card and an agent. A number of performers have no agent. Although they will be eligible for relief when they get an agent, many actors and actresses will get no relief because they are paying no agents' commission.
      The category of people who will be most affected by switching from schedule D to schedule E and who will not be assisted by the new clause are typically those who are employed in the lower reaches of repertory, theatre in education and fringe theatre. That is the very seed-corn of the profession.
      In view of the likely developments in the theatrical profession, it is inevitable that there will be pressure from those representing actors for wage increases to match what will be seen as a legitimate demand to offset what has been lost under the old tax relief. Anything that puts

      697
      inflationary pressure on the bottom end of the fringe, start-up theatre, repertory and touring will bring into question the viability of those branches of the theatre.
      Those aspects will remain, despite the new clause. I ask my right hon. Friend to stick to what was implied in the press releases about the willingness of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue to continue looking into the matter.
      I shall be brief because I know that others wish to speak on this important issue. My right hon. Friend will shortly join another great Department of State where given the application and dedication that he has shown in tackling this matter, I have every confidence he will make a significant contribution. I urge him to make it one of his first tasks at the Department of Trade and Industry to set in hand a study of the impact of the British theatre on our invisible earnings and our direct earnings in foreign exchange. Such a study will not only be valuable in the wider context; it will show that anything that begins to cause increasing difficulties to the profession will undermine a profession which produces a substantial return in sheer, hard foreign exchange. Beyond that, it is part of the cultural richness of our lives.
      My right hon. Friend has tried hard to meet the spirit and the letter of the law, but I hope that he will not give up his efforts to continue with what I believe he will have found to be a meaningful learning experience about the profession in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, and I look to him to provide an opportunity for the House to debate the matter in future, and perhaps to tackle some of the problems that I have outlined this afternoon.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: May I add my congratulations to the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on his appointment and on the concession that he has made this afternoon. He said that he was sympathetic to the case that was made on behalf of actors, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said from the Front Bench, although the concession is welcome, it goes less than halfway towards meeting the excellent case that actors, Equity and the Theatrical Mangement Asociation have made. By including only actors' agents' fees, he has disregarded a number of expenses which are vital to actors seeking work but which the Inland Revenue almost certainly will not include in the words "and necessarily". The inadequacy of the Government's concession turns on that point.
      Will the Minister say why the Government believe that the cost of letters seeking work, the cost of photographs to promote an actor in search of work, of travelling to and clothes for auditions, of board and lodging when actors are away from home acting in the regions and other areas and of advertising in Spotlight their availability to work should not be included in the schedule? Schedule D included all those expenses and had the support of both sides of the House because it was specifically designed for the circumstances of freelance workers. The circumstances of actors were peculiarly suited to that schedule, but the Government are changing it. They must ensure that the use of the words "and necessarily" cover not only agents' fees but all the other expenses which are necessarily incurred, but which at present the Inland Revenue seems
      698
      determined to say are not really necessary. The Government must justify in this debate the use of those words and their interpretation by the Inland Revenue.
      The Minister is aware of the circumstances behind this debate. Actors are badly paid and their work is insecure. I shall quote a letter that I received from somebody who describes himself as a young actor, although rather coyly he does not give his age. Mr. Bill Britten wrote to me saying:
      "The current average wage for an actor of my age at a provincial theatre is about £160 gross per week. This is low for a highly skilled worker, with three years' training, who must additionally maintain a home in London as well as digs wherever the job happens to be. If you consider that the nature of the profession is such that any actor will almost inevitably suffer periods of unemployment on either side of the job, it seems less still. If you further insist that tax is paid at source and that no expenses can be claimed, it becomes virtually impossible to make ends meet. Since many jobs last only six or seven weeks it is a nonsense to maintain that they are permanent."
      The hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) dealt with the incoherent nature of employment and the different timings of payment that different forms of employment make. Mr. John Cater, a well-known actor, and his wife, Wendy Gifford, a well-known actress, wrote from the New theatre:
      "The average fairly well-employed actor today may well do a telly, a short repertory season, another telly, and a few days on a picture in the space of six months, with unemployment in between. Television pays by the job, films by the day and invariably several weeks in arrears, theatres and labour exchanges by the week. Impossible to tax under Schedule E."
      Mr. Cater and his wife make a good point to which the Minister must respond.
      That unfairly creates two categories of actors—those who have been secure in the profession, and those who have entered it in the past three years. Mr. Hugh Williams, who was appearing in "Hamlet" at the National theatre in March, wrote:
      "in a Cast being paid £200 per week our Horatio (who we shall say has been in the profession for a good few years), may receive in his pay packet £200 (less NI), whereas our Ophelia, a newcomer, will receive £150. Under Schedule D Horatio may claim, amongst other things, his Agent's Commission (£20 per week), his subscription to 'Spotlight' (£2) and Equity (£3), his publicity photographs (£4). Under Schedule E Ophelia may claim nothing."
      Following the concession, she may claim her agent's fees.
      "Before a line has been spoken at that evening's performance, Ophelia is some £30 per week worse off. No wonder the poor girl goes mad."
      That is hardly surprising given that very unfair treatment.
      The Minister must respond to that. He should also say something about the whole root of the Government's cause. He knows that the Inland Revenue pressed for the change on the basis of a test case that is 18 years old—that of Fall v. Hitchen—which was untypical, as it was a long-term contract. It is on that flimsy base that the Government's case rests. As his last act in his present job, the Minister should come clean and recognise that that is not a substantial or typical case on the basis of which to make a tax change that affects the whole profession.
      4.30 pm
      Actors have not been well treated by the Government: the infrastructure of the theatre shows that almost every repertory theatre in the country is in deficit, and all hon. Members accept that actors are badly paid. The Minister will recall that the Department of Social Security changed

      699
      the rules for claimants, and actors are now much worse off; they are now required actively to seek work other than acting work. That makes no sense, not least economically. The Minister and every hon. Member, through taxes, is subsidising the training of those actors. It is a silly system: we pay for their training and then encourage them, when they are out of work, to look for work for which they are not trained or qualified when they are able to do work for which they are trained and qualified.
      Some hon. Members have spoken out on this matter, and the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) has been at the forefront. Perhaps the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) would like to explain to the House why, having moved a sensible amendment in Committee, he did not back it up with his vote, and why he is now supporting a Government concession that he knows does not go anywhere near what his excellent amendment would do.
      The other person who should be accounting for himself is the Minister for the Arts, whose voice has been silent on an issue that affects every actor for whom he has governmental responsibility. I wrote to the Minister, who replied:
      "I am, of course, well aware of the high level of concern in the profession about the possible impact of these tax changes both on individual performers and the live theatre as a whole. I have been in touch with Peter Lilley about this, and understand that he has now written to Michael Marshall saying that he does not see his way to reversing the decision on Schedule E treatment."
      That was the end of the Minister for the Arts' interest. What a disgrace that the Minister responsible has nothing to say, and has done nothing but pass on the concern to the then Financial Secretary when he should be fighting for actors and making a case on their behalf.
      Sir Michael Marshall: Within the privacy of this small group of hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman knows that, because of the way in which ministerial responsibility works in our system, he could not expect the Minister to say more than he said to him in writing. Those who have been in touch with the Minister are well aware of all the representations that he has made, and of the arguments that have gone on. He has been most helpful. I say that speaking with an interest that I have already declared. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my remark in the spirit in which it was put.
      Mr. Fisher: I accept the point, but the acting profession would have expected a statement on the public record from the Minister for the Arts, to the effect that he believes that actors have a good case. He is responsible for the conditions in the theatre, and the payment of performers there is vital. If the Minister for the Arts has not been able to find an opportunity to make a speech on actors' behalf, recognising their strong case, the theatre is being badly served by the Minister responsible for it.
      I accept the point about the division of ministerial responsibility, but I do not accept that the Minister, with his responsibility to the theatre as a whole, could not find an opportunity to say trenchantly that actors have a good case, and that he is strongly pressing that case on the Treasury. That is the least that he could have done: the theatre has the right to be represented in that way.
      Let me end on a more conciliatory note. There is a way out for the Financial Secretary tonight. It is not too late for him to issue guidelines to the Inland Revenue to interpret how it should use the words "and necessarily". If the
      700
      Minister would say today that he recognises that there is a case for other expenses in addition to agents' fees, and that he will issue guidelines to the Inland Revenue to take into account the list that I gave at the beginning of my speech, he would genuinely receive credit and thanks from the profession. He would fully undo the damage that he threatened to do at the beginning of the Finance Bill, and which—to his credit—he has gone some way to repairing by allowing agents' fees. He must know that there are other genuine expenses that need to be deducted. If he would give the Inland Revenue guidelines, the acting profession would be in his debt and he would have done the decent thing.
      Mr. Chris Butler: The shunting of actors from schedule D to schedule E alters arrangements that have operated satisfactorily for more than 50 years. Despite the consolation prize offered by new clause 7, I have no doubt that the move from one schedule to the other will cause extra hardship in a profession in which wages are notoriously low. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke about new clause 53 in Standing Committee and said:
      "The suggestion that the Revenue has been winnowing out the self-employed is manifestly false. If it has been trying to do so, it has been singularly unsuccessful, as the number of self-employed has increased by no less than 60 per cent. during the Government's life and it is still rising strongly.'' —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 July 1990; c. 541–2.]
      The move against actors is part of a general Inland Revenue campaign against the self-employed. Some of the self-employed secretaries and researchers who work in the House have been harried back into employment. One of my constituents, a self-employed typist, had her business destroyed because the Inland Revenue cast her as employed simply because she did not take her typewriter to her clients.
      Any accountant will confirm that there is a general Inland Revenue campaign against the self-employed and that arrangements that are perfectly satisfactory to both sides in a contract are often altered. The reason for that campaign is that Inland Revenue inspectors earn brownie points if they can identify back tax, and the career of a tax inspector advances in direct proportion to the disincentive that is given to those who show initiative and self-reliance.
      The argument that self-employment is growing and that therefore there cannot be an Inland Revenue campaign is a non sequitur. If the campaign were lifted, the number of people becoming self-employed would grow even faster. I find it strange that a Government who are supposedly wedded to the virtues of self-reliance and initiative are presiding over administrative actions which have a directly opposite effect.
      Mr. Ian McCartney rose—
      Mr. Tony Banks: I add my congratulations to those that have been offered to the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on his sparkling political progress—and so young, too. That must encourage some of us. I remind him of the old saying, "Whom the gods would destroy they first make Secretary of State for Trade and Industry." No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is in a good mood, or even in a generous mood, and perhaps we can tempt him a little and persuade him to leave us with something by which we can warmly remember him.

      701
      Hon. Members have welcomed the concession but it simply does not go far enough. I should declare my interest. In the past I have acted as a parliamentary adviser to Equity and I get the occasional walk-on part at Prime Minister's Question Time. As I say, I welcome the concession but I think that the Minister could go much further.
      The speeches by the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) plainly demonstrated that there is much sympathy for actors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, acting is an uncertain profession. I cannot remember the precise percentage but between 70 and 80 per cent. of all actors in Equity are at any given moment unemployed or resting. Many of them have to take jobs outside the profession in order to sustain themselves while they are waiting for auditions or while they are in rehearsal or promoting themselves. Between jobs they have to do a geat deal of that while hoping that a break will come along.
      Agents' fees are only one part of the expenses associated with the acting profession. I have never understood why it was felt necessary to move actors from schedule D to schedule E. I cannot believe that it was considered that actors constituted an especially attractive group of taxpayers and that they were somehow getting away with something. The change will make their lives far more difficult. When the Financial Secretary replies, I shall be interested to know the source of the original suggestion.
      Unfortunately, I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Finance Bill. Perhaps someone other than the Minister, someone who probably knows far more about these matters than I, can tell me the origin of the suggestion. Was it a ministerial proposition? Was the idea put into the minds of Ministers by the Inland Revenue so as to supplement what the Inland Revenue had done itself? There must be a reason for the change.
      As there is a great deal of dissatisfaction within the acting profession and outside it, we need to know how the suggestion arose. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) suggests in a muttered interjection that it might have something to do with Ken Dodd and his tickling stick. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will tickle our fancy with the truth.
      Mr. Fisher: The change stems from a suggestion of the Inland Revenue, which was based on the case of Fall v. Hitchen of 1972. That case concerned a non-typical long-term contract for a performer. The argument on which the change of tax liability is based is therefore feeble and insubstantial.
      Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is clearly learned in the trials and tribulations of the acting profession. He will make an excellent Minister for the Arts when we have the next Labour Government.
      I am sure that it was said in Committee that actors and actresses, by definition, need to spend a great deal of money promoting themselves. That is one of the requirements of the profession. We need only to read the newspapers to learn just how much work they have to do to push themselves forward and to get their names known.
      702
      As such expenses mst be recognised as incurred by actors and actresses in pursuit of their profession, they should be allowable against tax.
      It is true that many people within the acting profession receive extremely low wages. Few, if any, receive a pension. We are more parsimonious and more mean-spirited with our actors than most European countries. We spend a great deal of time almost living off the reputation of our theatre, including our actors and actresses. We are always telling others how wonderful the British theatre is and about the many people who come to Britain as visitors to go to the theatre because of the excellence of our productions. Surely there should be a quid pro quo. Given the great contribution that the theatre makes to the quality of life and the economic life of this country, the unique position of actors and actresses as a work force should be recognised.
      I hope that the Minister, in the salad days of his time at the Treasury, before he moves on to other and perhaps greater things for a short while at the Department of Trade and Industry, will listen sympathetically to the arguments that are being advanced. He has heard what has been said about a compromise. Perhaps he could issue guidelines to the Inland Revenue so that it can treat sympathetically all actors and actresses. If he will not do that, will he give us an undertaking when he replies that he, or his successor, will carefully monitor the impact of the changes in tax liability for those in the acting profession? If he sees that something is going wrong, and if this becomes clear to others, I hope that he will be prepared to accept representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is a great deal of sympathy for the profession within the House. I hope also that the Minister, or his successor, will consider returning to the House with a provision in next year's Finance Bill that will enable our actors and actresses to receive their just deserts. There are many of us in the House who think that their rewards are thoroughly merited.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Tim Smith: I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) on his appointment to the position of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He has done an excellent job as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He steered the Finance Bill through its consideration in Committee with great skill. I have noted the way in which he has always sought to balance the interests of the Inland Revenue against those of the taxpayer. His approach to the new clause exemplifies that. I wish my right hon. Friend well at the DTI. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to give him their full support.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asked me why I withdrew a new clause in Committee. I did so because I was offered what I considered to be an important concession. Indeed, those words were used by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He, too, said that it was an important concession. I made it clear that I was not entirely happy about creating special protection for a new category of taxpayers.
      I am inclined to agree with the traditional approach, which is that taxation under schedule D or schedule E is a matter of fact that should be determined on the basis and merits of each case. That is exactly what happened in this

      703
      instance. The case of Fall v. Hitchen of 1972 led indirectly to the proposals made by the Inland Revenue to tax young actors under schedule E. The more that I considered the proposed change, the more I realised that the issue was not as clear-cut as I had initially thought. I shall explain why I think that the concession goes far enough for the time being.
      First, the standard Equity contract is not like a contract for services. Instead, it contains many of the characteristics of a contract of employment or a contract of service. If Equity feels so strongly about the change which has been introduced, it should take another test case to appeal. Any young, taxpaying actor who is now to be taxed under schedule E should challenge before the commissioners the ruling of the Inland Revenue, which will take effect from 6 April.
      Secondly, Equity should consider the terms of its standard contract. There is an element of Equity saying that it wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants its members to have all the protections that we associate more with employment protection and less with self-employment. I am sure that the House will be aware that actors, exceptionally among the self-employed, pay national insurance contributions under class I. That has always been an anomaly. That exceptional position demonstrates that the issue is not as clear cut as it appeared to be.
      I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister has introduced an important concession. We should now wait to see what happens. For example, a test case might be brought. The other day I spoke to an accountant who has many young actors as clients. He feels strongly about the change in the basis of taxation. I told him that I hoped that he would be bringing a test case on behalf of one of his actor clients, and he said that he would do so. We should wait to see what happens when such a case is brought. It is true that the Fall v. Hitchen case involved a relatively untypical actor and a long-term contract at Sadlers Wells. The standard Equity contract has many of the characteristics that that particular contract had. That may be the reason why Equity is not prepared to take a case before the commissioners.
      Only in the last resort should the House agree to a new clause which creates a special status for a special group of taxpayers. If we do that, another group will be asking for the same treatment. Journalists, for example, might come forward. The Opposition said in Committee that they wanted that to happen. If that happens, representations will not be assessed on their merits.
      The Public Accounts Committee—I note that two of our members of it are present—has discussed—
      Mr. Ian Gow: Why stop at two other members of the PAC?
      Mr. Smith: I apologise to my hon. Friend. The members of the PAC whom I see in their places are my right hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and the hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Islington, South and Finsbury. I am sure that they will all confirm that the Inland Revenue is always seeking, rightly, to limit abuse and to stop people fiddling by misusing the tax rules. There is as much concern about that under schedule D as under any other tax head. We should be well aware of that.
      Mr. McCartney: I apologise for confusing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a few moments ago. Three actors wished to lobby my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on the matter. Therefore, instead of standing up I remained in my place. I suppose that in that respect I fluffed my lines.
      By the end of the week the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be fairly fed up with the congratulations heaped upon him by Opposition Members and, with some relief, by Conservative Members. I imagine that he is in much the same position as when he became a father for the first time: congratulations were heaped upon him but after he had been woken up during the night to change nappies and feed the baby, the gilt went off the gingerbread. The Secretary of State has been given the most accident-prone job in British politics. The only consolation that I can offer him is that if there is a general election next year he will be put out of his misery. I wish him well in his new post. I have met him about constituency matters on a number of occasions. Despite the fact that we hold different political views, he served me well.
      I listened intently to the arguments advanced in Committee by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and others. I was surprised, therefore, when the hon. Gentleman did not vote for the amendments that he moved.
      It is important to compare like with like. We ought to bear in mind the types of concession that we provide for ourselves and compare them with what we shall be taking away from members of the acting profession. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) pointed out earlier, under schedule D, board and lodging, applications for work, self-promotion, clothing, and travel to and from auditions were allowable expenses. Those concessions were needed if people who try to make a living in a difficult profession are to make ends meet. The public see the stars on television and at royal command performances, but the vast majority of actors and actresses are not employed; even when they are employed their salaries are very low. Both before and since I became a Member of Parliament we have made special arrangements for ourselves. We have board and lodging allowances. Hon. Members have to come here from all parts of the country. We cannot find board and lodging out of our parliamentary salary, so we have made substantial financial arrangements to cover that expense. Our allowances amount to more than what many actors and actresses receive during a year.
      We are also given a clothing allowance and an allowance to cover the cost of clothes care, because of the nature of our work. We claim travelling expenses to and from our place of employment. The cost of visits by our families is also covered by the special arrangements. When, however, it comes to the acting profession, it seems that, despite the Minister's concession, we are prepared to withdraw allowances. That will lead to hardship for many people who are already on low incomes. It is hypocritical of hon. Members to provide special concessions for themselves but to withdraw them from the acting profession.
      If we are serious about promoting the theatre, for both cultural and educational reasons and also to attract tourists to Britain, it is vital to provide security of employment. The taxation system must be sufficiently flexible to allow people who enter the profession to remain in it, develop their skills and use them for the benefit of us

      705
      all. The Government and local authorities spend substantial sums of money on encouraging tourists to come to Britain. The arts are at the forefront of that campaign. It is nonsensical, therefore, that the acting profession should be under attack. My hon. Friends have rightly pointed out that the Government have made a concession. However, actors and actresses do not believe that they have been granted a concession when they find that they have lost £30 out of £160 a week because of changes to the taxation system. A major cut of that kind in their income makes no sense whatsoever.
      A member of the education committee in my local authority is developing the role of theatre within education. If that is to be effective, a nucleus of young actors and actresses is needed who are prepared to work with the local community and develop their skills within the educational curriculum. If we are to encourage young people to enter the acting profession, we must ensure that a pool of young actors and actresses is available to do that work for a number of years and then go out into the wider profession. The new clause will make it impossible for them to do educational work. That will undermine the profession; young actors and actresses will be unwilling to develop the role of theatre within education.
      When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gives advice to the Inland Revenue, will he consider the inclusion of a clear definition of what is meant by "necessity"? I hope that he will include board and lodgings, applications for work, self-promotion, clothing, and travel to and from auditions within the definition. It would ensure that the acting profession is in a far better position than it is now, even with the concession.
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I, too, willingly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion. The acting profession is powerful and important. Who knows what position my right hon. Friend would have achieved had he given the acting profession all the concessions for which it asked? No doubt he has already been rewarded for the concessions embodied in the new clause. I thank him for the work that he did in Committee. He made an important mark there. All of us marvelled at his breadth of knowledge and at the fluent way in which he dealt with questions from both sides.
      I support the new clause, but I do so with a certain amount of regret. Many hon. Members have referred to the fact that actors in the theatre are among the lowest paid in the profession. Film and television actors can be well paid, but theatre actors earn the lowest of wages. Moreover, the change will affect the newest entrants into the profession—the lowest paid in a low-paid profession.
      I do not wish to repeat a speech that I made in Committee. However, as an accountant I ought to refer to the fact that I understand the Inland Revenue's desire to cut out abuse and its wish that as many people as possible should be on schedule E. However, it is unacceptable and unforgivable to make a young actor pay tax on income that he will never see—the agent's fee. The concession is important. It can mean between 10 and 15 per cent. of a young actor's regular recurring income, not just from the theatre but from other work such as voice-overs, extra parts in films or on television and other work that will be
      706
      calculated under schedule D taxation. Therefore, it is a substantial concession and it would be churlish to say that I am not grateful for it.
      I will accept this major concession but the wise words of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) must be supported by Conservative Members. He said that we must look carefully at the pattern of employment following the imposition of schedule Eon this end of the stage profession. I have evidence already that certain theatrical producers are not hiring young actors but prefer slightly more experienced actors—schedule D actors rather than schedule E actors—because of the lack of bureaucracy entailed. Also, a young actor will look, rightly, for extra income to compensate for the extra burden of taxation that will be suffered in travelling expenses.
      5 pm
      Travelling expenses have to be sorted out. The cases mentioned in Committee such as Gurney v. Richards must be looked at again. The way in which travelling expenses are dealt with in taxation is unfair. There is no logic between the taxation treatment of a schedule D person and a schedule E person. The Revenue must grasp the issue once and for all. It has ducked the matter, hoping that case law would, bit by bit, take away some of the theoretical advantages to the taxpayer. The issue needs wide consultation within the accountancy profession and the business fraternity, such as the Confederation of British Industry, and with any person who feels strongly about it. There should be a Green Paper to discuss the issue of travelling expenses.
      It is traditional in the House that a Parliamentary Private Secretary should not speak on the subject matter of his Minister's responsibilities. I do not intend to break that tradition and I do not believe that I have done so because I have been dealing with the effect of taxation on actors rather than with actors themselves. If a Minister is not seen publicly to be disagreeing with other Ministers, it is purely because that is the tradition of Government and the House. To accuse a Minister of not trying hard merely because there are no public speeches on the issue is a disgrace and an abuse of the normal procedures. Therefore, I have to defend a certain Minister because of what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hanley: I will not give way because I promised to be extremely brief.
      Mr. Graham Allen: Giving way is another tradition of the House.
      Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) hold his mouth closed? I do not intend to give way.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not correct that collective responsibility applies to all Members, not only of the Cabinet but of the Government, and that a Parliamentary Private Secretary, although not additionally remunerated, is a member of the Government? Is not it improper for a Minister to use his Parliamentary Private Secretary to indicate a reservation?
      Mr. Anthony Nelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It was not a point of order for me. The matters raised have nothing to do with me.
      Mr. Hanley: A Parliamentary Private Secretary is not a member of the Government. However, he is bound by certain agreements, to which I have adhered. In showing his ignorance, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has shown how long it has been since he was a member of any Government and I am sure that his memory will not be refreshed in the coming years.
      The change from schedule D to schedule E is regrettable because it will have a bad effect on the ability of young actors to carry out their profession at its very root. Actors should be encouraged to carry out their work so that, having learnt their art properly, they can move on to the more remunerative parts of the profession. It would be wrong to disagree with the new clause. When the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was temporarily out of the Chamber, I said that there should be a proper study, as he suggested, into the effect of this change on the acting profession. If it appears to be damaging, I hope that my right hon. Friend and his successors will look at the matter again.
      Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for the kind remarks of hon. Members. My mother-in-law is the only person who has not shared their congratulations. She is not happy that her daughter has married someone who has gone into trade. However, she will be relieved to hear the assurances of Opposition Members that it is likely to be short lived.
      I am happy to be judged by the criteria laid down by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and will endeavour, as he hoped I would, to do my best for industry, manufacturing and all aspects of trade in this country. I hope that the attitudes I have just attributed to my mother-in-law do not survive, because trade and industry are vital to the country. One of the great industries is entertainment, with which we are dealing now.
      I can, in general, give the assurance sought by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that his amendments—which are mainly probing amendments— reveal that the new clause, as drafted, already achieves what he wishes. For example, on amendment (a) I can confirm that the words that he proposes to insert—
      "whether during the year or subsequently"—
      are otiose. The clause already allows for relief in the tax year for which the income is charged to tax, whether or not the fees are paid in the same year of assessment.
      Similarly, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern as expressed by the second amendment. I am advised by the Inland Revenue that under the normal rules for construing legislation, the reference in subsection (2)(d) of the new clause to fees which are, "calculated as a percentage" is able to include fees that might be calculated on the basis of more than one percentage or by reference to a sliding scale or to a specified proportion on the lines set out in amendment (b). I have been assured that new clause 7 as drafted will enable relief to be given in the circumstances envisaged by the amendment. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the amendment would add unnecessary complexity to the legislation and that he will not press it.
      708
      On amendment (c), I am glad to say that we have had an opportunity to consult representatives of the industry while preparing the new clause. I understand that they are content with the definition that we have adopted. By referring to "theatrical artist" we have included not only performers such as magicians, who might not fit the description of "actor", but choreographers, assistant designers and directors who are regarded as part of the acting profession and frequently take an acting role in productions. Some of those people pay agents' fees and are engaged under contracts of employment and are affected by the switch to schedule E. I can assure the House that all those categories of theatrical performer, together with stand-up comedians—whether in or out of the House— will be able to claim relief under the new clause.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments on amendments (a) and (b) and fully accept what he said.
      On amendment (c), I understand that the term "theatrical artist" is wider than the term "actor". What would happen to a magician or stand-up comic who was engaged not at a theatre but on the club circuit as an entertainer? Because that person is not employed at any time in a theatre, would not the term "theatrical artist" be inappropriate and would not he fall outside the terms of the new clause?
      Mr. Lilley: As I understand it, such a person would be included in the new clause. "Theatrical" has a wider use than activities in the theatre. Many hon. Members are theatrical from time to time, and the definition is quite wide. I am assured that there is no difficulty in this respect. Those in the industry with whom we have discussed the matter are content with our definition. If we discover that it does not work properly, my successor will consider it in that light.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) mentioned the timing of tax relief. I assure him that we shall, as promised in the press release, continue our discussions to find out whether it is possible to give relief on the same basis as relief for pension contributions. I recognise that the profession would welcome that.
      It would be sensible if I were to return to the fundamental issues that have been raised in the debate. I have discovered that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is 137 days older than me—
      Mr. Tony Banks: If you don't mind!
      Mr. Lilley: We are both well preserved, despite our great age. The hon. Gentleman asked why the status of actors was changed. There are two reasons. First, a decision in law was made. Secondly, the interpretation of the law that was more generally available to the Inland Revenue required the Revenue to make that change. The decision was not made by whim or fancy of Ministers or the Revenue. It was made in response to an interpretation of the law laid down by the House.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) argued that the case that triggered the decision was old and atypical. The matter is up to Equity. One reason for the long delay in implementing the change was that we were waiting to see whether Equity would challenge the decision and appeal. It did not do so.
      Mr. Fisher: Eighteen years have passed.
      Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentlemen cares to look at the chronology of events that I related in Committee—I shall not bore the House by repeating it—he will see that the cases were spread out and he will note that Equity had several opportunities to appeal but did not. I believe that Equity is now considering an appeal. I have already given an assurance that the Revenue will co-operate with Equity in developing test cases which will provide appropriate coverage. I admit that I am not wedded to a particular legal ruling reached by courts in the past. If they reach one that is more satisfactory to the House, so be it; but let us go through the correct legal procedures.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) suggested that there was a Revenue campaign to winnow out the self-employed. I assure him that there is no such campaign. The Revenue is under an obligation to implement the laws passed by the House, according to advice by its legal advisers or according to how the courts interpret the law and require it to act. In this respect, the Revenue has a certain amount of discretion in terms of the transitional arrangements which it may in certain circumstances, under its care and management powers, deploy in introducing a changed legal interpretation.
      5.15 pm
      As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central pointed out, the changes have taken a long time. The Inland Revenue has not been precipitate in implementing this decision. I should have thought that, in its generous concession to established artists, it has used its discretion to the full. In effect, it has said that, although the law says that all actors on such a contract are employed—not self-employed—those who, over the past three or more years, have been treated as self-employed may retain that status not just for one or two years but for the rest of their working lives.
      The generosity of this concession to established members of the artistic and acting professions has created the disparity between them and newcomers about which hon. Members have been rightly concerned, and we have tried to allay those fears a little with the new clause. We have a problem because of the Revenue's generosity, not its meanness, and because a protracted period has passed, not because the Revenue has acted precipitately. I hope that hon. Members will not blame the Revenue for the consequences of laws that we in our wisdom, or lack of it, choose to pass. If we do not like the consequences of those laws, it is up to us to change them, and not to rely on civil servants to use a discretion which, rightly, they have not been given.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that the key to achieving more generous treatment of new actors lies in the "necessarily" condition on the treatment of expenses. I understand that the issue concerns not just the "necessarily" condition but, as I said in Committee, the phrase
      "in the performance of those duties"
      which rules out many expenses which are allowable against income under schedule E. Auditions, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and several other items which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, Central are not expenses incurred
      "in the performance of those duties"
      710
      as the law has established the meaning of those words. So long as we leave that test in the legislation, we will not be able to render those costs deductible.
      Mr. Fisher rose—
      Mr. Lilley: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is going to say that we should replace that phrase with wording that would allow those costs to be deductible. I have been persuaded that that would not be appropriate because it would be impossible to ring-fence it to actors. It would be difficult to do so initially in law, but I am certain that, if it could be done just in the first drafting of the law, countless other professions that incur similar expenses and want similar treatment would, before long, be knocking at our door, and we would find it difficult to resist them. In a new clause tabled in Committee, the Opposition began that process of erosion by joining journalism to the entertainment profession so that journalists could receive the benefits of such an extension.
      Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why agents' fees are incurred
      "in the performance of those duties"
      rather than "in the pursuit of work"? I think that he would agree that the other expenses which my hon. Friends and I itemised are definitely expenses incurred "in the pursuit of work" because unavoidable expenses are incurred. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is making a distinction between "in the pursuit of work" and
      "in the performance of those duties".
      I am not sure that he can justify that in terms of his concession on agents' fees. Will he be a little more sympathetic and look at the possibility of issuing guidelines to the Inland Revenue? If he said that those guidelines should take into account the other expenses in pursuit of work which are unavoidably incurred, he would satisfy all hon. Members.
      Mr. Lilley: I was not arguing that agents' fees meet the present terms and conditions under schedule E. On the contrary, they do not. We introduced the new clause to override the normal expenses rule in the case of agents' fees. We are doing that because it is capable of being ring-fenced. All other professions, apart from entertainment, are forbidden by employment law to charge an employee for the fees of an agent in obtaining employment —they have to charge the employer. Therefore, there are no other people in a similar position waiting to knock at my door, my successor's door or even the door of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if we did as he suggested, we would open a Pandora's box of demands to widen relief on all expenses. We would find it costly, not especially in the case of actors, as we are not arguing about the cost of relief to actors, but, once one has started on that slippery slope, one would have to extend the provision further and further before very long, as the new clause introduced by the Opposition in Committee illustrated.
      Mr. Tony Banks: That is an argument that one often hears when a case is being put forward. People say, "If we do it for this group, we will have to do it for every other group." That does not necessarily follow. Given that the Inland Revenue is allowed to exercise discretion when considering individual cases or groups of workers, why should it not consider the cases of other groups of workers who might come forward? If they have a good enough case

      711
      the relief could be extended to them as well. If one concedes that a case is good when it is made well by one group of workers, it does not follow that a Pandora's box is opening up or that we are on a slippery slope.
      Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the political pressures that erupt when one creates a precedent. As I have already mentioned, before we have even given a concession to actors, journalists are being linked with them and piggy-backed on to the concession. It would be damaging to determine people's tax status, not by the terms and conditions of their engagement, but by the profession to which they belong. If we try to decide profession by profession whether people are self-employed or employed, we shall rapidly find that we are determining people's tax status by the political lobbying power of their profession, rather than for objective reasons. That would be a dangerous step to take.
      Mr. Chris Smith: In general terms, the principle that the Financial Secretary has just adumbrated is entirely correct. However, taxation law and taxation administration single out a number of professions—North sea divers are an obvious case; postmasters and certain peripatetic doctors are others—whose nature makes them a special case. To a certain extent, the new clause renders actors a special case. So the Minister cannot argue against the existence of special cases. Obviously, we have to be careful about who is judged to be a special case, but it is appropriate to regard some professions as a special case.
      Mr. Lilley: That intervention perfectly illustrates the point that I was trying to make. Only one profession is treated analogously with what some hon. Members are now seeking—definition by law as schedule D—and that is deep divers. That resulted from an anomalous change made in 1978 by the last Labour Government for somewhat obscure reasons, which seemed to have something to do with the strategic importance of the developing North sea oil industry at that time and with the considerable sympathy that the profession evoked because of the high mortality rate suffered by divers. It did not have anything to do with the cost of getting to the place of work, which was one of the issues that we discussed in Committee—even though North sea divers face considerable costs in getting to the sea bed. However, as that is now being used as an argument for actors, and as the actors' profession numbers about 40,000, once it is defined in law that they are entitled to schedule D treatment whether the nature of their engagement is self-employed or not, it will be a much greater precedent for others to demand similar treatment.
      In Committee, I listed the different groups and professions that had approached me and the Treasury relatively recently to demand some sort of concessionary treatment on schedule D. It was a long list. They are already asking for such treatment and having to be fended off. Once 40,000 actors were allowed schedule D treatment by law, year by year we would have to add to the list and before long we would find that anyone who wanted to be on schedule D and could get powerful support in the House would do so. That would erode the tax base considerably and tax rates would have to go up to compensate and we should all be back where we started. That is not a path that I can advise the House to take, any more than I advised the Committee to take it.
      712
      The Committee largely accepted that we should try to seek a concession which could be extraneously ring-fenced and which would benefit actors, as it affects a considerable proportion of their income. There was agreement that agents' fees are the largest single item that most actors have to pay as a cost, and that they would welcome some tax relief on such fees. Although the clause does not achieve the perfect state that many hon. Members would like, it was right to go that far and no further. Therefore, I commend the clause to the House.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned the stance of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) rightly illustrated that taxation and the arts are essentially different responsibilities. He is participating in this debate and made a notable contribution in Committee because of his knowledge and expertise in the arts, happily reinforced by family involvement in the arts and a professional knowledge of taxation.
      Mr. Fisher: A beautiful baby.
      Mr. Lilley: So he told us. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend, in discussion with the Government, as everyone would expect, made the position of artists and the views of entertainers and others involved in the profession known to me. He explained their circumstances to me and therefore fulfilled his responsibilities to the arts, in the excellent way in which he always fulfils them, while ultimately leaving the decision about taxation to me and to Treasury Ministers, once we were fully informed of the needs and circumstances of those in the entertainment profession. It is utterly wrong to criticise my right hon. Friend in the way that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central did.
      I commend the new clause to the House and I hope that the amendments will be deemed unnecessary by the Opposition.
      Mr. Chris Smith rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
      Hon. Members: Yes.
      Mr. Smith: I simply wish to pick up the last point that the right hon. Gentleman made. We entirely accept the assurances that he has given us on amendments (a) and (b), but we remain a little concerned about amendment (c)—the definition of theatrical artists. However, we accept he Government's assurances that they have acted in good faith. We will wish to study carefully the way in which the Inland Revenue interprets the clause.
      Mr. Fisher: May I take the opportunity to respond to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)? I entirely accept that the Minister for the Arts made positive and full representations to the Financial Secretary—as he then was—as the House would expect. I also accept the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes that no hon. Member would expect the Minister to speak against Government policy—that would be one Minister speaking against another. I was trying to make a wider point. While not contradicting the point that the Secretary of State was making about tax, I believe that the Minister for the Arts could have made a positive statement at some stage about the poor treatment

      713
      of actors and the substantial case for their protection. That would not have gone against the Treasury's position, or breached ministerial guidelines. I accept the points that the Secretary of State made about representations, although I believe that the Minister for the Arts could have found some time to make a general statement in support of the acting profession.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has made an extremely apt and helpful intervention.
      I shall not seek, on behalf of the Opposition, to press our amendments to the vote. We wish new clause 7 all speed on to the statute book. However, we remain a little sad that the Government did not take the opportunity to go further, and to give a better deal to members of the acting profession.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
      '1. Not later than 14 days after the date on which any Finance Bill is read for the first time in the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay an Environmental Assessment before the House of Commons stating the anticipated environmental effects (if any) of each clause of the Bill.
      2. For the purpose of this section the anticipated environmental effects of a provision shall be taken to include its anticipated effects on

      (a) land use in the United Kingdom.

      (b) the levels of pollution of the atmosphere, any body of water, or land, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, as a result of agricultural or industrial activity

      (c) the rate of usage of natural resources (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere),

      (d) the rate and types of energy production and use in the United Kingdom,

      (e) encouraging the use of renewable sources of energy or raw materials in the United Kingdom, or

      (f) human and animal health (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)

      as well as such other matters as the Chancellor considers to be relevant.
      3. This section shall have effect in relation to any Finance Bill read for the first time on or after 1st January 1991.'.— [Mr. Chris Smith.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider new clause 4: Catalytic converters—
      '1. After paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Taxes Act 1988 there shall be added the following new paragraph:

      Cars with catalytic converters
      6.—(1) Where a car is made available to an employee for part only of the relevant year, the cash equivalent derived from Table A, B or C after any reduction or increase provided for by paragraphs (2) to (5) above shall be reduced by 10 per cent if the car has been fitted throughout that part of the year with an exhaust emission reduction device, or by 5 per cent if the car has been fitted with such a device for more than one half of, but not for the whole of, that part of the year.
      (2) Where a car is made available to an employee for the whole of the relevant year, the cash equivalent arrived at
      714
      above (that is to say, after any reduction or increase provided for by paragraphs (2) to (5) above) shall be reduced by 10 per cent if the car was fitted with an exhaust emission reduction device at the end of that year and for the greater part of that year, or by 5 per cent if the car was fitted with such a device at the end to that year but not for the greater part of that year.
      (3) For the purposes of this schedule an "exhaust emission device" means

      (i) a catalytic converter or

      (ii) any other device of a similar nature which the Treasury may from time to time prescribe".

      2. This section shall have effect for the year of assessment 1990–91 and later years of assessment.'.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Smith: New clause 1 seeks to place a duty on the Chancellor of the Exchequer each year when publishing the Finance Bill to publish also an environmental assessment of the impact that its provisions will have on our environment.
      We hear much these days about how green the present Government seek to appear. The Prime Minister has now made five major speeches on environmental issues. Much to the astonishment of the environmental world, she has been awarded a good conduct prize for her actions in relation to the environment. However, when we look at what the Government actually do rather than what they say, we see that their record on the environment does not, I fear, bear much examination.
      The contrast with what is happening elsewhere in the world could hardly be greater. Many of the countries of the developed world are now realising the importance of environmental issues and the fact that, as a planet, we need to cope with the consequences of the industrial and economic policies that we pursue. That realisation is finding its expression not only in statements from Governments around the world, but also in their actions. At the end of June, when President Bush launched "Enterprise for the Americas", which is a new partnership for trade, investment and growth, he said:
      "One measure of prosperity—and the most important long-term investment any nation can make—is environmental well-being. As part of our Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, we will take action to strengthen environmental policies in the hemisphere."
      He then laid out a detailed agenda for action on, for example, debt for nature swaps for the countries of Latin America. We pressed that issue on the Government in Committee. President Bush also referred to a whole range of trading issues and to the impact that trading patterns can have on the environment of the developing world.
      If we consider environmental taxation policy and what is happening elsewhere in Europe, we discover that, in Italy in 1989, a special tax was imposed on non-biodegradable plastic bags, which was to be paid by manufacturers and importers. At 100 lira per bag, the tax is five times more than the cost of manufacturing the receptacle. In Norway, a charge has been imposed on non-returnable beverage and food containers since 1987. In Sweden, there is a high charge on batteries containing mercury or cadmium, amounting to 3.22 ecu per kilogramme of batteries sold. In Germany and the Netherlands, cars are divided into three categories, according to their air pollution characteristics. The cleaner the car, the higher the tax advantage for the car purchaser.
      Many other examples could be given. It is clear that Governments elsewhere—Governments everywhere—and of all political complexions, are waking up to the need to

      715
      ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in their economic policies, and especially their taxation policies.
      Here in Britain, before the Chancellor's Budget, the Labour party proposed a series of proposals for green taxes which the Chancellor could have adopted as part of this year's Budget. We were told in advance that it was likely to be a Budget for savings and, to a limited extent—in fact, it was to a very limited extent—a Budget for the environment. Well, it was not. The Chancellor announced only two minor measures to benefit the environment. The first was a minor adjustment to the differential between leaded and unleaded petrol, making a further difference of less than 1p. The second item was a small increase in the tax to be paid for having the benefit of a company car. Subsequently, it must be admitted that in Committee the Government came forward with a further measure on mileage allowances.
      However, there have been no other proposals, in the Budget, in the Finance Bill, or in the 30 or 40 pages that the Government added to the Finance Bill in Committee, which could be said to have any environmentally beneficial effect in terms of adjustments to the taxation system.
      In contrast, the proposals put forward by the Opposition before the Budget would have provided a ready agenda that would have enabled the Government to take positive steps in the right direction. We proposed, for example, that we should consider reducing or even altogether removing VAT on particularly environmentally friendly products or processes, such as recycled materials or energy-efficient appliances.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend agree that another advantage of that approach to securing higher environmental standards is that producers are given a choice? A producer can decide to produce a product that he can produce more cheaply, but on which he pays a higher level of tax, or he can produce another product on which he might pay a lower level of tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that that approach will, through taxation, build into the mind of every industrialist the consideration that, if he wishes to reduce his tax liability, he must ever be seeking new technological processes that secure higher environmental standards?
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Using the taxation system to promote good environmental behaviour offers not only the producer but the consumer a choice. That means that producers will be encouraged—there will be an incentive—to look for alternative products that are less damaging to the environment.
      As well as some carrots in terms of reductions in VAT, we also proposed some sticks with increases in VAT on, for example, items of non-biodegradable or non-recyclable packaging or on products with an excessive or unnecessary amount of packaging. We also proposed to increase VAT on CFCs, although, of course, we should like CFCs rapidly to be prohibited altogether. We proposed a review of corporation tax allowances, with additional allowances for anti-pollution or conservation investment, together with a provision to make non-allowable expenditure on items that create pollution. Therefore, if a company used or created pollutants such as CFCs, it would not be able to offset their costs against corporation tax.
      We suggested that, instead of levying vehicle excise duty at a flat rate regardless of engine capacity, it should be
      716
      graded so that owners of small cars would pay less duty and owners of larger cars would incur more duty than at present. We proposed also a substantial additional difference between the price of leaded and unleaded petrol. The tax incentive to use unleaded since 1988 has been a success story, because its use has increased from single percentage figures to more than 30 per cent. of all petrol sold in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, that clearly shows that using the tax system to alter environmental behaviour can be most successful. However, its effect on unleaded petrol usage appears to have reached a plateau, so we suggested a further boost to try to ensure that the graph continues to climb.
      We suggested also incentives for the fitting of catalytic converters, including zero rating for the purposes of VAT and a concession on the level of car tax where a converter is fitted to a new car. New clause 4, which is linked with new clause 1 for the purposes of this debate, advances a further measure to encourage the use of catalytic converters, in the form of an incentive to the users of company cars to persuade their employers to ensure that their cars are fitted with catalytic converters, by setting the tax levied on the user at a lower level.
      Mr. William O'Brien: I recently asked the Secretary of State for Transport when it will be compulsory to fit catalytic converters to new cars. I am advised that, because of EEC legislation, the Government do not intend to make the fitting of converters compulsory until 1993. Would it not be in everyone's interest for the Government to speed up the legislation and to make the fitting of converters compulsory, rather than leave that to market forces?
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend rightly identifies the problem of the three-year time scale before the fitting of catalytic converters is made mandatory. Converters are extremely helpful in removing or reducing exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and hydrocarbons. They do not tackle the carbon dioxide problem, but are valuable in a number of other respects. The tax incentives proposed in new clause 4 will ensure much more widespread fitting of catalytic converters over the next two or three years—even before the mandatory provision comes into effect.
      5.45 pm
      We also proposed before the Budget a series of measures relating to company car taxation, to encourage the Government to raise the scale rates at which benefit is assessed, in line with the principles set by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 1988 Budget, when he pointed out that taxation on the benefit of a company car was substantially less than the value of the benefit received. In both his 1988 and 1989 Budgets, the former Chancellor began the process of raising that rate, but the progress that he made has not been advanced to the degree that it should by the present Chancellor in this year's Budget and Finance Bill.
      Those specific proposals for improvements to the tax system would have shifted environmental behaviour in a responsible direction, but none of them was taken to heart by the Chancellor or the Government. New clause 1 seeks to highlight the paucity of the Government's action in relation to the environment in this year's Finance Bill. It

      717
      suggests that, when the Government decide upon taxation changes each year, they ought to report to the House what will be the environmental impact of those changes.
      That duty would exist whether or not the Government actually did anything in environmental terms, and it would provide a powerful incentive for the Chancellor to sit down and think carefully when drawing up his Budget—in respect of not only the fiscal stance that he intended to take or the amount that he wanted to raise, but the environmental consequences of his actions. The requirement placed on him to think through the environmental issues would be a powerful tool in the hands of those of us who are concerned about our environment.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Confederation of British Industry has produced a helpful information booklet for its members on how to conduct environmental audits, not only for the purposes of company accounts but for presenting information about company activities more usefully and constructively? Is that not a good example of the leadership that should come from the Government rather than from the CBI?
      Mr. Smith: I am always delighted to hear that leadership is coming from the CBI. Not only in respect of the environment but in relation to interest rates, levels of investment and other issues, the CBI is increasingly demonstrating the kind of leadership that the Government are lacking. We suggest that the Government should be required to undertake an environmental audit each year in relation to their Budget and Finance Bill proposals.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: Can the hon. Gentleman say who would advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer each year on the technical aspects of any environmental assessment in respect of any individual clause in the Finance Bill?
      Mr. Smith: I do not see any problem in the Chancellor, together with his advisers, sitting down to make a presentation of a sensibly argued case about the likely environmental consequences of particular measures. Doubtless he would also call upon the assistance of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his advisers. In order to be helpful in this matter, we have set out in the new clause a series of items that could be looked at each year by the Chancellor in relation to particular items of taxation.
      At present, each year the Chancellor presents us with a Red Book in which he must set out the financial consequences of each of the measures he proposes and their cost. Why is it such an outrageous idea that the Chancellor should present us with a green book as well that sets out the consequences for our planet of his proposals?
      It is too often forgotten by politicians that the environment does not simply refer to specially labelled separate issues that stand apart from the so-called main stream of politics. The environment and environmental concerns should run through all Government policy and everything that the Government are about. Nowhere is that more true than in relation to the economy and taxation. The interaction between the economy and the environment will grow rather than diminish in importance.
      718
      We believe that our new clause offers a way in which to highlight those issues to ensure that that interaction is properly scrutinised.
      Taxation measures that change environmental behaviour through financial incentive are no substitute for the range of statutory and administrative measures that are also needed to protect our environment. Ultimately, it is regulation on polluting activity, integrated transport policies and energy conservation measures that will secure improvements in our environment in which we can all share.
      However, taxation has its part to play as it can help to make a start to change behaviour. That is why we made a series of proposals before the Budget. That is why we urge on the Government a proper mix of financial incentives and regulation in relation to the environment. That is why we urge the Government to act in an environmentally responsible manner—they should settle their taxation policies so that people also act in that manner. Our new clause goes a considerable way to start that process, and it will ensure that, in future, the Chancellor will take more notice of the environment than, sadly, he has this year.
      Mr. Gow: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I understand and respect the motives that prompted him to table his new clause. Certainly the six signatories to the new clause are among the most agreeable Members of the House. It is possible, however, even for agreeable people to be mistaken. I do not know which among that sextet will claim to be the draftsman of the new clause, because the drafting is strange indeed.
      Subsection 2(b) refers to "any body of water", which is a breathtaking description of the water around us. Who could have dreamt up such a phrase? There are six paragraphs to that subsection, four apply to the United Kingdom only and two apply worldwide. Who was the environmental genius who managed to distinguish between those paragraphs that apply to all mankind and those that should apply to the United Kingdom only?
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury proposed some further discriminatory taxation designed to protect the environment, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is able to assure the House that all his proposals are such that they would not require the consent of folk in Brussels who were described in such picturesque and in some ways extremely attractive language by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)? I fear that my right hon. Friend's Budget proposals are now constrained more and more by the need to obtain permission from unelected and unaccountable Commissioners in Brussels. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can give us an assurance that none of his proposals requires the consent of the folk in Brussels.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Of course a number of the VAT proposals require consent across the European Community—not necessarily the consent of the bureaucrats in Brussels, but the consent of the member state Governments. However, the action on catalytic converters could be taken tomorrow, as I understand that agreement already exists on that. One or two of the VAT items would require the consent of the other member states, but some of the other EC countries have already taken steps in that direction.
      Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman confirms my worst fears: increasingly the taxation proposals that affect the British people require the consent and approval not only of Parliament, but of unelected, unaccountable folk in Brussels.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), formerly Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, asked who would fashion the environmental assessment, given that that assessment must be presented to the House by the Chancellor. Mercifully, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, himself an expert in all matters environmental, is to reply to this debate.
      Let us go through the Treasury Ministers to find to which of them will be assigned the task of preparing the environmental assessment. Let us first consider my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We cannot heap further burdens upon him because he will be too busy in the coming weeks and months having discussions with German Ministers who have studied with close interest the article in The Spectator.
      We then come to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We are told that in the coming weeks he will be engaged in the important matter—certainly I hope that he will be so engaged—of trying to restrain some of my right hon., and even hon., Friends, presently Ministers in the Administration, from spending more money than they should. Happily I note that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has hastened into the Chamber for this debate. He takes a keen interest in environmental matters and he alone of all Ministers will be assisting my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. He will do his duty by seeking to diminish spending while some of my other right hon. Friends will be seeking to increase it. We cannot heap an extra burden upon my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, especially in the coming important months before the spending plans for 1991–92 are fashioned.
      We have excluded the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary. Who is the next on the list? My right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General who, it may be said, as an hereditary earl, is well qualified to prepare the economic assessment. But he also has other duties. He has to try to placate noble Lords in another place—
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Not on the Finance Bill.
      Mr. Gow: No, not on the Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman, to whom I shall give way, does not seem to have read his own new clause, which provides that the Chancellor shall lay before the House, no later than 14 days after the Finance Bill has been laid before the House, the environmental assessment—that is a proposal in the new clause. The question my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked the House and I am trying to answer is, who will prepare the assessment. My hon. Friend did not answer that question, nor did the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and so it falls upon me to try to answer it.
      6 pm
      The list has now come down to my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General. We have not always had a Member of another place as a Treasury Minister. The first Treasury Minister in another place, under the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, was my noble
      720
      Friend Lord Cockfield, who went on to Brussels. He is one of the folk of whom I am speaking. Perhaps he could be called back from retirement to assist with the preparation of the environmental assessment. Lord Cockfield was sent to Brussels to challenge the Commission, but when he got there he facilitated the Commission's task in seeking to impose its will on the 12 member states of the Community. To whom do we come next?
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Perhaps Lord Cockfield changed his line from one of attack to facilitation because he was persuaded by the merit of the argument.
      Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman's own party would be happy to submerge this kingdom into a federal Europe. That view is not shared by Conservative Members.
      Mr. Hughes: We know that.
      Mr. Gow: Yes—that is why I shall not give way again to the solitary representative of the Liberal party. That party once represented Eastbourne, but once only, and we shall not give way to the Liberal party again.
      I am pleased to welcome to our proceedings my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who is an expert in these as in other matters, and to whom I shall give way presently.
      I was just coming to the fourth of the Treasury Ministers—who is he? He is my right hon. Friend the former Financial Secretary. My hon. Friends have been falling over one another in paying tribute to my—is he now my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] There is disagreement among Treasury Ministers about whether he is right hon. or honourable. My hon. Friends have been falling over themselves in congratulating my right hon. Friend, the former Financial Secretary, on his appointment as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I do not join them. I deplore the appointment of my right hon. Friend as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The House will not misunderstand me when I say that I deplore it because I deplore the departure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. I give good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and congratulate him, but I deplore his arrival for that reason, and that reason only.
      Can my right hon. Friend the former Financial Secretary be engaged in the environmental assessment? How can he when he is about to go off to the Department of Trade and Industry which, according to some people, is one of the greatest pollutants of the environment?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I help the hon. Gentleman and put it to him that all the work will have been done before the Budget statement has been made, so he does not have to worry himself about such matters? The Chancellor will have the statement in his pocket when he stands at the Dispatch Box because it will have been produced as part of an assessment made prior to the introduction of measures in the Budget. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Gow: I have just been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who normally sits on the Front Bench, that he wants a vote to be called and so I have been invited to shorten my remarks—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Or perhaps make them more pertinent to the new clause.
      Mr. Gow: Even if I am not willing to accept the rebuke from my hon. Friend the Lord Commissioner, I shall, of course, accept the rebuke from you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I have been going through the Treasury team, and one Minister remains—the Economic Secretary, who is today, as usual, wearing a green tie and who is to reply to this debate.
      The new clause is unnecessary. The Treasury, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, already takes proper account of all the relevant environmental matters. I have no wish to heap further burdens on Ministers, particularly Treasury Ministers. Therefore, when my hon. Friend replies, I hope that he will say that an environmental assessment is surplus to requirement.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The new clause is one of the most important new clauses that we are debating this evening because, while the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) spent much of his speech humouring the House, he was, in effect, referring to what I perceive to be very much Labour's policy as it will be at the next general election. Built into the new clause is a proposition that is electorally saleable, certainly administratively practical and environmentally popular. It is the way to go in future, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Eastbourne, if he were more candid with the House this evening, would have found much in the amendment with which he could agree.
      I shall deal with one part of the new clause and produce an example of how, if such matters were not considered when tax policy was framed, things could simply go wrong, damage could be done to the environment, and local authorities could spend lots of money repairing damage and preventing potential damage to the environment. If new clauses such as this already formed part of the existing law, one case would never have arisen—the sale of the Westminster cemeteries in London.
      My example is relevant to the new clause because three of Westminster city council's municipal cemeteries were sold, two of which had been owned by the council for more than 100 years. Graveyards at Hanwell in west London and Finchley and Mill Hill in north London were sold for 15p, together with millions of pounds worth of land and buildings. The relatives of those buried in the cemeteries were not informed.
      The sale of the cemeteries involved two factors. First, the land involved was raped in that it was not properly maintained. Historically the area had been well kept, well maintained and, I understand, well walked by people in the immediate vicinity. Those pathways and walkways were destroyed because of the nature of tax law in Britain.
      Tonight I shall show how those issues interact and how in the absence of a proper tax framework—I shall explain how the law did not cover those matters in the way in which they would be covered by new clause 1—those who wished to pillage land and to speculate were able to destroy a beautiful area of London which had been immensely popular for a century.
      I shall refer to how clauses 65, 66 and 67, on dual resident companies, and clauses 89 and 90, on income and corporation tax returns, would interact with positive tax legislation in the event that an environmental assessment were made of the Chancellor's proposals for tax legislation. I shall demonstrate how the Government lack
      722
      the will and the way to tackle the problem, thereby giving rise to new clause 1, by reference to the sale of the cemeteries in Westminster.
      It was a callous act. Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster city council, sold the graveyards for 15p. In some cultures, people fight to defend the graves of their ancestors and the immediate environment that surrounds those graves. In this case, some beautiful cemeteries were desecrated as a result of tax law and the absence of any provision such as new clause 1. Lady Porter was happy to sell off hundreds of graves—I am told perhaps thousands—for less than the price of a pint of beer. Those 90 acres of land used to be looked after with respect; they were a fitting memorial and a place for contemplation. Now they are a wilderness because of tax law. The grass and briars grow waist high and the graves that once were tended with care are now choked with thorns and abused by vandals. The hon. Member for Eastbourne nods in agreement; I am sure that he feels as strongly as I do about this matter.
      It is environmental blight on an immense scale. The land, the graves and the memory of the dead are now no more than another counter in a commercial game of poker between the cynical policies of Westminster city council and the financial interests of the owners of the cemeteries. The mischievous, wealthy landowners who have profited by buying and selling graves have used misrepresentation to achieve those profits and offshore, foreign resident companies to preserve their anonymity and to avoid paying tax. Had new clause 1 been on the statute book, the framing of law governing investments overseas would have provided sufficient protection to ensure that the transactions in respect of Westminster city council's cemetery privatisations would never have occurred.
      Despite a so-called in-depth investigation by the district auditor, and despite the supposed investigations of the police fraud squad, the dealers who have blighted the land and insulted our memories continue to live anonymous, well-heeled lives in big houses in St. John's Wood or the Thames valley. They are able to do so because they carry out their transactions through shadow companies based in the Channel islands, Cyprus, Panama or Liberia.
      6.15 pmn>
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently clever parliamentarian to relate what he has to say to the clause. I have listened to him very carefully, but he has strayed some way from it. I should be obliged if he would relate his remarks to the new clause, and then he would remain in order.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you realise that I considered these matters before I came into the Chamber today.
      One section of the new clause deals with land use in the United Kingdom, and I am referring to land use to show that unless environmental impact assessments are carried out on tax law relating to land use in the United Kingdom, inevitably stories such as that relating to Westminster cemeteries will recur. By relating that story, I am illustrating where the tax changes should take place in compliance with new clause 1.
      The district auditor and the police are unable and unwilling to discover who those people are. They are even unable and unwilling to chase up the tax which should be paid on the multi-million pound gains made by those

      723
      wealthy malefactors. I shall reveal for the first time in public who are some of the people behind the dealings and how they have successfully blackmailed Westminster into dropping its policy—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a lot of leeway, but he is rather taking advantage of the clause and of the present debate. He should relate more directly what he has to say to the clause. I understand his great concern, but I hope that he will now speak to the clause before us.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am speaking specifically to the queston of land use in the United Kingdom and the need for an environmental impact assessment to be made by the Chancellor when devising tax policy that affects land use in the United Kingdom. The only way in which I can argue the need for that is by producing an example of where the law has been deficient and showing its consequences. That is what Parliament is about. One cannot simply set one's proposition; one has to explain the basis on which one wishes to argue a case for reframing the law. I should have thought that I was in order, but I bow to your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Gow: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He may know that Westminster city council now accepts, and leading counsel has advised, that the sale of the cemeteries by the city council was unlawful. In my judgment, the consequence of that is that in law the cemeteries are still owned by the city council.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I should like to think that that is the case, but I understand that that is not accepted by the developers and that Westminster city council is already negotiating a compromise which may well be at a substantial cost after all the environmental damage that has taken place.
      In my view, local authorities should not be able to act in that way. If a provision such as new clause 1 already existed in legislation and there had been an environmental impact assessment of any tax policy changes that the Government were introducing, we should not be in the position that we are in today.
      I ask the Government to take appropriate executive and legislative action to ensure that those people are made to answer for their actions. New clause 1 would prevent the activities of such people in future in so far as they blighted our environment. The graveyards which, as I have said, were beautiful, and which have been the subject of an environmental disaster, were sold on 30 April to a Mr. Clive Lewis, of Lewis and Tucker, in Hanover square.
      Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, but I find it difficult to identify the exact relationship between the problems with the graveyards of Westminster council and the new clause. Surely, according to the amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is obliged to bring before the House the environmental implications of the Budget. The graveyards affair related to a local authority. It has no bearing on the environmental considerations of a Budget.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I advise the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that to give an example is perfectly in order, but to pursue the example as he does in
      724
      such detail is an abuse because it shifts the purpose of the debate to a different subject. It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to give an example, as it is for any hon. Member, but he is pursuing that example to such an extent that he is shifting the subject of the debate from the new clause.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am tired of Conservative Members raising spurious points of order to prevent the truth from coming out every time that I come into the Chamber to say something that is controversial and causes concern among the general public and to set out the truth. The facts are simple.
      Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I protest at that.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman wants me to be thrown out because I wish to explain matters—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. King: I do not accept that allegation.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us keep it cool. The temperature is very hot outside, but let us keep it cool in here.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The truth is coming out.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly legitimate to give examples, but he should not pursue them to such an extent that he shifts the subject of the debate.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that, but I find it hard to accept that I am shifting the debate. The words
      "land use in the United Kingdom"
      are on the amendment paper. The new clause is about building into Budget calculations an environmental impact assessment and about the need to report 14 days later to Parliament on what is in the assessment. It refers specifically to land use.
      In my 10 years in Parliament, perhaps on less controversial issues, I have heard hon. Members speak many times at great length, setting out by way of example the reason why they adopt a cause.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to do that. He has set out his example. It is perfectly legitimate to do that. I ask him not to shift the subject of the debate, that is all.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I use every debate, as any hon. Member does, to make my case. My argument is based on what happens in a particular case. If it had not been for interventions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), I should have been well on in my case. As it is, I am still arguing defensively that I have a case and a right to raise it here in the House. If Parliament wants to shut out the truth, so be it, but the truth will come out.
      The graveyards were sold on 30 April to Mr. Clive Lewis, of Lewis and Tucker, in Hanover square. His home is at 33 Carlton Hill, St. John's Wood. At this point I should say that there is another Clive Lewis, who runs a surveying company called Clive Lewis Associates. He is entirely unconnected with these events.

      725
      With the beautiful lands of the graveyards came 12 acres of even more beautiful land—building land—three gatehouses, a flat, £10,000-a-year rental from a crematorium, a car park and a nursery plot, together with a cheque from the council for £70,000. Those items were subsequently split up and bought and sold for millions of pounds through companies in various different tax havens. Most of the land is now in the hands of a company called Wisland Investments, which is based in Switzerland and registered in Panama.
      Mr. Forman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am an old friend and great admirer of the hon. Gentleman and I am very fond of him. He has his eccentric ways. Do you agree that his case is eminently an example of a matter which, if he wishes to go into it in great detail, he should raise on the Adjournment?
      Mr. Allen: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you were present earlier when the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made an entertaining speech about four or five different Ministers and whether they would be capable of producing a report.
      Mr. Chris Smith: He gave five examples, not one.
      Mr. Allen: I bow to my hon. Friend. Entertaining as the hon. Gentleman's speech was, many of us felt that it was wholly irrelevant to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was speaking about people who have abused the tax system for gain. The relevance of that to the debate has been outlined. If there was an environmental impact assessment of tax proposals, such abuses could not arise. With the greatest respect to the Chair, the items that my hon. Friend has raised are absolutely and strictly in order and certainly—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is for the Chair to determine. I remind the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was also called to order.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Most of the land is now in the hands of a company called Wisland Investments which is based in Switzerland and registered in Panama. The land is environmentally significant to London. It includes natural walkways and is on the edge of the green belt. The land is being environmentally damaged due to the absence of precisely the environmental impact assessment called for in the new clause.
      In order to sound like a credible purchaser, Mr. Lewis initially misrepresented himself to the counsel of the agent of the Western Synagogue in west London. As Rabbi Rosen of the synagogue rightly said, and will confirm:
      "No instruction was ever given to Mr. Lewis. Indeed, it would have been beyond the constitution of the Synagogue to have purchased the land."
      Mr. Lewis insinuated his way into the counsel's confidence by taking in vain the name of the church where his father was an officer. Mr. Lewis was soon the only buyer, and when he declared his interest in the scheme Lady Porter was too pig-headed and her officers too frightened to stop the sale from going through. Right from the beginning, it seems that it was Mr. Lewis's intention to asset strip. New companies were set up to buy the different pieces of land.
      726
      In particular, a company called Cemetery Assets was set up 13 days before the exchange of contracts to take over the graveyards. The graveyards cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to maintain, yet Cemetery Assets had capital of just a few pounds.
      Much of the other valuable land went to a Cyprus company called Bestwood Property Limited. Again, that company took advantage of British law.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking great advantage of the Chair and the House. I ask him again to relate his comments directly to new clause 1. Otherwise, I shall have to invoke Standing Order No. 41, which requires me to stop any irrelevance that the hon. Gentleman utters. His comments during the past five or 10 minutes were irrelevant to new clause 1. I seriously ask him to relate his comments to the environmental assessment of land and not to do so with the detailed examples that he has used so far.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that in Sweden, where one of the beneficial owners and principal investors in Wisland is part resident, the matters that I bring before the House are commonplace. The cemeteries are now in the hands of a Panamanian company, Wisland Investments. For years, the company has sought to conceal its true owners. I can now reveal that one of the investors in the company is a Swede by the name of Bertil Rosquist of Orchard Dene, Riverdale, Bourne End, in Hertfordshire.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I now ask the hon. Gentleman to discontinue his speech. It is totally irrelevant to the new clause.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have spoken in the House on many occasions in the past 10 years. It may be that you cannot see the connection, but I feel sure in my mind that there is patently a clear connection. It has been drawn to your attention by several of my hon. Friends. You may not be prepared to accept the connection, but there is one, and if, in this mother of Parliaments, we are to be prevented from arguing our case on the basis that Parliament never wishes to consider the real arguments that lay behind our decisions to amend legislation, it will be much the poorer. I can say only that, under pressure from Conservative Members, you have conceded, and I take strong exception—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I take great exception to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I have been extremely tolerant since he started his speech. I understand the passion with which he speaks about this matter. He has never been stopped by me. I am sorry to have to stop him now, but I have given him ample warning about speaking directly to the new clause. I ask him to resume his seat.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not refuse to resume my seat, but, on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, may we assume that, for the rest of this Finance Bill, the strictures as they have operated in relation to me tonight will operate for every other speech? If so, over the next two days some Labour Members should spend their time in the Chamber, and every time that, in our view, Conservative Members step out of line—that is what has happened

      727
      today; representations were made about me—we should object. If that is so, we shall find that the Finance Bill terminates tonight by—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As long as I am in the Chair, hon. Members will speak directly to the clauses or amendments before us.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: I very much regret the aspersions that have been made against you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) pointed out, in his usual vivid and graphic way, the absurdity that would follow from the implementation of new clause 1. I do not wish to add anything to what he said, but I wish to pick up one point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), not during his strange speech but in an intervention. He said that all the measures in the Budget would have to be checked for their environmental consequences before the Budget statement was made. Presumably, drafts of the Budget would have to be circulated around the globe and Governments of friendly, or perhaps less friendly, countries would have to relay information on the environmental consequences of clause 120 long before the Chancellor announced to the House that it was to be introduced.
      That point adequately emphasises the nonsensical implications of the new clause. If the Opposition's purpose is to debate the usefulness of the tax system for dealing with environmental matters, they have a point that is common ground among hon. Members. I compliment my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and his colleagues in the Treasury on the way that they have taken effective and practical steps to achieve that.
      By speaking in support of the Government, I should not wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to think that I was making a bid for a vacancy at the Treasury and to return to where I spent much of the 1980s. Unfortunately, infirmity prevents me from attempting to do so.
      Over the past few years, it has been shown how the tax system can be used to encourage environmentally friendly measures and to discourage those that are environmentally damaging. I refer in particular to the differential between the price of lead-free and leaded petrol. Some people criticised that differential as inadequate, but it has meant that almost a third of all petrol consumed is lead free.
      I very much approve of the way that the Government have increased tax on company cars and I should like to encourage them to continue to do so, because so far as I can see there is still a substantial gap between the real value of a company car to the recipient and the amount at which it is assessed for tax. That is partly because the value of a car to the recipient has risen rapidly in recent years and it has been difficult for the tax charge to keep up, despite increases in successive Finance Bills. A further reason is that the amount assessed for tax is not a gross but a net figure. If the recipient had to buy, service and maintain his motor car, he would have to receive a substantially higher salary because he would have to pay income tax at the basic rate or perhaps the higher rate. If the value of a company car to a basic rate taxpaper were deemed to be £3,000, he would have to be paid £4,000 so that he could pay 25 per cent. in basic rate tax to be left with £3,000 to
      728
      spend on his car. A higher rate taxpayer would have to be paid £5,000 extra and, therefore, to pay £2,000 in tax before he had the necessary money left over.
      I encourage Treasury Ministers to continue the difficult and probably not very popular process of increasing the taxation on company cars. I shall probably be lynched by half my constituents for saying that those allowances are unduly generous and have led to more motor cars, and larger motor cars, being bought than would have been the case if the tax system had been neutral on whether cars were provided privately or by employers.
      I do not believe that the motor industry needs that incentive. Several of my constituents work for Vauxhall in Luton. The new Cavalier is an extremely effective motor car which has been taking some market share from imports. Much of the market in imported cars could be regained by domestic manufacturers, even if the number of motor cars sold did not increase as rapidly as it does because of the incentive provided under the generous company car taxation system.
      I encourge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to go further and to reduce the company car allowances in years when they feel that it is right to reduce the basic rate of tax. This option is not open to the Labour party because it wants to increase taxation. It will not be in a position, as we have been in one or two years recently, to reduce the basic rate. Those reductions have made it possible to make a larger adjustment to tax concessions such as those for company cars. I hope that we shall again reduce the basic rate and make the position fairer between one taxpayer and another. As things stand, in effect those who do not have company cars bear a higher proportion of the overall tax burden, whereas those who are fortunate to have the cars receive an undoubted financial benefit, which needs further adjustment.
      Hon. Members set a bad example by having a three-tier system for reimbursing mileage allowance. A few years ago, when the new system was introduced—I think in 1984—I found that my mileage allowance went down each month because I had a small car. Those who had large motor cars, which used far more petrol and caused more pollution, found that their mileage allowance was rising. They were rewarded for their greater consumption of fuel and greater contamination of the environment, while I was penalised for doing the same thing on a smaller scale—although I do not complain. I do not understand the anomaly whereby we provide those who have large cars with a mileage allowance more than twice the size of that given to the owners of small cars. In examining the environmental consequences of the motor car—which must figure largely in our thoughts when we are discussing the new clauses—we must realise that we are not setting a good example to the rest of the country. I hope that the time will come when we can change that.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall deal shortly with the important and specific question of cars and car taxation that was raised by the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart). I agree with some of his propositions.
      I support, in general terms, the two propositions in the new clauses: that there should be an environmental assessment of proposals put by the Treasury regarding changes in taxation, and that the tax system should be used to give advantage to forms of motoring and technology that are environmentally acceptable.

      729
      There is nothing new about the proposal that economic policy should be subject to environmental assessment; indeed, my first criticism of Labour's new clause is that Labour has come round to that view so belatedly. I remember taking part in a debate almost as soon as I became an hon. Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) also participated—in which we discussed proposals from the Royal Commission on environmental pollution for an environmental audit and assessment. My colleagues and I have urged that policy mechanism on Government for many years. I would also go further than the Labour party does in its proposals, although I accept that in the new clause it is addressing itself to the specific inter-relationship of the environmental assessment and budgetary proposals in the Finance Bill.
      One of the ideas that have been adopted in other countries is that of environmental assessments of all Government policy. Just as we receive legislation in the House that incorporates a Treasury indication of the economic implications as part of the financial memorandum, so we should have an environmental assessment of all legislation, which should be presented to hon. Members as advice before they assessed their reaction to each specific piece of legislation. That proposal could easily be implemented.
      The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked a fairly rhetorical and somewhat whimsical set of questions about who should carry out the environmental assessment. If he really wants economic matters to be taken seriously by Government, he should address his mind to serious questions, and not to the somewhat irrelevant byways into which he went.
      As part of the structure of Government, there should be a Ministry or office that has the same authority that the Treasury has now. At present, anything that requires implementation requires a Treasury imprimatur to ensure that it comes within the general acceptability of Government public expenditure plans. I do not dispute the propriety of that, but, if Britain is serious about environmental matters, all Government proposals should also go through a similar environmental audit. The only way to do that is to create a Department of environmental protection that has the same authority in government as the Treasury.
      The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked who should do the environmental assessment. It would not be Treasury Ministers, as they have another principal function: they are there to be specifically expert in economic matters. However, they would be aware that no matters—even micro-economic matters—could be put through as Government proposals until they too had been vetted, costed and assessed in environmental terms. The hon. Gentleman is conservative in his view of what Government should do; he justifies it and relishes his conservatism, but I encourage him to be less conservative.
      The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development now regularly recommends in its Social Trends an environmental assessment of economic proposals. Many other countries do an environmental assessment. As part of his annual address to Congress, the President of the United States uses indicators other than gross national product and gross domestic product. The
      730
      ultimate governmental responsibility falls to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister's office: it should also be able to assess—if we think that these matters are important—the environmental impact of anything we do.
      If the Government are as serious in practice about environmental matters as they say they are in theory, I would hope that they would be considering the practicalities. We know that the Secretary of State for the Environment has employed an environmental adviser. The Government should be seriously considering including in their expected autumn White Paper the proposal that there should be a Department with the clout to assess the environmental implications of all matters of public policy. The same process should be continued in the Prime Minister's office. That would go much further than the Labour party's new clause, as it would cover all matters of public policy, not just the matters set out here. It would be a test of the Government's commitment to put the environment at the top of the agenda.
      6.45 pm
      I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that it is impossible and illogical to regard environmental and economic matters as separate, as they are fundamentally intertwined. Government economic policy in this and every country will inevitably have an impact on the environmental agenda, on our environmental development and on environmental production and pollution. The levers of economics that we choose have a direct effect on the damage we do to or protection that we give our environment: the amount by which we tax resources, whether we tax carbon or whether we tax the use of vehicles—all those matters have a direct interrelationship, and we must recognise that.
      One good development is that this debate has moved on from the debate in the 1980s, when many people thought that green politics and environmental issues were separate from other issues on the political agenda. There is now a ready awareness across the political divide, and among all who consider these matters, that environmental questions touch every area of public policy.
      Mr. Cousins: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, but I must express a sense of caution about the creation of an all-embracing Ministry, let alone one that is accompanied by a large central department in the Prime Minister's office. The stock of skills that the country has to enable us to carry out environmental assessments is, sadly, quite limited. We hope that, in the course of time, it will develop but it is limited now. Surely it would be entirely wrong to centralise and limit the impact of those environmental assessment skills by tying them all up in one great Department of State.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I shall deal with it, although it merits more debate than we have time for now.
      A great deal of work has been done on other economic indicators of an environmental nature. The hon. Gentleman may know of some—for example, the other economic summit, and the work of such people as Paul Ekins. A great deal of work has been done on the theory of assessing, in economic terms, the impact of environmental matters.

      731
      At the moment in government, there is an illogicality: the Department of the Environment deals with far more than just environmental protection matters. It deals with local government, local government finance, housing and many other matters. My colleagues and I believe that it would be better to have an environmental protection Department that took the responsibility for environmental matters from the Departments where it currently lies. For example, the Foreign Office has some responsibility.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: No—not until I have dealt with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).
      It would be better if all areas of Government dealing with environmental matters came under one Ministry. It is important also to have somebody in the Prime Minister's office or in the Cabinet office because, unless the Head of the Government is persuaded about the importance of a subject, those who try to promote it will not carry the necessary clout. The Treasury is currently at the top of the Government pyramid; if the Treasury says yes, a policy will be approved, and if it says no it will not. However, at the end of the day it is the Prime Minister who would give the green light to policies proposed by an environmental protection Ministry and that is why there must be somebody in the Prime Minister's office to encourage her and her successors and point to the merit of such things.
      Mr. Martlew: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting that the Secretary of State for the Environment should present the Budget? That seems to be the obvious conclusion of the argument that the hon. Gentleman advances.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not clearly understood what I proposed. The Chancellor will continue to present the Budget but the Budget and all other Government proposals should come before the House only after they have been through an environmental audit which would be carried out by a department of environmental protection. That would be headed by a Secretary of State of Cabinet rank who would have cross-departmental responsibility in the same way as the Chancellor.
      New clause 4 deals with vehicles. I agree with the general propositions advanced by the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart). For too long we have encouraged the use of large and high energy consuming vehicles and commensurately discouraged the use of small vehicles by giving a larger tax benefit to those who use gas guzzlers. That is not a sensible policy on taxation of our resources.
      We have already given great advantages to people by giving them company cars and the tax benefits that flow from that. The company car should be given no advantage over the private car. In all our taxation policies we should seek to encourage the use of cars that are more environmentally acceptable, whether they are company cars or cars that are bought and serviced privately. The right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North mentioned some of the ways in which the tax system can be adjusted to bring that about. It could be done by graduating vehicle excise licences, fuel could be taxed at different levels or tax
      732
      credits could be given for adaptations such as catalytic converters. We should not encourage people or companies to use vehicles that are not environmentally acceptable.
      The proposition advanced by the Opposition is limited and muddled. It may be advantageous to give tax benefits to those who fit catalytic converters, but why should it apply only to company cars? Should not we try to discourage the use of company cars rather than encourage it? If we gave a tax benefit only to those who have company cars we would encourage the extension of company fleets. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury nods in agreement. There is an inherent inconsistency in such a proposition.
      I welcome the indications of a few months ago that the Government are starting to address such questions. I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues will have an input to the White Paper proposed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I read rather worrying reports that the Treasury will veto some of the tax implications in the proposals. I hope that the Minister will agree that we must have a consistent policy that deals with all vehicles.
      There are many ways in which the motor car can be made more environmentally acceptable and, above all, of course, we should help the environment by discouraging its use. While it is wise to encourage the fitting of catalytic converters, this proposal is a partial and muddled solution. It shows that the Opposition have a long way to go in thinking through the implications of their belated conversion to green issues and their linking to economic policy. Their conversion is apparently still no more than skin deep.
      Mr. Forman: I shall be brief. The new clause raises important matters and is a legitimate device by which we can discuss green issues, and especially the interaction between environmental policy and economic policy. I commend the new clause for that.
      For straightforward reasons, it is unnecessary to add to the Bill the requirements called for in the new clause. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has impeccable green credentials and carefully considers such matters when preparing his Budget. He has a reasonable record for introducing environmentally friendly measures. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned some of those, but only disparagingly. He talked about the tax differential between leaded and unleaded petrol, the tax scale on company cars and mileage allowances which were adjusted in Committee.
      I would wager the hon. Gentleman that, by the end of this Parliament or some way into the next, when I hope that my right hon. Friend will still be Chancellor of the Exchequer, we shall see a wide range of environmental measures which will go a long way towards meeting the needs of that aspect of our policies. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will continue to do what he judges to be prudent in this area of environmental and fiscal policy.
      When one looks at the proposal on its merits—which is often a dangerous thing to do in the House—one finds an almost fatal flaw. I sought rather politely to raise that in an intervention on the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. It is not at all clear to me where the hon. Gentleman, if he were a Treasury Minister, would find the necessary competent advice of the type that he suggests. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made it clear that we would be talking about

      733
      advice proffered before the Budget, and one must assume that such expert advice, which is often highly technical and in an area of scientific expertise that is not widely spread in Britain or throughout the world, would somehow be available either in Whitehall or in the Treasury.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman should be wary of referring to an environmental assessment document that might be produced prior to a Budget, because new clause I says:
      "Not later than 14 days after the date on which any Finance Bill is read for the first time".
      I am sorry to correct the hon. Gentleman, but he might find himself ruled out of order.
      Mr. Forman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In an earlier intervention, he said that advice would be available in advance of the Budget.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I got away with it.
      Mr. Forman: We can agree that that advice would form the basis of the Budget statement.
      My key point is that I do not think that there is a great fund of competent advice in the Treasury. The Treasury is renowned for its formidable advice to Ministers, but I do not think that the environment is one of its strongest areas. Perhaps the Minister will take that into account. I am not at all sure that the well-known and honoured tradition of Budget secrecy would be assisted by inviting people from the Department of the Environment or experts from the inspectorate of pollution or any such worthy body to become more fully involved in the process of Budget formulation in advance of the Finance Bill.
      7 pm
      Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I have considerable respect for him. I hope that his rise through the ranks matches that of other former Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this instance, however, I believe that he is making a bad point. If, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing in his Budget changes in taxation measures that apply to cars, he will consult the Department of Transport in preparing it. There are no leaks when those consultations take place. Why should not the same principle apply to the Department of the Environment?
      Mr. Forman: The main sources of advice for the measures that the hon. Gentleman outlined in introducing the new clause would have to come from the scientific community, including Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Many people within the scientific community are not covered by the Official Secrets Act 1911, and are not within Whitehall in the same way as officials of the Department of Transport, for example.
      I do not wish to make heavy weather of the argument. I wish only to emphasise that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is being rather sanguine about the prospects of achieving the quality and range that would be necessary to make sense of the new clause.
      My objection to the new clause goes further than that. I am unconvinced in principle that it is necessarily wise to introduce what must be a large element of greater complexity into the taxation system. We are all familiar
      734
      with the argument against additional complexity, even when it is introduced in furtherance of a good cause. Greater complexity introduces inefficiency and distortions, which have an effect on the behaviour of individuals in dealing with the tax system. Above all, it increases what are known as compliance costs, all of which tend to reduce the revenue raised from what it would have been in any given fiscal approach.
      I understand the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I think that it is interesting for the House to have a brief opportunity to discuss the interaction between environment and economic policy, and I think it is important for Conservative Members on another occasion to have the opportunity of hearing what the Opposition think about measures such as a carbon tax or the idea of—
      Dr. John Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has just said? Surely environment taxes would increase economic efficiency.
      Mr. Forman: There is a case for saying that such taxes would lead to an increase in resources. Much depends on how the concept is understood and measured. It is a difficult concept fully to understand, because resource economics is still in its infancy, as I believe the hon. Gentleman would concede. The ideas that it embraces need much further thought before they are adopted and set out in a Finance Bill.
      I think that the House would be assisted if it had the benefit of a thoughtful and expert speech from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and I am sure that we shall hear one when he replies to the debate. I am sure also that he will tell us that, although the Government are sympathetic to the environment and wish to make proper progress to protect it, they do not accept the new clause.
      Mr. Martlew: I support new clause 1. It seems to be a sensible proposal. It would be desirable if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were obliged a fortnight after the Budget to explain to the House and the country its effect on the environmental problems of the nation. That obligation would concentrate the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the environmental consequences of the Budget during his preparation of it. He appears now to have regard to political consequences first and then fiscal consequences. The environment lobby seems to have no input.
      Last year's Budget led to no real increase in taxation on cigarettes or alcohol. Would the same policy have been adopted if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged to tell the House after making his Budget statement, "We decided not to increase the tax on cigarettes, and that will mean X million extra cigarettes smoked this year. That will result in Y deaths and will increase the costs of the national health service by £Z"?
      Similarly, last year's Budget did not lead to a real increase in the taxation of beer, wines and spirits. The new clause would place an obligation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain to the House that his policy would result in so many extra gallons of beer being drunk, along with so many more bottles of spirits, and that that additional consumption would lead to so many extra deaths through alcohol-related diseases as well as percentage increase in the crime rate. That would be the effect of the environmental audit. I doubt whether a

      735
      Chancellor of the Exchequer would wish to explain the consequences of concessions that were made only for political reasons.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury used to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He will remember especially well the famous 1988 Budget of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, and he will probably be absent for four days of the week because he has found himself another job. The House will remember that considerable pressures were placed on the then Chancellor of the Exchequer by many people and organisations because Terry Wogan, among others, was making a great deal of money by investing in tree planting and enjoying major tax concessions. The right hon. Member for Blaby decided that that must stop. He decided to bring the concession to an end there and then without warning anyone that that was to happen. There was no phasing out of the concession. The relevant clause in the Finance Bill of 1988 was generally accepted, but it was disastrous for the forestry industry. About 9 million saplings were destroyed in the year following the tax change. Tree planting has still not recovered.
      Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour party supported the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in the 1988 Budget?
      Mr. Martlew: I have already said that it was generally accepted in the House that the decision was a good one. Hindsight tells us that the decision was wrong. If the hon. Gentleman reads the reports of the Select Committee on Agriculture, he will find that that is the Committee's view. If the environmental audit obligation had applied, the problems that followed the decision would have been brought to the attention of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      We are being told that we are facing great problems because of CO2 emissions and global warming. Planting more trees makes a significant contribution to resolving the problem of global warming. The decision of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1988 had a disastrous effect on that aim. The right hon. Member for Blaby opted for the short-term political expedient and ignored long-term environmental consequences.
      We must have an environmental audit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have the responsibility of telling us why he has taken certain decisions and the effect that they will have on the environment.
      There is a need for a nitrogen fertiliser tax. It is accepted that putting nitrogen on the soil has many advantages. We grow more and better crops, but we now have a large surplus. A tax on nitrogen fertiliser would dissuade farmers from using nitrogen on the land and would encourage the water industry to remove nitrates from water, which render it unfit for human consumption. If we are living in a world in which the polluter pays, surely a tax on nitrogen fertiliser would be a good start.
      The Government have made concessions over unleaded petrol. That is to be welcomed. However, they did not go far enough in the Budget. There has not, therefore, been any increase in the use of unleaded petrol. I note with dismay that the price differential between petrol and diesel
      736
      has been reduced over the years. Provided that diesel engines are kept in good repair, diesel is preferable to leaded petrol.
      I disagree to some extent with my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues about vehicle excise duty. The Labour party has proposed that larger engine sizes should attract an additional tax. I understand the logic of the proposal, but I believe that it would be far better to phase out vehicle excise duty—the car tax—and increase the price of petrol. I was told in Committee that the price of petrol would have to be increased by 40p a gallon. That is on the high side; it presupposes that everybody has a vehicle licence. I noticed in the House of Commons car park the other day a few vehicles that were not licensed. However, they had a lot of dust on them, so perhaps they had not been taken out of the car park for a year or two. That is very annoying, especially if one cannot find a parking space.
      The Government have been dishonest in not increasing the cost of the car tax for the last four years. Do the Government intend to abolish the tax by keeping it at the same level when inflation is increasing dramatically? This year's car tax will be worth much less than last year's because inflation is at least 10 per cent. The Government appear to be carrying out that policy by stealth. If we really want to reduce energy consumption, we should abolish the car tax and increase the price of petrol. Then the polluter would pay. Those who run cars with big engines and who do a large mileage would pay much more, while those who use their cars for essential purposes only, not for business or leisure, would pay less.
      I understand that Stockholm is considering introducing a system whereby regular car users coming in to the city will have to buy a season ticket for the public transport system and display it on their windscreens. That would result in those who have a season ticket for the public transport system using it. The money raised would be used to provide a better and cheaper public transport system. I believe that a similar policy would be popular in London.
      The Finance Bill does nothing to encourage recycling. Tax concessions have been provided for refuse tips. That is the last thing we need; we ought to reduce dumping by encouraging recycling. Disposable bottles and cans that are not recycled should attract a tax penalty. The money raised ought to be handed to organisations that are prepared to go to the expense of recycling bottles and cans.
      The Finance Bill is a wasted opportunity. The number of ways in which we can help to save the world is strictly limited. I hope that next year there will be a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer who will put forward green policies. If, however, the election is delayed beyond next year, note will have been taken of the speeches tonight.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Roger King: Nobody denies that there are fears about the environment. However, new clause 1 takes us no further along the way. It does not help us to tackle the fundamental challenges that we face.
      Many years ago a new industry was created that has become almost self-perpetuating and impinges on all our lives. I refer to the race relations industry. Whenever anyone in Birmingham's local authority wants to do something, there is always a reference to the implications for race relations. In most cases there are no implications for race relations. Nevertheless, behind the inclusion of

      737
      those words is the implication that several people have been involved in evaluating whether there are any race relations implications.
      Embarking on environmental assessments would lead to a brand-new industry which would provide additional work for bureaucrats and administrators. They would have to examine every facet of our lives to establish the environmental impact. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked, in his cogent speech, which Department would have the job of evaluating environmental assessments. I go further than my hon. Friend. A department of environmental assessment would be required. Nothing else would suffice.
      My fear is that as soon as that department had been established at national level, every council chamber in the land would have to take account of environmental assessment as a matter of law. That may or may not be good in some people's eyes, but I believe that it would do nothing to improve the local environment and local amenities and to provide the infrastructure that we need. Every suggestion would be shipwrecked because of environmental assessment. Therefore, it would not be a good step forward.
      New clause 1 charges the Chancellor of the Exchequer with producing an assessment of the environmental effects, if any, of each clause of a Finance Bill. How on earth the Chancellor could do that with all the clauses in the Finance Bill, I do not know. I cannot see that there is any environmental assessment to be made of lodgings for officers in charge of a distillery, or of the power to assess, or of supplies to groups, domestic accommodation, goods shipped as stores, or pool betting duty. An army of bureaucrats would be required to establish that there was no environmental impact.
      In previous years I was instrumental in tabling new clauses for inclusion in Finance Bills. I sought to provide financial encouragement for those who fitted catalytic converters to their cars. Rather than new clause 4, I should prefer a fiscal measure that applied to everybody who buys a car that is fitted with a catalytic converter. The new clause would provide financial encouragement only to fleet owners or their employees. That is wide of the mark. Fleet cars are bought every two or three years. To suggest that, beginning in April 1990, the legislation should be retrospective would create chaos. Cars that are allocated to employees are not necessarily the cars that remain in their use for the entire year.
      The clause says that a 5 per cent. discount would be allowed on personal tax allowances if people used a car with a catalytic converter for part of the year. However, what happens about those who have access to a car pool and take whatever car is available? How could such a system be worked out? It is a recipe for confusion and cannot possibly work. It will not benefit the environment one iota.
      New clause 1 cannot work, because it would be impossible to monitor and evaluate and would require an army of bureaucrats. New clause 4 cannot work because it would be grotesquely unfair and impossible to operate.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) understands the process of environmental impact studies. A great deal of
      738
      data already exists in data banks, computer programmes, analyses and reports. That has been collected over many years. If there are to be environmental impact assessments, that data will have to be evaluated and people may have to be employed to do that. However, that is a small price to pay for improving our environment and ensuring that our fiscal policies are linked to a sensible and sound environmental programme.
      I remind the hon. Member for Northfield that the EEC has produced a directive under which major planning applications will be subject to environmental impact assessment studies. That will be European law. If other countries are aware of the importance of such studies, there is no reason why the concept cannot be extended to financial policy.
      It is an important concept and I support it because we are talking about environmental impact assessments and not simply taxation policy. In some cases, even if people damaging the environment were forced to suffer a tax penalty, they would continue to operate in the same way and simply pay the penalty if it suited them. Environmental impact studies are a more sophisticated way of approaching the matter.
      Mr. McCartney: Local authorities that currently carry out environmental impact assessment studies on, for example, opencast coal include within them the impact of the local economy in terms of new job opportunities and the loss of other job opportunities. Such investigations try to assess what the consequences will be for the local and regional environment and employment opportunities. Local industry and planners welcome such assessment studies.
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, as it demonstrates yet again that in terms of being sensitive to the financial, social and economic needs of local communities, local authorities blaze the way. The Government seem to be inert in dealing with policies that would benefit local people.
      Many hon. Members have mentioned the advantages of new clause 1 and I do not wish to repeat them. However, I stress that the environmental impact of financial policies will have a great bearing on industry and social life in Britain.
      We have heard a great deal about company car taxation policies. I recognise that tax relief on company cars has benefited the car industry and motor dealers. However, it has been a poor use of public resources. If the tax relief were restructured according to engine size, as has been suggested, car dealers or manufacturers would not be disadvantaged as they would construct cars to meet those requirements.
      It might be worth considering for the next Budget that if we accept that there is a case for tax concessions on company cars—that could be argued for those to whom the car is essential—we should give tax concessions to those who buy season tickets for public transport. If we encourage people to shift from private car use to public transport, it could lead to a tremendous environmental advantage and benefit our infrastructure. There is a strong case for providing a tax concession to those who buy season tickets, whether for the train or bus, because they are doing the environment a favour by travelling to work in that way. It is not unreasonable for them to deserve recognition for that.

      739
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned the proposals in Sweden and I understand that similar proposals have been put forward in Paris whereby those who have the advantage of a city centre parking space will have to purchase a season ticket for that city's public transport system and display it on the windscreen as the price for that advantage. That is a reasonable suggestion. It should be extended to the House of Commons. There are cars in the car park gathering dust. Some people seem to be taking advantage of a first-class facility in the centre of London for storing their antique cars and aging Rolls-Royces. I see no reason why such people should not make a contribution to the public transport system by buying a season ticket.
      The great advantage of the new clause has not been recognised. We have people such as Professor Pearce advising the Government and making some useful suggestions. I do not wish to criticise him, as he is on the right lines. However, it is not good enough to have a tax regime based on a cost penalty for those who are damaging the environment. As I have said, many producers would simply pay that penalty. For example, many of those who come to central London and enjoy the benefit of car parking space would cheerfully pay a road-pricing tax. They would pass it on to their company accounts and then to their customers. It would not do a great deal to stop cars coming to the centre of London. That is why we need something more sophisticated than a simple tax regime. We must have an environmental impact study of the benefits to the environment, the economy and our society.
      I have not heard a good case against the new clause. Although there might be different ways of applying it, one cannot get away from the fact that today there are many pressures on the environment such as global warming, overcrowding on our roads and the collapse of our transport infrastructure. Much of that is related to Government policies, but that can be argued in other places at other times. We can use our economic policies, particularly taxation policy, to encourage certain parts of the economy such as the development of less waste in packaging. There is no reason why those who produce glass bottles and jars designed to be recycled should not have some tax concessions for doing so. It is better for the environment and, in the long term, the economy to encourage people to use recyclable glass containers rather than disposable ones which may have taken a great deal of energy to produce. Such issues can be addressed through a taxation regime.
      It is not good enough to use taxation as a way of penalising the bad and rewarding the good. We must take account of the long-term environmental impact of what we want to achieve and the benefits that will result.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. CousinsThe debate has been extremely depressing, and I do not intend to speak for long and depress myself further. Each of us recognises that there are certain problems which force their way on to the political agenda. We do not have a choice in that matter. Our choice is either willingly to accept these problems on our political agenda and find a framework to deal with them, or to confine them and keep them off that agenda, and deal with them later in less favourable circumstances, using cruder methods than we would have used if we had been willing to deal with them sooner.
      740
      Many problems do not appear on the balance sheet of society, although they impose long-term costs. The proposals in new clause 1 to put these matters on the public balance sheet must surely be in the long-term interests of everyone. It is foolish to deceive ourselves that we can continue using the world's capital stocks and resources as though they were not finite, given the horrendous costs that will result from the near-exhaustion of those stocks.
      The framework within which we discuss these matters is absurd. We are either treated to a comic display of entertaining irrelevancies or plunged into a swamp in which people refer to administrative mumbo-jumbo as an excuse for not dealing with the problem. As I said in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I do not particularly welcome a scenario in which the stock of skills which can be deployed to assess the environmental impact is contained within civil service rules and within a Ministry. I should prefer independent agencies on which the Government, local authorities, companies and the public could draw. The last thing I would want is that stock of skills deployed in such a way that only the Government within the confines of civil service rules had access to it. It would be worth discussing that important matter, yet it has not been taken seriously in this debate.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My proposition did not anticipate that the Government would be the sole controller of that expertise. The academic world is vital, and we must retain independent agencies to give advice to everyone. I agree that there is a problem in terms of the number of people to go around, but it should never be proposed that only the Government should draw on that resource.
      Mr. Cousins: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point. If I may say so in the politest possible way, however, it puts a gloss on some of his remarks, when he placed far too great an emphasis on the creation of Ministries to secure his objective. No doubt he did that with the best of intentions, but he set up the Aunt Sally with which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) dealt. We must avoid such an idea.
      In new clause 1, we are not talking about taxes to deal with environmental problems; we are asking the Government to consider these issues as part of their normal routine. It would be worth considering the effect on the environment of a variation in income tax. That would not just be an academic exercise. It might point to important conclusions about our taxation system. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to the last glorious Budget of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). If the tax concessions advocated in the right hon. Gentleman's Budgets had been studied in terms of their environmental impact, they might have been reconsidered, and the difficulties might have been perceived.
      The Standing Committee on the Finance Bill dealt with the petroleum revenue tax system and taxation of waste disposal sites. Our debates were limited because we did not have the information to determine whether the most efficient, effective and cheapest methods were under discussion. We had no idea of the effect of our proposals on the cost structure of the relevant industries.
      Many hon. Members in this debate and elsewhere have been willing to consider various proposals, for example,

      741
      for carbon taxes, which is an interesting academic idea. I hope that, before we essay that development, there will be careful examination of the environmental and cost implications. By not considering such issues now, the Government are not providing themselves with the information, expertise, knowledge or understanding that would enable them to resist proposals which appear later in a much more crude and much less acceptable fashion. We cannot disregard the interaction between the taxation system and the cost structure of industry.
      My fear after listening to the debate is that we shall manoeuvre ourselves so that we are encumbered by blunderbuss solutions which have unwarranted and unwanted effects on the cost structure of industry. That is why it is necessary for the Government to generate the necessary information now and start subjecting taxation and other proposals to scrutiny. The choice is not whether but when. It is important that, when we enter the era of environmental taxation, we do so against a background of acknowledged expertise, understanding and thoughtful consideration of all the secondary issues and that we do not land our industry with cost consequences that cannot be supported and are not in the interests of our people. The problems are not avoided by not confronting them now. Only by confronting them now and testing everything that we do against those considerations can that bad outcome be avoided.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: I came into the Chamber for this debate only to hear some of the most utter drivel I have heard for a long time. My colleagues and I are very much aware that there should be environmental assessments of what we do as we move the country forward and develop the economy. There is no need for the clause. The Government are led by a Prime Minister who is driving forward the country's consciousness of green issues—I refer to the London conference on CFCs, to her awareness of the greenhouse effect and of carbon dioxide emissions.
      I do not believe for one moment that any Minister does not consider the environmental impact of what he is doing. For that reason, the clause is totally irrelevant and unnecessary. I shall have a laugh at the Opposition's expense—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
      Mr. Hind: No, I shall not give way.
      The clause provides that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is required,
      "not later than 14 days after … any Finance Bill is read for the first time in the House",
      to set down his environmental assessment. The Opposition are so short of ideas that the Treasury must provide them with environmental arguments against any new tax proposals that it brings forward.
      Surely, as elected representatives of the country, we have the wit and the sense to be aware of what is happening to the environment and to be able to put forward arguments to deal with such issues. If we cannot, it is pretty pathetic.
      New clause 4—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hind: No. We are up against time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
      It is a splendid idea that we should all have cars fitted with catalytic converters, and I believe strongly in it, but why should it apply only to fleet cars and company cars? The clause is nonsense; if it is to have any sensible basis, it should include all cars. Hon. Members have to buy their own cars, as do thousands of people outside the House. Why should they be excluded from the tax concessions advocated here, which would give them the incentive to fit catalytic converters?
      On the grounds that I have given, the new clauses are not worthy of merit, and I advise my hon. Friends to dismiss them.
      Mr. McCartney: The contribution of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) proves that if one wants to participate in a debate it is best to listen to it and to know something about the subject. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Government's Back-Bench effluent tendency. On occasions he tries to upset Opposition Members and pick an argument. We know the hon. Gentleman well. He comes here and argues against new clause 1 and against environmental assessments. He does not do that in his constituency when planning applications in Up Holland and elsewhere are involved—he jumps up and down screaming in my local newspaper about the need for environmental impact assessments on planning matters in his constituency. He says one thing here, in an effort to move from the Back to the Front Benches, and another in his constituency, because he hopes that he will remain here after the next election.
      Mr. Hind: What is the hon. gentleman talking about?
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman knows Up Holland very well.
      New clause 1 fundamentally affects the way in which future Governments will operate. We are dealing not merely with a new clause, but with the whole concept of government at national and local level, and with the impact on the environment of the relationship between the Government and industry. We are also dealing with the way in which local authorities have an impact on local communities and with their relationship to the development of industry and the provision of services in the public and the private sector.
      Our attempts to discuss the issues tonight are about five years behind such attempts in Europe and the United States. Hon. Members on various Select Committees have been abroad to study these issues, and we have seen that environmental impact assessment studies are used more and more in the United States when water and electric utilities are being developed. European Governments are increasingly aware, irrespective of their political persuasion, of the need to provide environmental assessments for their policies. At local authority level, there has been an attempt, albeit imposed by the European Commission, to introduce environmental impact assessments.
      As you now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Chairman of Ways and Means, there have been amendments to the private Bill procedure. In future, new private Bills will have to have an environmental impact assessment attached to them; without that they will not be able to proceed. Those are welcome extensions of the use of environmental impact assessment of policies at national and local level, but we must go further. That is why my

      743
      hon. Friends are pushing out the parameters of policy discussion on the environment in Britain by means of the new clause.
      All hon. Members are sometimes faced with environmental issues that impinge on the local economy and on regional environmental considerations. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) is involved with other hon. Members representing constituencies in Lancashire in the issue of long outfall discharges of sewage and attempts by Conservative and Labour county councillors to prevent such a policy being imposed locally because the effect that such discharges will have on the sea and the Lancashire coast is totally unacceptable.
      Hon. Members from both parties in Lancashire and the Labour Lancashire local authorities have argued against such a policy, and have argued for an environmental impact assessment of the cost of introducing such a scheme as well as of the cost to the environment. The use of impact assessments forced the Government virtually to abandon the long fall discharge of sewage on the Lancashire coast. The policy was changed only because of such pressure. Until the assessments were carried out, the Government said that they would introduce the scheme because it was cheaper to treat sewage by dumping it at sea than to invest in inland sewage treatment plants.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite an environmental impact assessment on the scheme that he mentioned, done by the local authority in Wyre, the long sea outfall is still likely to go ahead? Does he agree that merely having an environmental impact assessment had no effect upon that decision?
      Mr. McCartney: Assessments do two things: first, they raise public awareness of the issues. Secondly, Ministers are ill-prepared or unprepared to take the right action when evidence is presented, and the new clause would prevent Ministers from not taking environmental impact assessments fully into account. Hon. Members' experience of such matters should persuade them to support the clause rather than to oppose it.
      We cannot simply rely on taxation as a way of dealing with environmental assessments. It is fine for short-term issues, or to impose certain environmental changes on agriculture or industries such as chemicals. But, in the long term as well as introducing changes in taxation, we have to change attitudes of mind on the way in which we deal with environmental issues. Even when fines of £1 million or more have been imposed by the courts, oil companies in Britain are still not prepared to deal seriously with the issue of discharging oil into places such as the River Mersey. The imposition of huge fines in court is still not deterring some companies. We must therefore change the philosophy and attitude of industry towards the environment in terms of the production processes that affect the environment.
      The new clause is simply a step along the road to changing attitudes in the Government, industry, the local authorities and the wider community. Without the change of attitude, taxation changes will work only in the short term and, in the long term, the processes that debilitate and destroy the planet will continue unabated. We must change our attitudes fundamentally. Therefore, I welcome
      744
      the new clause as part of the argument to ensure that those changes take place in Britain—and throughout the world—before the planet is damaged irrevocably.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): At the outset of what I describe as a lively debate, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) claimed that the Government do not take account of the effects of our financial policies on the environment and that the new clause is necessary to oblige us to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, that claim is incorrect. When preparing the Finance Bill every year, we take full account of all relevant factors—environmental, financial, those relating to employment, and a range of others. It would be irresponsible not to do so.
      The new clause would not result in the Treasury paying greater attention to the environmental effects of our policies because we already take full account of such effects during the pre-Budget consultations when we consider all the representations that are made to us by a range of outside bodies, including those representing the environmental lobbies.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister suggesting that the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) were ill-founded when he assumed that Ministers would not be able to find the time to do all these things? Is the Minister saying that his hon. Friend was simply wrong?
      Mr. Ryder: If we were to accept the new clause, we would necessarily have to provide an environmental assessment along the lines recommended by the Labour party. If those circumstances turned out to be the case, I cannot envisage a more suitable hon. Member to provide us with the environmental dimension of monetary policy than my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He is so well-suited to considering all the environmental aspects of the Government's financial policy as to write a long thesis on the environmental dimensions of monetary policy and especially M0. I should not be surprised if, before the summer was out, my hon. Friend did not send me a clipping from his local paper, "The Eastbourne Trumpet," providing us with an article along those lines. I very much look forward to receiving a copy in the next few months.
      I do not think that the new clause would lead to the House being better informed about the effects of the Finance Bill. It would be an unnecessary claim on the resources of the Government to be obliged to prepare a specific assessment of the environmental impact of each clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was right to say that the new clause would lead to extra bureaucracy and would not cast any extra light on Budget changes.
      As the House knows, notes on clauses are already produced and provide a summary of the purpose of Government clauses. They provide most of the technical information that the House requires. As hon. Members know, if they have a specific and detailed question about the impact of any clause—environmental or otherwise—they can ask a Minister to expand on the subject in Committee; they can write to a Minister; they can table a question; or they can bring a delegation to see a Minister.
      In Committee we had some interesting and constructive debates about the environmental aspects of the Budget. Debates on the early clauses related to indirect taxes and

      745
      when we discussed vehicle excise duty, for example, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made some valid points . I recall saying two or three months ago that his advice to previous Ministers, in his capacity as shadow economic spokesman, was taken into account when we framed the VED policy. The same applies to any other hon. Member who wishes to take an interest annually in this legislation. I see no reason to believe that the existing arrangements do not allow hon. Members to come to a view on the merits of a clause, and to take all the relevant considerations, including environmental ones, fully into account.
      The Government place—and will continue to place—a high priority on environmental issues. We have taken several steps to benefit the environment, such as action on CFCs, on sulphur dioxide and nitrodioxide emissions, on water quality, and with the establishment of the climatic change centre. The increase in the differential in favour of unleaded petrol in this year's Budget should increase the uptake of unleaded petrol to 40 per cent by next year's Budget. All that has been achieved within four years of starting down this route.
      The Environmental Protection Bill, which has just passed through the House, provides for integrated pollution control, strengthens local authority controls to combat air pollution and to control litter, and includes provisions on waste disposal and recycling. As the House knows, we are preparing a White Paper on the environment, which will be published in the early autumn.
      The Budget measures for unleaded petrol and relief for waste disposal operators will bring worthwhile environmental benefits. The Government are conscious of the importance of the environment, but a whole range of factors must also be considered, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) emphasised, scientific analysis and the effects on the economy in determining the right response to problems. We are prepared to make tax changes for environmental reasons, where tax is the right instrument with which to do so. Unleaded petrol was an example. We shall continue to ensure that measures are based on the best possible scientific and economic analysis.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury alleged that the car scale increase had been small. He knows that that is not the case. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, over the past three Budgets, the Government have tripled the car scales, having inherited small scales from the last Labour Government. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested that we should issue a green book at the time of the Budget each year, in addition to the Red Book. Does that mean that we shall also have to provide a crimson book for energy, a purple book for agriculture, and a grey book for education? Where do we stop in producing such documents? The Opposition have not made it clear. But perhaps when the hon. Member for Wrexham replies to the debate, he will do so.
      New clause 4, which has also been tabled by the Labour Front Bench, seeks to provide an incentive to fitting catalytic converters in company cars by reducing the car benefit scale charges where that has been done. That proposal is an unnecessary measure which would
      746
      complicate the tax system, reduce the tax revenue, and introduce a new fiscal incentive for company cars. That is probably unintended, but several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, have pointed out that consequence. However, it would make very little difference to our progress towards the important objective of reducing car and lorry pollution. The House knows—several hon. Members have mentioned it—that the EC exhaust emission standards will require all new petrol engine cars sold in the EEC to be fitted with a catalytic converter by the end of 1992. Company cars are replaced every two or three years on average. As the company car fleet is predominantly composed of new cars, the new EC provisions will bite quickly into the company car sector. For that reason, the Government consider that a fiscal incentive to change over to cars with a catalytic converter is unnecessary in view of the obligations that we have been asked to meet by the EC.
      As I have already described, the proposal would be expensive. With just under 2 million company cars on the road, a cost of about £1 million would be incurred for every 1 per cent. of cars fitted with converters. Much of that cost would be dead weight, for example, as employers begin to buy more cars fitted with catalytic converters in the run-up to 1992. Indeed, some manufacturers already fit converters to all their cars.
      The other defect of the clause is that it has no time limit. It would continue to run even after we met our obligations in 1992 when converters will be compulsory for all new cars. By then, the proposal would cost approaching £100 million for no benefit whatever.
      8 pm
      Mr. Hind: Is not by far the most important point against the proposal that there is no reason for introducing a tax incentive for company cars alone to fit catalytic converters? Surely our aim should be that all cars are fitted with catalytic converters to reduce the fumes from cars. Therefore, people who buy their own cars, who represent a large section of the public, should not be cut out from such a tax benefit.
      Mr. Ryder: I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall deal with that argument shortly.
      The Government believe in principle that benefits in kind should, as far as possible, be fully taxed to provide neutrality in the tax treatment of payments in cash and in kind. The benefit to the employee is not reduced by fitting a catalytic converter to a company car. In general, larger and more expensive cars tend to be fitted with catalytic converters.
      While accepting that the new clause would put back the Government's determined action over the past three years, in particular to reduce undervaluation of company cars for tax purposes, the Opposition have argued that company car taxation should be increased, partly for environmental reasons. In the new clause, they would introduce a new fiscal privilege confined to company cars which would have no counterpart—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind)—for the private motorist who must buy his own car. I amplify not only the remarks made by my hon. Friend but the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Over half the number of cars purchased by individuals go to companies for purposes such as short-term car hire, car pools and driving

      747
      tuition, which are not subject to the scale charges. The new clause would do nothing to encourage that group of purchasers to buy cars equipped with catalytic converters.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, with his experience of Birmingham, knows that the motor industry is gearing itself up for the new regime that will apply after 1992. It will require more than simply bolting on a catalyst-equipped exhaust. The introduction of catalyst-compatible engines and engine management systems, particularly for smaller cars, will take time.
      "There is no question of providing an incentive to fit catalytic converters. It has to be done. We have agreed it with the EC. There are cases for incentives in certain circumstances, but they should be argued on their merits. I regret that I have to say that I do not think that the case has been proven here. I would rather that the money which would be lost to the Treasury were spent on other environmental concerns."—[Official Report, 11 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 902.]
      Opposition Members, including Front-Bench spokesmen, will realise that I have just quoted directly from the speech made by the hon. Member for Wrexham in last year's debate on the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House on a similar proposal to reduce special car tax for cars fitted with converters. I say to my hon. Friends and to the House that the hon. Gentleman's arguments deployed then are as true today. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
      Dr. Marek: We have had a good debate, with the exception of the speech made by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). The hon. Gentleman came in late, he would not give way, he was bad-tempered, and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) had it absolutely right. Many of us were surprised when the hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that he should make his own speech. My hon. Friend tried to make his own speech earlier, but the hon. Gentleman was not present.
      Mr. Hind rose—
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman referred to me. I resent the suggestion that my speech was in any way bad-tempered. It was perfectly good-humoured. Opposition Members reacted badly, perhaps because the arguments that I marshalled against the Opposition's case were penetrating. The only reason why I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman was simply lack of time.
      Dr. Marek: I looked and listened in vain for any argument in the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, he makes his own case, and the House can judge him.
      The Minister dealt at some length with new clause 4, but not with new clause 1. In some ways, that is not surprising. I have some sympathy with what he said about new clause 4, but new clause 1 is the important clause. We have received support from the Minister's hon. Friends on the Back Benches for similar clauses, if not outright for new clause 1. The Minister said that he already takes account of environmental impact with his colleagues when Ministers prepare the Budget. If I remember correctly, he said, "We already take account of such effects."
      What is wrong with the public knowing exactly how Ministers take account of those effects? If Ministers put their fingers in the air to feel which way the wind is blowing, perhaps they should keep that secret, but if they
      748
      take account of such effects in a meaningful and quantitative way, surely it would do the environment good if the public knew exactly how the environment and environmental considerations would be affected by the Budget statement. That is important.
      The Minister asked me to answer a point and I shall do so. He asked whether the Treasury should issue crimson books or purple books for different Departments. I suspect that at the end of the day the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) will prove accurate. Environmental considerations will be forced on to the agenda, not only of parties in the House but of public conversation and therefore of attitudes to the various parties. My hon. Friend was right. That means that we need an environmental assessment of the work of Government.
      The only argument deployed by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Lancashire, West was that we would need armies of bureaucrats to carry out environmental assessments. It need not go that far. In many ways, the work is already being done by the Government and their Departments. Because we believe in freedom of information, we need to know exactly how they do it, and what account they take of that work, so that the public can make their own assessment.
      New clause 1 is a very timid measure that does not go very far, and hon. Members will be able to beef it up so that the global problems of the environment can be tackled more effectively. New clause 1 asks that the environmental effects of the Budget should be reviewed and that any effects—or anticipated effects—that it may have on, for example, land use in the United Kingdom—and there are six cases—should be assessed. If that has already been done by the Treasury, why can we not know? What is secret about that? Many statistics are already known.
      Mr. McCartney: The Department of the Environment, for the purposes of designating local authorities for the use of derelict land grant, currently does precisely as my hon. Friend says. It designates the area of the derelict land and then stipulates the purpose to which it can be put. It is only when that assessment has taken place that the authority can develop the land and receive project grants. The Department of the Environment states that 20,000 acres of derelict land in the north-west listed in its land bank are suitable for assistance.
      Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable on these matters. He is right to say that an enormous amount of information is held by the local authorities, but it is also held by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, and the Northern Ireland Office. It need not require an army of bureaucrats and administrators for such assessments to be made public.
      New clause 1 will make the Government assess the pollution levels and the effect that the Budget would have on them. It requires an assessment of the rate of usage of natural resources, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and the effect that the Budget will have on that rate of usage. It also seeks to assess the rate and types of energy production in use in the United Kingdom, and the effect that the Budget will have on them.
      Paragraph (e) urges and imposes upon the Government a general duty to encourage
      "the use of renewable sources of energy of raw materials in the United Kingdom".

      749
      That is a subject on which I hope that there will be no dispute. It is important that the effects of the Budget are assessed in this regard.
      8.15 pm
      New clause 1 asked for an assessment of the Budget's effects on human and animal health, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. That is a sensible and moderate new clause, and not one that would impose an intolerable burden on the Government. It would inform the public and ensure that we had more information on which to base future policy. It would also enable other countries to give greater weight to our views on environmental protection, because they too would have more information on which to base their judgment. Such an assessment must be good for the environment.
      New clause 4 has been criticised, but its provisions would look very well as part of any environmental assessment. The hon. Member for Northfield was wrong when he said that it is defective because people provided with pool cars would not be taxed. If the hon. Member for Northfield—although he is not listening at the present—will study the clause properly, he will see that he is wrong.
      I have some sympathy with the Minister when he says that new clause 4 is unnecessary because, when catalytic converters are required for all new cars, the rate of turnover in the company car sector is such that they will all have them quickly. Nevertheless, the amendment would be an incentive to fit company cars with converters in the remaining years before they are mandatory.
      The Minister was stretching a point when he said that excise tax will remain even when all cars are converted. If I heard him correctly, he said also that the proposed concession would cost about £100 million per year at some future date. It must have occurred to the Economic Secretary that new clause 4 is meant as an incentive for only a number of years, and that any tax relief given this year can be taken away in two or three years' time.
      The right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) gave welcome support to new clause 1. He got it slightly wrong about the Labour party being the high tax party and the Conservative party being the low tax party. Taxation as a percentage of GDP is higher now than it was when Labour left office in 1979. I forget the precise figures, but taxation is today about 3 or 4 per cent. higher—so the party that taxes the British people more is the Conservative party, not Labour. Conservative Members try to mislead the public and are not accurate with their use of words. Members of the Government and Back Benchers talk about income tax, sometimes about tax, and at other times about indirect tax.
      At the end of day, one cannot get away from the fact that the lowering of income tax has been more than made up by the increase in value added tax from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. and a large increase in the national insurance contribution.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) largely supported new clause 1. The Liberal party also supported it—although, as usual, rather churlishly. More forthright support would have been welcome.
      Important considerations include whether we look after the environment by regulation or by the judicious adjustment of tax and taxation policy. Minimum standards must be set, but the use of a taxation policy must
      750
      be a club in the bag. We would try to see whether value added tax could be differentiated so that, for example, non-biodegradable and non-recyclable substances would bear a higher rate than substances that were recyclable and biodegradable.
      In the corporate sector, there should be additional allowances against corporation tax for companies making specific anti-pollution or conservation investment. As a straightforward example, it must be wrong that there is just one rate of vehicle excise duty of £100 for a small or big car. Changes could be made there.
      We have long advocated that the price differential between leaded and unleaded petrol should be increased still further and I am pleased that the take-up of unleaded petrol is still increasing. The Government have promised that, by the end of the year, or by next year's Budget, that take-up will have increased to 40 per cent. of the market. I wish them luck, but if they do not achieve that target, I look forward to the price differential between leaded and unleaded increasing in due course.
      If company cars receive a benefit in kind that is untaxed, that should be changed. Most hon. Members believe there are large classes of company cars which do not bear the correct rate of tax and which receive a great untaxed benefit in kind. I hope that the Treasury will consider addressing that in the next Budget.
      I am not arguing that taxation should be increased in aid of the environment—that public debate will be held in the next two years. It is an argument of swings and roundabouts. Taxing for environmental purposes means that incentives are changed to reflect the true cost of any particular goods. Such tax changes are good for the Inland Revenue and also encourage innovations to reduce pollution. We believe that, as a first step, tax allowances should be made in particular areas to encourage conservation of the environment and improvements in the quality of life.
      I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for their well-informed speeches, which were listened to with interest. On a slightly churlish note, it is a pity that many of the Conservative Back Benchers who were members of the Finance Committee have not been present. I hope that that will be redressed in our later debates.
      here is an unanswerable case for a new clause similar to new clause 1. For that reason, I urge my hon. Friends to press our new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 261.

      Division No. 293]

      [8.22 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Allen, Graham

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Anderson, Donald

      Boateng, Paul

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Boyes, Roland

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bradley, Keith

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Buckley, George J.

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Caborn, Richard

      Barren, Kevin

      Callaghan, Jim

      Beckett, Margaret

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Beith, A. J.

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Canavan, Dennis

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

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      751

      Carr, Michael

      Litherland, Robert

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McAllion, John

      Clay, Bob

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clelland, David

      McCartney, Ian

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cohen, Harry

      McFall, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McKelvey, William

      Corbett, Robin

      McLeish, Henry

      Cousins, Jim

      Maclennan, Robert

      Crowther, Stan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      McWilliam, John

      Cummings, John

      Madden, Max

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morley, Elliot

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Faulds, Andrew

      Murphy, Paul

      Fearn, Ronald

      Nellist, Dave

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      O'Brien, William

      Fisher, Mark

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Flannery, Martin

      Parry, Robert

      Flynn, Paul

      Patchett, Terry

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Pendry, Tom

      Foster, Derek

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foulkes, George

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fraser, John

      Prescott, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Galloway, George

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Radice, Giles

      George, Bruce

      Randall, Stuart

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Redmond, Martin

      Gordon, Mildred

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Gould, Bryan

      Reid, Dr John

      Graham, Thomas

      Richardson, Jo

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Rogers, Allan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hardy, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Henderson, Doug

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Home Robertson, John

      Short, Clare

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Sillars, Jim

      Howells, Geraint

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Illsley, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Janner, Greville

      Stott, Roger

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Strang, Gavin

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Straw, Jack

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Lambie, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Lamond, James

      Wallace, James

      Leighton, Ron

      Walley, Joan

      Lewis, Terry

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      752

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Winnick, David

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Wilson, Brian

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 5

      CHILD CARE VOUCHERS
      '(1) Where an employee makes arrangements for care of his or her children aged under sixteen, and pays for this child care with vouchers provided by the employer which can only be used for this purpose, the provision of these vouchers will not be subject to basic rate tax in the hands of the employee.
      (2) This section shall only apply to vouchers up to £75 per week in regard to child care being provided for a child aged up to five. For children aged over five to sixteen the limit of the value of vouchers which will not be subject to basic rate charge tax will be £1,500 per annum.
      (3) This section shall only apply subject to the provisions of the Taxes Act 1988 section 155A(1)(d) and Taxes Act 1988 section 155A(4) (as proposed in the 1990 Finance Bill).
      (4) The registration requirements under section 20(1)(4) shall apply to this section.'.—[Mr. Beith.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 6—Child care and the self-employed—

      '(1) The Taxes Act 1988, section 74, shall not operate to deny tax relief for child care provision, at basic rate only, and on payments up to £75 per week, where a self-employed person makes provision for child care for his or her children aged up to five. For children aged over five to sixteen the limit of the payments which will not be subject to basic rate tax will be £1,500 per annum.

      (2) This section only applies where—

      (a) the provisions of the Taxes Act 1988, section 155A(1)(d) and the Taxes Act 1988 section 155A(4) (as proposed in the Finance Bill 1990) are satisfied.

      (b) the registration requirement in section 20(1)(4) has been met.

      (c) the self-employed person works full-time at his or her trade, profession or vocation.'.

      Mr. Beith: New clause 5 deals with child care vouchers, and new clause 6 applies a similar principle to the self-employed. It looks as though the about-to-be Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is to reply to the debate. I look forward to that and congratulate him on his sudden and unexpected promotion, and wish him well in his new responsibilities.
      We have been campaigning for better provision for child care in successive Finance Bills. There is some provision for child care in the current Finance Bill, but it is so inadequate that we feel obliged to table the new clause. It is my contention and the view of many groups and organisations that workplace nurseries are only a tiny contributor to dealing with the problem of child care. Such nurseries provide only a small number of employers, whose work force is concentrated on one site, and even if such nurseries became much more widespread among employers, they would not cater for large numbers of parents for whom child care nearer the home is more appropriate. Such nurseries make no contribution to solving the problem of child care for children of school age, after school and during school holidays.
      We have always proposed an alternative approach based on vouchers given by the employer that are free of tax up to a certain level at the hand of the employee if those vouchers are used in registered forms of child care, nursery education or play groups. That idea is widely supported. I was particularly struck to discover that it has gained support in Government circles. Therefore, I shall be surprised if the Financial Secretary, when he replies, does not catch the mood of his party and the feelings of those who are already expressing themselves on the issue.
      The Guardian on Monday 9 July stated:
      "A voucher scheme for nursery facilities to help young mothers wanting to go out to work has been endorsed by the Government's inter-departmental working group on women, chaired by John Patten, the Home Office Minister of State.
      The proposals are likely to be the subject of strong debate within the Conservative Party and Whitehall as the Government tries to reach a consensus on its approach to the family and morality."
      I shall not go into the further reaches and implications of the Government's current studies of the family and

      755
      morality but will concentrate on child care, which has obviously been considered in Government circles and found to be of interest. Perhaps the Government are beginning to react to the widespread disappointment that what initially looked to some people like a major concession on child care in the Chancellor's Budget speech turned out to be so limited in its effect and implications.
      A small number of mothers will be able to continue to use workplace nurseries and avoid the tax that they have been paying up to now on benefit in kind of those nurseries. That is quite right, but many more women will continue to pay for nursery care out of their taxed income. Not merely are they failing to receive a benefit on which they would be taxed; they are paying for child care out of their taxed income.
      The Government have included child care provisions in the Finance Bill because they believe that the changes in the labour market and the need to make use of the skills that women can offer dictate that the Government should make some effort to encourage women back to work and to encourage employers to help women to return to work. They may also have been influenced by the wider issue of principle that, regardless of the needs of the labour market, women should be given the maximum opportunity to deploy their skills in the workplace. I agree with that principle. The Government must have been influenced by that thinking to have introduced such provisions into the Finance Bill. They have been criticised by some of their own supporters for moving away from the level playing field and for opening the door to schemes such as the one for which I am now arguing. However, they have made a very limited move. They must recognise how disappointing it will prove to many women who hoped for a real advance in their opportunities to continue their careers.
      Of course, it is a matter of choice. No one is arguing that the Government should put any pressure on women with young children to go out to work. That must be a matter of choice. Many of the arguments relating to child benefit relate to whether women are able to stay at home when they have young children. We would prefer the regular uprating of child benefit which, among other things, would ensure that those women who choose to stay at home would be in a slightly better financial position than they are at present. However, the Government should provide some encouragement to employers to assist those women who wish to exercise the choice to work, particularly as their children reach school age.
      I have spoken to many employers and employers' organisations, and I understand that there would be a considerable response from employers if it became clear that offering child care vouchers would provide a tax-free benefit to employees. Clearly the Government are hoping that even their limited proposals will invoke some response and that there will be more workplace nurseries. There probably will be some more as a result of the provisions that the Government have included in the Finance Bill, but many employers are already saying that they cannot open a workplace nursery as they have too few employees with a relevant need gathered in any one place. If they were to provide for those employees, it would seem unfair to the majority of their employees who may work in branches scattered around the country. Many of the large retail chains face that problem, as do almost all small businesses. What small employer can hope to set up a workplace
      756
      nursery if he has only a handful of employees, one or two of whom have young children, although their needs are no less because they work for a small business?
      The Government have an opportunity to encourage employers to make provision for child care. We are not putting to the Government a plea for a massive injection of Government funds directly into the provision of child care, although we should like there to be more investment in nursery education. However, we see considerable scope for the activities of the private sector, whether in voluntary sector playgroups, commercial nursery provision or individual registered child minders, who play such a large part in child care.
      There is a wide range of possibilities that could be met by a voucher scheme. I do not understand how the Government can resist the logic of such a scheme, particularly as they have embarked on giving some tax relief for nursery education. Workplace nurseries cannot provide the answer for the vast majority of women who wish to exercise the right to work. Therefore, we urge the Government to adopt the voucher scheme that we propose and say that they should listen to the voices of those—including many Conservative Members—who have advanced that case. Although the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is not present tonight, on previous occasions she has advanced that view most strongly, as have others. Ministers privately seem to be expressing interest in such schemes.
      New clause 6 makes a comparable provision for self-employed people. There is a strong case for full-time, self-employed people to have a limited ability to set child care costs against tax. The Government, quite rightly, have encouraged self-employment. Many women are becoming self-employed as self employment offers flexible opportunities for work. Many women work in sectors where self-employment seems a natural development and their expertise can be used in various forms of consultancy work.
      8.45 pm
      Self-employment is sometimes appropriate for women who wish to work only part time while their children are very young and then resume full-time work, taking on more contracts and more work as their children reach school age. There seems no reason why such women should not be allowed to make the same provision as an employer could to set child care costs against tax. I hope that the Minister will consider that ancillary feature of our scheme, which is set out in new clause 6, and will be sympathetic to our case. I see no serious prospect that he will do so at this stage as I do not consider that his last action as Financial Secretary will be to make that major change.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would encourage the Minister to do so. We understand that, when she was disturbed at the weekend, the Prime Minister was writing a major speech on the family, or was planning to do so, at Chequers. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is party to any proposals that the Prime Minister is about to make, and before he moves onwards and upwards he may be able to tell the House that the Government plan not only to talk about these matters, as the Prime Minister often does, but to do something practical to implement policies to encourage that aspect of family economic growth.
      Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend conjures up the slightly frightening prospect that a Government seminar is about to be arranged in which the characteristics of women would be discussed in a misleading and inaccurate way and the contents of which would be leaked.
      I hope that the various moves and discussions within the Government will eventually lead to someone waking up to the fact that workplace nurseries are not a solution and that something along the lines of our suggestion is essential.
      Mr. Paul Boateng: We thank the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for enabling us to discuss such an important topic at this stage. However, he is somewhat optimistic if he believes that the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take into account in his response the new wind which the hon. Gentleman discerns to be blowing through the Conservative party. I doubt that, but I am sure that in the fullness of time there will be a translation in the attitude of the former Financial Secretary. We all congratulate him on his appointment.
      I expect that there will be a transformation in the right hon. Gentleman's approach to this topic as child care not only involves education and welfare, but strikes to the heart of our competitiveness with our European partners. As a nation, we have the worst child care record in Europe. Only 44 per cent. of three to five-year-olds in the United Kingdom receive public pre-school education—the second lowest percentage in the European Community. That is bound to impact on our success in obtaining a skilled work force in terms of the educational advantages to children in receipt of pre-school education, and, more importantly, drawing on the pool of skills that women are able to offer in the economy. It is an economic issue and an equal opportunity issue to which no Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can be blind.
      The Government are in the grip of a dilemma. Some in the Conservative party continue to oppose any measure along these lines because they believe that it would weaken and undermine the family, while others appreciate the needs of the economy and of women to be free to make a contribution to economic growth and to the growth and prosperity of their family if they so please. The two are engaged in an enormous war within the Conservative party. That is why we have seen an almost schizophrenic approach to this issue among Ministers. They change month in and month out. I join the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in celebrating the current approach of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who chairs the ministerial group on women's issues, and his willingness to consider new ideas such as vouchers with a more favourable mind than is normal in the Conservative party, but we cannot forget that only months ago he said in The Guardian:
      "I don't think the state should step in to help the working mother unless her life has collapsed."
      That was what the Minister said then, but what has happened in the interim? One hopes that there has been a new dawn and an awakening, but one doubts it. The Government's attitude to this issue is one of indecision and uncertainty. The Prime Minister may have been poring over her speech on the family while she dithered and vacillated over the future of her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the weekend, but we say that she
      758
      was also dithering and vacillating on child care and equal opportunities for women, and we are not alone in that. The Daily Mail, no less, said of the Government's attitude:
      "The Government takes the view that good old private enterprise needs no prompting. That is the official line. This is dangerously complacent. Our competitors are far better geared to woo the working mother and beat the labour shortage that results from falling birth rates and aging populations. In Europe, there are many more publicly financed nursery places. Here, Margaret Thatcher and her Ministers still dither about how to defuse the demographic time bomb."
      Dithering and vacillation are the hallmarks of the Government. We say that that should end and we look to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his new role, to play a part in bringing it to an end.
      We find the new clause wanting in several respects. We find it technically deficient and therefore are unable to commend it to Labour Members. Nowhere is a definition of the word "care" suggested. We are concerned that it would be so wide as to include schooling and elements of private schools, as, arguably, schools care for their pupils. It makes no attempt to incorporate section 155A(7), which would have prevented that.
      We are concerned that the new clause would allow payments to a wife to look after children at home to be tax deductible. Even if the registration requirements of the new clause were technically effective—we fear that they are not—those requirements apply only where the carer or the premises in which care is provided require registration. That does not apply to parents looking after children at home, which is a major defect.
      We are also concerned about the reference to section 20(1)(4) in new clause 5(4) and new clause 6(2)(b). That does not exist and cannot be satisfied. We must presume that it is a reference to section 155A(4), which is introduced by clause 21, formerly clause 20. The wrong reference invalidates both new clauses.
      The new clauses refer to basic rate tax. We presume that that means income tax at the basic rate, because under the Finance Bill there is no such thing as basic rate tax. There is certainly no basic rate charge tax, as mentioned in new clause 5(2).
      Nor do the clauses make clear the limits of relief. Is it £1,500 per year for all children aged between five and 16 or for each child? Likewise, there are no provisions to deal with abuse of the classes.
      For those technical reasons, we shall be unable to recommend the new clauses as they stand, but we find another cause for concern that goes to the principle of accepting vouchers without taking on board the wider context in which they are introduced.
      Above all, we are concerned that there should be quality provision of child care. We are concerned to ensure that in increasing the supply of child care there is variety. A parent should not be obliged to take second best. Therefore, we envisage a role for the public and private sectors in child care, but a central role for local authorities in maintaining and improving standards and in co-ordinating child provision. As the new clause would expand provision without guaranteeing that it was of sufficient quality, we shall have to oppose it.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the substance of the new clauses, but I am not sure what he is arguing. Is he arguing that the Labour party would accept

      759
      vouchers if they were so controlled by a local authority that it could determine whether the level of provision was suitable, or is he still opposed to vouchers in general?
      Mr. Boateng: We are not opposed to the principle of vouchers; we believe that it needs careful examination. However, we are opposed to giving vouchers priority at a time when we have not created a context in which their introduction can be guaranteed to produce quality provision. When we are dealing with limited resources, we must see how they can best be spent.
      The unit cost of workplace nursery care is relatively high, at some £4,500 per place, compared with £1,350 per unit spent on under-fives in nursery schools, nursery classes and reception classes in primary schools in the public sector. Those figures reflect the cost-effectiveness of child care provision. We are not satisfied that it would be right to forgo the resources that would be the inevitable consequence of a new clause of this nature while there is still so much to be done, not least in improving the training and status of child minders and those who provide nursery care.
      Some 43,000 child care workers are employed on regular contracts in this country, compared with some 125,000 in West Germany and 150,000 in Italy. Child care workers in the United Kingdom are among the worst paid, with nursery workers earning on average some 70 per cent. of the average manual worker's rate. By comparison, West German nursery workers earn up to 170 per cent. of the unskilled rate.
      The figures for child minders also give cause for concern. In the United Kingdom, their average wage is 46 per cent. of the manual worker's rate, whereas in France it is 71 per cent. of the minimum wage plus holiday pay. In Portugal it is 100 per cent. when the child minder is looking after four children, and in Denmark it is 72 per cent. of the unskilled worker's rate, including holiday and pension rights.
      We have a long way to go to improve training and registration, and to give local authorities the means to take the innovative steps that some have been able to take already—even with limited resources—to bring the public and private sectors together to maximise the quality as well as the quantity of child care provision. Labour local authorities have led the way in that regard. Each of the 25 local authorities with the best provision is Labour controlled. That is a credit to Labour's approach to the issue of child care, which is centred on the child and on enabling and empowering parents to participate fully in the workplace and in a growing economy. That will happen when we can harness fully the resources in our country to a common purpose, geared towards maximising the opportunities of all our people to contribute to economic growth.
      If we are to meet the challenges of the 1990s, to compete successfully with our European Common Market partners and to take advantage of the single market in 1992, it is vital that we get this matter right. A survey for the European Commission called "Childcare and equality of opportunity" found that in Britain there were wide differences of quality and quantity in the available provision. That is not compatible with the concept of the single market. As a result of that survey, there was a recommendation that there should be a Community directive to encourage the development of adequate provision.
      760
      Although it presents a principle that is worthy of examination, the new clause does not provide a complete answer, and we cannot support it in the Lobby.
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on his elevation? I am sure that he will do a good job for us, but I suspect, as has been said, that this issue will pursue him to the Department of Trade and Industry, as it is now a major concern for many employers.
      The proposals before us are not at all the answer. They are sweeping, extravagant and, as one would expect from the Liberals, badly drafted. The Opposition think that they are so important that most Opposition Members have gone home. Whatever my right hon. Friend says, I hope that he will not close the door on consideration of this issue at some time in the future.
      There is no doubt that we need more women in the work force in the 1990s. It has been estimated by the Department of Employment that, of the 1 million new jobs likely to be created between now and 1995, about three quarters will have to go to women because of the demographic time bomb. The issue becomes more acute as time goes on, because by 2000, less than a decade from now, about 90 per cent. of all new jobs will have to go to women either those who are not working at all at the moment, or those who are working part-time and who can be encouraged to work full-time and to improve their productivity.
      It helps briefly to set out one or two principles. First, we should not be heading for state-run, state-funded nurseries. That is the way it has been done in the Soviet Union up to now, and it has been a total disaster. We should not propose or contemplate such a system. It is what the Labour party would like and what it often advocates but it would be disastrous.
      We should press employers, including state employers, to carry part of the burden. I share the belief of my right hon. Friend the Minister that, left to itself, the market works very well on such issues. The problem is that the jobs market is often inflationary and simply pushes up pay. One of the most expensive ways to provide child care is to pay employees extra so that they may pay for their own child care. That is inflationary, and would make it much harder for us to reduce inflation to the sort of levels that our international competitors are achieving. We have a supply side rigidity and should be wary of shutting the door on any proposals that might help it.
      Mr. Beith: When the market seeks to address these problems, it has to face the distortions in the system as well. Now, of course, there will be an invitation to workplace nurseries, but it remains the case that, even after all that the Chancellor has done, it would be more tax-efficient to give the woman a car as part of her remuneration, because that is still not fully taxed, than to give her money to pay for child care.
      Mrs. Currie: I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has his beady eyes on our cars as well, and that is probably a good thing. I am generally against giving tax relief on any kind of perk. To me, it has to be argued very hard that the tax relief on some kind of benefit, whether or not one dubs it a perk, is better than simply putting all the tax reliefs in the pool and charging everybody less tax. I

      761
      am, however, bothered by the fact that some of these issues appear to be hampered by what is seen as penal taxation on workplace nurseries, which is covered in the Bill.
      We should remind ourselves of the problems that face single parents. The largest single group of available people who are not working are in that group. There are 1 million single-parent families in Britain, and most, but not all, of them are headed by women. In response to surveys, about 40 per cent. of them have said that, if they could resolve the problem of reliable and affordable child care, they would want to go back to work immediately.
      We know from much research that that is often best for such people and their children. At the moment, if they go for training on the employment training scheme, they get £50 a week per child for child care, but there is little help when they seek a job. That results in a waste of public money. If we could get 250,000 of those single parents back into work, even low-paid work, then, according to calculations made for me by the Library, we could expect to save at least £1 billion a year net. That is also a good Tory principle.
      The Bill contains changes that will affect workplace nurseries. Many people who have used such nurseries would agree that it is the most expensive way to provide child care and the least flexible. The family have a real problem when the children reach school age. It is all very well for small babies, but what happens when the child reaches the age of five? What do the parents do after school and during holidays? If we are effectively to press employers, we must press them to take much more flexible approaches to these issues. These sometimes include part-time work, as well as the provision of child care.
      It seems that there is no evidence yet that the tax disadvantages of vouchers are a deterrent to their use. We are talking about something which is quite new; many of the concepts have not been fully argued. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Treasury and in the Departments of Employment and of Trade and Industry will keep a wary eye on the issue and, if they feel that it is necessary in future, will come forward with their own proposals.
      Ms. Hilary Armstrong: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for giving us the opportunity to discuss child care. I am sure that he will forgive me for saying—I do so in the friendliest of spirits—that it was easy for him to introduce the clause because he was not concerned with the problems of priorities that an incoming Government would face. It is priorities that bear upon our position on the clause. The Opposition have had to consider carefully as the next Government where we would place available moneys to ensure that we achieve the objective of increasing the number of places available while not sacrificing quality. Our thinking and proposals are based on that important first principle.
      In a sense, there is a temptation to support the clause on the basis that anything is better than nothing. The Government are offering virtually no strategy for improving opportunities for women or children through a better structure and system of child care. An incoming Government must think beyond the view that anything is better than nothing, and we want to secure the best. Our policy, therefore, is based on getting the best.
      762
      It is interesting that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has moved to the Department of Trade and Industry. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has said, he will come across similar problems in the DTI. I recommend him to examine some of the partnership schemes that Labour local authorities and other parts of the public sector are developing with the private sector, with the support of the DTI. I am hesitant to recommend the right hon. Gentleman to take that course, however, because his reputation goes before him. If I mention good schemes that are providing more opportunities for child care, I am concerned that he will wish to stamp on them when he fully takes up his post as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I hope only that I am being over-cynical.
      I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the scheme that is operating in north Tyneside. His new Department has made a significant contribution to the partnership that has developed, which is attracting finance from the private sector in a way which gives control and support for the best quality of opportunity and the widest choice of child care, from child minders to child minders in children's own homes, who elsewhere in the country might be called nannies. Care extends from full-day nursery provision to out-of-school and holiday care for children over five years of age.
      That is precisely the sort of scheme that we in the Labour party want to support. We want to encourage partnership between the voluntary and private sectors and the public sector of the sort that removes from the employer the burden of deciding what is good child care. Most employers are honest and open enough to say that it is not their job to decide what is good child care. They say that they are experts in finance and money-making, not in child care. They argue that they must concentrate on the success of their businesses. They welcome the opportunity of being in partnership with the public sector. I know that the next Labour Government will be examining ways in which they can encourage the sort of partnership that will make available additional places and ensure that they are of the highest quality.
      Even though the Government do not want to do so, they have been obliged to deal with the problem. They read the polls. They saw in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago that 87 per cent. of the people surveyed want more money to be devoted to child care so that women could go out to work. They also saw that 88 per cent. of the people surveyed want more money to be provided for nursery education.
      The poverty of the Government's argument is there for all to see. Therefore, they are thrashing around. That is why they made their minimum concession on the workplace nurseries tax. It was not because the Government had worked out a strategy and that the concession was part of it; they did it because they were under pressure. That is the very worst sort of government. If we went down that road, which is what the new clause asks us to do, we should avoid the main question: how is the country to face up to its responsibilities both to children and women, and to ensure that opportunities are provided for them that at least bring us into line with our European competitors?
      9.15 pm
      This is a painful issue for the Government, but the European child care network has provided us with a framework. It says that it is the responsibility of national Governments to set the pace and the parameters and to provide a framework within which various opportunities can be encouraged. However, the Government say that that is nonsense and that we want to force women and children into a particular sort of care. The Government consistently confuse diversity with choice. Of course there is diversity of provision, but much of it is the result of the lack of basic facilities.
      We want parents to be able to choose nursery education for their children, but if only certain parts of the country are able to provide it that is diversity, not choice. We believe that parents throughout the country should be able to decide what kind of care and education they want for their children. In each area, therefore, we shall develop a pattern of care. We shall hold discussions about it with local education authorities, social services departments and parents. We also want to involve industry and the voluntary sector in our plans.
      Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. After a lot of waffle, she is now getting to the meat of the subject. Who is going to pay for all this?
      Ms. Armstrong: I have already made it clear that it will be paid for by means of a combination of both public and voluntary sector funding. The public sector will set the pace, but it will attract money and support from the private and voluntary sector. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has spoken to representatives of industry, but I have spoken to representatives of a number of major industries. This morning, I had discussions with representatives of a number of them, who said to me, "We wish you would impose an employers' levy and make it really easy for us." We do not intend to do that, but three large industrial employers said that to me.
      The Government have shown a lack of will to forge partnerships and opportunities. They cannot make up their mind what they mean by the family or by providing opportunities for children. They are not really sure that they want. to provide women with any opportunities. We have, therefore, ended up with chaos, which is described as diversity. It means that our children will lose out. Instead of giving small concessions, the Government should begin to think seriously about what they intend to do to ensure that this country can move towards 1992. They must be committed to providing opportunities for women and children.
      Mr. Lilley: There have been some astonishing appointments in recent days. I thought that my own was the most surprising until I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) reappointed to the Whips Bench. I then realised that there was no limit to it.
      As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary told the Committee of the whole House, the relief for workplace nurseries, which we introduced in the Budget, is a closely focused relief. It is designed to remove a perceived obstacle to the establishment of workplace nurseries and it should, thereby, increase the supply of such places. It is designed to put the tax treatment of workplace nurseries roughly on
      764
      a par with taxation on other workplace benefits in kind. Therefore, it is a minor simplification and deregulation measure.
      It is always difficult to draw the borderlines of tax relief, but I am convinced that, in general, they should be drawn as tightly and narrowly as possible. I agree with the general sentiments expressed in that respect by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
      The relief that we introduced is not intended as a step towards the introduction of a general child care allowance, which would be hugely expensive. The Opposition have agreed, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is on record as saying, that that would not be a priority use of scarce Exchequer resources for them any more than for us.
      The two new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) concentrate on extending relief to vouchers. That would be expensive as people latched on to it as they have to similar benefits in kind. It would be essentially unfair because it would give relief to those who receive vouchers while others who received cash or spent their own cash on the same facilities would not receive relief. It would be impossible to limit it to vouchers in the way the clause suggests.
      Mr. Beith: The Minister can hardly level the charge that the relief would be unfair when it is the same for workplace nurseries. That is a tax relief available only to those able to make use of a workplace nursery.
      Mr. Lilley: It is simply a supply-side measure. It is not meant to be a relief for child care as such. It is designed to remove an obstacle to the provision of such facilities and allow greater supply.
      Extending relief to vouchers would be perceived as unfair and would inevitably be extended to wider groups. It would also be open to abuse. People would be able to use vouchers as a form of near cash. They would be able to use them to employ members of the family who were perhaps already helping to look after the children from time to time. Therefore, there would be a tendency to use such vouchers to the maximum extent available in order to obtain the maximum tax relief. That is not desirable.
      The new clause dealing with provision for the self-employed is even less tightly focused. In fact, it is open ended and goes way beyond vouchers. It would give tax relief to wives of self-employed people looking after their own children at home or even elsewhere, as I understand the clause. Once such relief had been created for the self-employed, it would be impossible not to extend it to the employed. Therefore, I do not understand why the proposal in the new clause applies simply to the self-employed. I do not think that any responsible party could seriously envisage the massive use of fiscal resources suggested in the two new clauses. Naturally, I shall urge the House to vote against them.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that he had read an article that stated that a ministerial group had endorsed his proposal. I urge him not to believe everything that he has read in the newspapers. I learned that lesson over the weekend, although I am not complaining, because many of the grossest inaccuracies in the newspapers were flattering. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government, as a matter of policy, must encourage women to go out to work rather than stay at home and look after their children. We have always made

      765
      it clear that that is a sensitive and important decision that parents should make, and it is not for the Government to try to bias it one way or the other through the fiscal system.
      The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, rightly, that one should not be profligate in the use of fiscal resources, but he implicitly proposed an expensive public expenditure programme of improved pay for child minders, an increased number of child minders and increased subsidy for child minding. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman said that it was not implicit but explicit, he should be a little—
      Mr. Boateng: It was neither implicit nor explicit.
      Mr. Lilley: That was certainly the logical concomitant of what the hon. Gentleman said.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South asked what provision the Government thought appropriate for school-age children. Our relief for workplace nurseries applies to workplace nurseries available to school-age children—implicitly, during the holidays. That is catered for in our relief as it stands.
      The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) left the House bemused as to how she saw her gigantic programme of improved provision being financed. She said that she had met a number of industrialists who thought that there should be a compulsory levy to finance it. That is another way of saying that they would not pay for it unless they were forced to do so. At least they recognise that it would have to be paid for—which, apparently, the hon. Lady did not. I agree, however, that the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed should be rejected, and I hope that the House will do so.
      Mrs. Currie: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that child care vouchers are exempt from class 1 national insurance contributions? If the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and her colleagues get into power, they would make them subject to national insurance contributions, which would cost everyone much more.
      Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. That is an added reason why it is inexplicable that the Liberal Democrats should propose increased tax relief for the one form of provision for child care which—not intentionally, but simply because of the nature of the collection and tax treatment of vouchers generally—already has a measure of relief from a fiscal imposition.
      Mr. Beith: That is an odd argument for the Minister to deploy. No doubt, some day he will give us the benefit of his reasoning for the preservation of the separate category of national insurance and income tax. I suspect that, after he has left the Treasury, it will not be long—not because of his departure—before that curious feature of our tax system is removed and we get away from pretending that something that is not dealt with in Finance Bills and can be increased by statutory instrument is, in some way, not a tax. We know perfectly well that national insurance contributions represent a form of income tax.
      We have been treated to one side of the argument that appears to be going on in the Government. It may be that the Minister is preserving an air of total innocence at the machinations that are occurring in his party at the
      766
      moment, but he cannot be unaware that this is an issue of serious debate within his party—let alone more widely—and that the principle whereby employer-funded vouchers obtain tax relief has attracted wide support across the political spectrum. Although we have not tonight heard a voice from the Labour Benches in favour of that principle, some members of the parliamentary Labour party are more sympathetic to it than hon. Members who have spoken. Vouchers are one way to attract into child care provision funds from employers which are not taxed at the hand of the employee. That is a reasonably cost-effective way to encourage the provision of child care.
      9.30 pm
      I can understand the position of the purist, who says that there should be no tax allowances of any kind for this purpose, and that workplace nursery tax relief is equally inappropriate. I cannot, however, accept the Minister's curious distinction between what he regards as well-focused tax relief for workplace nurseries and the rest. Tax relief on workplace nurseries is not especially well focused—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) knows that—and will go only to the small number of industries in which it is convenient to provide a workplace nursery, and in which employers have made that level of investment in child care.
      The Minister might more honestly have said that such tax relief is relatively cheap because there are not many workplace nurseries and there are not going to be many more. He cannot honestly say that he has focused resources on the most effective and efficient way to support child care. The voucher system is a more attractive route.
      I listened to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) with some care. She is clearly anxious for improvements to be made in child care, and has devoted a considerable amount of time and attention to the matter. At the end of her remarks I still could not reach a conclusion as to how she was going to achieve her objective. If, as she argues, the resources cannot be found for tax relief on vouchers paid for by employers for child care, how on earth does the Labour party believe that it can find the far greater resources needed to fund child care directly—or even half-fund it, on the basis of some sort of 50:50 partnership scheme with large numbers of employers? How could Labour hope to do that within anything like the time scale that we are talking about, when the pressure for women to return to work will be greatest?
      It does not seem to me that the hon. Lady can envisage that the resources will become available—many times more resources than for the type of scheme that I am talking about—to effect the sort of Rolls-Royce improvements that she wants to bring about. Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. We should all like to have perfect child care, ideal partnership arrangements and the best possible funding, but that will not be in place in time to meet the needs of many women who are now looking for child care or to meet the labour market needs that I mentioned.
      Ms. Armstrong: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am arguing that quality should not be reduced. We cannot win the argument for opening up opportunities for women at the expense of quality of opportunity for the child. In five or 10 years' time that

      767
      would cost us financially and in many other ways. I said that we wanted to increase the number of places, but not at the expense of quality.
      Mr. Beith: In that case the hon. Lady should not be supporting tax relief for workplace nurseries, because that can encompass a wide range of quality.
      Ms. Armstrong: Registration.
      Mr. Beith: If she is saying that registration is the key, that is an element in my new clause. I have sought to ensure that only registered child care would qualify for tax relief. That is a limited kind of registration.
      I am bound to conclude that the hon. Lady is arguing for something that cannot be achieved in the time scale of the problem that we are discussing, or in the time which matters to the large number of women who are now concerned with child care. Frankly, they will be looking forward to seeing their grandchildren by the time that we get the scheme that the hon. Lady is talking about.
      Ms. Armstrong: We know how to do it, and we know that it is possible. I have studied the problem and discussed it at great length with people in the European child care network. Other European countries have done it, because they have had a framework and they have built on the commitment and the will that exists. I know that we can do it in this country. In Spain, 13 years ago they had nothing. Now 66 per cent. of their three and four-year-olds are in full-time education and care. If Spain can do it, we can do it, by galvanising all the available resources.
      Mr. Beith: I still think that it is a case of "Jam tomorrow, the day after or possibly the day after that." I believe that more resources will be directed more quickly into child care by the introduction of a voucher scheme. The Minister cannot turn away from that for much longer. He will still be concerned with the issue in his new Department. This is the ideal opportunity. He can be demob happy as the outgoing Financial Secretary. All the Whips are away at a party—that is why the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is sitting in the Whip's place on the Treasury Bench. As the right hon. Gentleman's appointment is now fully confirmed and there is no risk that it will be snatched from his grasp, what better chance to kick over the traces and to respond to a feeling that is present in his party, as well as in ours, and to open the way to a voucher system, in which the funds available from employers would be brought into child care without the intervention of the taxman at the point that the provision reaches the pay packet of the employee?
      As the Minister has not shown any willingness to do that voluntarily, I propose to invite him—to drag him— into the Division Lobbies in support of the new clause.
      Mr. Boateng rose—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken once. Does he have the leave of the House to speak again?
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Speaker: Well, I am sorry, but I must now put the Question.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 179

      Division No. 293]

      [8.22 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Allen, Graham

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Anderson, Donald

      Boateng, Paul

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Boyes, Roland

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bradley, Keith

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Buckley, George J.

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Caborn, Richard

      Barren, Kevin

      Callaghan, Jim

      Beckett, Margaret

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Beith, A. J.

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Canavan, Dennis

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

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      751

      Carr, Michael

      Litherland, Robert

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McAllion, John

      Clay, Bob

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clelland, David

      McCartney, Ian

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cohen, Harry

      McFall, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McKelvey, William

      Corbett, Robin

      McLeish, Henry

      Cousins, Jim

      Maclennan, Robert

      Crowther, Stan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      McWilliam, John

      Cummings, John

      Madden, Max

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morley, Elliot

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Faulds, Andrew

      Murphy, Paul

      Fearn, Ronald

      Nellist, Dave

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      O'Brien, William

      Fisher, Mark

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Flannery, Martin

      Parry, Robert

      Flynn, Paul

      Patchett, Terry

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Pendry, Tom

      Foster, Derek

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foulkes, George

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fraser, John

      Prescott, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Galloway, George

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Radice, Giles

      George, Bruce

      Randall, Stuart

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Redmond, Martin

      Gordon, Mildred

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Gould, Bryan

      Reid, Dr John

      Graham, Thomas

      Richardson, Jo

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Rogers, Allan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hardy, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Henderson, Doug

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Home Robertson, John

      Short, Clare

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Sillars, Jim

      Howells, Geraint

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Illsley, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Janner, Greville

      Stott, Roger

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Strang, Gavin

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Straw, Jack

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Lambie, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Lamond, James

      Wallace, James

      Leighton, Ron

      Walley, Joan

      Lewis, Terry

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      752

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Winnick, David

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Wilson, Brian

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Favell, Tony

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Allason, Rupert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Amess, David

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Amos, Alan

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Ashby, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Atkins, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Atkinson, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bellingham, Henry

      Franks, Cecil

      Bendall, Vivian

      Freeman, Roger

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      French, Douglas

      Benyon, W.

      Fry, Peter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gardiner, George

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boswell, Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gow, Ian

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gregory, Conal

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Grist, Ian

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

      Ground, Patrick

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Grylls, Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hague, William

      Burns, Simon

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butcher, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butler, Chris

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hannam, John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Harris, David

      Cash, William

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayes, Jerry

      Chope, Christopher

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Colvin, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Conway, Derek

      Hind, Kenneth

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Curry, David

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

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

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Irvine, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jack, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Jackson, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Janman, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dover, Den

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dunn, Bob

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Durant, Tony

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Eggar, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Kilfedder, James

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Evennett, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Fallon, Michael

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      753

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Sims, Roger

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Speller, Tony

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mans, Keith

      Squire, Robin

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Steen, Anthony

      Mills, Iain

      Stern, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moate, Roger

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Sumberg, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Summerson, Hugo

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mudd, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Neubert, Michael

      Thorne, Neil

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thurnham, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Tracey, Richard

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trimble, David

      Page, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Paice, James

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Walden, George

      Patnick, Irvine

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Waller, Gary

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Ward, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pawsey, James

      Warren, Kenneth

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Watts, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wells, Bowen

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Price, Sir David

      Whitney, Ray

      Raffan, Keith

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Redwood, John

      Wilshire, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wolfson, Mark

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Yeo, Tim

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rost, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Ryder, Richard

      Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Division No. 294]

      [9.36 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Livsey, Richard

      Beith, A. J.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cohen, Harry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Cryer, Bob

      Wallace, James

      Fearn, Ronald

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Alex Carlile and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. Simon Hughes.

      Lambie, David

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 8

      BUSINESS PROPERTY RELIEF 100 PER CENT.
      'Section 104 of the Inheritance Act 1984 shall be amended by deleting the sub-paragraphs numbered (a) and (b) and by substituting therefor the words "by one hundred per cent.".'. —[Mr. William Powell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. William Powell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 8 concerns the relief that I claim should be given against inheritance tax in respect of shares in long-term unquoted, usually family, businesses. I act as an adviser to the Unquoted Companies Group, and the debate is essentially about the taxation of the shares in unquoted companies. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members below the Gangway should either come into the Chamber or hold their conversations outside.
      Mr. Powell: I pay tribute to the Government for the relief that they have given during the past decade to unquoted companies. There has been a significant reduction in the burden of taxation, especially as it applies to the bottom of the scale. However, when a company's assets are worth £250,000 or more, there is little reduction, if any, in its compulsory tax burden.
      New clause 8 concerns the taxation of business assets. I do not propose to talk about agricultural assets, although I concede that the same principle of the new clause might be expected to apply. If the principle of the new clause is accepted, it will be necessary to extend it to agricultural assets.
      Long-term, unquoted family businesses have an important part to play in the British economy. They already play a major role, and should be encouraged to continue to do so. Unquoted companies fall into two categories. One comprises unquoted companies whose prevailing ambition is to become quoted. I am talking not about those companies, or those that intend to move to a quotation on the stock exchange as soon as it is convenient and expedient to do so, but about companies which do not
      770
      intend to do that. The present tax system encourages them to go to the market for a quotation rather than remain long-term family businesses.
      Many such businesses have existed for generations. Hon. Members will be aware of family companies that have existed for six or more generations. All those companies face a threat because of the burden imposed by inheritance tax. It is a substantial burden for medium sized companies. The inheritance tax can usually only be paid out of the active assets of a particular company as the main assets of the taxpayer are the shares in that unquoted company. To meet the inheritance tax bill it is therefore necessary to sell those shares, and that usually means selling them to a quoted company. The larger the company, the more certain it is that it will be taken over by a quoted company. That is not necessarily of benefit to anyone.
      Unquoted companies have a strong presence in our regions, but quoted companies have not and, unlike unquoted companies, many have metropolitan headquarters. Unquoted companies are not looking all the time for the latest valuation of their shares and their managers are managing not in the interests of that valuation, but in the long-term interests of that company.
      There is substantial evidence to suggest that the inheritance tax acts as a deterrent to the growth of unquoted companies. I know of several companies that have deliberately restricted their activities because, were they to grow further, they would be unable to fund any potential inheritance tax bill without selling company shares. Those companies would pass out of family control into the quoted sector, usually to a rival, and, in all likelihood, would be closed in due course. That has happened over and over again in the past 20 years.
      The Government have been extremely successful in stimulating new businesses—scheme after scheme has enabled new companies to develop. Those new family businesses, however, will last one generation only unless something can be done to mitigate the potential tax burden posed by the inheritance tax.
      It is important to stress that long-term family businesses must select who is to take over within their group. It is possible to make a lifetime gift of assets and, if that has been in existence for seven years, those assets are exempt from the payment of tax. To allow a tax law that involves such a lottery to govern the management of a corporate business is extremely misguided. The suitable person to inherit the assets is not necessarily known until comparatively late in the life of the existing owner of the shares. He or she may die within the seven years and then the tax liability is due.
      The disposal of a company is different from the disposal of a picture or other inheritance, and that is why it is wrong that the selection of a suitable heir should depend upon the whim of whether someone lives for seven years or more. That is not a suitable way to reach such decisions. I understand from discussions that we have had on the Finance Bill—parliamentary questions do not seem to have changed this—that, if the new clause were accepted, the annual cost would be about £20 million a year. I see that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary agrees. Therefore, it is not the case that huge sums of taxpayers' money would not accrue to the Exchequer if the new clause were passed. But, if it were passed, the prospects of more long-term family businesses growing to their full maturity

      771
      and yielding much greater sums than £20 million to the Exchequer, in corporation tax and so on, would be substantial.
      We are in danger of seeing, yet again, the growth of companies, but of that danger being restricted because the companies are restricted to one generation. We should not allow that. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that the time has come for the Government to look afresh at the matter and to bring forward proposals, if they do not like mine, to enable that threat to the existence of such companies to be removed.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has not made a persuasive case. The Register of Members' Interests states that he is employed as an adviser to the Unquoted Companies Group, which I suppose includes companies that would benefit from the handout of £20 million—the figure that is universally accepted as the sum asked for in new clause 8. If the Treasury has £20 million to give away, is that the most appropriate way to do it? Are there not more deserving causes that should come first? That is a reasonable question for the House to ask and the answer from the Opposition is yes; I suspect that the Economic Secretary's answer would also be yes. I do not recommend the new clause to my hon. Friends.
      The hon. Member for Corby mentioned the period of seven years but once, and it may not be precisely clear that that period is significant. Therefore, it may be helpful if I spell out exactly what his proposal would entail. At present, inheritance tax is not payable when a business is transferred, whether by way of a gift of business assets or shares in the company that owns the business, if the transfer survives seven years.
      The new clause addresses the issue of the seven-year period because for transfers on death or where the transfer does not survive seven years, inheritance tax is chargeable at 40 per cent. on the value transferred, subject to relief under section 104 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. That relief is a reduction in the value taxed at 50 per cent. or 30 per cent., depending on the amounts, thus reducing the effective rate of inheritance tax to 20 or 28 per cent. The amendment proposes to make that reduction 100 per cent. and so stop inheritance tax being charged on any transfer of businesses. That is an extensive and radical proposal, and certainly not one I could recommend to my hon. Friends.
      The Economic Secretary has no doubt picked up a further point. The new clause talks about the "Inheritance Act 1984", but what is being addressed is the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, a different piece of legislation not specified in the new clause. Therefore, the new clause is technically defective, but that is not the reason to oppose it. We oppose it because it is wrong.
      Sir William Clark: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). There is no question but that the Government have done quite a lot for unquoted companies. It was quite churlish of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) to refer to my hon. Friend's consultancy in such a sneering way.
      Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of sneering. I was doing nothing of the sort. I referred to the consultancy simply to put it on record. If I had an interest, I would put it on record and I suggest that Conservative Members do the same. We have already had rows across
      772
      the Floor of the House about this very matter. It is not a matter for sneering; it is a question of the accuracy of the record to ensure that people who read the record and follow our debates on television, on the radio and in newspapers know precisely the full extent of Members' interests.
      10 pm
      Sir William Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Corby was talking about the entrepreneurial expertise that exists in Britain and the number of small businesses that have grown up over the years. The Morris motor company at Nuffield was built up into a tremendously large business. I am not so sure whether that would have happened had there been inheritance tax then. Obviously, under no circumstances could the new clause be accepted this year, but the Government have a good record in cancelling taxation that was introduced by Labour Governments, such as the selective employment tax and development land tax. We have done a tremendous amount to build up small businesses under the business expansion scheme and so on. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby that those running family businesses are afraid of expansion, because if the value of the business increased and someone died, it would attract inheritance tax. Whether it is discounted at 30 per cent. is immaterial, but it could lead to the curtailment of profit for some of those companies.
      Although the cost of abolishing the tax is somewhere in the region of £20 million, I am convinced that if many of those companies were allowed to expand without the fear of inheritance tax hanging over them, the corporation tax take by the Inland Revenue would probably exceed £20 million.
      Obviously, my hon. Friend's new clause cannot be accepted this year, but the Government should consider it sympathetically as in future we will have to do something about inheritance tax involving such companies and generally as it is acting against the production of wealth in Britain.
      Mr. Ryder: At the beginning of this short debate there was a great deal of noise at the Bar of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) declared his interest as a representative of the Unquoted Companies Group, but it was difficult to hear him, because of the noise.
      I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does for the UCG. I recall a most useful meeting a few months ago with the UCG to discuss a range of issues. As my hon. Friend and the House know, we all want to encourage people of enterprise to set up businesses, but we have never accepted that, simply because the property of an estate is held in the form of business assets, it should escape tax altogether. That would be going to the other extreme.
      There can be a particular problem involving tax on businesses. A taxable estate that includes business assets might not have sufficient liquid resources available to meet the tax. Special rules of business property relief and the similar ones to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby alluded which apply to agricultural property recognise that. The purpose of business property relief is to ensure that if such circumstances were to arise, the tax bill could be paid without damaging the existence or development of that particular business. It is not intended to give a privileged exemption.

      773
      I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) about the vital contribution that family businesses make to the economy. I am conscious of the need to prevent the tax from restricting their ability to survive and flourish, but the wider question is whether we are doing enough for businesses. When the relief was first introduced under capital transfer tax it was limited to interests in unincorporated businesses and controlling shareholdings and assets used in but held outside businesses. Since then, the relief has been improved more than once. In 1978, the rate was increased from 30 to 50 per cent. and a new lower rate of 20 per cent. was introduced for minority shareholdings in unquoted companies. In 1983, that was raised to 30 per cent., since when the relief has continued to apply at two rates. In 1987, the higher rate was extended to minority unquoted holdings of more than 25 per cent.
      In addition to the improvements to business relief, since 1979 we have done much to improve the tax charge on the business sector more generally—that point was acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South—by specific measures and more general reductions in the level of the charge. In particular, the abolition in 1986 of the lifetime charge on gifts between individuals and in 1987 on those into interest in possession trusts meant that owners of family businesses could hand over their businesses to the next generation without an immediate charge to inheritance tax. Where those owners survive seven years, there is no death charge on gifts.
      That change has been generally welcomed by business men for the freedom and flexibility that it provides. The abolition of the lifetime charge reduced another tax constraint on wealth creation and encourages owners of productive assets to pass them to younger hands rather than to hold on to them into old age. The Government's intention is to encourage that lifetime giving of business assets. The new clause would remove the incentive in the present system because it would give double the present relief for assets held until death.
      In 1988, we replaced the four rates for inheritance tax with a single rate of 40 per cent. Therefore, where inheritance tax becomes payable on family businesses, the effective rate will never be more than 28 per cent., even for a tiny holding in an unquoted company. For most family businesses, the effective rate will not be higher than 20 per cent., and those effective rates are among the lowest of our trading partners.
      It is important to maintain a balance between the tax burden on people whose possessions consist of business assets and those who have other property. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby knows, these matters are kept under constant review. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South asked us to ensure that they are reviewed for next year's Finance Bill. I give them both an undertaking that we shall consider what they have said when we prepare next year's Bill.
      Mr. William Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for that undertaking and for the way in which he set out the substantial improvements that have been made in the taxation of assets in the past decade.
      774
      The short debate has been extremely useful. When the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) reads the record tomorrow, he will see that from the outset I declared my interest in this matter. The hon. Gentleman's speech will be widely scrutinised because the Labour party is trying to pretend that it has changed and that it is not the Labour party of high taxation and destruction of business that it used to be. Hundreds of thousands of unquoted family businesses will read his remarks and realise that little has changed. They will deplore the line that he chose to take in the debate.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Let me make two points. First, if I missed the declaration of interest by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) at the beginning of his speech, I apologise to him. As was pointed out by the Economic Secretary, there was a lot of noise at the Bar of the House. I shall check Hansard tomorrow—as, no doubt, will the hon. Gentleman—but if I missed what he said I unreservedly apologise to him. My hon. Friends and I believe that it is right for matters to be spelt out and placed on the record in a way that did not always happen when the Bill was in Committee.
      Secondly, if the hon. Member for Corby thinks that he can go around the country attacking the Labour party for opposing the concession that he seeks from the House, he will have to explain why the Government will not give him the concession either.
      Mr. Powell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point: interests should always be declared. It has always been—and will continue to be—my unvarying practice to declare my interest, and the record will show that I did so in my opening remarks. As for the attitude of the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman will have to stand by what he said, which will be greeted with dismay by the owners of unquoted family businesses who were hoping for a more enlightened attitude from the official Opposition.
      I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) for his support. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said, matters must remain open, and he and Treasury Ministers must expect to receive continuing representations. Although the burden of taxation has been reduced, it still represents a long-term continuing threat to what is a necessary and important part of economic life in this country.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 13

      AMATEUR SPORT (RELIEF)
      'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 505 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, a non-profit making body, club or institution which has as its principal purpose the promotion, encouragement or provision of facilities for amateur sport shall be eligible for relief under that section, and consequent classification as a recognised body for the purposes of Part I of that Act.'.—[Mr. Menzies Campbell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is yet another attempt by hon. Members who have an interest in amateur sport to bring about a

      775
      recognition of amateur sport that would have the effect of admitting it to the kind of tax position that charitable activities now enjoy.
      Two years ago, when an earlier Finance Bill was on Report, we had a most constructive and interesting debate in which a number of former Ministers for Sport took part. Considerable sympathy was evinced by Treasury Ministers towards the proposition then before the House. If my recollection is correct, an undertaking was given that it would be further considered. The First Scottish Standing Committee recently considered the matter, and I observe from the report of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill that it was ventilated there as well. However, in spite of those opportunities and promises of consideration and the sympathy given to the idea, so far it does not appear to have recommended itself to the Government. Certainly they have made no move to make it law.
      I should declare an interest: I am a governor of the Scottish Sports Aid Foundation and a trustee of the Scottish Sports Aid Trust. If what the new clause proposes were to pass into law, I would derive no financial benefit, but my fellow trustees and I would be in a position to give additional assistance beyond that which we now can give to promising sportsmen and sportswomen in Scotland.
      I move the clause with a sense of responsibility and, to some extent, privilege. If I, with others, were successful in persuading the Government to accept the clause, I would regard it as some recompense for the great contribution that sport has made to my life. It has been of great importance to me throughout my life: it has given me great pleasure and continues to do so, although these days it is the somewhat more passive pleasure of observing Mr. David Sole and his 14 Scottish companions winning the grand slam with a display of character and robustness that many people in Scotland felt was a proper reflection of the Scottish character. Mr. Sole and his friends were invited to a number of receptions, such as those at No. 10 Downing street and Edinburgh castle, and they were feted for their great achievement. However, I suspect that they would regard the passing into law of my proposal as a far greater recognition of their efforts than all the receptions and parties to which they were invited.
      Many sports clubs, institutions and associations make a truly valuable contribution to the well-being of the community. They provide opportunities for the young, the middle-aged and the not-so-young to participate in sport, to remain healthy and to have a competitive interest. Nothing could be more in the interests of the community than that such clubs should continue. However, they are not yet eligible for the relief which recognition by the Revenue would afford them. For some such clubs the sums are extremely small in real terms, but in the budgets of the clubs and institutions they are sometimes of great significance.
      I have concentrated on local sports clubs because they are the backbone of amateur sport in Britain. Following disputes in education, the need for local sports clubs has perhaps never been as acute as it is now. For reasons which we need not dwell upon, many schoolteachers now find themselves unable or unwilling to make the commitment and give the time that they previously felt able to give. Consequently, the responsibility for the introduction of young people to a whole range of sports which was previously in part shared by schools and teachers now rests to a far greater extent on the voluntary effort of local amateur sports clubs.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Beith: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will commend those schoolteachers who are still giving up their time voluntarily and beyond the call of duty to maintain school sports, not least those who assisted my son and his under-14 team to win today the county cricket championship for his age group.
      Mr. Campbell: I have no doubt that that intervention will be reported in some local newspapers. I have the honour to be the honorary president of the Scottish Schools Athletics Association and know well the contribution that many schoolteachers continue to make to school sports. I fully recognise the force of my hon. Friend's intervention.
      Many of the clubs that I have mentioned struggle to exist. Often they remain in existence only because of the efforts of two or three dedicated people who sometimes work more hours for nothing on behalf of their local club as treasurer, secretary or fixtures secretary than they work in their everyday jobs. The case for sport enjoying charitable status is overwhelming. The new clause seeks to recognise contribution and voluntary effort. It seeks to make that effort yet more effective and to remove from those clubs the responsibility of paying tax.
      The voluntary work and effort that goes into these clubs helps to relieve the financial burden that might otherwise fall on local authorities. It would be right for the House to do more to help those who help themselves to run sporting organisations. If accepted, the clause would make a substantial contribution in that direction. The clause covers the whole of the United Kingdom and would be confined to clubs, bodies or institutions whose principal purpose was the encouragement of the provision of amateur sport. Therefore, it could not be abused.
      The clause makes clear the terms on which a club or institution would be eligible for recognition. It would not follow automatically that it would be recognised. It does not make relief compulsory. The Revenue would have to be satisfied that the club or institution was entitled to the relief that it sought. The Revenue would have the right to determine whether the proposal was being abused.
      Estimates of the cost of the measure vary from £10 million to as much as £50 million. The proper approach to the matter is to say that, whatever the amount, if such relief were to be granted, it would constitute a substantial investment in amateur sport. Whatever the amount of the investment, the dividends realised would be a most generous return and a recognition of the efforts of many voluntary unpaid officials. It would be an expression of the extent to which the importance of sport is acknowledged by the community.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I am following closely the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman and I am not unsympathetic to it. He will know that many sporting clubs—for example, cricket clubs—have social facilities, including bars, which generate a good income. Would there be a distinction between a genuine sporting club that did not have that source of income and the fairly well-placed clubs, financially, with social facilities, including bars, which do not really need the relief that the hon. and learned Gentleman is advocating?
      Mr. Campbell: The principal purpose of the club under the new clause would have to be the "promotion" and

      777
      "encouragement … of amateur sport". If there were any suggestion that that was not its principal purpose, the club would not be entitled to relief.
      There is some uncertainty about the income that is derived from bars. There is the view that if the purchase of drink in a bar is confined to the members of the club, it cannot be said, under the mutual trading rules, that the members are making a profit out of themselves. The issue of whether clubs with bars would fall under the provisions which the clause embraces would depend on the extent to which the principal activity of the club was the provision of facilities for the "encouragement … of amateur sport" and whether the social facilities, including the bar facilities, were conducted for the benefit of members and not for another purpose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard that as a sufficient answer to his question.
      Mr. John Carlisle: I take up the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and refer the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) to his remarks about David Sole, of the Scottish rugby team, and the position of amateur rugby clubs and many so-called amateur soccer sides. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the new clause may fall foul of his strictures? It can be proved in so many instances in amateur sport, and especially in rugby, that players receive some form of payment. In Wales, in colloquial terms, there is boot money. Professional coaches have been appointed by so-called amateur rugby clubs. I am sympathetic to the aims of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I feel that he could run into trouble by taking a broad brush to amateur sport and including rugby, which he and I and the rest of the House know is not an entirely amateur sport.
      Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carry his sympathy in a concrete fashion and will support me if there is a Division on the new clause.
      To the best of my knowledge, Mr. David Sole and his colleagues are not professional. As I understand it, they are not in receipt of any funds for their international participation. I know of no rugby football club in Scotland, or anywhere else, that does not have a continuing problem of balancing the books at the end of any year. Had the hon. Gentleman paid his usual diligent attention to the proceedings of the First Scottish Standing Committee, he would be aware of the observations of a former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has an intimate knowledge of rugby football, not least because he is a former president of the Scottish Rugby Union. The hon. Member for Dumfries explained just how considerable are the financial obligations of many clubs, especially rugby clubs.
      The issues are well known to the House. For my purposes, they have been sufficiently well canvassed. I beg leave to have a certain amount of optimism that we shall receive something rather more than sympathy from those on the Treasury Bench and a signal that there is an appreciation of how important the issue is and how important it would be to many amateur sports clubs throughout the country if the new clause were agreed to.
      Mr. John Carlisle: I hesitate to intervene, but I wish to take up the point that has just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). The
      778
      answer that he gave me a few moments ago did not cover English and Welsh rugby. He paraded his clause as though it applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, as does the Finance Bill, but he concentrated on Scottish rugby. Both the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) have consistently argued that it does not receive the type of payments that I described earlier. Therefore, his clause is flawed, because amateurs may not exist. If his clause were to be accepted by my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members, he would have to define who is an amateur. The majority of sports, especially those seen on television, receive substantial payments. They would therefore fall foul of his clause. On that point alone, the clause is flawed.
      Mr. Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the British Olympic Association should have to pay tax?
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. and learned Gentleman sticks to the sport that he knows. However, he began his speech by saying that the new clause would encompass rugby. He referred to David Sole. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a distinguished track record. Therefore, he knows that what used to be known as the British Amateur Athletic Association receives substantial sums of money from sponsors. Individual athletes receive enormous prizes, some of which are money prizes. I hesitate to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman may be naive, but he is wrong to ask the House to accept that all amateur sport is truly amateur sport.
      I sympathise broadly with the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. His new clause may be aimed at the smaller clubs. They need some financial assistance from the Treasury and a more sympathetic ear. Whether that assistance will be provided by this Finance Bill or a future Finance Bill is another matter. Many thousands of men and women give their services voluntarily to sport and do their best to keep many clubs afloat. Many of them are in severe financial difficulties because of the old rating system, and even the new uniform business rate. The Government have offered some relief, but it has not been taken up by local authorities.
      Sport is based on small clubs and to a certain extent on schools. It is tragic that many sports clubs have fallen by the wayside and are not attracting young participants because schools, for the reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman described, are unable to provide the expert teaching and facilities that are needed. The hon. and learned Gentleman's ideas must be considered sympathetically. When we have been able to define who amateurs are, that sympathy may turn into assistance. However, the broad brush approach that he has adopted in the new clause will not attract much support on this side of the House.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Brian Wilson: I will not pursue what I can describe only as the casuistry of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in trying to get bogged down in definitions of amateurism. Clearly, the spirit of the clause leaves it to the judgment of the Charity Commissioners in England, and, presumably, to the Lord Advocate in Scotland, to find out whether the club satisfies the criteria for advancing amateur sport. As the hon. Member for Luton, North knows, if the argument about which club or which members are amateur is to be pursued

      779
      before such a clause is passed, we will be arguing until doomsday, with the desirable side effect, in his opinion, of nothing ever happening.
      In offering his sympathy for the new clause, the hon. Member dispenses a commodity which is remarkably cheap and which has been around for some time on this issue. The issue was debated on 5 July, in Committee on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, offered sympathy in abundance:
      "I am not unsympathetic to the aims of the clause but I would prefer to bring the matter to the attention of Treasury Ministers and to discuss it with them."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 5 July 1990; c. 542.]
      We know that some Treasury Ministers have been busy since, but I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State has had time to discuss the matter with the Treasury Minister.
      The Under-Secretary of State put the cost of the measure for the United Kingdom at £50 million. That is what it would cost the Inland Revenue if it were to be approved. He said that it is not section 505 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which poses the obstruction to the extension of charitable status to sports clubs but the terms set out in the Pemsel case for the definition of charity. Those terms are the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion or other purposes beneficial to the community. Those definitions are far from set in tablets of stone. They are capable of being amended to take account of changing social circumstances or of desirable social ends. There are manifest grounds for doing so in the present context.
      There is another definition which we have to get round and which has to be cast aside in the argument: that is what has been termed the doctrine of "mere sport". That stems from the Nottage case in 1895, which is one of the benchmark cases in the definition of charities and the exclusion of sport. On that occasion, Lord Justice Lopes said:
      "a gift, the object of which is the encouragement of a mere sport or game primarily calculated to amuse individuals apart from the community at large, cannot upon the authorities be held to be charitable, though such a sport or game is to some extent beneficial to the public … If we were to hold the gift before us to be charitable we should open a very wide door for it would then"—
      horror of horrors—
      "be difficult to say that gifts for promoting bicycling, cricket, football, lawn tennis, or any other outdoor game were not charitable for they promote the health and bodily well-being of the community."
      I would say, "Well, exactly." Those are precisely the reasons why those activities should, in their amateur form, be eligible for charitable status. That may not have been obvious to Lord Justice Lopes in 1895, but to most people looking around society today it should be manifestly obvious.
      It should also be obvious that the £50 million which the Exchequer might lose through this measure would not be a loss in a meaningful sense but an investment. Every £1 million spent on the promotion of amateur sport and encouraging young people to take up healthy pursuits or on equipment and facilities in which to pursue such activities is several pounds saved in terms of anti-social
      780
      behaviour, vandalism and the other activities that young people will find to engage in if such provisions are not available to them.
      Any society that invests in its young people would put much more money into sport and leisure activities than ours does. The Government pay lip service to sport to try to get political mileage out of it whenever the opportunity presents itself. This is an opportunity to put something into sport.
      The "floodgates" about which Lord Justice Lopes was so concerned have already begun to let through a trickle via court judgments. There is an unexpected symbol of liberalism in this debate in the person of Lord Hailsham. In Inland Revenue Commissioners v. McMullen in 1981, he observed that the legal conception of charity and the educated man's ideas about education are not static but evolve with the changing ideas about social values. With one leap, casting aside the views of lower courts, Lord Hailsham and his colleagues were prepared to extend charitable status to the Football Association Youth Trust. It is interesting to note the grounds on which the decision was reached. A report of the case stated:
      "The trust was one which was 'to organise or provide or assist in the organisation and provision of facilities which will enable and encourage pupils of schools and universities in any part of the United Kingdom to play association football or other games or sports' in such a way as ' to assist in ensuring that due attention is given to the development of such pupils as well to the development and occupation of their minds'."
      That is exactly the purpose for which sports clubs, organisations and ruling bodies exist in—I stress—their amateur form. If the spirit of the McMullen case were extended to sport in general, it would meet the aims of the new clause. The Government should make that leap.
      However, there was a caveat. Even in the McMullen case, sport was to be given that status not in its own right but as an adjunct to education. We can again see the elitism. According to the report:
      "Lord Hailsham explained that he was not deciding even that a gift for physical education per se and not associated with persons of school age or just above would necessarily be a good charitable gift."
      The McMullen case was tied specifically to the fact that this sport took place within the school or university context. That is illogical. We are talking about social need and about the social benefit that sport can provide. In many communities, by definition sport takes place at places other than schools and universities. The places that most need sports facilities and active sports clubs and voluntary organisations are unlikely to have universities sitting in the middle of them.
      According to the McMullen judgment, the only place to which charitable status can be extended is within the context of schools and universities. That anomaly should be corrected. The fact that youngsters are out working from the age of 16, without access to higher or further education, should not be grounds for further discrimination against them, the clubs to which they belong and the pastimes that they wish to pursue.
      There is an overwhelming case for extending the definition of charitable status to include sports clubs. As long ago as 1976, the Goodman report recommended that
      "the encouragement of sport and recreation should be recognised as an independent charitable object provided the necessary elements of altruism and benefit to the community are present."
      I stress the word "independent". In the past, sport has occasionally crept in for charitable purposes, as in the

      781
      McMullen case, as an adjunct to education, army efficiency, improving social welfare or even religion. In the McMullen case, the Charity Commissioners and the House of Lords recognised that healthy sport improves the conditions of life, and that was sufficient grounds to extend charitable status to it.
      782
      If the Minister recognises tonight that, alongside other definitions of charity, sport is wholly worthy of charitable status, it would do the Government credit, give some credibility to their posturing support of sport, cost them very little and be an excellent social investment for all of us.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: There is much to be said for the amendment. I do not merely say that because my best man, Adrian Metcalfe, was in the great Olympic team with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who moved the amendment, so we have a close link. The hon. and learned Gentleman has put his finger on a most important and fundamental need in our society—to encourage amateur sport more.
      The current membership of the England Schools Football Association is much lower than it used to be. The number of participating schools in the London schools sport's organisations—I know them well, as I am president of two—has declined seriously over the past few years, which reflects the serious decline in sport in schools.
      I am keen on the clause for this reason more than any other. In some areas, only one primary school in eight plays cricket, in others no soccer or other team games are played, often because no teachers are willing to take part in activities out of school. That follows recent industrial disputes in schools, and it is a sad outcome. It is also a result of the movement, especially by left-wing education authorities—[Interruption.] The Labour party must face up to this and not start barracking. Well, they can barrack if they like, but I shall say it.
      The Inner London education authority, in its early days, did a great deal to establish sport—I worked with it throughout its existence, so I know it well—including competitive sport in schools. Then it went through a loony period, when it was dominated by the left wing of the Labour party and it opposed all competitive sport in schools. It set up a committee, headed by its own former senior physical education inspector, Professor Peter McIntosh as he became, which recommended that competitive sport be reintroduced to ILEA schools, but by then it was too late.
      Gifted boys and girls played no sport in London schools for 10 or 15 years because of the way that the Labour party behaved. It is a great tragedy. I remember one superb cricketer at Dick Sheppard School—a West Indian boy of about 15. The only cricket he could play at that school was with a bit of stick in the playground and a painted wicket against the wall, because the school would not allow competitive sport.
      Mr. Boateng indicated assent.
      Mr. Greenway: I am glad to see that the hon. Member nods his head in agreement. It is absolutely true.
      He could have played for England or the West Indies, whichever he qualified for. He was a fine boy, but he was denied cricket. If the new clause is successful, that would not happen again. I feel sure that he would be in Streatham cricket club or one of the many good clubs south of the river—there are many good clubs north of the river, too. Those clubs would be able to put more effort into encouraging youngsters into clubs and into their teams.
      It is imperative to recognise that children are competitive and need competitive sport. These games always take place under the supervision of highly qualified referees, who can curb and control any displays of bad temper. If the English soccer team had been underpinned by the playing of soccer in every school, we, not West Germany, would have been world champions.
      There is no sign that teachers will be paid to take schools out for sporting events. Some of us think that they never should be. Throughout my 23 years of teaching, I
      784
      took out a team every week and regarded it as part of my professional duties—I loved doing it, too. But many teachers will not do that unless they are paid for it. Perhaps they should be—but I do not think that they will be. So we have to look to the clubs to produce our future cricketers, tennis players, soccer players and rugby players. They need the support that they would get from Government acceptance of the new clause.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Bob Cryer: The new clause has a great deal of merit. I must declare an interest, in that from the age of 11 or 12 onwards I was a member of a Bradford league cricket club. I have continued to take an interest in cricket to this day. The great days of Yorkshire cricket came about because of the enormous strength of league cricket in that county, which provided a superb nursery for the Yorkshire cricketers who formed the backbone of all the good pre and post-war English sides.
      Things have changed. I support some sort of tax concession for amateur clubs, whether they play cricket, soccer, or rugby league, a slowly growing sport in the north of England which should be encouraged. When I played for Saltaire in the Bradford league, the team was always handicapped because the beautiful ground in which the club played—Roberts park—was established by Sir Titus Salt, who owned the adjacent mill and the surrounding 800 or so houses. He was a strong temperance man, which meant that if the club had wished to do so it could not have sold alcohol to boost its proceeds in order to sustain the game of cricket.
      Some clubs in the various leagues provide a bar and derive a great deal of revenue from it. It would, of course, be up to the Revenue to determine whether the resources of a club came mainly from its bar facilities or from the sporting element; if from the former, presumably clubs would fail to obtain tax concessions. That seems fair.
      Many local authorities cannot afford to provide sporting facilities because their first priority must be to provide adequate wind and waterproof buildings—and textbooks and laboratory facilities to meet the needs of the national curriculum, for which they have a statutory obligation; so sporting facilities inevitably come lower down the list of priorities. Now more than ever there is a need for club facilities, because the schools are in some difficulty. My son, who, I need hardly add, went to a comprehensive school, wanted to play cricket at school throughout his time there, but he could not because the local authority could never produce the money necessary to lay on adequate drainage for the school playing fields.
      Clubs are currently being subverted to a degree, because the Government tell them to go out into the private sector to obtain support. The tobacco companies, for example, are not averse to providing money in an ironic combination in which we all support the use and development of sporting facilities because that generates good health and good physique—and a number of other qualities—but that is often brought about because of the financial aid given by the very companies that want to sell cigarettes, which have precisely the reverse effect, and cause huge costs to the national health service.
      If the provisions make amateur clubs more independent from the possibility of being subverted by dubious outside sponsorships, that is all to the good. If a club is promoting

      785
      either an amateur athletics team, which is to visit, say, a competition in London, it is tempting to receive £1,000 or £2,000 for support in the competition from a cigarette company, and it is hard to ignore such offers and to say, "We're going to stand on principle and won't accept the money." A tax concession will make the clubs that bit more independent, which is a very good thing.
      In the past two or three years, when we have seen soaring house prices and the development of speculative building, sports grounds have come under increasing threat. Clubs often decide to sell all or part of a ground and to reduce their facilities because they have been tempted by the big money that has been made available from that source. That has now diminished to an extent, but it is an ever-present threat.
      Saltaire, the club which I mentioned earlier, is under some threat—as is the park—from a possible trunk road development. The Government will not provide independent legal advice and representation for trunk road inquiries, but there is no reason why clubs should not have not financial comfort but some financial security that would enable them at least to meet such considerations with greater confidence than at the moment.
      Most of the amateur clubs that I know are struggling, week in, week out to make ends meet and to meet the expenses of promoting the sport with which they are involved because they love it. That is the basic reason. They are committed to it and want to encourage youngsters to enjoy the pleasure, skill and exuberance that people find either in participating in or watching sport—of whatever sort, be it rugby league, rugby union, soccer, cricket or hockey.
      The proposal has much merit and I shall be interested to hear whether the Government are to give it sympathetic consideration to the extent of accepting it. As has been said, sympathy is around in fairly large quantities in nearly every debate on tax matters and the House—and, more importantly, the sporting clubs outside—would welcome something more substantial. Provided there is the caveat of a definition that allows the Revenue to seek out the genuine cases, the new clause seems to have a good deal of merit.
      Dr. Marek: I shall be brief but I hope that my brevity will not be taken as a sign of lack of interest. The new clause is important. Both Opposition and Conservative Members agree that something needs to be done to encourage more people to take part in sport and to give them the opportunity to do so. That could be done by giving local authorities more powers and the ability perhaps to undertake more sporting enterprises in their areas. It could also be done by bringing sport within the charity net. That is what the new clause seeks to do.
      We on the Opposition Front Bench see difficulties with wording the new clause tightly enough to achieve the desired aims of the new clause and nothing more and to ensure that there are not too many loopholes. I shall be interested to hear what the Economic Secretary has to say, but I fear that the new clause drafted by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) needs to be much longer.
      Charity law is in an unsatisfactory state. I know that the Government have proposed measures to reform it. Perhaps sport should be examined carefully as part of any
      786
      reorganisation of charity law. Sport could perhaps be brought in under a reformed charity law which could require, for example, that accounts would be vetted by the Charity Commissioners. If accounts were not submitted or were not in order, a body would not be allowed to call itself a charity.
      There are many difficulties in charity law. Clearly the law is not good enough at present. However, I do not wish to detract from the Opposition's general sympathy with the intentions behind the new clause. I said that I should be brief and I have been. I hope that the Economic Secretary will be able to give us some solace. If nothing can be done this time, perhaps the whole matter could be examined with a view to giving sport some encouragement in later Budgets.
      Mr. Ryder: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and be as brief as possible. Sport has always played a central part in my life, as it has in that of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). However, I have never participated in any sport with anything approaching his distinction.
      As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, section 505 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 exempts from tax most sources of charity income, including investment income and trading income when the trade is exercised as a primary purpose of the charity or is carried out by beneficiaries of the charity. However, there is a further condition. The exemptions apply only if the income is used for charitable purposes.
      As the hon. Member for Wrexham surmised, the new clause is seriously defective in the way in which it seeks to achieve what I assume to be its intention. It attempts to bring certain bodies involved in amateur sport into section 505 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 alongside charities. However, that would not be sufficient to secure tax exemption. To achieve that objective, the income of the amateur sporting bodies would have to be used for charitable purposes. It is a well-established principle, as several hon. Members have made clear, that sport and recreation as such are not charitable activities. Therefore, the new clause would have little or no effect as it is drafted.
      The case for providing a tax exemption for sporting bodies of various types has been considered many times in the past, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East observed and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) emphasised with generous use of examples from the past.
      A new clause on associations engaged in encouraging the development of sport or in representational functions was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East mentioned it. That was two years ago during the Report stage of the Finance Bill. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) tabled a similar new clause in Committee.
      The Government receive many requests for tax exemption from a variety of bodies, and I do not deny that amateur sporting clubs are a worthy cause, as are most of the organisations that make such a request. They can all plead that they are deserving causes in one way or another, but the tax system is not, and never has been, a good way of judging their merits.

      787
      One of the problems faced by those who propose exemptions is defining their targets. In the case of sporting bodies, it is particularly difficult to draw a suitable boundary. Where does sport end and other recreational and leisure activities begin?
      11 pm
      Mr. Harry Greenway: It sounds as though my hon. Friend the Minister may not deal with the important argument of where children are to go if they cannot receive sports coaching and teaching at school. Does he accept that children are in every sense amateurs and that they would be assisted by the clause, were he able to accept it?
      Mr. Ryder: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, but I am not sure of the relevance of his point to new clause 13.
      Does the definition of sport extend, for example, to chess; bridge, in which the hon. Member for Wrexham excels; fox hunting; tiddlywinks, which is a sport in which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) excels; or even to synchronised swimming? As a Treasury Minister, I feel unable to pass judgment or to draw the line—and the terms of the new clause provide no help in trying to ensure a clear dividing line between sport and recreational or leisure activities.
      Mr. Wilson: Fortunately, to comply with the spirit if not the letter of the new clause, the Minister does not have to make any such judgment. It is only necessary to accept that the fourth condition, in pencil—that the activity should be to the benefit of the community—encompasses sport or leisure activities. That matter, as with the first three conditions, should be for the judgment of the bodies that control charities. There is no strict dividing line, but none is needed. An organisation's case would be judged, just as in the case of any organisation applying under the other three headings, on its merits. All that is needed is for the definition of activities of benefit to the community to be more generously interpreted, to allow at least sporting and leisure activities to be included.
      Mr. Ryder: If I interpret accurately the remarks of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, who is a Labour Front-Bench spokesman, he is asking us to change charity law to embrace sport. I do not know whether his comments amount to a commitment by the Labour party to do any such thing.
      Mr. Wilson: I speak as a member of the Labour Front Bench on Scottish matters, and I assure the Minister that in our deliberations on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which overhauls the law in respect of Scottish charities, my party supported the principle embraced by new clause 13, with the caveat that the cost implications should be identified before we could make any blanket commitment. It is important to obtain from the Minister tonight the same degree of commitment to the principle involved, rather than get bogged down in specifics.
      Mr. Ryder: The definition of a charity has been established by case law in the courts, which has confirmed that sport is not a charity. The Government stick by the decisions made by the courts and we have no present intention of changing charity law in that respect.
      The new clause would have no cost, but, because of the drafting defects I have described, the cost of exemption for bodies concerned with sport and recreation is difficult to
      788
      estimate. It would depend on how the definitional problems I have described were resolved. If I were to take a broad definition of sport and recreational activities, the cost could easily be the £50 million a year mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East.
      Amateur sporting clubs unquestionably provide a great deal of pleasure to people. However, I cannot recommend that my hon. Friends should accept the new clause.
      Mr. Cryer: If the Minister rejects the new clause, is he prepared to introduce regulations on it? Given the massive amount of legislation already approved by the House, I am sure that the Treasury has powers of delegated legislation. It has never baulked at providing definitions when that has suited its purpose. I do not agree with the reasons that the Minister has given for not accepting the new clause, but surely he would be prepared to introduce a draft statutory instrument to encapsulate our ideas on definition. At least that would show that the Government have some sympathy with our argument.
      Mr. Ryder: My answer is similar to that which I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North—at present the Government do not have any plans to introduce a statutory instrument of the kind envisaged by the hon. Gentleman.
      For the reasons I have given during the course of the debate, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause should the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East press it to a Division.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: With the leave of the House I shall reply.
      In the argot of the summer game, the Minister has played a straight bat. I would have taken his comments about what he described as serious defects in the new clause with a little more enthusiasm had he gone on to say how much he supported the principle and how soon the Government would introduce a clause, which met all his criticisms and which would achieve the result sought by the new clause.
      The Government's reliance upon the law should be put in its proper context. The decision in Pemsel was taken in 1891 and I fancy that the notion of what is or is not the public interest for the benefit of the community has advanced since then. If there is concern about the demarcation between what might or might not fall on the side of charitable activity, the principle of the benefit of the community must be one that is open to interpretation, as is the argument on the promotion of education. I doubt whether amateur, sport would create greater problems than the existing four categories recognised in the decision in Pemsel.
      Whether the payment of rugby players would negate the effect of the clause is a matter of fact and circumstance in each case. If the principal activity of the club in question was to promote professional sport, clearly it would not be entitled to recognition. An obvious example of that argument—perhaps not so obvious to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—is the Greenock cricket club. It presently plays in the western union in Scotland and for this season it has engaged the services of Mr. Gordon Greenidge, a well-known West Indian cricketer. That dub is an amateur club and Mr. Greenidge is being paid because the club has gone out of its way to raise funds for that purpose. The amateur purposes of the club are not in any way affected by Mr. Greenidge's employment. That is

      789
      a clear case where, although someone is employed on a professional basis, the club's primary purpose remains amateur. In each case, it will be a case of fact and degree, just as it must be a question of fact and degree in respect of any activity that falls within the four categories recognised as charitable purposes as a result of the decision in Pemsel in 1891.
      It seems that the matter is of such importance that the House should have the chance to express its opinion, so I shall press it to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 145.

      Division No. 294]

      [9.36 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Livsey, Richard

      Beith, A. J.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cohen, Harry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Cryer, Bob

      Wallace, James

      Fearn, Ronald

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Alex Carlile and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. Simon Hughes.

      Lambie, David

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hague, William

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Amess, David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Amos, Alan

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Ashby, David

      Harris, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Atkinson, David

      Hayward, Robert

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Benyon, W.

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Irvine, Michael

      Bowis, John

      Jack, Michael

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Jackson, Robert

      Brazier, Julian

      Janman, Tim

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

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Burns, Simon

      Kilfedder, James

      Butcher, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Knapman, Roger

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Cash, William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Chope, Christopher

      Lightbown, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lilley, Peter

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Marlow, Tony

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Cran, James

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mills, Iain

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

      Moate, Roger

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Day, Stephen

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Devlin, Tim

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Dover, Den

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dunn, Bob

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Durant, Tony

      Mudd, David

      Favell, Tony

      Neale, Gerrard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Neubert, Michael

      Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Norris, Steve

      Forman, Nigel

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Forth, Eric

      Page, Richard

      Franks, Cecil

      Paice, James

      Freeman, Roger

      Patnick, Irvine

      French, Douglas

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Gardiner, George

      Pawsey, James

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Gow, Ian

      Price, Sir David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Raffan, Keith

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Redwood, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Riddick, Graham

      769

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thorne, Neil

      Rowe, Andrew

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ryder, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Walden, George

      Shelton, Sir William

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Waller, Gary

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Watts, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Squire, Robin

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Sir Anthony Grant and

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mr. Jerry Hayes.

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Division No. 295]

      [11.09 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Meale, Alan

      Beith, A. J.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Nellist, Dave

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Parry, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Pendry, Tom

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Spearing, Nigel

      Home Robertson, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Howells, Geraint

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Wallace, James

      Kennedy, Charles

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lewis, Terry

      Mr. Richard Livsey and

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 4

      POOL BETTING DUTY
      Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 36, leave out '40' and insert '37'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 1, and amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 38, leave out '28th May' and insert '5th April'.
      Mr. Pendry: I am aware that amendment No. 4 will not strike much of a chord with the Government. However, their amendment deals with my proposal in amendment No. 5—apart from replacing "5th April" with "6th April"—and meets the points that I made and my hon. Friends raised in Committee on 28 June. We are grateful for that: it seems that at long last there are some genuine football buffs in the Treasury team.
      I first raised the issue on the Floor of the House on 8 May. The Economic Secretary informed me then that he would enter into negotiations with the Football League and the pools promoters, and would make an announcement in the House shortly. He has now done precisely that. I am also grateful to him for giving me notice last Thursday of his intention to meet the points that I had put to him.
      I welcome the Government's sensible move. It is imperative that our football clubs be given as much as possible of the £100 million that the Government propose to provide over the next five years up front, so that they can meet the tough timetable laid down by Lord Justice Taylor for them to adapt their grounds to comply with the recommendations in his report. For some clubs taking part in the UEFA high-risk matches, the deadline could be as close as 1993, and for all first and second division clubs it is August 1994.

      791
      Unfortunately, the Treasury's good sense has not been matched in the Home Department, which has been guilty of appalling complacency and incompetence in its failure to set up the Football Licensing Authority in time to meet its own deadline—a failure that was admitted today in a letter to me from the Minister of State, Home Office, Earl Ferrers. I hope that the Home Secretary will ensure—as a matter of the utmost urgency—that that vital body is set up without delay so that work can begin on ground improvements. Already, I fear, a whole year has been lost from the timetable.
      We would be deluding ourselves—and every football supporter—if we believed that the Government's proposed reduction of the pool betting duty to 40 per cent. would be enough to address the financial problems that face our national game.
      Mr. Beith: As the Minister for Sport is present, would it not help us to consider the pool betting aspect if he intervened at some point—perhaps in the hon. Gentleman's speech—to tell us what on earth is happening about the setting up of this body?
      Mr. Pendry: Normally I would respond to such a question, but on this occasion I must come to the defence of the Minister for Sport. He has been stripped of most of his Football League responsibilities, which have been transferred to the Home Department. This time, at least, we can say that he is not responsible for the debacle. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
      As we know, the Government have reduced the betting levy to its 1982 level. The Government inherited from the previous Labour Government the level at which they are now pitching the levy. That move flew in the face of the recommendations of the 1978 Rothschild Royal Commission on gambling which carried out an in-depth study of the game's finances and argued at that time that the 40 per cent. betting levy was too high and that it should be lowered to 37 per cent. My amendment seeks to implement that recommendation.
      The Rothschild inquiry remains to this day the most systematic and thorough investigation into the finances of the game. Its recommendations have been strengthened by the Popplewell report on the Bradford disaster and Lord Justice Taylor's report on the Hillsborough disaster. If funds for football were important in 1978, they are vital now. However, the amendment is not just about funds for football. The House should consider the best way in which such funds should be administered. [Interruption.] Do I have the full support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend seems to want to know what we were talking about. We were discussing sport and I suggested that, according to conversations taking place between the Minister for Sport, who was on his knees, and the new Secretary of State for Employment, who is sitting on the rebel Bench in the place normally occupied by the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has a three-year ban in Europe.
      Mr. Pendry: I never doubted that my hon. Friend was following my speech and making pertinent comments across the Chamber.
      792
      We must act upon the royal commission's support for the establishment of a football levy board accountable to Parliament and with its chairman appointed by the Secretary of State. I readily accept that the Football Trust, which receives its funding from the pools promoters, has done much over the years to help the game, notably by its assistance in installing closed-circuit television at Football League grounds. That was a major factor in combating hooliganism. But surely no hon. Member thinks that that is the body to help bring about the necessary changes envisaged by Taylor and demanded by the Government.
      A levy board is the answer. The idea of such a board did not begin with Rothschild because its roots are to be found in the Chester report of 1968, which envisaged the state of the national game and recommended that a statutory body be set up to channel the money raised from the reduction of the betting levy to the football authorities. Rothschild enthusiastically endorsed that recommendation, saying:
      "There is no other way of achieving the objective of putting Association Football on a permanently sound footing."
      Not surprisingly, that proposal received widespread support in the House and throughout the game. On 13 May 1985 my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) argued that such a move was essential. On 3 July 1985 my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that it was the only answer to the problem of financing football. Three weeks later my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said it was the only solution. If that was the case before the Taylor report recommended improvements to safety at our grounds, how much more essential is it now? Such reasoning prompted me to table the amendment.
      In June 1986 I introduced a private Member's Bill which sought to establish a levy board. It received all-party backing and was supported not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, but by the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles). As recently as March 1987, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) told a meeting in Fulham that money must be channelled into the game and that a football levy board should be set up to do it.
      As I have shown, such a board has all-party support and support within the game. On 30 January, when we debated Lord Justice Taylor's report, I said that my only criticism of Taylor was that his report did not fully consider the possible range of options for funding his recommendations. If he had gone into the matter in more depth, he would have found many supporters of my idea within football. I have the minutes of a meeting that I chaired in my capacity as chairman of the all-party football committee. Also involved were the Football Association, the Football League and the Professional Footballers Association. All concluded that a football levy board was the answer. I shall soon bring my remarks to an end, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am aware of your perspicacity. I appreciate that you have allowed me to follow this line of argument for some time. I referred to the report of the Rothschild commission because I wished to connect the 37 per cent., for which I am asking, with a vehicle which I am sure the Government do not have in mind.

      793
      11.30 pm
      By following the recommendations of the Rothschild commission, the Government would make available to football an extra £220 million over the next five years. That would be an addition of £120 million to the sum which is proposed. That may seem to be overly generous to some hon. Members, who may not be familiar with the latest estimates of the costs of implementing Lord Justice Taylor's proposals. I ask those hon. Members to reflect that, when the Government announced their decision to reduce the levy to 40 per cent., it was believed that the bill would be about £130 million. Since then, further research undertaken by the football authorities has revealed that to bring grounds up to the standards outlined in the full Taylor report four or five times that sum will be required.
      There must be a transformation of the conditions that are offered to football supporters and not merely the meeting of minimum standards. Anything less would be to repeat the mistakes of the past, which were so heavily criticised by Lord Justice Taylor in his report. The condition that the Government should place on football for increasing revenue should be that it makes its grounds community grounds.
      The House should be aware that the financial demands that are placed upon football do not stem solely from the demand for ground improvements. There is a crisis within the game that stems from the rocketing of the bills for the policing of matches in recent years. Charges for policing increased by 13 per cent. in 1987–88, and again by 23.2 per cent. in the season 1988–89, to stand at a record £4.1 million. However, arrests at or near grounds have declined quite markedly over the past three years.
      On 19 June, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to tell me the total charge that was levied on clubs for policing during the 1989–90 season. The Minister stated that such information was not collected centrally by the Government and that the Football Trust had not yet published a figure for that season. I can tell the Government and the trust that the total bill for the policing of league matches last season was £6,205,000. That figure was supplied to me by the Football League, and it is a staggering 50 per cent. increase on the previous record figure. That must call in question whether the funds that are made available to football by the Government are sufficient to meet the demands of Lord Justice Taylor. How can clubs make the necessary investment in ground improvements, given their limited resources that are already stretched to the limit, if they have to meet appalling bills for policing? More money is needed immediately, and the amendment would release that money.
      I recognise that I shall not budge the Government. I suppose that my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench would have heart attacks if I were to press the amendment to a Division and won the day. I am convinced, however, that next year one of my colleagues will be moving from the Treasury Front Bench an amendment similar to the one that I have moved and I am sure that it will pass into law. I shall not conclude without once more congratulating the Government on meeting amendment No. 5, which stands in my name, and in so doing meeting my wishes and those of my hon. Friends who argued so convincingly in favour of such a provision in Committee.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) put forward a convincing case for an amendment that would still leave the rate of pool betting duty significantly above that of corporation tax. He does not suggest a ludicrously low level of tax. The revenue forgone would be used for football improvements of the kind set out in the Taylor report. That seems to be eminently reasonable when one considers the task that faces football clubs, both large and small. Some of the larger clubs will face significant bills. That is without considering the plight of clubs such as Hibernian football club as it tries to pick up the pieces after Mr. Wallace Mercer's daring bid to have only one club in Edinburgh, or Berwick's struggle to finance the building of a new stand, having had to cancel all matches on windy days in case the stand blew down on spectators. It received that direction from the county council. That kind of problem may not yet be experienced by other football clubs.
      Substantial costs are involved. They fall particularly heavily on those clubs that are not at the hardest commercial end of football—the ones that do not have the money to spend on players so as to attract the largest crowds. Few clubs are now able to do that. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider sympathetically this attempt to extend the helpful proposals that they introduced in the Budget.
      Dr. Marek: I do not believe that we shall divide the House on the amendments. I am pleased that the Economic Secretary, who I know takes a great interest in football, changed the date, after receiving representations from the Opposition. The Government amendment provides that the date 28 May should be deleted and that 6 April should be inserted in its place. I thank the Economic Secretary for the change. It will benefit football.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) made a pertinent point when he referred to football duty being 40 per cent. He proposes that it should be 37 per cent. The Government have increased taxation. As a percentage of gross domestic product, it is now about 38 per cent. In 1979 it was only about 34 per cent. A high taxation party is in office. Football pool duty was raised to 42.5 per cent. from 40 per cent. Therefore, I accept my hon. Friend's point that football pool duty is simply being reduced to what it was when the Government first took office in 1979. However, I am glad that it is being reduced. One wonders whether that reduction will be sufficient to enable football clubs to improve their grounds, but we are grateful for small mercies. I am glad that the Government have tabled the amendment, and I hope that it will be passed speedily into law.
      Mr. Ryder: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has worked hard for sport for many years. I thank him for his kind and generous remarks about the Budget announcement about football and our subsequent decision on backdating, to which the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has just referred.
      I promised in Committee that the Government would table an amendment to backdate the cut. Our amendment differs only slightly from amendment No. 5 and has exactly the same effect. It differs by only one day. Amendment No. 4 is the main Opposition amendment. It would reduce pool betting duty to 37 per cent. I am not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's argument. I was aware that the Rothschild Royal Commission on gambling

      795
      recommended in 1977 a cut in pool betting duty from its then level of 40 per cent. to 37 per cent. Lord Justice Taylor, in his report on the Hillsborough disaster, considered Rothschild's proposal but, even so, the suggestion in his report was for a cut to 40 per cent., not 37 per cent. That is why we chose 40 per cent. in the Budget. It will release about £100 million over five years towards the cost of meeting the Taylor recommendations. It is a significant help to football grounds all over the country. I recognise that football will still have to find further money from its own resources, but it is right to strike a balance between self-help and the sort of help that the Government can provide with the assistance of the taxpayer.
      In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will not press his amendments, particularly the last one to which I have alluded.
      Mr. Pendry: I recognise that the Government are not enlightened enough as yet to meet the requirements of amendment No. 4. However, time will prove me right, and I believe that it will not be long before the House recognises the full weight of my argument. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Government on amendment No. 1. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 38, leave out '28th May' and insert '6th April'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

    Clause 11

      BAD DEBTS
      Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 7, line 9, leave out 'two years' and insert 'fifteen months'.
      You will probably recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that on 15 May we debated in Committee on the Floor of the House what was then clause 10 and is now clause 11. It relates to VAT relief for bad debts on VAT. Prior to the Budget, for the majority of traders, VAT had to be accounted for to Customs and Excise on the basis of VAT invoices issued, regardless of whether the money had been received. The VAT was paid to Customs and Excise even though the trader may not have received the VAT from the purchaser of the goods or services. That system caused particular problems if the debt was defaulted upon. Until the Budget, the trader could get the VAT back only if the debtor became formally insolvent. That meant going into bankruptcy or liquidation. If a debtor simply disappeared without going into formal liquidation, the debt could not be recovered from the debtor or from Customs and Excise.
      The Government have introduced a welcome change in clause 11. We welcomed it when we debated the issue on 15 May. The Government are now proposing that if a trader has made provision for bad debt on VAT and the debt is not repaid after two years, the funds can be reclaimed from Customs and Excise. That is a step in the right direction.
      On 15 May, we set out in detail why we felt that the two-year period was too long. If a formal bankruptcy occurred within nine to 12 months of the VAT being paid, the new rules would be less attractive to a trader than the old rules. We proposed two alternative and complementary mechanisms to sort out that problem. We proposed
      796
      that the new and the previous systems should run in parallel, enabling a trader to receive relief on bad VAT debts by either of the two systems. The Government were not prepared to accept that.
      11.45 pm
      We also proposed a measure that would have reduced the waiting period for relief on bad debts from two years, which is the proposal in the Bill, to one year. That proposal was strongly supported by many small traders. On 15 May, the Economic Secretary, speaking from the Front Bench with all the authority of the Government, appeared to give our proposal a significant welcome. He said:
      "Our judgment was that two years is an appropriate period of time to elapse before a company decides that a debt cannot be recovered."
      The hon. Gentleman went on:
      "I am aware of the strength of feeling expressed in the debate and by the many organisations that have made representations to the Treasury. For those reasons, I have concluded that there may be scope for further improvement i n the scheme. We shall be examining that possibility between now and Report stage."—[Official Report, 15 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 814.]
      That statement clearly showed that the Government were sympathetic to our proposal for a reduction, yet there is no Government amendment before us to give flesh to that commitment.
      As a result, we have tabled this amendment, which would change the period from two years to 15 months. We are being more generous to Customs and Excise than we were in our original proposal. We believe that a 15–month period would be sensible and practical and would give better relief to businesses, especially small businesses, than the Government propose. It would be entirely within the spirit of the statements by the Economic Secretary on 15 May.
      I hate to chide the Economic Secretary for a failure to live up to an indication that he gave in Committee, but we wish that the Government had been true to their word and had tabled an amendment such as amendment No. 38. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Beith: I support the case advanced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for a more generous recognition of the problems of business in dealing with bad debts. I, too, formed the impression that the Government had taken seriously the many representations about their proposed time scale. They seemed to recognise that this matter required another look, and I am disappointed that the look has not turned into an appropriate change in the Bill.
      The hon. Member made clear at an earlier stage in the Bill what a serious problem this presented to the firm that he described as "Ryder associates"—or some such expression—if it had paid over a substantial sum in VAT to Customs and Excise at a time when an even more substantial sum remained outstanding from a company which had not paid it. He described how serious that would be, especially with present high interest rates, if the debt were spread over two years. I had hoped that the Government would recognise that this is a serious problem, and I look forward to the Minister having something to say on the subject tonight.
      Mr. Ryder: In debate on what was then clause 10, in Committee of the whole House, I said that we would consider whether anything could be done to improve the

      797
      Government's proposals on bad debt relief. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were right to make their observations. I did so because of the view that some hon. Members expressed that our proposals did not go far enough.
      Our proposals were a huge improvement for businesses, as is evidenced by the cost of £150 million a year that will result from the change. The decision was one of the most generous and well-received in my right hon. Friend's Budget. Any further change would be equally expensive.
      Amendment No. 38, tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, seeks to reduce the waiting period from two years to 15 months. In the past two months, we have given careful consideration to whether we could justify a further change, but we have come to the conclusion that we could not. Amendment No. 38 would cost about £120 million in this financial year. That is a large price to pay for the marginal improvement that it would make to the scheme. The only way that we could afford to make such a change would be to defer the start date of the scheme to 1 January 1990 instead of 1 April 1989, as announced by my right hon. Friend in his Budget.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The Economic Secretary has estimated the cost of the change that we are proposing at £120 million. How can debts that are bad after 15 months, but are recovered within the subsequent nine months—that is, debts that are not bad at the end of two years—possibly amount to £120 million?
      Mr. Ryder: Those figures were calculated by Customs and Excise. We gave a figure of £150 million as the estimated cost of the proposal that we announced at the time of the Budget. The figure of £120 million estimated for this financial year is a significant sum, especially when it is judged alongside the other measures that have been introduced in the Budget, and beside some measures suggested to us in amendments during the course of the Bill. It is a large price to pay for what I would describe as a marginal improvement.
      If we were to accept the amendment, as I have described, it would ensure that the first claim was not made until 1 April 1991, as we had orginally planned. That would mean disappointing those who expected to be able to obtain relief in due course on debts that they incurred in the period between 1 April and 31 December 1989. That would also be too big a price for the majority of traders to have to bear to ease the position for a small minority. For that reason, and for the other reason that I gave earlier, we decided not to reduce the 24-month period on this occasion.
      In view of the information that I have given the hon. Gentleman, I should be grateful if he saw fit to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The Economic Secretary has said that he believes that the cost of such a change would be £120 million. I confess to considerable scepticism about how that figure was arrived at, but it is not for me to quarrel at this stage with the Treasury's figures. Perhaps it would be best to wait and see how the new system beds down—to retain a watching brief and possibly to return to this subject in a year's time.
      798
      I contest the view that our proposal represents purely a marginal improvement. That is not the view of business, which believes that it would be a great improvement.
      We reserve the right to return to this issue. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 21

      CARE FOR CHILDREN
      Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 11, line 20 leave out from '(1)' to end of line 25 and insert
      'Where a benefit consists in the provision for the employee of care for a child, section 154 does not apply to the benefit to the extent that it is provided in qualifying circumstances.
      (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the benefit is provided in qualifying circumstances if—
      (a) the child falls within subsection (1B) below.'.— [Mr. Lightbown.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider also Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
      Mr. Boateng: We welcome the amendment, but we wish it was part of a cluster of amendments that would make the proposal more attractive and more in keeping with the needs of enterprises that are concerned to take up the option of providing these facilities for their workers. We are conscious of the fact that the most comprehensive survey available—of women who can use employer-provided creches—shows that fewer than 0.2 per cent. of them, or 198 of the 1.1 million people surveyed, could take advantage of provision of this sort.
      The amendments will at least provide for the category of person with parental responsibility for a child or with a child or stepchild whom he or she maintains and who is resident with the employee. That category of parent, at least, will be able to take advantage of the child care and of the associated tax relief.
      However, other categories are not so fortunate. In the hope that the Government will in due course produce measures to improve on this scheme, we draw to the attention of the House the circumstances of, for instance, Sainsbury, which is a progressive employer in the retail sector seeking to provide child care for its employees. It finds itself falling foul of the requirement that the employer and employee trying to benefit from this provision have to show that the employer is involved in the management of the relevant nurseries. Sainsbury and a number of other employers in the same position find that because of the way in which their business is conducted —Sainsbury has about 300 retail outlets—it is just not possible to provide the space at all their outlets in which to establish a creche or workplace nursery. Inevitably, such companies fall foul of this restrictive condition unless they are able so to organise their affairs—and, being primarily concerned with the provision of retail services, they are not —in such a way as also to free staff to take part in the management of day nurseries and creches. It simply is not practical.
      Therefore, while welcoming the amendment, we are disappointed that it is so limited in its scope and in the relief that it brings to those who seek to expand their provision in this sector. We draw attention to that, but we shall not seek to divide the House on it.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Beith: The amendments slightly modify the Government's proposals, but not in any of the ways that employers would seek to make them effective, such as some of those already listed. The prospect of large numbers of employers having to be part of the management of a day nursery so that one trading estate can have a day nursery on it is daunting. The Government have opened up the extraordinary prospect that many of the firms that wish to co-operate in opening day nurseries may have to create a cumbersome management structure simply to satisfy the Government's conditions.
      I am especially mystified about the precise impact of amendment No. 8. What is the intention behind paragraph (c)? As I understand it, (a) and (b) taken together mean that the child for whom the benefit is payable has to be one for whom the employee has parental responsibility and who is resident with the employee. However, there is an alternative condition in (c), which refers to a child whom the employee maintains at his expense. I am not sure that I understand what the Government are getting at, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us.
      Do the Government mean that a divorced or separated woman who does not have custody of her children and whose children are living with her former husband nevertheless can obtain the relief and have the children sent to the workplace nursery at her workplace? If that is the purpose, why? If the objective of the relief is to direct it towards those women who make use of workplace nurseries to enable themselves to go to work and to enter the labour market, it does not seem to make a great deal of sense, and is a variant on what is already a narrow provision.
      I should be grateful if the Government could explain precisely what they mean. Although I do not really expect them to provide us, again, with reasoning about why they have not made the whole provision a great deal wider, this aspect certainly puzzles me.
      Mr. Lilley: This is a technical triplet of amendments to ensure that the definition of "a child" in the original clauses is appropriate.
      Following publication of the Bill, it was put to us in representations that the definition in the Bill might in certain respects be too narrow and could preclude relief in certain unusual but entirely worthy circumstances. These include, for example, a relative looking after an orphaned child where there is no formal adoption or guardianship, a step parent who has not formally adopted a child, and prospective adoptive parents before final adoption. In these cases, if the child attended a workplace nursery, strictly no exemption would have arisen for the employee. We seek to put that right.
      Mr. Beith: I fully understand that that is the effect of paragraphs (a) and (b) and it is most welcome, but can the Minister please explain the purpose of paragraph (c)?
      Mr. Lilley: We are adding to "parental responsibility" a wider category to encompass any children resident with the employee and any child of the employee, including a stepchild, whom he or she maintains. I believe that that includes all the categories.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 8, in page 11, line 32 at end insert—
      '(1B) The child falls within this subsection if—
      800

      (a) he is a child for whom the employee has parental responsibility,

      (b) he is resident with the employee, or

      (c) he is a child of the employee and maintained at his expense.'.

      No. 9, in page 12 leave out lines 13 to 36 and insert—
      '(5)In subsection 1(B)(c) above the reference to a child of the employee includes a reference to a stepchild of his.'.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 12, line 46 at end insert—
      '(1A) In section 154(2) of the Taxes Act 1988 for the words "section 155" there shall be substituted the words "sections 155 and 155A".'.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Mr. Boateng: We welcome the amendment. It follows a new course. It follows from amendment No. 40 which we tabled on the Floor of the House, when the matter last came before us. The Government accepted it in principle and we are glad to see that it has been worked through into the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25

      DONATIONS TO CHARITY BY INDIVIDUALS
      Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 14, line I7 after 'payment', insert 'of a sum of money'.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Madam Deputy SpeakerM: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: We said in Committee that the word "payment" covered only a payment of money, yet as the Government have drafted the clause it could have a wider and, as it turned out in the course of the debate, unintended meaning. The amendments suggest that our worries were well founded. I can see that their purpose is to address our worries and to tidy up the Bill.
      Mr. Ryder: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the problem in Committee. As a result of his observations, we have made changes and I appreciate his help.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 14, line 23, after 'it', insert
      "or, where the donor or a person connected with him does receive a benefit in consequence of making it, the relevant value in relation to the gift does not exceed two and a half per cent. of the amount of the gift and the amount to be taken into account for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to the gift does not exceed £250'.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 15.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: The amendments derive from a suggestion that the Opposition made on the Floor of the House about training and enterprise councils. In Committee, again with regard to gift aid, we said that blanket anti-avoidance clauses which ruled out tax relief whenever the donor received any benefit, however small, were too wide and that a de minimis restriction should be introduced. At the time the Government rejected the idea, but they offered to reconsider. The amendments are a welcome result of that reconsideration.
      Mr. Ryder: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the assistance that he has provided. As a result of that assistance we have tabled the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 14, line 42, at end insert—
      '(3A) For the purposes of subsections (2)(e) above and (3B) below, the relevant value in relation to a gift is—

      (a) where there is one benefit received in consequence of making it which is received by the donor or a person connected with him, the value of that benefit;

      (b) where there is more than one benefit received in consequence of making it which is received by the donor or a person connected with him, the aggregate value of all the benefits received in consequence of making it which are received by the donor or a person connected with him.

      (3B) The amount to be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (2)(e) above in relation to a gift to a charity is an amount equal to the aggregate of—

      (a) the relevant value in relation to the gift, and

      (b) the relevant value in relation to each gift already made to the charity by the donor in the relevant year of assessment which is a qualifying donation for the purposes of this section.'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 15, line 11, leave out
      'shall be assessed and'
      and insert
      'in respect of so much of them as is equal to the payment and may be deducted in computing his total income the donor shall be'.
      If the Government are grateful for our two small amendments to the gift aid clauses so far, I hope that they will be even more grateful for this amendment. We tackled the matter at some length in Committee so I shall not go over the issues again.
      Amending the Bill along the lines that we suggest here could save Her Majesty's Government as much as £4 billion. We hold to the view that the Bill is unintentionally imperfectly drafted. We addressed that in Committee. We had a Division on the point. The Economic Secretary was somewhat hesitant to vote no. I hope that he has had time to reconsider and will accept this clarification of the intention of both the Opposition and the Government. Our aims are the same; we are arguing about the phraseology. I believe that we have it right in our amendment and that the Bill is still flawed.
      Mr. Ryder: It is a pleasure to advise my hon. Friends to accept the Opposition's amendment. Again, I appreciate the assistance that the hon. Gentleman has given us, particularly in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 15, line 28, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3A)'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

    Clause 26

      COMPANY DONATIONS TO CHARITY
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 15, line 46, at end insert—
      '(1A) In subsection (1) after the word "payment" there shall be inserted the words "of a sum of money".'.
      No. 15, in page 16, line 8, after 'it', insert
      'and either the relevant value in relation to the payment exceeds two and a half per cent. of the amount given after deducting tax under section 339(3) or the amount to be taken into account for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to the payment exceeds £250.
      (3BA) For the purposes of subsections (3B) above and (3BB) below, the relevant value in relation to a payment to a charity is—

      (a) where there is one benefit received in consequence of making it which is received by the company or a connected person, the value of that benefit;

      (b) where there is more than one benefit received in consequence of making it which is received by the company or a connected person, the aggregate value of all the benefits received in consequence of making it which are received by the company or a connected person.

      (3BB) The amount to be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (3B)(b) above in relation to a payment to a charity is an amount equal to the aggregate of—

      (a) the relevant value in relation to the payment, and

      (b) the relevant value in relation to each payment already made to the charity by the company in the accounting period in which the payment is made which is a qualifying donation within the meaning of this section.'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

      Clause 28
      Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 18, line 18, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 19 and insert
      'not be regarded as income for any income tax purpose'.— [ Mr. Ryder.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 22.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: These amendments were promised in Committee, when the parliamentary Labour party pointed out that the TESSA legislation as previously drafted probably meant that banks and building societies could not deduct the interest they paid on TESSAs, because such interest had to be disregarded
      "for all purposes of the income tax."
      We thought that that meant both as regards taxing it in the recipient's hands and allowing it as a deduction for the payers. The amendments alter that so that interest will be disregarded as income for the purposes of the Taxes Act 1988, which will allow it to be deducted for tax purposes by the payers.
      Amendment No. 19 alters the old save-as-you-earn legislation. Although there is an interesting and esoteric point to make in that respect, I will not make it because the hour is late.
      Sir William Clark: I am in a slight dilemma because the amendments concern savings. I really want to speak to schedule 5, in respect of Government amendment No. 29, but perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I make my points now.
      The Government have encouraged savings, and one of the worrying aspects of schedule 5 is the implications that the Inland Revenue will have the power to make random tests of bank and building society accounts. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not quote MIRAS regulations at me, because they relate only to such interest in terms of loans, including relevant contractual deeds, and so on, and to persons holding such contracts or having the means of making such payments.
      As to the receipt of interest from banks or building societies, now that the composite rate is being abolished and there are separate assessments for a husband and wife, I cannot comprehend why it is necessary for the Inland Revenue to have the power to undertake random tests of bank or building society accounts. If the Revenue has a suspicion that someone is not—
      Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it not be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to declare one of his many and extensive interests?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman has an interest to declare, he will declare it.
      Sir William Clark: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order, because I have nothing to do with banks. I am a vice-president of the Building Societies Association, which is a non-commercial body, as are members of the hon. Gentleman's own party. My remarks refer to the right of the Inland Revenue to examine a person's account at random.
      If the Revenue suspects that an individual is not making a proper return of his or her income, it has the right to obtain through the commissioners of income tax authority to examine any account. It is rather churlish of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) to accuse me of not disclosing an interest when the position that I hold is purely honorary. If the hon. Gentleman received such an honour, I would congratulate him.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give a categorical assurance that if the Revenue wants to examine a bank or building society account, it must have justification for so doing—but not at random. Why should the Revenue investigate a joint bank account, for example, if there is no suspicion that the husband and wife concerned are guilty of tax evasion?
      I hope that my hon. Friend can assure me that under section 482 random sampling will not take place and that the Revenue's powers will remain as they are, which means that it can only investigate where there is just cause and a reasonable chance that tax is being evaded. If we are not given that assurance, we are on a slippery slope, as the Inland Revenue acquire more and more powers. We would then have a big-brother state, which I want to avoid.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Ryder: My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has sought my assurance that we shall not undertake fishing expeditions. There is no question of such expeditions taking place. The Revenue gave banking representatives that categorical assurance when they met on 3 July. I am more than happy to repeat and emphasise that undertaking.
      Sir William Clark: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can confirm that that means that random sampling is out?
      Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend referred to section 482(11)(aa) which ensures that the
      "regulations may make provision for the inspection of books, documents and other records"
      The terms of that provision are almost precisely the same as those that appear in the MIRAS legislation to which my hon. Friend also referred.
      I understand that, in the consultations that have been taking place with the banking industry, it has emphasised that no responsibility can be placed on bank staff other than for the most minimal compliance. That means that the whole burden of compliance falls on the Revenue. It is therefore essential for audit purposes that Revenue officials have access to records and documents and are supplied with information that will enable them to identify account holders who receive interest without any tax deduction.
      804
      I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of fishing expeditions. The Revenue gave banking representatives that categorical assurance when they met on 3 July, and I repeat it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
      '(2) The reference in section 326A to a deposit account shall be taken to include a reference to a share account with a building society, and accordingly that section, section 326B and subsection (1) above shall apply to such an account with the necessary modifications.".'.—[ Mr. Ryder.]
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: The amendment is not contentious. It ensures that building society accounts qualify as TESSAs provided that the rest of the criteria in section 326A are satisfied.
      The amendment is evidence of sloppy drafting. Had the legal flaw not been spotted in time, most building society TESSAs would not, strictly speaking, have qualified as such. The Government were therefore right to correct that flaw.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 20, line 14, at end insert—
      '(3) In section 149B of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
      "(4) Any bonus to which section 326 (certified contractual savings schemes) or 326A (tax-exempt special savings accounts) of the Taxes Act 1988 applies shall be disregarded for all purposes of the enactments relating to capital gains tax.".'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

    Clause 29

      EXTENSION OF SAYE
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 20, line 20, at end insert—
      '(aa) in that subsection, for the words "be disregarded" onwards there shall be substituted the words "not be regarded as income for any income tax purposes.";'.
      No. 20, in page 20, leave out lines 33 to 37.—[Mr. Ryder.]

    Clause 50

      FRIENDLY SOCIETIES: APPLICATION OF ENACTMENTS
      Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 40, line 22, after 'section', insert
      'may make different provision for different cases and'.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: We accept that the amendment concerns a minor drafting point.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 51

      AUTHORISED UNIT TRUSTS
      Mr. John Watts: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 44, line 27, at end add—
      'Authorised unit trusts: unfranked income trusts
      468.—(1) This section applies where:—

      (a) as regards a distribution period ending after 31st December 1990 a dividend is treated by virtue of section 468(2) as paid to a unit holder (whether or not income is in fact paid to the unit holder), and

      (b) all or part (in this section the "appropriate portion") of the dividend is paid from sources other than franked investment income, and

      805

      (c) the dividend is treated as paid by the trustees of a unit trust scheme which is an authorised unit trust as respects the accounting period in which the distribution period falls, and

      (d) arrangements with the Board as provided in section 468I are in force in respect of such unit trust scheme.

      (2) Where this section applies, if the unit holder to whom the dividend is treated as paid is not resident in the United Kingdom for the whole of the year of assessment in which the dividend is treated as paid and is resident in a qualifying country, he shall be entitled, on the payment (or deemed payment) of the appropriate portion of the dividend, to payment by the trustees of such unit trust scheme of the tax credit (if any) to which an individual resident in the United Kingdom would have been entitled had he received such dividend, and no United Kingdom tax shall be payable in respect of such dividend or the amount of the tax credit so paid.
      (3) For the purposes of sub-section (2) above, a person shall be treated as not resident in the United Kingdom and resident in a qualifying country for a year of assessment if this is proved on a claim in that behalf made to the Board.
      (4) Where units arc held under a trust and the person who is the beneficiary in possession under the trust is the sole beneficiary in possession and can, by means either of ther evocation of the trust or the exercise of any power under the trust, call upon the trustees at any time to transfer the units to him absolutely free from the trust, that person shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as the unit holder.
      (5) The trustees shall certify in writing to the investor the appropriate portion of the dividend together with the amount of the tax credit referable thereto and to which a recipient is entitled to a payment as provided in this section.
      (6) In this section "qualifying country" means any country which is at any time during such year of assessment a member state of the European Economic Community or any other country which is for the time being designated for the purposes of this section as a qualifying country by order made by the Board.

      Authorised unit trusts: payment by trustees
      4681

      (1) The trustees of an authorised unit trust may enter into arrangements with the Board in respect of unit holders who would, if such arrangements were in force, be entitled to payment of the associated tax credit under section 468H.

      (2) Under such arrangements where a dividend falling within section 468H is treated by virtue of section 468(2) as paid to unit holders in respect of whom the arrangements have been made:—

      (a) the trustees may pay to such unit holders the amount of the associated tax credit in respect of the appropriate portion of the dividend (the "additional amount"): and

      (b) all additional amounts so paid shall be set against advance corporation tax which the trustees are liable to pay for the return period in which the dividend was paid and shall discharge a corresponding amount of that liability.

      (3) The Board shall not make arrangements under this section unless they are satisfied that the payment of the additional amounts shall not ensure to the benefit of persons other than those entitled thereto.

      (4) The effective period of such arrangements shall begin with the date on which the arrangements are made, or such later or earlier date as may be specified in the arrangements, and shall end with the date on which either party receives notice in writing from the other terminating the arrangements, or such later date as may be specified in the notice.

      806

      (5) The trustees shall render the Board an account at such time, and containing such particulars relating to the dividend as the Board may require.'.

      The amendment has been suggested by the Unit Trust Association, and in case Opposition Front Bench spokesmen get excited, I have no pecuniary interest in any unit trust or any association for unit trusts, but I have an interest in the general welfare of the industry.
      The purpose of the amendment is to improve the competitive position of the unit trust industry in the developing European market. At present, people living in most European countries will receive less income from a unit trust based in the United Kingdom than they could derive from a local fund. That is certainly true of gross receipts and, in some cases, of net receipts as well. That is because United Kingdom trusts are unique in paying corporation tax on their income. As far as I am aware, no European fund suffers from an equivalent tax impost.
      Income funds are expected to be a centrepiece of the export ranges of the United Kingdom fund managers seeking to develop the market in Europe. They will be competitive only if they can at least match the income paid out by local funds. The amendment proposed by the Unit Trust Association allows United Kingdom unit trusts to pay out more income so that they can match the local funds. The additional pay-out is the same amount as United Kingdom taxpayers would receive as a tax credit. That removes the disadvantage that they suffer as a result of corporation tax.
      The amendment involves no tax cost to the United Kingdom revenue, since, in effect, it will apply only to income on marginal businesses that would not otherwise be flowing through the United Kingdom, and there may be some small increase in United Kingdom tax revenue because, if the fund managers are successful, they will be paying corporation tax on the profits that they earn.
      I raised this matter in Committee and I welcomed another concession that the Government had made to the unit trust industry. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary agreed to look further at the proposals from the Unit Trust Association and, good as his word, as we would always expect of him, he wrote to me with his further thoughts. I thank him for that. He is certainly sympathetic to the desire of the unit trust industry to establish a bridgehead in Europe and to increase our invisible earnings through that mechanism.
      My hon. Friend raised a number of points in his letter. He said that United Kingdom unit trusts benefit from favourable withholding tax rates on overseas dividends compared with Luxembourg funds that had no treaty benefits. I am told that Luxembourg is not considered the threat. The major competition in this market for United Kingdom managed funds of non-United Kingdom equities—American or Japanese securities—is expected to come more from France and Germany, which have tax treaty networks comparable with those that we enjoy.
      My hon. Friend also objected that the proposed change is complicated and would be expensive to administer. The legislation involves only the new clause that has informed my amendment. Managers who are not involved in the export business do not need to change their procedures; others will merely need to identify overseas investors who qualify for a gross distribution, and include on the distribution voucher a note of the amount that represents a tax credit.
      Any extra burden would fall principally on fund managers who chose to operate under such a scheme. Clearly, they think that it would be worth while. They should be given the fiscal opportunity to develop what they perceive to be a major opportunity to increase our invisible earnings. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to look again at the matter. I ask him not necessarily to accept my amendment this evening, but at least to give me an undertaking that he will conduct further studies with his officials, perhaps with a view to making some change in next year's Finance Bill.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: There are a range of difficulties in getting British financial products wholly compatible with the practice that pertains in other European countries. It is particularly difficult to make them compatible with the systems used by our EC partners in time for 1992. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) seeks to address one of the issues involved. As I understand it, his amendment would stop the United Kingdom charging withholding tax, to the extent that the distribution was attributable to income that was taxable in the hands of the unit trust.
      A balance must be achieved in deciding whether the yield to the United Kingdom Exchequer from unit trusts—despite what the hon. Gentleman said, I think that there would be some reduction in yield—would be offset by the advantages that would accrue to the United Kingdom by making unit trusts more attractive to investors from the Common Market. The Government must achieve that balance when deciding whether to accept the amendment.
      It is difficult for the Opposition to make a judgment, because detailed advice from the Revenue is available to the Financial Secretary but not directly to us, although I am sure that he will explain to us in a few moments.
      I am neutral on the amendment. I commend the hon. Member for Slough for at least trying to address one of the several complex and difficult issues that will have to be addressed before 1992. Delay hurts this country. They are not easy matters to solve, but the hon. Gentleman is right to attempt to do so, and we do not want to thwart him in that.
      Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) is right to say that we discussed and corresponded on the amendment, which he asked me to reconsider. I have done so, and I will explain why I did not table a similar amendment at this stage.
      The amendment is likely to affect only 5 per cent. of funds—95 per cent. of unit trusts are already in a beneficial position vis-a-vis their European counterparts—and only in some countries. In France and Holland, for example, the potential investor would be no better off than he is as a result of the change, because the foreign dividends would flow straight to foreign shareholders. If foreign tax authorities do not like dividends flowing straight to foreign shareholders, they may alter the tax treatment to offset it, and we would be back to where we started. There would always be some benefit for those promoting such funds, because there would be opportunities for tax evasion where money is paid gross rather than net, but we should not go out of our way to promote that.
      In the light of my hon. Friend's comments, I shall leave a message that my successor—I can freely impose burdens on my successor that I might not place on myself—should reconsider the amendment, without commitment, before the next Budget.
      Mr. Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that sympathetic response. I wish him well in his new responsibilities and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 74

      DEBTS OF OVERSEAS GOVERNMENTS ETC.
      Mr. Peter Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 63, line 26, leave out
      'subject to subsection (3) below'
      and insert 'in certain circumstances".
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will he convenient to consider amendment No. 43, in page 63, line 40, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subject to subsection (3) below, the circumstances in which subsections (1) and (2) apply are where either—

      (a) the loss results from a transaction with a connected party, or

      (b) within a period of twelve months before and after the event giving rise to the loss the company enters into transactions in the same class of debt with the result that the total amount owed to the company by debtors of that class is no less at the end of that period than it was at the beginning;

      and for the purpose of this subsection parties are connected and debts are of the same class if they meet the conditions laid down in regulations.
      (2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) above shall be made by the Treasury but shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of the House of Commons.'.
      Mr. Viggers: There is an important point of principle at stake and the amounts involved are large.
      Clause 74 and the amendments deal with the treatment of sovereign debt and the rights of banks to write off bad debts against profits. I have always understood that it is an essential point of principle that taxation should be levied on income or profits, which should be properly assessed. It is the duty of directors and auditors to provide a true and fair view of a company's accounts so that taxation can be levied according to that true and fair view. According to those principles, it is critical that bad or irrecoverable debts are written down or written off and proper deductions allowed. Clause 74 breaches that principle. Sovereign debt write-offs are allowed only on a formula basis of 5 per cent a year of the original debt. Prudence may require a higher level of write-off: the directors and auditors may well decide that it is appropriate for larger deductions to be made from the company's accounts. The Bill as currently drafted, however, prevents tax relief in that year.
      12.30 am
      I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for writing to me and spelling out the Government's view. I also listened to the arguments that were advanced in Committee. The Government have presented three arguments in favour of clause 74 in its original form. First, they seek to show that it will benefit everyone to introduce certainty and clarity. Secondly, they argue that, according to the Red Book, they will gain some £200 million in the current year as a result of their proposed change. I think that the second argument contradicts the first; while certainty and clarity may indeed be introduced, the banks will lose out to the tune of £200 million this year.

      809
      The third argument—it is to the credit of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues that they have not tried to make a great point of this—is that banks could engage in tax avoidance. My amendments take account of that possibility and provide for anti-avoidance, but only in cases in which banks have been responsible for avoidance by way of swaps with other banks or deals with connected persons.
      In my view, the arguments against the clause as drafted are strong. First, it sets a precedent. In many instances, directors and auditors will seek to put forward their own views on the valuation of assets: it is fundamental that they should be allowed to do so, and that tax should be levied according to their valuation. In the case of, for example, the valuation of properties, stock, goodwill—my right hon. Friend and I both know a good deal about that—and unexplored oil acreage, it is necessary for directors and auditors to form a true and fair view. If their commercial judgment is to be segregated from taxation, I believe that that is a point of principle that the Government will live to regret.
      The clause provides for the Treasury to produce regulations. Let me say in advance that I shall not seek to divide the House, but I hope that, when drafting the regulations, my right hon. Friend will take account of what I have said, and also of the cogent points made in Committee.
      Sir William Clark: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). It is extraordinary that the Inland Revenue should take it on itself to decide whether a debt is good or bad: it has no experience whatever of the conditions of the person who owes the money, and no idea of the stability of the country involved —for most of the debts are overseas debts.
      Surely, for the Revenue arbitrarily to limit bad-debt provision to 5 per cent.—or whatever formula it may come up with—is entirely contrary to all our tax experience. In the case of any company's accounts, the computation is put in by the accountants; the accounts have been audited, and the auditor's certificate has dealt with the bad-debt provision. If the directors and the company's financial section cannot satisfy the auditor that the bad-debt provision is too much or too little, it is a reflection on the certificate. Although the auditor has passed accounts saying that, say, 100 units is bad-debt provision, the Inland Revenue, with no experience of the local circumstances —mainly overseas—of the debt, may then arbitrarily decide that, in the computation of profits for that tax year, the only amount allowed is a percentage of the sovereign debt.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has pointed out, there can be argument about the value of oil rights or goodwill. In the case of sovereign debts the bank knows how much has been loaned. The assessment of the bad debt provision for that loan is determined not only by the bank's board of directors but by its representative, the bank manager abroad. Between them they have to satisfy the auditor, and if he is satisfied that the bad debt provision is valid and reasonable, I cannot see why the Inland Revenue, which has no experience of the circumstances of the loan, should take it upon itself arbitrarily to say that the provision shall be only a certain amount. That is a violation of what has happened in the past about bad debt provision.
      810
      We all congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If he is convinced by the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, he should persuade his successor to take action to remove this anomaly.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: It will be no comfort to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to learn that the arguments advanced by them were vigorously advanced at length by their hon. Friends in Committee. They were not warmly received by the Opposition or by the Government. I am as certain as one can be in such matters that the Secretary of State will not accept the amendments. It would be peculiar if he did because they are wrecking amendments. They are designed to emasculate new section 88C of clause 74 which deals with actual losses on the sale or write off of debts rather than the claiming of deductions for the provision which new section 88B covers.
      Currently, such losses may be claimed only at 5 per cent. per year where the debt confirmed is a less-developed country debt that has already been provided against unless the debt is sold to the debtor nation, in which case the whole loss may be claimed. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would mean that the 5 per cent. restriction applied only in two narrowly defined cases; otherwise the whole loss would be claimable. I am sure from what the hon. Member for Gosport and the right hon. Member for Croydon, South have said that their intention is to restrict clause 74 as narrowly as possible. That is not in the spirit of what Ministers said in support of the clause, and it is certainly not the view of the Opposition. I am sorry that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman any greater comfort. The hon. Member for Gosport said he did not intend to push the amendment to a Division. However, if we are asked to vote on it, I shall request my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Lilley: I am tempted to urge my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) to push his amendment to a Division so that I may have the pleasure of joining the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in the Lobby. I enjoy debating such matters with him, but we rarely vote on the same side. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) advanced important issues which we considered at great length in Committee. I congratulate them on the pithiness of their contributions which were in contrast to those made in Committee. They made their case effectively.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport says that it is a matter of principle that tax should fall on profits properly assessed at the time that they are assessed. However, the tax system contains the well established precedent that tax may be phased differently from the way in which it appears in a company's accounts. Not least, capital allowances for tax purposes may differ from those taken in management and company accounts. I do not think that any great principle is involved on timing. We are altering only the time in which the banks pay their profits and not the measure of profits, except in the context of the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark).

      811
      The essence of the matter is that sovereign debt is sui generis. It is different from the sort of debts that ordinary companies incur. A bad debt that is incurred by a company is normally fairly obvious because the debtor has ceased to exist, has disappeared, has been made bankrupt or has become insolvent. Countries rarely disappear and are rarely declared bankrupt.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Sometimes.
      Mr. Lilley: That may happen sometimes, but only rarely. I think that in one instance the debts were carried with it, but I must be careful about what I say.
      It is a matter of assessing whether a loan is likely to be repaid at the end of its life. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, who wants profits and debts to be related to timing, is not suggesting that we wait until the end of the loan before we assess whether it is a bad debt and should be written off and given tax relief. Sometimes it is necessary to make an estimate beforehand. It has long been accepted that the Bank of England's matrix is an authoritative guide to the necessary provisions that will be acceptable for tax purposes under tax law. Quite commonly, banks have made provisions in excess of the bank's matrix, and there has been no suggestion that they are automatically eligible for tax. It is only the bank's matrix, which suggests the prudential level that is required, which has been taken as the amount to be written off for tax purposes. In this underlying legislation we are enshrining the matrix in law and removing uncertain elements. A range of parameters has been defined and we are taking mid point. We are removing one or two subjective criteria and leaving objective criteria, and providing certainty and objectivity without changing the principle. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said that an attempt has been made to cover tax avoidance. The attempt has not succeeded because debts sold out of the group by one company may well be replaced by debts bought from outside the group by another company in the same group, and that other company may be outside the United Kingdom. In practice, it will be impossible for us to police an international banking group to ensure that that does not happen. Consequently, the possibility of avoidance would be rife if the amendments were accepted. I urge the House to reject the amendments. I understand that it is unlikely that they will be divided upon.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 76

      TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS AND LOCAL ENTERPRISE COMPANIES
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 64, line 28, at end insert
      'save that this subsection shall not operate to prevent subsection (1) above from applying where the aggregate values of any benefits which any persons mentioned above receive or are entitled to receive does not exceed two and a half per cent. of the amount of the contribution.'.
      We discussed a similar issue to the one raised by the amendment during a debate on the Floor of the House on Tuesday 15 May, which ended with a Division. We have advanced similar arguments to the Government on gift aid, and they have reconsidered their position. When we discussed the matter on 15 May, the Financial Secretary
      812
      said that he accepted that the amendments had been moved in a helpful spirit and that he accepted the spirit behind them. Even though he had no disagreement with them in principle or in substance, the Government believed that the amendments would prove onerous, so they were rejected.
      We have returned to the point because the Government have had second thoughts about a similar issue, gift aid. If it is right to think again about the de minimis principle as it affects gifts aid, surely it is right to do so in respect of tax. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about training and enterprise councils. The amendment is moved in a bipartisan spirit, and I hope that it will be accepted by the Government.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Ryder: As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, the amendment relates to a point that we discussed in Committee: that the relief for business contributions to training and enterprise councils and local enterprise councils will not apply if the contributor receives a benefit in connection with the making of the contribution.
      The amendment is designed to provide that, if a company receives benefits connected with a particular contribution that do not exceed in aggregate value 2.5 per cent. of the amount of the contribution, they will not prevent the contribution from attracting relief. We have introduced a de minimis cut-off broadly of that kind in relation to the gift aid provisions to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East referred, but with a ceiling of £250. The amendment, however, has no ceiling. We did not believe that it was necessary to complicate this much more specific and limited provision by providing a similar cut-off. It is much more likely that the de minims benefits will be received in connection with a donation to a charity rather than to a TEC—for example, free tickets to the opera in return for a donation to Covent Garden, or free attendance at charitable events.
      Perhaps the most likely legitimate benefit that a company is likely to receive in return for a contribution to a TEC is some measure of free training for its work force. My right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) an assurance both in our previous debate and subsequently by letter that the Inland Revenue will ignore benefits of that kind in individual cases. However, I recognise that the Opposition are concerned about the benefits rules in clause 76. I believe that their concern is misplaced, but I am ready to give the hon. Gentleman a firm undertaking that, if there is any suggestion that in practice the rules are inhibiting businesses from contributing to TECs and LECs, as we all want them to do, we shall return to the point.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is a very helpful assurance, which I welcome. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 89

      INCOME TAX RETURNS
      Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 76, line 28, after 'statements', insert
      ', relating to information contained in the return,'.—[Mr. Lilley.]
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: The amendment accepts, at least to a degree, the point that we and a number of Conservative Members raised in Committee. The inspectors' powers to demand any kind of accounts and statements to accompany tax returns were, we felt, rather wide. The amendment helpfully addresses that concern.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 76, line 40, at end insert—

      'Trustee's return
      8A.—(1) For the purpose of assessing a trustee of a settlement, and the settlors and beneficiaries, to income tax an inspector may by a notice given to the trustee require the trustee—

      (a) to make and deliver to the inspector within the time limited by the notice a return containing such information as may be required in pursuance of the notice, and

      (b) to deliver with the return such accounts and statements, relating to information contained in the return, as may be required in pursuance of the notice; and a notice may be given to any one trustee or separate notices may be given to each trustee or to such trustees as the inspector thinks fit.

      (2) Every return under this section shall include a declaration by the person making the return to the effect that the return is to the best of his knowledge correct and complete.
      (3) A notice under this section may require different information, accounts and statements for different periods or in relation to different descriptions of source of income.
      (4) Notices under this section may require different information, accounts and statements in relation to different descriptions of settlement.'.—[Mr. Lilley.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 26.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Both amendments are relatively minor. They relate to trustees' powers concerning special trust tax returns. Both are unexceptionable. The Opposition accept them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 26, in page 77, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) In section 12 of that Act (information about chargeable gains)—

      (a) in subsection (1) for the words "Section 8" there shall be substituted the words "Sections 8 and 8A" and for the words "it applies" there shall be substituted the words "they apply";

      (b) in subsection (2) after the words "section 8" there shall be inserted the words "or section 8A";

      (c) in subsection (4) the words "of income of a partnership" shall be omitted.

      (2A) In section 93 of that Act (penalties) in subsection (1) for the words "9 of this Act (or either" there shall be substituted the words "8A or 9 of this Act (or any".
      (2B) In section 95 of that Act (penalties) in subsection (1)(a) for the words "9 of this Act (or either" there shall be substituted the words "8A or 9 of this Act (or any".'.—[Mr. Lilley.]

    Clause 90

      CORPORATION TAX RETURNS
      Amendment proposed: No. 27, in page 77, line 45, leave out from '(1)' to second 'section' in line 46.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to
      814
      consider Government amendment No. 28.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: All the changes to the rules on tax returns for individuals or partnerships apply from April 1990. Those on corporate tax returns apply only from the date pay-and-file is introduced, which will probably be 1993. These amendments make one small part of those rules apply instead as from Royal Assent. We generally support the spirit of clause 90, so we do not find the matter contentious.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 78, line 26, at end insert—
      '(8) Subsection (4) above shall apply with respect to any notice served on or after the day of which this Act is passed.
      (9) Subsections (2), (3) and (5) to (7) above shall apply with respect to any notice served after the day appointed for the purposes of section 82 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987.'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

    Clause 115

      AMOUNT OF LEVY
      Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 93, line 9, leave out '50' and insert '25'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 45, in clause 116, page 94, line 21, leave out 'three' and insert 'nine'.
      Mr. Beith: We come to the port levy. Somehow the Government always contrive that the port levy shall be debated at the latest possible hour of the night, preferably with as few as possible of their hon. Friends present so that they cannot be made fully aware that it is not only a levy on ports but is a privatisation tax. It is a tax designed to recoup all the proceeds from the privatisation of ports to the central Exchequer. That process will probably discourage further port privatisations more or less totally. It is accompanied by a statement made in Committee by the Chief Secretary to the effect that any port that devises alternative arrangements for privatisation and brings them in a private Bill which would direct the proceeds towards the local community so that the Government did not get their 50 per cent. levy would face retrospective legislation to ensure that a 50 per cent. levy was secured. It is the first time I can remember hearing a Minister promise to introduce retrospective legislation on a certain matter. The Government are so determined to achieve their privatisation levy on the ports.
      Part of the problem is that the tax is certain to be more than 50 per cent. in many cases. There are other responsibilities such as capital gains tax to be considered and the capital gains tax market values are applied to the 50 per cent. If a port were to decide, for example, to place its shares as a private business in the hands of local authorities, local businesses or its own employees, they would change hands at less than the rate that would prevail if they were on the open market without those conditions. However, the company would still be taxed as if it had made the disposals on a full market-value basis. That will mean that a responsible port authority, seeking to safeguard the future of the port in its area, could find itself taxed at 70, 80, 100 or even 110 per cent. on the proceeds of privatisation.

      815
      I must ask Conservative Members what is the point of the exercise if it is not to release the trapped resources of the ports and bring into the ports the new resources from shareholdings which come about as a result of privatisation. Why does the central Exchequer have to grab all that money?
      Faced with those features, I have proposed two amendments. One reduces the levy to 25 per cent. nominally and, therefore, to 50 per cent. in practice, and the other deals with the specific issue of employee share ownership plans and the Government's stringent limitations on the opportunity for ports to make shares available to employees through employee share ownership schemes. It is extraodinary that the Government have taken this step. I do not see why the central Exchequer rather than local ports and local communities should be dipping so heavily into the proceeds. Many port authorities will come to the conclusion that privatisation is not for them. I say that as someone who is not, in general, opposed to all privatisations. There are many circumstances in which it might be an appropriate step to take. However, it would be appropriate only if the port authority can ensure that it remains under local management, and that its resources will not simply be transferred to the Exchequer. Faced with the arrangements that the Government have devised, many trust ports will say that they are far better off as they are.
      The Government have permitted a 3 per cent. dispersal of shares to employee share ownership plans to attract tax relief—despite the endorsement by the former Financial Secretary, now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, of the idea that 10 per cent. might be an appropriate ESOP holding in a company. In Committee of the whole House the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "10 per cent. strikes the right balance, representing as it does a stake large enough to ensure the employees a degree of involvement in the company's affairs, while not being so large as to make the new relief unattractive."—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 960.]
      If 10 per cent. is good for ESOPs in general, why is it not good for ESOPs in ports? Ten per cent. was turned down in a Division in Committee, so I have put a slightly more modest proposal before the House tonight and suggest that we accept 9 per cent. Surely that would be acceptable to the Government.
      The Government seem determined to restrict to the absolute minimum the opportunities that they will afford for ESOPs to get some tax relief from this port levy. I wonder whether Conservative Members who are interested in and have shown strong support for ESOPs, such as the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), are happy with this arrangement. It is profoundly unsatisfactory.
      At no stage have the Government made a convincing case for the central Exchequer making such huge claims on these revenues. They sought at one stage to argue that the Government had invested in trust ports in the past, and therefore were entitled to get their money back. Any scheme that got the Government their money back would return only a tiny fraction of the amount of revenue about which the Government are talking. I, therefore, invite the Government and the House to lower the nominal rate of levy so that it is not so huge a deterrent on the placing of shares with the local community and to raise the limit under which employee share ownership schemes can gain tax relief from this huge impost.
      Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggests that this is a privatisation tax, but he seems to forget that normally when the Government sell a company they keep 100 per cent. of the revenue. The states owns—
      Mr. Beith rose—
      Mr. Lilley: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this arcane distinction between the state and the Government.
      Mr. Beith: It is not an arcane distinction. It is beyond dispute that the state does not own the ports. They are trust ports. If the state owned them, they would not be the subject of private Bills, such as the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Port Authority Bill, and the Minister knows that full well.
      Mr. Lilley: On the contrary, the courts have ruled that trusts of this kind are owned by the state, as distinct from the Government. When the Government sell a company, they keep 100 per cent. of the revenue. The hon. Gentleman may argue that this is not a privatisation, but he cannot argue that there is anything abnormal about keeping the proceeds of a sale. In this case, we felt that it was right to have less than 100 per cent. of the funds going to the Government in order to give some incentive for the trusts to go private and to let them use some of the funds for the development of the port operations. Fifty per cent. seemed a good compromise, being half way between zero and 100 per cent.
      Although we may be reasonably sure that this levy will not discourage future privatisations by trusts, the main reason for privatisation is that the forming of private company status will free the trusts from the inhibitions, which they previously suffered under their existing status, from developing their activities beyond those of the ports and making full use of the assets that they possess.
      The companies are free to give more than 3 per cent. of shares to their employees if they wish, but only 3 per cent. will escape levy. Any higher proportion would have to come out of company funds, which is not unreasonable. There is nothing in this which is comparable with the 10 per cent. limit for ESOPs. Three per cent. would be a higher proportion going to employees than in any previous issue for which I have records—I think that the highest figure has been 2.4 per cent. So the 3 per cent. figure is not artificially low and I urge the House to reject both the amendments.
      Mr. BeithThe Government have just demonstrated how lacking in radicalism they are. They are content with a 2.4 per cent. proportion going to ESOPs rather than opening the way to a much larger share, and yet again they have failed to make out a case for that. The pretence is being made that the Government own the ports. That is clearly not the case, as they have been invested in, supported and managed by the local communities. The fact that a court had to find some definition of their ownership other than the Government is ample demonstration that they are not in the hands of the Government. The Government have no right to lay claim to resources which ought to be left in the ports. Therefore, I ask the House to resist the Government by at least reducing the level of the tax to be imposed.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 88.

      Division No. 295]

      [11.09 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Meale, Alan

      Beith, A. J.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Nellist, Dave

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Parry, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Pendry, Tom

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Spearing, Nigel

      Home Robertson, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Howells, Geraint

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Wallace, James

      Kennedy, Charles

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lewis, Terry

      Mr. Richard Livsey and

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Amess, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Amos, Alan

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Forth, Eric

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Franks, Cecil

      Ashby, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      French, Douglas

      Bellingham, Henry

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gill, Christopher

      Benyon, W.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gregory, Conal

      Body, Sir Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hague, William

      Bowis, John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hayward, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irvine, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jackson, Robert

      Cran, James

      Janman, Tim

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Day, Stephen

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fallen, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Favell, Tony

      Lightbown, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lilley, Peter

      790

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Squire, Robin

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Stern, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Stevens, Lewis

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Summerson, Hugo

      Neale, Gerrard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Neubert, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Norris, Steve

      Thurnham, Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Paice, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Walden, George

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Raffan, Keith

      Watts, John

      Redwood, John

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Wilkinson, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Ryder, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Yeo, Tim

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Speller, Tony

      Division No. 296]

      [1.00 am

      AYES

      Beith, A. J.

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Wallace, James

      Kennedy, Charles

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Mr. Simon Hughes and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Matthew Taylor.

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hind, Kenneth

      Amess, David

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Amos, Alan

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Irvine, Michael

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Jack, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Janman, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Knapman, Roger

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Boswell, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Bowis, John

      Lightbown, David

      Burns, Simon

      Lilley, Peter

      Butcher, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Carrington, Matthew

      Neale, Gerrard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Neubert, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Norris, Steve

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Paice, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Cran, James

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Rowe, Andrew

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

      Ryder, Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Day, Stephen

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Dover, Den

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Dunn, Bob

      Squire, Robin

      Durant, Tony

      Stern, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Favell, Tony

      Summerson, Hugo

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Forth, Eric

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Freeman, Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      French, Douglas

      Viggers, Peter

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Gill, Christopher

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Watts, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Wood, Timothy

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Yeo, Tim

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Harris, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hayward, Robert

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 5

      BUILDING SOCIETIES AND DEPOSIT-TAKERS
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 124, line 45 leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 46 and insert 'Subsection (3) (a) above'.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 29, in page 128, line 12, at end insert—

      'Transitional provision
      16.—(1) In its application to the year 1991–92, section 477A of the Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect with the following modifications.
      (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may also require any building society to account for and pay, on transitional sums, an amount representing income tax calculated in part at the
      818
      basic rate for the year 1990–91 and in part at the reduced rate determined for that year under section 483(1)(a) of the Taxes Act 1988.
      (3) In sub-paragraph (2) above the reference to transitional sums is to such sums paid or credited after 28th February 1991 and before 6th April 1991 as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.
      (4) In subsection (3)(a) for the words from "actual" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "appropriate amount".
      (5) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
      "(3A) In subsection (3)(a) above the reference to the appropriate amount is to the actual amount paid or credited in the accounting period of any such dividends or interest together with—

      (a) in the case of dividends or interest paid or credited in the year 1990–91, any amount accounted for and paid by the society in respect thereof as representing income tax, and

      (b) in the case of dividends or interest paid or credited in the year 1991–92, any amount of income tax accounted for and paid by the society in respect thereof.".'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Schedule 5 effectively abolishes the composite rate tax scheme and introduces the new scheme, involving deduction of basic rate income tax. It is likely that the old rules covered the transitional period straddling the changeover date of 6 April 1991. However, the Government seem to have had second thoughts on this point, and the amendments are designed to facilitate those second thoughts. It is an unexceptional point and is acceptable to the Opposition.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      LIFE ASSURANCE: APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 30, in page 129, line 18, after 'agency' insert 'outside the United Kingdom'.
      No. 31, in page 133, line 29, after 'if, insert '—

      (a) each of the'.

      No. 32, in page 133, line 31, leave out 'the reference' and insert—

      '(b) in subsection (5)—

      (i) a reference to overseas life assurance business were included after each of the references to pension business in paragraph (a)(ii), and

      (ii) each of the references in paragraph (b)'.— [Mr. Ryder.]

    Schedule 8

      INSURANCE COMPANIES: HOLDERS OF UNIT TRUSTS ETC.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 40, to be moved formally. I call Mr. Nick Brown.
      Hon. Members: Aye.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I hear hon. Members shout, "Aye," I am happy to take that as the consensus view rather than launching into my half-hour oration.
      Nevertheless, I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 147, line 18, at end add—
      '(4) Relief under this paragraph shall be calculated in such a manner as is just and reasonable notwithstanding anything in section 35 Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 (part disposals).'.

      819
      Clause 46 provides for an annual deemed disposal of holdings of unit trusts and relevant interests—I am sure that this is going to keep the attention of the whole House—in offshore funds held by an insurance company as part of its long-term business fund. There are transitional provisions in schedule 8(2) to provide relief for assets held on two back liabilities in respect of policies issued before 1 April 1990.
      These provisions were foreshadowed in the December 1989 Inland Revenue press release, which stated in respect of assets relating to pre-1 April 1990 policies:
      "These assets will not be chargeable under the new rules for so long as the corresponding liabilities are outstanding."
      There is a problem with the existing part disposal rule for capital gains tax calculations, which means that the value of the relief is eroded much more quickly than the liabilities run off. During discussions with the Inland Revenue, a solution to this problem was suggested, but the Financial Secretary stated in Committee that the legislation required to deal with that calculation in detail would be very complex and lengthy and that he was not persuaded that the introduction of such legislation would be appropriate.
      The Association of British Insurers suggested to us and, it appears, to other members of the Committee the simple amendment now before the House. It requires little space in the Bill. Effectively, it empowers the Inland Revenue to ignore the effect of section 35 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979, when applying the rule in schedule 8, if the Revenue accepts that it would be just and reasonable to do so. Everyone from the ABI who approached us seems to think that that would meet the point. We are persuaded that it would do so. I hope that the Government will reconsider and accept our modest, constructive amendment.
      Sir William Clark: From the outset I should state that I am a consultant to Commercial Union Assurance. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on reading out the brief, of which I have a copy, with such panache. He put the point that was made by the ABI, as he rightly said.
      There is no question but that the Government are sympathetic to what the insurance industry seeks to do. The only thing that holds them back is the complexity of any legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will give the House an assurance that the Government will reconsider. There appears to be an anomaly, and if it proves to be one that affects the insurance industry, I hope that remedial action will be taken.
      Mr. Lilley: Our problem is that dealing with the underlying problem would require complex further legislation. An amendment which simply refers to calculations proceeding in a just and reasonable manner does not provide the required level of certainty or the sound basis on which the law should be framed. Different companies may have different ideas of what is just and reasonable. That lack of precision could give rise to disputes that would have to be resolved before the appeal commissioners or in the courts.
      However, I recognise the industry's worries. While it is not possible to introduce detailed legislation in this year's Bill, I can say without commitment that we shall consider returning to the problem next year. By "we", I mean my hapless successor.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am sure that it will not be a hapless successor.
      It is not often that the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and I have similar speeches to make and similar briefs to read in the House. That is a welcome event. I hope that it is the beginning of a new consensus between us. Nevertheless, I suspect that probably I have not incited sufficient rebellious spirit on the Conservative Benches—although I can see that I have made a start. I would waste the time of the House by putting the matter to the test of a Division. I know that the Financial Secretary's not hapless successor will want time to reconsider the points raised. He may even arrive at a different conclusion. To facilitate that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

    Schedule 18

      DEFINITION OF "LOCAL AUTHORITY"
      Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 180, line 9, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
      '3. In section 149B of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
      "(3) A local authority, a local authority association and a health service body shall be exempt from capital gains tax.(3A) In subsection (3) above—

      (a) "local authority association" has the meaning given by section 519 of the Taxes Act 1988, and

      (b) "health service body" has the meaning given by section 519A of that Act.".'.—[Mr. Ryder.]

    Schedule 19

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 34, in page 182, leave out lines 34 to 37.
      No. 35, in page 184, line 4, at end insert—

      '1990 c. 19.

      The Natinal Health

      Section 61(2).'.

      Service and

      Community Care Act

      1990.

      No. 36, in page 184, line 7, leave out from 'repeals' to 'section' in line 8 and insert
      'of section 52 of the Finance Act 1974 and'.
      No. 22, in page 184, line 19, leave out 'sections 476,' and insert
      'section 476 (apart from the repeal in subsection (4) of the words from the beginning to "affecting" and the words "and that paragraph") and sections'.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You put Government amendment Nos. 33, 34 and 36 to the House, overlooking the fact that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was rising to speak. It was difficult for you to overlook it—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those amendments have already been debated. They were disposed of earlier.
      Further consideration adjourned—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
      Bill (as amended in Committee and in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

      Care of Cathedrals
      1.19 am
      Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
      That the Care of Cathedrals Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
      This Measure, and a second Measure still on its way to Parliament—the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure—but to which the General Synod gave final approval last week, represent the fulfilment, essentially, of a commitment made by the Synod to the Government in July 1984. The terms of that commitment were that the Church of England would implement voluntarily the proposals of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission contained in its report published likewise in July 1984, provided that all churches in use, including cathedrals, were allowed to remain exempt from listed building controls; and that the state aid scheme launched in 1977 for churches in use, but as yet not for cathedrals, should be made permanent.
      In October 1986, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Skelmersdale, announced the Government's acceptance of those two conditions. As a result, from early 1987 onwards a drafting committee chaired by Dr. Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester, has been continuously engaged on the task of preparing the promised legislation of which this Measure is the first instalment.
      In deciding to give priority to the care of cathedrals, the Bishop of Chichester and his colleagues took account of the fact that cathedral buildings, despite their immense historical and architectural importance, are at present outside the scope both of the Church of England's own faculty jurisdiction and of the state's system of listed building control. It seemed only logical to plug that gap before improving and extending the faculty jurisdiction that already controls repairs and alterations to churches other than cathedrals.
      Before outlining the provisions of the Measure, I draw the attention of the House to clause 1 in particular. It lays down explicitly the important principle that the functions of care and conservation which the measure confers on certain bodies—whether new or existing bodies—must be exercised with
      "due regard to the fact that the cathedral church is the seat of the bishop and a centre of worship and mission."
      While to many people that may seem a statement of the obvious, there are still some conservationists who need to be reminded that even the most important of our ancient churches have rightly and necessarily been altered and adapted to reflect changes in patterns of worship as one century has succeeded another.
      A balance must always be struck between, on the one hand, the role of the cathedral as
      "a spiritual powerhouse for the whole diocese",
      as the Bishop of Chichester described it, and, on the other hand, the temporal needs of the building as a part of our nation's architectural, archaeological and artistic heritage. Members of the General Synod, and not least the deans and provosts among them, set great store by the inclusion of clause 1 in the Measure. It will ensure that those who administer it have clear guidance, to the effect that their
      822
      duty is to attempt to reconcile the potential tension between spiritual concerns and heritage concerns, and not to pursue the one objective to the exclusion of the other.
      I turn to the control mechanisms that the Measure will introduce. Whereas in the past the administrative body of a cathedral enjoyed sole authority in the last resort to alter the interior of the building or to dispose of or acquire moveable contents, it will in future be required to secure the approval of a local statutory committee for every proposed change of significance short of certain really major changes—about which, more anon. There is to be one such committee for each cathedral, known as its fabric advisory committee. As schedule 2, which provides for its membership, shows, it will not include the dean or provost or any residentiary canon of that cathedral as voting members. Rather it is intended that this committee should be an independent group with relevant expertise and a particular interest in the cathedral concerned.
      The authorisation of the more important changes, including the disposal by sale or otherwise of outstanding moveables, will be reserved for a new statutory body at the centre to be called the Cathedrals Fabric Commission. This body will replace the present Cathedrals Advisory Commission which is constituted, like the other non-statutory boards of the General Synod, under the synod's standing orders.
      In many respects the new commission will inherit and continue the useful advisory functions of the one it succeeds, but it will have in addition a statutory power of control which will enable it to prevent action by a cathedral's administrative body without the commission's consent. This "new-look" commission will also be able to resolve disagreements between an administrative body and the local fabric advisory committee. Great care has been taken to involve as wide a range of expertise as possible in the composition of this very important commission. That composition is set out in schedule 1 to the Measure.
      There is also a provision in the Measure allowing an appeal by an administrative body against a refusal by the Cathedrals Fabric Commission to give approval to any particular proposal. An appeal by an administrative body at that level of jurisdiction is to take the form of a request for a commission of review. This would be an ad hoc three-member body which can fairly be described as the long-stop feature of the system, unlikely to be needed except on rare occasions. One member, probably the chairman, would be the Dean of the Arches or another lawyer appointed by him, the second a dean, provost or residentiary canon of another cathedral appointed by the two archbishops, and the third a nominee of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      For a fuller treatment of the origins and content of the Measure, I refer hon. Members to the customary appendix to the ecclesiastical committee's report, which contains the report of the General Synod's legislative committee. In particular, I should underline the fact that, as can be seen from paragraph 12 of the latter report, not one single contrary vote was recorded in the final approval vote on the Measure in November 1989.
      Like the Bishop of Chichester in another place, I should like to put on record, on behalf of the Measure's drafting committee, our warm gratitude to all the present and past Ministers responsible for heritage matters, and to all those officials in the Department of the Environment who have advised them, for their unstinting help in the preparation of this intrinsically sensitive area of church legislation.

      823
      Let me say a word in this context about enforcement. Earlier this year, after consultation with the present Minister, the draft Care of Churches Measure, the one following this Measure, and still en route to us, was amended in the General Synod to include the enforcement provisions now contained in clause 12 of that Measure which were also acceptable to the Department of the Environment. It was too late, however, at that stage to amend the present Measure, and, in any event, there were then as yet no agreed proposals for an enforcement procedure appropriate to the special needs of cathedrals.
      To sum up, the present position as to enforcement is that the General Synod is already committed to an adequate enforcement procedure for cathedrals, if necessary by legislation. But the acid test is that this Measure should work. All of us in the Church of England are determined that it should, but we are equally clear that if experience gained after a reasonable trial shows it is not working, further action must be taken. Meanwhile, plans are laid to introduce the rules required under the present Measure for the approval of the new synod in November of this year. Once those are in force, the stage will be set for the archbishops to bring the main provisions of the Measure into operation shortly after.
      The Measure is undoubtedly a landmark in the lengthy process in which the Bishop of Chichester, his Faculty Jurisdiction Commission of the early 1980s and latterly his drafting group appointed in 1987 have each played a vital part. May I add my personal thanks to them for their achievements. I hope that the House will now help to crown them by endorsing this Measure, which seeks to give greater protection to some of the finest historical buildings that we as a nation possess.
      1.29 am
      Ms. Joan Walley: The Opposition welcome the Measure that is before us at this very late hour. There is no doubt that our 42 mainland cathedrals of the Church of England form, in the words of English Heritage,
      "the largest coherent and artistically splendid group of listed buildings in England, as well as being of enormous archaeological importance. They are also the home of some of England's greatest works of art from the post Roman period onwards."
      I am sure that many hon. Members and others concerned about the subject will fully agree with the view expressed by English Heritage.
      We welcome the fact that for the first time occasionally controversial decisions that would affect the buildings and contents of our Church of England cathedrals will now become subject to a procedure that will give a measure of public involvement in, and even control over, those wonderful listed buildings.
      We also recognise the enormous amount of hard work that has gone into the formulation of the measure. It seems remarkable that we have ended up with a proposal that is, as we have just heard, so acceptable to so many people, given that the first draft suggested that the Measure would not see the light of day.
      We believe that the local fabric advisory committee and the central Cathedrals Fabric Commission will definitely be of great benefit to the church administrative organisations responsible for the conservation and maintenance of cathedrals. We have no doubt that their membership, so carefully chosen, and the individuals who
      824
      will be appointed to serve on them, will bring enormous expertise and specialist knowledge to our cathedrals. That is particularly important and something from which our cathedrals will greatly benefit.
      I am sure that such wide knowledge of everything—architecture, archaeology, art, church music, stained glass, and historic manuscripts—will be invaluable to cathedral authorities charged with the task of balancing the cathedral as a place of worship against the concept of the cathedral as a vital part of our national heritage. That balance reminds me of the one that must be kept between nature conservation and access to the countryside. Drawing and maintaining that balance is an important part of conservation.
      It is important to view the Measure alongside other developments that are relevant to our cathedrals, some of which the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) touched on. Positive action to implement the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission's 1984 report has been much too slow in coming forward. Today's Measure brings the standard of controls over listed Anglican churches more closely into line with those for secular buildings. However, that is only one of several measures needed relating to cathedrals and their conservation.
      I understand from a debate in another place that proposals on the restriction of the ecclesiastical exemption of listed building control following the consultation paper last year are imminent. In the debate on 28 June in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Hesketh, stated:
      "Tonight is not the right occasion on which to go into the details of our thinking on this issue"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 1990; Vol. 520, c. 1797.]
      I wish that there was a Minister present who could tell us what progress has been made on that. I would welcome comments from the right hon. Member for Selby, if not from the Minister, on the issue so that we may have some indication of the Government's timetable and the Synod's timetable for the implementation of the Measure proposing reductions in the scope of ecclesiastical exemption. I should be interested to know whether that proposal, whatever stage it has reached, is on the interiors as well as the exteriors of buildings. I am sure that that is an important issue.
      I join English Heritage in calling for speedy implementation to reduce exemptions. I should like to take the opportunity to ask for assurances that there are proposals for comparable controls for non-Anglican churches, chapels and other places of worship. Although a Minister is not present, it is important to draw attention to the fact that the buildings of other religious denominations are an equally important part of our national heritage.
      The lack of enforcement provisions in the measure must be remedied at the earliest opportunity. I noted carefully the comments of the right hon. Member for Selby and of the Bishop of Chichester that enforcement provisions for both the Care of Cathedrals Measure and the Care of Churches Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure were withdrawn at the request of the Government. We must not delay tonight's Measure, but I wish to emphasise that an adequate enforcement procedure, properly resourced, is the highest priority.
      There is growing concern that the architectural heritage embodied in our churches and cathedrals is not receiving adequate funding for its care and upkeep. Statutory controls for the care of cathedrals are welcome because

      825
      they bring more accountability to the standards and mechanisms for church controls. Government and the churches must closely define the matters in which the latter retain freedom of action for building adaptations and change of use, while releasing more state funding subject to the expansion of an educational and interpretive role by the churches. That is an important point to make.
      Nobody knows how much maintenance and repair work is needed to keep our cathedrals in good order. To keep them more than wind and watertight, and so that they can weather the years ahead, a full audit of outstanding repairs is long overdue, and we must bear in mind the need to take account of the effects of acid rain.
      Is it not time that the Government and the Synod, with the assistance of English Heritage, assessed the state of the fabric and condition of our cathdrals and their contents? Is not it time that we took account of the dual role played by our cathedrals? Virtually each of our cathedrals, as well as being a place of worship, has become a centre for tourism, but some more than others. We should recognise the contribution made by the Salisburys, Wellses, Chesters, Herefords and other better-known cathedrals—or perhaps those with the greatest treasures that people, particularly tourists, wish to see—and by tourism to local economies. That can be a great economic bonus to local areas as well as bringing extra worshippers to cathedrals.
      We must take account of the effects of wear and tear on the fabric of buildings and the financial implications of that. The comparison that comes to mind are the tiles in Central Lobby. I cannot help but notice that those tiles, knowing that they were manufactured in my constituency, are inevitably worn out by the hundreds and thousands of people who pass over them. We should provide the extra facilities that are both necessary and desirable for the constant stream of visitors to our cathedrals, bearing in mind the balance to which I referred earlier.
      We recognise that any increased expenditure on our priceless cathedrals must go hand in hand with priority treatment for the recruitment and training of skilled craftsmen and craftswomen. We cannot begin to deal with the fabric of our cathedral buildings without taking account of the need to ensure that we have properly trained and qualified people to do the job.
      Historic buildings, ancient monuments and our national heritage have all suffered from public spending cuts. We recognise—as did the Select Committee on the Environment in its final report of February 1987—the need to improve the protection given to monuments, buildings and sites of archaeological importance, which, of course, includes cathedrals. Meanwhile, this Measure, although small in relation to that need, will play a large part in safeguarding the cathedrals that are so vital to our national heritage. It has our full support, if not—dare I say it?—our blessing.
      1.40 am
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on the clear and detailed way in which he set out the Measure. It is extraordinarily nice to debate a Church of England Measure with which I can wholeheartedly agree: I seem to
      826
      have been short of those of late, and it is a great pleasure to speak on one that I have pressed for—albeit only in spirit; the Synod pressed for it in actuality.
      It does not seem nearly two years since I stood here in high dudgeon, demanding that the Measure be presented to prevent the unfortunate experience suffered by Hereford a while ago. The nub of the matter for me, and, I think for Hereford—apart from the broad aspects mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley)—is the question of the disposal of articles of value and historical interest. I am delighted that that has been brought into line with the provisions for parish churches, which have existed for some time.
      The House will be aware of the trauma involving Mappa Mundi which was sprung on this place in November 1988, on the verge of the 700th anniversary of the drawing up of Mappa Mundi by a canon—admittedly from Lincoln. The artefact itself had hung, modestly undisturbed, in Hereford cathedral for 700 years less a month; it was unfortunate that it should find itself in the limelight as a result of the decision by the dean and chapter to use it to restore the cathedral's financial fortunes.
      All hon. Members were seized with a sense of outrage that such an artefact should be hawked around to potential buyers—and, indeed, should evaporate, in conditions of great secrecy, in the direction of a London firm of auctioneers. Altogether it was an unfortunate experience, and it is pleasing to know that it will probably not recur. I have great sympathy for the cause of the dean and chapter who sought to address through this valuable artefact the question of repair and maintenance and the funding of future maintenance and other matters pertaining to the cathedral.
      Hereford cathedral has tremendous problems. It is not lavishly endowed with past generosity, but lives from hand to mouth. It was understandable that the dean and chapter should have decided in extremis that the prize was worth the outrage. I am glad that outrage won and that the prize was put back on the shelf. The outcome was intriguing. I subscribe to the cock-up theory rather than to the conspiracy theory about the way in which activity was started. I think that it was felt that the row would last a few days and when the dust settled the artefact would be sold and a nice £4 million or £5 million would be gained which would be sufficient to deal with most of the problems and endow a fund for appropriate maintenance.
      As so often happens in cock-ups, things went wildly wrong. On the conspiracy side, there is no way in the world that we could have promoted the Mappa Mundi to the rank of a world renowned artefact, which it now is, if we had not gone through the curious exercise which took so long and which cost so much. The naughty side of me asks whether there was an intrigue which promoted the artefact. I have discarded that theory, but it is a nice little thought. However, it is now well known throughout the world that Hereford cathedral has the earliest known full map of the world.
      I am delighted to have the Mappa Mundi back in Hereford. It is on display now and I invite hon. Members to come and see it and get to know it. I have been enjoying it for 40 years and I thoroughly enjoy taking guests to see it, especially those from America because the Mappa Mundi has a space where America might be—because it had not been discovered when the map was drawn. That keeps everything in perspective.

      827
      Its display presents a challenge and I look forward to the display and exhibition which is being worked on. The new building will exhibit great architectural sensitivity and delicacy and, in conjuncton with the display in the chained library, should provide an attraction that will keep Hereford on the map, if I may use such a phrase. It will develop the important relationship between the cathedral and the community.
      We must take into account the matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North so that cathedrals can withstand the wear and tear of visitors. The building will need to be designed so that people are taken from some parts of the cathedral into the specially prepared display area to enjoy the exhibit in all the magnificence that has been brought out by modern technology. That will discharge the function in clause 1 of the Measure, which is to recognise that the cathedral is the seat of the bishop and of worship. The legislative committee's report forms one of the documents in the debate. Paragraph 10 of part 1 on page 4 states:
      "Nevertheless, the General Synod is preparing to bring forward specific provisions early in the lifetime of the next Synod, addressed directly to the further protection of cathedrals."
      If my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is fortunate enough to catch your eye towards the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will explain what that means. Does it involve enforcement, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North has asked, or further dimensions of the cathedral protection requirements that are not covered by the Measure before us, comprehensive as it seems? I hope that the House will continue to give the Measure a fair wind.
      1.50 am
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Measures that are expected to be non-controversial that emanate from the Synod come on at about this time of night. It is a pity that we cannot give them slightly better billing. An earlier time was found when a previous Measure ran into difficulty in the middle of the night. It was thought safer to reintroduce it earlier in the day. I wish that we could have been given a better slot this evening, even though the troops were not to be called in to reverse the result of an earlier rebellion.
      I welcome the Measure and feel an affinity with it. I was a cathedral chorister for the first part of my life. I attended a secondary school in another cathedral city and then moved to a further cathedral city with my family on leaving school. I now represent not one but two cathedrals. It is not surprising that I have an especial interest in cathedrals. I am happy to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) because, like him, I have shared the joys of the history and treasures of Hereford cathedral over many years. I have enjoyed them personally and with others before they became so well publicised. I have shared the outrage and concern that we should suddenly find that we had lost, or thought that we had, the greatest treasure that the cathedral had of a moveable sort.
      The Measure is directed at that issue and would prevent the future folly of the sale of such an important treasure as the Mappa Mundi. It would prevent the Mappa Mundi from suddenly being taken away and placed in a sale
      828
      without proper control by authority delegated through the different hierarchy that the Measure provides. That is only for the good.
      It was argued that the Mappa Mundi was a treasure of Hereford, and indeed it was. It was also a treasure of us all. It was part of our national heritage. It is important, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) said, that our heritage is preserved for us all to enjoy, and at the most appropriate places.
      The Measure would set up a decent substitute system for dealing with planning issues that affect the English cathedrals. It has taken a long time to get to this place. The process has been under way for more than eight years, or for nearly a decade. I do not complain about detailed consideration and I do not seek to devalue the work of the Bishop of Chichester and his committee, and of many others, but the complaint has been made that Measures that affect the Church often progress extremely slowly from the realisation of the need for them until they are approved by Parliament. That does not do the Church or Parliament, for as long as this place has responsibility, much good.
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: In this instance, Parliament has not hung around for long. The relevant date is 30 April, and that was not so long ago.
      Mr. Hughes: I do not suggest that on this occasion Parliament caused the delay. The process, from its conception to its conclusion through Synod and Parliament collectively, will have taken about eight years. That is a very long time. Had we been quicker, we should have avoided some of the problems to which reference has been made in the debate. Therefore, I share the hope of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that the remaining part of this jigsaw, enforcement control, will come to Parliament soon. It should not be delayed. It is part of a package deal—that planning provision should be made and that enforcement should be provided for in a different Measure. The state aid provision is part of the agreement that was set out by the Under-Secretary of State in 1986.
      It is accepted that the state must make provision for cathedral treasures. They are part of our heritage. That must be implemented soon. State aid is already provided for churches. Since the cathedral authorities desired to retain their autonomy, state aid has come later for them, but I hope that it will not be long before that part of the jigsaw is also in place. The cathedrals have to pay a price for that aid. They have to sacrifice their autonomy. However, it is a reasonable price. The structure that has been worked out is reasonable.
      I share the view that we must not be partisan. There are parts of our Christian heritage and of our wider religious heritage that are not part of the Church of England. I hope that the same generosity will be extended to those parts of our Christian and religious heritage that fall within the jurisdiction of other churches and faiths. There are free church chapels that need support.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) specifically asked me to mention the position of the cathedrals of the Church in Wales. I know them all well. There are only six. Four of them are in rural parts of Wales. Substantial sums of money need to be spent upon them. Their repair bills amount to about £2 million. They are located in areas where it is difficult to raise money.

      829
      They, like the cathedrals in England, do not qualify for grants from Cadw, the Welsh equivalent of English Heritage.
      I have read in the Measure that cathedrals of the Church in Wales can apply under section 11 for advice from the commission. That is to be welcomed. I do not know, however, whether it is envisaged that they will also be able to receive funds when the Measure for state aid for cathedrals comes into force. I should be grateful if the right hon. Member for Selby could answer that question.
      A linked question relates to section 11(2)(b). I see that provision is made for a second category of cathedral, to be the subject of an application for advice from the commission. It is said to be
      "a cathedral church other than a cathedral church of the Church of England or the Church in Wales."
      I presume that that means, for example, a Greek Orthodox cathedral or the cathedral of another denomination. I am glad about that. I hope that the commission will deal positively with any request and will not seek to make a substantial profit out of it.
      The Measure provides that expenses should be reimbursed. That is reasonable. It should also be reasonable that the commission should not seek to profit from the desire of cathedrals of other denominations to benefit from the commission's expertise.
      I welcome the provision in section 12 that there should be consultation before the appointment of a cathedral architect. In particular, I welcome the provision that the cathedrals shall have the duty to appoint an archaeological consultant. My cathedral in Southwark—a very old one—is in the middle of an area that is so rich in archaeological remains that we hardly dare disturb anything. If we do, we chance upon another major archaeological find. Such finds are welcome. We found the original Roman road from London to Dover during the last couple of weeks. We find Shakespearean theatres at the rate of about one a year. All that is welcome, and it is important that the cathedral has someone to give advice on archaeological heritage, particularly as the Government have not yet agreed to the designation of further areas of archaeological importance.
      It is good that clause 13 provides for the compilation and maintenance of an inventory of objects in cathedrals. That is a right and proper list that should be available. There should be two categories, particularly noting those of outstanding archaeological, architectral, artistic or historic interest. It is good that section 14 provides that records should be kept and reports made on a regular basis on the state of the fabric of our cathedrals.
      I apologise if the right hon. Member for Selby thinks that I should know the answer to this question, but there is the provision for opt-out from the structure by some of our cathedrals. That is for cathedrals that are also parish churches. I understand that and do not oppose it. I would be interested to know—it is important to put it on record—how many cathedrals might be part of that provision which would take them out of the jurisdiction to which the Measure applies—the heritage of our cathedrals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give me a simple and factual answer.
      I hope that this unanimous recommendation of the Church—that is the unusual feature of the report from the Synod to us—will soon be in force and that we will have
      830
      taken a clear, if slow, step towards the better guardianship of some of the jewels of our English heritage. The Measure is most welcome.
      2.2 am
      Dr. John G. Blackburn: I must pay a warm and generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for the manner in which he introduced the Measure to the House. I have three reasons for wishing to participate in the debate. First, I have had the privilege, the challenge and the pleasure of serving for the past 11 years on the Ecclesiastical Committee of the House. Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I think that it is tremendous to see the fruits of our labour.
      Secondly, I am unique in that the constituency which I am honoured to serve is divided in diocesan terms between Lichfield and Worcester. In that connection it was tremendous to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) give a graphic account of the events leading to the safety and secure retention of the Mappa Mundi.
      The crypt of the cathedral church of Christ and St. Mary was built in 1092 and the tower was completed in 1374. It is because of the events of 1374 that we have this measure before us to ensure that we retain our inheritance, our heritage and, as has been said several times, our stewardship of the cathedrals. The cathedral church of St. Mary and St. Chad in Lichfield was finally completed in 1195. Both those cathedrals have suffered great decay in the fabric of the buildings. I am honoured to be part of a team raising £10 million for the restoration of Worcester cathedral. Recently, nearly £1 million was raised for the restoration of the cathedral church of St. Mary and St. Chad.
      Thirdly, tonight is a special night in the history of the cathedrals. We are doing something that should have been done centuries ago—securing the fabric of our cathedrals. I welcome the creation of a Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. Section 11 refers to "advice", but it is good to read on. It is almost like a biblical story—the more one reads, the better it becomes. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey delightfully outlined to the House, we find that clause 12 refers to "duty". That appeals to me because of the inventory that will be taken and because a cathedral architect will be appointed, under the Cathedrals Measure 1963. Hon. Members are united on the issue of the appointment of an archaeological consultant. I suspect that the consultant appointed at Southwark will work much harder than the Worcester consultant.
      The Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity passed this Measure in the General Synod without a vote against. Tonight of all nights we can rejoice at the acceptance of the Measure. We are fulfilling our stewardship as parliamentarians, our duties as Christians and our responsibilities as citizens by protecting the cathedrals and giving them the expertise of the fabric advisory committees.
      This action has been taken by the Church—dare I say it—to put its house in order and to safeguard its future. The Measure will be welcomed the length and breadth of Christendom, and I wish it Godspeed.
      2.7 am
      Mr. John Bowis: I am delighted to join the late night line-up discussing our great cathedrals. I have no history of choir singing in such great buildings. All I can offer is the fact that when I was first married, I lived within the precincts of one and was woken every Sunday by the mellow but thundering bell of the cathedral at Peterborough. On the basis of that little bit of history, I join this debate to welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), this is the first time I have had the pleasure of supporting a Measure from the Church of England. I do so warmly.
      This is a good, useful Measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) said, we are contributing to the preservation of our heritage and to passing it on to the next generation. This is all part of Church and Parliament coming together to achieve that end, and that is a good idea.
      I shall not detain the House for long. I merely wish to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions as much for my own clarification and education as anything.
      Within the precincts of Peterborough cathedral is a rather fine bishop's palace. I want to know the extent to which bishop's palaces are incorporated in the Measure. Such palaces are often within cathedral precincts, but not always. There may be occasions when palaces outside need to be incorporated in the Measure.
      Again for information, can my hon. Friend tell me whether we are considering cathedrals only, or does the Measure include some of the great abbey churches—such as Westminster just across the road—or are they subject to different legislation?
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned cathedrals that are also parish churches. I know of one in Portsmouth. I suspect that very often they are more recent churches which do not have the same problems of antiquity that affect most cathedrals, but I should be grateful for a word or two on the reasons why cathedrals which are also parish churches are exempted from the Measure in such a way.
      Another cathedral that I know a little of—not so much a church as a chapel—is Christ Church of Oxford. I know that that is specifically exempted from the Measure. What is the reasoning behind that, and what protection is given to that building? Perhaps special statutes govern the buildings of the university of Oxford which cover it adequately, but we should be told in this debate.
      Will cathedrals that may be approved in future—either parish churches or new buildings—automatically come within the terms of the Measure?
      Clause 15 refers to any
      "building or monuments within the precinct".
      I know of many cathedrals where the wall of the precinct is one of the features that one would wish to protect and preserve. Will ancient walls surrounding cathedrals be incorporated?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford has great experience of recent events in Hereford and has wisely gone into the question of the treasures of our cathedrals. I hope that the Measure will not deter cathedrals from lending treasures. It is important that they continue to lend them out on exhibition and that they tour the country, as it is good for people in the rest of the country and good for the cathedral to have such treasures more widely viewed.
      832
      To refer back to a question and answer that I had from my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby earlier today, I express the hope that the security of cathedrals is being taken into account in such Measures. We have had unfortunate experiences with damage caused by break-ins and of items being stolen. This is a chance for the Church to put its house in order—locked-up order if necessary— as regards its treasures and assets.
      In all our discussions, now and in future, we must bear in mind the fact that cathedrals are not static items of architecture. They have evolved over the centuries. I know of no great historic cathedral church which does not contain a multiplicity of ages of architecture and design. That is part of the great glory of our cathedrals.
      I hope that we shall do everything that we can to protect and preserve the ancient and the good in our cathedrals, but that we will not stifle good additional modern designs which can enhance their lives.
      I join all other hon. Members who have welcomed the Measure.
      2.14 am
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: Matthew chapter 6, verses 19 and 20.
      2.15 am
      Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I shall answer some of the questions that have been asked.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) asked why the Measure had been so long delayed. The 1984 report of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission was conditionally endorsed by the General Synod in July 1984—the condition being that the Government would respond in certain respects. There was then a long lapse of two and a half years before the Government reached their conclusion that it was reasonable to accept the General Synod's outline proposals and conditions. This they did in October 1986.
      The first version of the Measure was then introduced into the General Synod in February 1988, but consideration was adjourned following criticism by, among others, deans and provosts. As there are quite a number of deans and provosts, that took a great deal of sorting out. So this Measure was not introduced to the General Synod until November 1988 and it was finally approved a year later. So although the wheels have ground slowly I hope that they have ground exceedingly small and effectively—although there has been an extensive delay.
      Under the final clause in the Measure, implementation is likely to be in March next year.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North asked about the possibility of other churches being included. I cannot speak with authority about the position of other denominations since I represent the Church Commissioners for the Church of England, so I can speak only for the Church. I can refer only to clause 11, with which the hon. Lady will be familiar, which is about advice being provided on a purely voluntary basis for other churches. I am not competent to answer on the fate of the architectural merits of churches outside the Church of England.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) is almost as well known—at least in the west of England—as the Mappa Mundi for the doughty battle that he fought for that priceless treasure in Hereford

      833
      cathedral. He asked a question about paragraph 10 in the explanatory memorandum, which speaks of bringing forward further
      "specific provisions early in the lifetime of the next Synod, addressed directly to the further protection of cathedrals."
      That refers to further enforcement provisions. Originally the idea had been to introduce a special Measure separate from the church and cathedral Measures, which would incorporate enforcement provisions for both categories of church building. However, it was not found possible to produce a satisfactory formula for enforcement. It was therefore decided that the cathedrals Measure should be allowed to go ahead on its own, without enforcement, precisely to help with crises such as that surrounding the Mappa Mundi. Meanwhile, a formula has been found for the churches Measure, which will presently come before the House.
      I can assure the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, that the General Synod is committed to providing an adequate enforcement procedure and has begun work on it. The General Synod has already had one meeting with its legal advisers followed by a helpful interview with the relevant Minister.
      The General Synod—or its officials—have roughed out a scheme which was considered by the drafting committee at the end of June. I am confident that the authorities will be able to produce a short Measure for the newly elected General Synod, which comes into being at the end of the year, and that shortly after that, the appropriate enforcement provision for this Measure will come along as a sort of "after burner", so to speak, and will reinforce it and add what is necessary to it. The words in paragraph 10, to which my hon. Friend referred, relate specifically to that.
      Apart from his query about enforcement, with which I hope that I have just dealt, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also referred to clause 11. I am afraid that all that can be said is that advice will be available both for the Church in Wales and to churches of other denominations if they desire it. Obviously, no attempts will be made to exploit the expertise of the Church of England at their expense; costs will simply be covered. There is no question of any money being available, because the Measure has nothing to do with money. Unlike parish churches, there is no money available for cathedrals although we hope that, in the future, Government money may be available for cathedrals. The extent to which it will then be made available to cathedrals of other denominations is a matter about which I am not competent to advise the House. At present, there is no money in the kitty to help cathedrals, either in the Church of England, or anywhere else. We hope that there will be in the future.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was right in his surmise that other cathedrals are eligible in the narrow sense that I have suggested, such as Greek Orthodox cathedrals, but not in the sense of money being available for them.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about the potential of so-called parish church cathedrals to "opt-out". There are eight such parish church cathedrals in the province of Canterbury and a further six in the province of York. I am
      834
      advised that none has any intention of seeking or applying for what the hon. Gentleman described as the "opting-out" facility.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) on his speech. The House knows that my hon. Friend has not been very well. It is marvellous to see him back, looking in robust health. The fact that he has stayed up until nearly half-past two in the morning to add his blessing for and endorsement of this Measure is a credit to the Measure as well as to my hon. Friend. We are pleased that he is here with us.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) asked one or two questions that I shall try to answer. I am afraid that palaces do not necessarily fall within the scope of the Measure. My hon. Friend put his finger on the point that it all depends on whether the palace is within the precincts. Not many palaces manage to tuck themselves into the precincts of any of our great cathedrals, but if there are any, they will fall within the ambit of the Measure because the precincts are the determining characteristic of the Measure.
      Mr. Bowis: The palace at Peterborough is definitely within the precincts.
      Mr. Alison: Unless I am given contrary advice by my advisers, I suspect that this is an uncertain area, but the fact of being within the precincts is likely prima facie to mean that the palace would have to be considered carefully, in that context.
      My hon. Friend also asked about the walls within the precinct. As he will see if he reads the small print, the technical answer is that the Measure requires the administrative authorities to draw up a full, comprehensive and careful delineation of the precincts and to map them fully so that there is a definitive indication of the freehold territory occupied. Any administrative body that has any sense will make quite certain that the outside of the walls represents the outer limit of the precinct—not the inside of the wall—so that the wall falls within the precinct.
      My hon. Friend asked about buildings such as Westminster abbey. Only buildings which are specifically cathedrals, as defined in the interpretation clause 20, come within the scope of the measure. From that my hon. Friend will see that the definition
      "any cathedral church in the provinces of Canterbury and York,"
      excludes places such as Westminster abbey, which are not cathedrals. They do not have a dean and chapter in the same sense. The cathedral church of Christ Church in Oxford, to which my hon. Friend referred, is included because it is what is technically known as "a royal peculiar". It has its own mysterious jurisdiction and arrangements. For that precise reason it is excluded.
      My hon. Friend referred to the possibility that certain notable parish churches come within the scope of the Measure. They already come within the scope of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure. They have their own governing rules and regulations. Therefore, there is no need to include them in the scope of the Measure.
      I have answered most of the queries that have been raised by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members during this short debate. Perhaps it would be appropriate to mention that the Care of Cathedrals Measure represents one could almost say the final swansong, if it is appropriate to link swans with cathedrals, of the recently knighted Sir Derek Pattinson, who was for many years and

      835
      will be until Wednesday the Secretary-General of the General Synod of the Church of England. As it happens, Sir Derek is not far removed from us now. We all wish him a happy retirement and congratulate him on the success of his efforts to bring the Measure before the House tonight.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That the Care of Cathedrals Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committee on European Community documents),
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4799/90 and 5598/90, relating to health rules for the production and marketing of milk and milk products; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any Council Regulations resulting from these proposals provide an effective and efficient system of hygiene controls throughout the Community without placing unnecessary burdens on small businesses.—[Mr. Sackville.]
      Question agreed to.

      MEAT HEALTH STANDARDS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committee on European Community documents),
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4780/90, relating to health rules for poultrymeat, 4596/90, relating to health rules for fresh meat, 4781/90, relating to health rules for meat products, 4863/90, relating to health rules for minced meat and certain other meat preparations, and 4782/90, relating to the conditions for granting derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of products of animal origin; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any measures resulting from these proposals contribute to effective harmonisation and efficient hygiene controls throughout the Community.—[Mr. Sackville.]
      Question agreed to.

      CADMIUM
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committee on European documents),
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10270/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 8th June 1990, relating to cadmium and its compounds; recognises that the measure is generally in line with the European Community's agreed action programme on cadmium; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that European Community action in this area continues to take full account of United Kingdom interests.—[Mr. Sackville.]
      Question agreed to.

      Sewage Pollution (Cornwall)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Sackville.]
      2.27 am
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: I recently conducted a tour of primary schools in my constituency. One of the matters that the young people always raise with me is their concern about the environment—about beaches, waterways, CFCs or any other environmental issue that one might care to mention. That is a remarkable tribute to their awareness and, I hope, a sign of the way in which things will move in the future. It is appropriate to mention those children at the beginning of this short debate.
      The other matter that is constantly raised on my visits is the workings of Parliament and the peculiarity of a place that debates subjects so late. When I ask them when they think that we finish, they suggest 5 or 6 o'clock in the afternoon. They go on to suggest 8 or 9 o'clock and are surprised when I say that it might not be until half-past 10. They are even more surprised when I suggest that debates continue even later than that into the early hours of the morning.
      It is a record for me to start an Adjournment debate at 2.30 am—I do not know about the Minister. I am grateful to him for staying on to take part in the debate at thus hour. When children in my constituency raise environmental issues I shall be able to tell them not only that we debate until the early hours but that I debated precisely the matters that they raised with me.
      I requested this Adjournment debate tonight because of my anxieties about the pollution around the coasts of Cornwall. Our county is known worldwide for the beauty of our scenery and the quality of our unique environment. All of that is under threat in several ways. Indeed, all too often the reality is already far from ideal. The water is far from wholesome or pure. Tonight I wish to raise one of the most pressing of those anxieties. It comes as a shock and a surprise to those who encounter it. I refer to the problem of raw, untreated sewage around the Cornwall coast.
      In terms of designated bathing beaches, the situation is not as bad as it was. In 1989, 12 out of 70 designated beaches failed EC bathing water standards, but, sad to say, that tells only a small part of the story. More revealing is the fact that surfers around Cornwall recently formed their own campaign for action, Surfers Against Sewage, backed by local doctors, because of their experience of ill-health arising from people spending long periods in polluted water.
      The raw sewage that surfers, among others, encounter is the consequence of a system that which is not of the 20th century and which is no longer able to cope even if it did once. The concern felt among surfers is reflected by widespread public anxiety. Throughout the summer months in particular, I receive numerous letters from residents of and visitors to Cornwall giving horrific accounts of sewage strewn across the beaches and in the water, and who unwittingly allowed their children to play in water that was indescribably polluted.
      The most immediate concern is to safeguard public health and to alleviate the anxiety that pollution causes, but in a county in which about 15 per cent. of the work force is in the tourist industry, pollution has the potential for making a catastrophic impact on the livelihoods of a large number of local people. I hope that the Minister will

      837
      respond mainly to the genuine environmental concerns of my constituents, though the issue also has economic implications.
      Over the past 10 to 15 years, pollution has grown worse, not least because of population increases that have outstripped the public health infrastructure, compounded by the effects of increased affluence. They include the widespread ownership of dishwashers and washing machines that add to discharges. Sewerage built for the last century is still expected to cope with the demands of the next, even though it already collapses all too often.
      The repercussions of pollution go wider than just the sea. Some towns desperate to provide new housing for young people, and to encourage the construction of factories and workshops that will provide jobs, are forbidden to allow such development because the sewerage system would be unable to cope. One example of that is to be found in the Falmouth-Penryn area, just down the road from my constituency. We are told that South West Water cannot afford to act, and it has imposed an embargo on any form of development, even though it is socially desirable for the community.
      We ought to be aiming at the best in terms of sewage treatment, not the minimum that we think we can get away with. There are three types of treatments to be considered. Fine screening, or primary treatment, removes the visual evidence of sewage by reducing its size, but has no effect on the material itself, the bacteria it contains, or the contamination of which it is capable. Too often, not even fine screening is available, so the visual evidence of pollution is plainly there to see. However, just screening out the visual impact of pollution is not enough. In some cases it can give the public a false sense of security, as they cannot see for themselves that a problem exists.
      Secondary treatment does not kill all bacteria such as hepatitis and salmonella. The most thorough method, tertiary treatment, is the only one to remove all contamination. The resulting sludge residue is inert in terms of harmful bacteria and, if recycled, it can be used on the land or as fuel.
      Primary treatment might represent a big step forward to many Cornish beaches, but is not the way ahead. With increased sewage being pumped into the sea, that treatment is not the answer in the 20th century and it is certainly not a building block for the 21st. It disguises the problem and does nothing to solve it.
      I hope that the Minister will elaborate upon what the Secretary of State meant when he said that all sewage should be treated in the future. Does he mean the secondary treatment, about which South West Water has recently talked, or tertiary treatment? Is he proposing a solution to the problem, or is he merely offering a step towards that long-term solution?
      I am concerned that current plans fall far short of a final solution to the problem. The biggest current project in Cornwall is the Gwithian outfall and it is a good example of how the proposals for dealing with the sewage are not adequate to deal with the mounting problem.
      The Secretary of State has required the provision of primary treatment that reduces the solids in the effluent to no more than 150 mg per litre. The treatment process—sedimentation tanks—would cause 60 per cent. of the sewage to be deposited and the remaining 40 per cent.
      838
      would still go out through the Gwithian outfall. That process might meet the Secretary of State's requirement, but it means that 10 per cent. of the original bacterial content would still be discharged into the sea. It represents an inadequate level of treatment.
      If the tides of the sea bring effluent on to the beaches—there are good reasons to think that that may happen—the risk of contaminated beaches remains. If Camborne, Redruth and Portreath are eventually connected to the system, 40 per cent. of the double total flow would bring the total amount of faecal solids discharged close to what the original scheme—that at Penwith, which offered no treatment—would have discharged. Therefore, we would be back to the situation that the Secretary of State now judges to be inadequate.
      All the reports by South West Water's consultants, John Taylor and Sons, on the 1986–87 work were, after some pressure, made available for the public. The original scheme for a single outfall on the north coast was based on the fact that Mounts bay is unsuitable for the discharge of raw sewage. When the St. Ives bay sewage action committee asked the director of engineering services for the newly privatised South West Water whether there had been a further study of the possibility of having separate works for the north and south coasts, given that raw sewage will not be discharged, he said that the consultants—now called Acer John Taylor—had reviewed the matter and still recommended the Gwithian scheme.
      When that committee asked for the latest reports, on the basis that it had seen the previous reports, it was told that that was no longer possible now that the water company is privatised because of commercial confidentiality. That was confirmed by the managing director of South West Water at a meeting on 28 June.
      I do not want to concentrate on Gwithian and the outfall proposed there, but we seem to be ending up with a system that the Secretary of State has, in effect, said is inadequate, despite a multi-million pound investment. That must raise concern about the general provision for tackling the sewage problem in the county. Surely it is deplorable that, as a result of privatisation, public access to information is reduced, which limits our capacity to comment upon such issues. That hardly demonstrates the responsiveness to the consumer in which privatisation was supposed to result.
      When sewerage schemes are proposed, I hope that it is accepted that they are matters of public interest and that the basis on which those schemes are introduced should be subject to public scrutiny. Such schemes should not be regarded as matters to be covered by commercial confidentiality. If schemes are regarded as such, something in the system has gone wrong.
      Just before the North sea conference, the Secretary of State said that, from 1998, no more untreated sewage or sewage sludge would be pumped into the sea. South West Water faces a massive task in Cornwall if it is to meet the Government's requirements. There are currently 58 raw sewage outfalls in Cornwall, 26 to sea, 32 to estuaries. As I go around my constituency, from Gorran Haven, Carlyon bay, Mevagissey, Truro, Perranporth and St. Agnes, the list of complaints about sewage pollution in the water is almost endless. If we are to tackle that problem and reduce it to the levels I mentioned earlier, it will take enormous sums of money.
      South West Water says that it has a £435 million investment programme over 10 years in bringing bathing

      839
      waters up to EC standards. The north coast of Cornwall, from Gwithian to Portreath, currently has 2 million gallons of raw sewage a day discharged on to the shoreline in an area popular with tourists. That means that beaches such as Portreath, Porthtowan and Chapel Porth are often filthy. I understand that a child recently stood on a syringe needle on Perranporth beach. Yet South West Water, through the Gwithian outfall, plans to add 20 million gallons more effluent per day. That must have continuing serious implications for health, fishing and tourism. There must be serious doubts about whether the South West Water programme comes anywhere near meeting the need to clear that up over a reasonable period.
      Groups such as the South West Environmental Protection Agency call for all children who swim in the sea to be vaccinated against hepatitis B and say that signs should go up on beaches warning people that the beaches are contaminated.
      If we apply the Department of the Environment edict that all significant discharges of sewage should receive treatment to Cornwall, we begin to see that there is an immensely expensive and practical task to be taken on. If, as I believe, "significant" is defined by the Department of the Environment as being a discharge of more than 1,500 cu m of sewage in 24 hours, official figures for Portreath outfall alone show that it discharges 4,000 cu m every 24 hours, and the North Cliffs outfall discharges 4,280 cu m. A cubic metre is equal to 220 gallons. Both those outfalls discharge sewage that is totally raw and not even screened. There are many similar examples around the coast. However, South West Water is apparently unable to improve either of them in the next decade, despite the significant levels of sewage discharge there, and promises, before privatisation, that action would be taken—promises which it appears to have partly reneged on.
      South West Water is now telling Kerrier district council that it will have to contribute, through the poll tax, to the provision of basic screening at the Portreath outfall. It seems remarkable that something that we were originally told, pre-privatisation, would be effected now apparently hinges on the poll tax payer being prepared to contribute towards the cost of a privatised company.
      About 1.5 million people live in the South West Water district, and at times up to 500,000 tourists supplement that number. It is unreasonable to expect local people to pay for the infrastructure to support a heavy influx of tourists. It illustrates that it is a problem for the nation and not just for individual local communities, particularly those in one of the poorest parts of England and an area of many beautiful small towns and villages.
      The problem with such small towns and villages is that a low density population with a huge coastline means that the cost per person of sorting out the sewage problem is greater than almost anywhere else. It is unrealistic to expect the individual consumer, through the water rate, to pay for that problem to be sorted out.
      The reason for the problem is that successive Governments, Conservative and Labour, failed to invest properly in the water industry and proper sewage systems before privatisation. I accept that it is an horrendous problem for the present Government or privatised companies to tackle, but Ministers should take the opportunity to crack it now, meet the environmental demands of the century as we approach the next, and be prepared to invest.
      840
      My firm view is that the appalling under-investment in our sewerage system over the years means that Government, not just private company, investment is needed now. Without that, the Secretary of State's statement or promise will seem just hollow rhetoric. The urgency of the problem requires an immediate response. The Government estimate that it will cost £1.5 billion to end the pumping of untreated sewage into the sea, but I fear that that is a gross underestimate. I suspect that that will be the cost of primary treatment, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that point. I understand that the cost of the full treatment that I advocate could be four or five times as much. Will the Government contribute anything to that, and what treatment is the Secretary of State promising for sewage outfalls?
      Moreover, why does there seem to be such a difference in the figures that are being published compared with those prior to privatisation? It seems that people were sold a false prospectus, even allowing for the fact that the EC is upgrading the requirements that it will place on the Government.
      To show how powerful that problem is, South West Water has been unable to provide me with a figure for the cost of introducing secondary or tertiary treatment for sewage outfalls in Cornwall. It says that the implications of the Secretary of State's announcement are still being assessed, but will the Minister clarify that? By how much, and when, does he foresee charges rising to tackle these problems? Massive investment is needed. For such a policy to be introduced on the back of water ratepayers, pensioners and others who are struggling to pay their bills is unacceptable and the Government must seek an alternative route.
      South West Water recently announced profits up from £38 million to £45 million for the 12 months to 31 March. Those profits are all very well for shareholders, but they achieve nothing for anyone in the south-west unless they are spent on cleaning up the beaches. In part, South West Water says that it will reinvest that money, but in part it will be shareholders' reward for buying shares. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), who is a loyal member of the Government and who voted for water privatisation, reacted by saying that those profits needed to be spent on water improvement in the region.
      Proper treatment of sewage cannot be left any longer. The problem around Cornwall, for geographic and historic reasons, is exceptional and should be tackled. I fear that the cost of that will be high, but I hope that the Minister will elaborate on it. Given all the sources of finance available to the Government, they must make available the money to meet those costs.
      2.47 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): This is the latest hour at which I have taken part in an Adjournment debate, but nevertheless I am pleased to do so because the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has chosen his subject well. It gives me an opportunity to put on record the Government's concern to improve the quality of our coastal waters and the treatment of our waste water generally.
      The hon. Member spoke mainly of Cornwall, the subject of his debate, but I shall spend one or two minutes on more general matters and remind the House of this

      841
      country's good record. A high percentage of our households—some 96 per cent.—are connected to sewage systems. This bears comparison with any country in Europe. A study in 1987 showed that 95 per cent. of river length in this country was of good or fair quality, compared with 75 per cent. in the European Community generally. No other member state bettered our position.
      I agree with the hon. Member that the problem lies with the discharges of untreated sewage into coastal waters. Successive Governments received environmental advice that that was, in many cases, the best environmental option. That advice was tendered by the Jeger report of 1959, and endorsed in 1984 by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.
      It is commonly recognised that some environmental cost is associated with any type of sewage treatment and disposal. Not everyone wants sewage treatment works near where they live, and considerable planning problems are involved in the establishment of sewage treatment. Moreover, treatment results in sewage sludge, which must be disposed of—by spreading on land, by incineration or by landfilling. Each of those options produces its own environmental problems.
      The Government accept that it is now time to take a further big step forward, and to improve our standards of sewage disposal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 5 March that in future all substantial discharges of sewage would be treated: most would receive secondary treatment, but primary treatment would be more appropriate for coastal discharges where there would be no adverse effect on the environment. I remind the hon. Gentleman that even secondary treatment does not remove all the bacteria and viruses in sewage.
      Since that announcement, we have moved quickly to implement the new policy, and the National Rivers Authority is now applying it to all new applications for sewage discharge consents. It will indeed be an expensive undertaking, and complex engineering and planning issues lie ahead; but we are consulting actively with the sewerage undertakers and the various regulatory bodies to put our ambitious programme in train.
      We estimate that the cost of improving our bathing waters and treating all coastal sewage discharges will be around £3 billion, and a fair share of that will be spent in Cornwall. I have a list of some 10 long sea outfalls that were planned for Cornwall by South West Water; the total expenditure amounts to nearly £50 million. All of them will now receive a form of treatment.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: The nature of the county means an almost inevitable series of discharges. People are afraid that we shall receive only primary treatment—that there will be screening, but that nothing will really be done to treat the problem. The fear is that, because of the county's geography, we shall end up with a second-rate sewerage system.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no hard and fast rule relating to the distinction between primary and secondary treatment. Secondary treatment will be carried out where it is required for the environment, and the type of the receiving water will also be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, however, to suggest that primary treatment is simply a screening exercise; it settles out and removes a high percentage of the solid matter which then forms sewage sludge and needs to be disposed of separately. The water fraction is then discharged into the sea by means of an outfall.
      Secondary treatment removes some of the bacteria and viruses, which remain behind in the sewage sludge. I repeat, however, that neither form of treatment renders the sewage sterile, unless a process of disinfection is undertaken; that has its own drawbacks for the environment, especially the marine life in the receiving water.
      I was stressing that South West Water has its share of this ambitious national investment programme. Over the next 10 years it expects to spend about £240 million on improvements to sewage treatment works. That is in addition to about £300 million on the sewerage network. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that over past decades Governments of all parties have paid too little attention to problems of the sort that he has presented to the House. The structure that we have set up separates the regulator from the operator and places the operator in the private sector with access to private capital. That structure and administrative system will give effect to the improvements that we know are necessary.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister says that we are taking a big step in the context of what is required for sewerage outfall systems. He says that that involves considerable extra investment. Do the Government intend to contribute to that investment or will it be wholly funded by increases in charges to the consumer in areas such as that covered by South West Water?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The weakness in past systems was that such investment programmes relied on the Treasury for money. When the last Labour Government encountered financial problems, the first cut that they made was investment in sewage treatment. It is much better for private companies to raise money from charges to customers. The Government apply that system generally, and Cornwall will be no exception. The advantage of that system is that it establishes a clear link between the customer who wants higher water standards and payment for those standards. A further advantage is that companies are able to raise all the necessary finance on the capital markets. The limiting factor—
      The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at three minutes to Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table listing every document relating to the national curriculum published by his Department, whether on its own behalf or for others, the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council, since May 1987, with date and title of publication, its length in pages, and the numbers of copies printed, in every case.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It will take some time to prepare this, given that other organisations are involved. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so, and will place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Single-sex Schools
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will indicate how many local authorities provide single-sex schooling at secondary level.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In January 1989, of the 97 local education authorities in England, 66 had maintained, single-sex secondary schools.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the trend in the number of parents choosing to send their children to single-sex secondary schools in the public sector.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to ensure that local authorities provide sufficient single-sex schooling at secondary level to meet all parental preferences.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There are no plans of this nature, since it is not Government practice to impose particular organisational patterns for schools upon local authorities. My right hon. Friend always takes account of parental preference when considering proposals for change.

  Science
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action is being taken to encourage girls and women to study science subjects.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum introduced into schools last September will ensure that all pupils will study a balanced science course from early years right up to GCSE level. Girls will not be able to drop physics and chemistry at age 14.

  Introducing structured scientific study in primary schools will have a positive effect on the traditionally narrow view many girls and women have of school science.
  376
  The Government are helping to sponsor the Engineering Council's "Women in Science and Engineering" project aimed at persuading girls and women of both the possibility and attractions of careers in science and engineering.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much it has cost to send secondary head teachers copies of his recent speeches.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cost of printing and distributing to secondary schools copies of the Secretary of State's two most recent speeches was £10,430.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to reply to the letter sent on 11 June by the Reverend John L. Clegg of 77 Errwood road, Levenshulme, Manchester, to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold).

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A reply was sent to the Reverend Clegg on 10 July.

  University Lecturers (Pay)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when his Department will ratify the pay settlement for university lecturers agreed between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers.

  Mr. Jackson
  A decision will be taken on this proposed settlement as soon as possible.

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State For Education and Science if he is now in a position to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Birkenhead dated 22 February about the local management of schools in Wirral.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. In my reply of 19 March to the hon. Member's letter of 22 February I promised to write again when the statutory approval of Wirral local education authority's scheme for the local management of schools had been completed; at present, we are in consultation with the authority over proposed modifications to its scheme submission.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Rover
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to the implications for any future advice which he will give to Government Departments of the ruling of the European Commission in respect of the British Aerospace purchase of Rover.

  The Attorney-General
  The legal implications of a decision of the European Commission are always carefully considered.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide a table of the number of appeals to the immigration appeal tribunal allowed and dismissed in 1989 and the first quarter of 1990.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Allowed

  Remitted for re-hearing before an Immigration Adjudicator

  Dismissed

  Appeals heard 1989

  194

  198

  291

  Appeals heard January-March 1990

  62

  80

  102

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide a table showing the number of appeals to immigration adjudicators allowed and dismissed in 1989 and the first quarter of 1990, broken down according to the nationality of the appellant and the type of decision appealed against.

  The Attorney-General
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate costs. The number of appeals to immigration adjudicators allowed and dismissed in 1989 and the first quarter of 1990 is given in the table.

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Appeals heard by Immigration Adjudicators 1989

  3,060

  8,149

  Appeals heard by Immigration Adjudicators January-March 1990

  794

  2,380

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General in what proportion of cases heard by social security commissioners in January to June, the claimant and the adjudication officer respectively were(a) represented by legally qualified persons, (b) represented by unqualified persons and (c) unrepresented.

  The Attorney-General
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General why it has been decided not to make legal aid available for representation at social security commissioners' hearings.

  The Attorney-General
  As my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor explained in another place on Tuesday 10 July, additional resources to extend the scope of legal aid cannot be provided at present and it may be possible to provide legal aid for matters such as hearings before social security commissioners only if savings can be made from elsewhere in the legal aid scheme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy as to whether a representative of the board of governors of a grammar school which has not allocated a place to a student transferring from primary school should be available for questioning at any tribunal established to hear an appeal against the board's decision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The School Admissions (Appeal Tribunals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1990 afford a representative of the board of governors of a school whose decision is under appeal to appear at an appeal hearing and to make oral representations. The regulations do not require the representative to be available for questioning.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many secondary and grammar schools in Northern Ireland have specified in their selection criteria for children transferring from primary schools a priority for children(a) with a brother or sister who attended that school, (b) with a parent who attended that school and (c) who were the first born to their parents.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 208

  (b) 38

  (c) 6

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether legal representation will be available to parents attending tribunals to appeal against the placement of their child in a secondary or grammar school.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Legal representation will not be made available at appeals tribunals. It will be a matter for appeals tribunals, in conjunction with education and library boards, to decide if parents may be legally represented.

  Illegal Dumping
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions prosecutions were taken to court by public health authorities in Northern Ireland for instances of apparent illicit dumping; and on how many occasions convictions were secured, in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In Northern Ireland, each district council is responsible for enforcing the legislation on the disposal of waste in its area. Records of prosecutions are not held centrally.

  The information is being sought from the various councils. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of(a) single people and (b) families who have presented themselves as homeless to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each district council area in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive was given responsibility for dealing with the accommodation needs of all homeless people under the
  379
  Housing (NI) Order 1988 which came into effect on 1 April 1989. The information requested is therefore available only from that date. I am advised by the chairman of the Housing Executive that the number of single people and families who have presented themselves as homeless during the year 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 in each district council area is as follows:

  District council

  (a) Single people

  (b) Families

  Antrim

  18

  29

  Ards

  168

  167

  Armagh

  36

  37

  Ballymena

  69

  67

  Ballymoney

  54

  33

  Banbridge

  57

  66

  Belfast

  975

  1,164

  Carrick

  60

  36

  Castlereagh

  112

  120

  Coleraine

  37

  45

  Cookstown

  52

  52

  Craigavon

  136

  114

  Derry City

  189

  309

  Down

  138

  138

  Dungannon

  42

  35

  Fermanagh

  71

  59

  Larne

  126

  58

  Limavady

  47

  52

  Lisburn

  292

  249

  Magherafelt

  21

  30

  Moyle

  34

  36

  Newry and Mourne

  158

  155

  Newtownabbey

  85

  105

  North Down

  107

  121

  Omagh

  111

  70

  Strabane

  29

  47

  Total

  3,225

  3,395

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions prosecutions were taken to court by district councils in Northern Ireland for instances of apparent illegal Sunday trading; and on how many occasions convictions were secured, in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not available centrally.

  Unfit Dwellings
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of unfit dwellings in Northern Ireland, by district council area, in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Housing Executive carried out a full house condition survey in 1984. The information for that year is as follows:

  Number of unfit dwellings

  District

  Number

  Antrim

  821

  Ards

  1,703

  Armagh

  1,515

  Ballymena

  1,682

  Ballymoney

  870

  Banbridge

  1,925

  Belfast

  12,885

  Carrickfergus

  2,166

  Castlereagh

  290

  Coleraine

  1,785

  380

  District

  Number

  Cookstown

  1,323

  Craigavon

  2,120

  Derry

  1,697

  Down

  1,838

  Dungannon

  1,932

  Fermanagh

  4,209

  Larne

  1,682

  Limavady

  961

  Lisburn

  1,921

  Magherafelt

  1,475

  Moyle

  862

  Newry and Mourne

  2,675

  Newtownabbey

  561

  North Down

  762

  Omagh

  2,168

  Strabane

  1,201

  Arthur Anderson and Company
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is pursuing his action against Arthur Anderson and Company in the American courts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Economic Development is continuing to pursue its legal action against Arthur Anderson and Company, former auditors of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd., in the United States Federal Court.

  Chief Electoral Officer (Report)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the report of the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland for 1989–90 will be published.

  Mr. Brooke
  The chief electoral officer's report was laid before the House today and is published as House of Commons paper No. 526. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

PRIME MINISTER

  Court Decisions (European Treaties)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will take steps to ensure that her Ministers issue guidelines to the general public and enforcement authorities in cases where United Kingdom laws are suspended or substantially amended in practice by court decisions related to the European treaties; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Where a court holds that national law conflicts with Community law its order will tell the parties before it what they are to do or not to do. If any question of interpretation of the decision were to arise it would be for the courts to determine, not the Government.

  "Sterling in Danger"
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will obtain a copy of Sir Alan Walters' book "Sterling in Danger" for her Office's library.

  The Prime Minister
  We are doing so.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes the Government have introduced since 1979 affecting the way companies may make political donations.
  381
  The Prime Minister
  Companies legislation has since 1967 contained a requirement that a company's directors should disclose in their report, which forms part of the accounts, any gifts of money for political purposes if the amount exceeds a specified sum. The specified sum was increased from £50 to £200 in 1980.

  Right Hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in the light of his remarks on Germany and Germans on 12 July, she will dismiss the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) from his office as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend tendered his resignation on Saturday 14 July.

  Nuclear Treaties (China)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her meeting with the Chinese ambassador on 3 July, she discussed the prospects of China joining(a) the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (b) the partial nuclear test ban treaty before their forthcoming review conferences, respectively, in August and September and January 1991.

  The Prime Minister
  The discussion was confidential.

  Rent-to-mortgage Schemes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her oral reply to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on 12 July, if she will give details of the success of the Scottish and Welsh experiments with rent-to-mortgage schemes; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The trial rent-to-mortgage and flexi-ownership schemes in Scotland and Wales are making encouraging progress. The Scottish Homes rent-to-mortgage scheme, from its introduction in October 1989 until the end of June this year, has attracted more than 1,000 inquiries from eligible tenants, with 169 applications in process. Since its introduction in December 1989, the Welsh flexi-ownership scheme has attracted over 100 inquiries from the 800 tenants eligible to participate in the scheme with some 50 applications in process. The schemes are being monitored and any modifications which seem desirable will be introduced whenever appropriate. The evidence so far is that both schemes are enabling tenants who would not otherwise become owner-occupiers to do so.

  Cabinet Ministers (Statements)
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Prime Minister what directions are given to the Cabinet Office to review the statements of Cabinet Ministers prior to publication; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ECGD
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has yet completed his review of the policy towards Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for exporters to India and Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am not able to comment on ECGD's future policy towards cover for India and Indonesia as the review of the markets has not yet been completed.

  Portfolio Management System
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the implementation of the portfolio management system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on 19 June, at column 490.

  CBI
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss matters relating to the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  In the last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has met senior representatives of the Confederation of British Industry on five occasions to discuss a range of issues including the European Community.

  Dunsdale Securities
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will review the operations of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, in the light of the failure of Dunsdale Securities.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Securities and Investments Board is responsible for ensuring that the self-regulating organisations such as FIMBRA carry out their duties effectively.

  Limited Companies (Boards)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what European Community proposals exist for two-tier boards for limited companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The draft fifth directive on company law contains proposals for the harmonisation of laws relating to the structure of the boards of public companies. It would enable national legislation to prescribe the use of a one-tier or a two-tier board system, or to provide for both. The proposal for a European company statute contains provisions that would enable a European company to choose between the two structures.

  Auditors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to bring forward legislation to extend to company auditors duty of disclosure of confidential complaints and concerns to the regulatory authorities.

  Mr. Redwood
  I must ask the hon. Member to await the Government's response, which my right hon. Friend hopes to announce soon, to a recommendation on this topic made by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in its report on company investigations.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is reviewing his powers to take action against auditors criticised in Companies Act inspectors' reports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No review is being undertaken. Under part II of the Companies Act 1989—the key provisions of which we expect to bring into force in early 1991—a recognised supervisory body must appear to the Secretary of State to have both adequate rules and practices designed to ensure that company auditors are fit and proper persons; and adequate arrangements and resources for the effective monitoring and enforcement of compliance with its rules.

  Gaseous Fuels
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to make appointments of notified bodies under the terms of the European Community directive on the approximation of the laws of member states relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels.

  Mr. Forth
  I intend to make appointments of notified certification bodies under the gas appliance directive at the earliest possible date consistent with providing the appropriate legal safeguards for those seeking certification for their products. These are necessary given the mandatory nature of the certification requirements introduced by that directive.

  Subsidiaries' Transactions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on identifying the price base of transactions between company subsidiaries.

  Mr. Redwood
  None that I know of.

  Insurance Companies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all reports published following investigations under the Insurance Companies Acts; and how many unpublished investigations have been completed.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not departmental policy to publish such reports.

  EC Investment Services Directive
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he is holding in relation to the European Community investment services directive.
  384
  Mr. Redwood
  I am publishing today a consultative document on the investment services directive which seeks views on this important single market measure. I have arranged for copies of the document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  In the negotiations to date on the directive, the Department has sought the views of regulatory bodies, organisations representing the United Kingdom investment services industry and of consumer groups.

  Office Searches (EC Inspectors)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers exist under European Economic Community related legislation for officials of the European Commission to enter and search the premises of United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: Article 213 of the EEC treaty permits the Commission to collect any information and carry out any checks required for the performance of its tasks within the limits laid down by the Council. In practice this provision is never used.

  The following Community instruments covering matters within the Secretary of State's areas of responsibility grant the Commission powers to conduct investigations on the premises of United Kingdom companies for certain specified purposes:

  Council Regulation No. 17 (1962) implementing articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1017/68 applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterway.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4056/86 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3975/87 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules of competition of undertakings in the air transport sector.

  Council Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 concerning the co-ordination of the activities of the Structural Funds.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings. [Enters into effect on 21 September 1990].

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement setting out the powers which European Community inspectors have to enter business premises and to seize or study papers; and if he will publish a note of guidance on these to issue to British-based companies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) today sets out EC legislation within the Secretary of State's responsibility which gives the Commission power to inspect business premises. Companies should consult their legal advisers on Community powers in individual cases.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement setting out the difference in the powers of United Kingdom-based company inspectors and European Community inspectors in relation to the entering of business premises and the seizure of documents.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: In the competition area, where we can give a reasonable comparison, the main difference is that under both United Kingdom and EC law authorities can require the

  385
  production of documents and the giving of oral evidence, but only under EC law can authorities demand entry to premises.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who supervises office searches in the United Kingdom by European Community inspectors; and if any limits are in general placed on the extent of the papers and documents which may be seized or studied.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: Detailed working rules on office searches by European Community inspectors will be set by the Commission within the framework of the Community regulations which permit such searches. It is the practice for an official of the Office of Fair Trading to accompany Commission officials conducting investigations in the United Kingdom whenever possible.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the quotas covered by the multi-fibre arrangement and indicate the proportion of each quota used.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 March 1990, c. 306]: The Department of Trade and Industry is now able to provide a list of quotas covered by the multi-fibre arrangement together with relevant data on utilisation for 1988. This has been placed in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Canteens
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis prices in prison canteens are calculated; and what progress has been made in reducing differences between prices in different prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  To reduce differences in prices of goods sold in different prison canteens, governors will be reminded in a circular instruction to be issued on 26 July that selling prices should be at the manufacturer's recommended retail price. Where such a price is not set the selling price should be that which members of the public normally pay in retail transactions.

  Servicemen

  Others

  Total

  Received

  57

  (53)

  540

  (499)

  597

  (552)

  Granted

  56

  (52)

  11

  (9)

  67

  (61)

  Refused

  —

  (—)

  487

  (487)

  487

  (487)

  Withdrawn

  1

  (1)

  —

  (—)

  1

  (1)

  Still under consideration

  —

  (—)

  42

  (3)

  42

  (3)

  Note:—The numbers in the first column are former service men in Hong Kong who served under the Government of that territory in its defence during the second world war.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance as(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiancés and (d) fiancées in each British post in all countries apart from those of the Indian subcontinent were (a) granted and (b) refused in each quarter since January 1989; how many such applications in each category, at each post and in each quarter were refused (1) wholly and (2) partly because of the primary purpose rule; what was the refusal rate at each post; and what percentage of those refusals were (x) wholly and (y) partly on primary purpose grounds.

  Elderly Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special rules or arrangements are made for prisoners over pensionable age.

  Mr. Mellor
  None formally, but prison staff naturally have regard to the age and physical condition of prisoners in their care.

  Prison Clothing Supplies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the scale holding of prisoners' pyjamas in each London prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  Pyjamas are an optional item, and the quantity held in any one establishment will vary depending on the number of prisoners wishing to wear them. Information on the total holding at each male London prison, including articles in use, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Stocks currently held in store are as follows:

  pairs

  HM Prison Brixton

  1,000

  HM Prison Pentonville

  210

  HM Prison Wandsworth

  800

  HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs

  250

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British citizenship under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 have been(a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused in each quarter since January 1989; and how many of those granted have been on the grounds of service in the armed forces.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. The total number of applications to date in each category, with equivalent figures up to July 1989 in brackets, is as follows:

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The only information requested which is available centrally is that on applications granted and refused in Hong Kong, and is given in the table.
  387

  Applications in Hong Kong for entry clearance to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Applications

  Granted1

  Refused initially

  Wives

  1989

  1st quarter

  40

  —

  2nd quarter

  60

  —

  3rd quarter

  40

  —

  4th quarter

  50

  3—

  1990

  1st quarter

  60

  3—

  Husbands, fiancés2

  1989

  1st quarter

  20

  —

  2nd quarter

  20

  3—

  3rd quarter

  30

  3—

  4th quarter

  20

  3—

  1990

  1st quarter

  20

  3—

  Fiancées

  1989

  1st quarter

  10

  —

  2nd quarter

  10

  —

  3rd quarter

  10

  —

  4th quarter

  3—

  —

  1990

  1st quarter

  10

  —

  1Granted initially or on appeal.

  2Data for husbands and fiancés separately are not available.

  35 or fewer.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of passengers detained overnight under Immigration Act powers during 1989, by nationality; and how many of these were under 18 years old;

  (2) how many people, by nationality, were detained (a) overnight and (b) for a period of more than one month in (i) Harmondsworth detention centre, (ii) the Queen's building, Heathrow, (iii) the Beehive, Gatwick, and (iv) Her Majesty's prison, Haslar, during 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Most of the readily available information relates to the number of passengers whose detention spanned at least one night pending further examination of their application for admission to, or their removal from, the United Kingdom and is given in the tables. The remaining information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1—Passengers1 detained overnight, by nationality and geographical region, 1989

  Nationality/Geographical Region

  Number2

  European Community

  Belgium

  2

  Denmark

  —

  France

  8

  German Federal Republic

  6

  Greece

  1

  Italy

  4

  Luxembourg

  —

  Netherlands

  8

  Portugal

  38

  Spain

  31

  European Community

  98

  388

  Nationality/Geographical Region

  Number2

  Western Europe

  Austria

  19

  Cyprus

  80

  Finland

  14

  Malta

  14

  Norway

  26

  Sweden

  28

  Switzerland

  18

  Turkey

  1,515

  Yugoslavia

  304

  Western Europe

  2,018

  Eastern Europe

  Bulgaria

  3

  Czechoslovakia

  3

  German Federal Republic

  3

  Hungary

  2

  Poland

  95

  Romania

  2

  USSR

  9

  Eastern Europe

  117

  Americas

  Argentina

  7

  Barbados

  12

  Brazil

  160

  Canada

  24

  Chile

  30

  Colombia

  176

  Cuba

  —

  Guyana

  16

  Jamaica

  282

  Mexico

  64

  Peru

  23

  Trinidad and Tobago

  24

  United States of America

  185

  Uruguay

  4

  Venezuela

  6

  Americas

  1,013

  Africa

  Algeria

  1,276

  Egypt

  36

  Ethiopia

  149

  Ghana

  462

  Kenya

  69

  Libya

  21

  Mauritius

  50

  Morocco

  594

  Nigeria

  745

  Sierra Leone

  102

  Somalia

  848

  South Africa

  60

  Sudan

  24

  Tanzania

  57

  Tunisia

  103

  Uganda

  670

  Zambia

  32

  Zimbabwe

  35

  Africa

  5,333

  Indian sub-continent

  Bangladesh

  316

  India

  236

  Pakistan

  330

  Indian sub-continent

  882

  Middle East

  Iran

  156

  Iraq

  111

  Israel

  57

  Jordan

  15

  389

  Nationality/Geographical Region

  Number2

  Kuwait

  4

  Lebanon

  61

  Saudi Arabia

  6

  Syria

  1

  Middle East

  411

  Remainder of Asia

  China

  28

  Indonesia

  8

  Japan

  39

  Malaysia

  109

  Philippines

  22

  Singapore

  17

  Sri Lanka

  409

  Thailand

  14

  Hong Kong (BDTCs and BN(O)s

  34

  Remainder of Asia

  680

  Australasia

  Australia

  18

  New Zealand

  14

  Australasia

  32

  British Overseas Citizens

  14

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  549

  Stateless

  265

  All Nationalities

  11,412

  2 Some illegal entrants and deportees are included.

  2 The figures include a small amount of double counting when a person is detained at more than one location.

  Table 2—Passengers1 detained overnight in certain locations, 1989

  Location

  Number

  Harmondsworth

  23,419

  Queen's Building

  2,574

  Gatwick South (virtually all at the Beehive)

  2,822

  Haslar

  547

  1 All figures, except for the Queen's Building and Haslar, exclude illegal entrants and deportees.

  2 Some passengers who were detained elsewhere prior to being detained at Harmondsworth are excluded.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the(a) passengers in total and (b) persons treated as illegal entrants who were granted temporary admission in 1989 subsequently absconded; and how many subsequently (i) contacted the immigration authorities themselves or (ii) were traced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information relates to the number of persons who absconded; either from detention or by failing to respond to the terms of temporary admission/release, and is as follows:

  Absconders in 1989

  Category of person

  Number

  Passengers

  1475

  Illegal entrants

  2184

  1 Includes some illegal entrants.

  2 Includes those illegal entrants in "passenger absconders".

  The distinction between those absconding from detention and those failing to respond to the terms of temporary admission/release as well as information
  390
  regarding those who either contacted the immigration authorities or were traced is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed in the nationality division to process nationality applications in each month since April 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The numbers of staff in caseworking groups in the nationality division, including the Liverpool nationality office, involved in processing applications for citizenship were as follows:

  Numbers

  1989

  April

  268.5

  May

  266.5

  June

  283.5

  July

  281.5

  August

  284.0

  September

  277.0

  October

  284.0

  November

  280.5

  December

  280.5

  1990

  January

  273.0

  February

  262.0

  March

  261.5

  April

  240.0

  May

  221.0

  June

  212.0

  Part-time staff are counted as 0.5.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what income the nationality division received in nationality fees, in each month from April 1989 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Fees received for applications for citizenship, net of refunds to unsuccessful applicants, were as follows:

  Receipts £

  1989

  April

  223,717

  May

  230,949

  June

  246,146

  July

  158,471

  August

  207,716

  September

  283,920

  October

  200,794

  November

  245,589

  December

  135,075

  1990

  January

  181,841

  February

  207,181

  March

  245,521

  April

  148,912

  May

  151,211

  June

  142,463

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notices have been issued to each airline under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in each quarter since January 1989; how much money has accrued as a result; and how many such notices have been contested by each airline.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the practice to disclose information on the record of individual airlines under the
  391
  Act. The total number of notices issued to carriers—airlines and sea operators—in each quarter since January 1989 was as follows:

  Quarter Ending

  Number of Notices

  31 March 1989

  1,345

  30 June 1989

  1,616

  30 September 1989

  2,208

  31 December 1989

  2,694

  31 March 1990

  1,912

  TOTAL

  9,775

  A total of £2.476 million was received during this period and representations were made by carriers in 2,698 cases.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from over-age reapplicants from the Indian subcontinent, by country, seeking to join a sponsor settled in the United Kingdom have been(a) made, (b) deferred, (c) refused and (d) granted since 1988; and how many such reapplicants in each category had undergone successful DNA tests.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The only available information is that a total of 142 applications to join parents in the United Kingdom made by reapplicants who have established their relationship by means of DNA evidence, but who do not qualify for admission under the immigration rules, have now been decided under the terms of the concession

  Wives and children applying for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom1

  Number of persons

  Applications

  Post

  Newly received2

  Granted3

  Refused initially4

  Referred or deferred5

  Withdrawn or lapsed4

  Awaiting first interview at end of quarter

  Dhaka

  1989

  1st quarter

  1,410

  2,220

  470

  780

  470

  2,600

  2nd quarter

  1,390

  2,070

  450

  620

  420

  2,200

  3rd quarter

  1,460

  1,810

  290

  570

  390

  1,700

  4th quarter

  1,490

  1,510

  510

  490

  350

  1,500

  1990

  1st quarter

  1,320

  1,570

  520

  470

  280

  1,600

  Islamabad

  1989

  1st quarter

  1,200

  1,110

  90

  840

  170

  2,100

  2nd quarter

  1,020

  1,260

  60

  800

  120

  1,900

  3rd quarter

  1,010

  1,020

  60

  710

  100

  1,800

  4th quarter

  920

  790

  50

  530

  90

  1,800

  1990

  1st quarter

  1,190

  990

  250

  640

  100

  1,700

  Karachi

  1989

  1st quarter

  90

  60

  6

  20

  6

  100

  2nd quarter

  60

  80

  6

  30

  30

  50

  3rd quarter

  60

  80

  10

  40

  —

  10

  4th quarter

  40

  40

  10

  10

  6

  30

  1990

  1st quarter

  100

  60

  10

  10

  6

  70

  1 Including persons applying for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

  2 Data include some double counting in respect of applications recorded initially for entry clearance and then subsequently for a certificate of entitlement.

  3 Granted initially or on appeal.

  4 Since about the end of 1989, settlement applications have been refused in those circumstances where previously they would have been lapsed.

  5 Referred to the Home Office for decision or deferred for further inquiries.

  6 Five or fewer.

  392
  announced by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary on 14 June 1989 at columns 461–62. Entry clearance has been authorised in 38 of these cases.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many wives and dependent children applying for entry clearance in the Indian subcontinent in each quarter since January 1989 were refused(a) on first application and (b) on second or subsequent application.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Quarterly information up to the end of 1989 on the total numbers of wives and children in the Indian subcontinent refused entry clearance to the United Kingdom is published in table 24 of Cm 1124, "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1989", a copy of which is in the Library. In the first quarter of 1990, 240 wives and 360 children were initially refused entry clearance. Separate information on first-time applicants and reapplicants is not available centrally.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for settlement by wives and children in (i) Dhaka, (ii) Islamabad and (iii) Karachi were(a) received, (b) granted, (c) refused, (d) deferred at first interview, (e) lapsed and (f) outstanding and awaiting first interview for each quarter since the beginning of 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table.
  393
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for registration under section 7(6)(a) of the British Nationality Act 1981 made after 31 December 1987 have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused; and what criteria he uses to decide on the special circumstances of a case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the number of applications for registration under section 7 of the British Nationality Act 1981 made after 31 December 1987 which were received and granted is not available. Between January 1988 and June 1990, 454 applications made under section 7 of the Act are recorded as having been refused as late applications. During the passage of the 1981 Act it was made clear that the discretion to accept a late registration application would be used sparingly in cases of hardship where an applicant could show good reasons why he or she could not apply in time.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) adult registration, (b) registration of minors and (c) naturalisation were (i) received and (ii) granted by the nationality division, for each month from January 1989 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The numbers of applications for citizenship received in caseworking groups are set out in table 1. The figures in the table do not include applications received but not yet recorded on the nationality division's computer, of which there were approximately 3,000 at the end of June 1990. The numbers of applications granted are set out in table 2.

  Table 1

  Applications received

  Adult registrations

  Minor registrations

  Naturalisations

  1989

  January

  7,838

  1,086

  3,177

  February

  10,252

  1,530

  4,033

  March

  9,562

  1,569

  5,094

  April

  8,916

  1,400

  4,432

  May

  7,381

  1,656

  3,427

  June

  3,313

  3,658

  7,963

  July

  1,563

  2,928

  9,777

  August

  872

  2,158

  7,160

  September

  380

  524

  1,452

  October

  345

  539

  1,625

  November

  349

  584

  1,622

  December

  325

  276

  849

  Refusals, on grounds of maintenance and accommodation, of after-entry applications by husbands and wives

  Number of persons

  Refusals to grant probationary year on grounds of:—

  Refusals of settlement1

  Accommodation

  Maintenance

  Maintenance and accommodation

  1989

  Quarter 1

  Husbands

  1

  —

  1

  5

  Wives

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Quarter 2

  Husbands

  —

  2

  2

  8

  Wives

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Quarter 3

  Husbands

  3

  —

  —

  7

  Wives

  1

  1

  —

  6

  Quarter 4

  394

  Applications received

  Adult registrations

  Minor registrations

  Naturalisations

  1990

  January

  255

  575

  1,515

  February

  315

  657

  1,586

  March

  251

  592

  1,485

  April

  184

  356

  629

  May

  232

  535

  1,589

  June

  434

  842

  1,457

  Table 2

  Applications granted

  Adult registrations

  Minor registrations

  Naturalisations

  1989

  January

  8,263

  743

  1,226

  February

  7,707

  708

  1,361

  March

  8,453

  795

  1,639

  April

  7,508

  736

  1,683

  May

  6,013

  790

  1,591

  June

  6,690

  1,237

  1,925

  July

  6,349

  1,173

  1,623

  August

  8,399

  1,393

  1,612

  September

  6,979

  1,310

  1,551

  October

  8,023

  1,349

  2,193

  November

  7,088

  1,419

  2,003

  December

  4,105

  905

  1,296

  1990

  January

  6,994

  1,190

  2,037

  February

  4,160

  907

  1,688

  March

  3,127

  996

  2,021

  April

  2,403

  944

  1,861

  May

  1,038

  394

  953

  June

  1,284

  915

  1,765

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) husbands, (b) wives and (c) dependent children have been refused (i) extension of stay and (ii) settlement in the United Kingdom on the grounds that he is not satisfied that they can be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds, in each quarter since January 1989 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information relating to after-entry cases is given in the following table. Information on dependent children is not readily available.
  395

  Refusals to grant probationary year on grounds of:—

  Refusals of settlement1

  Accommodation

  Maintenance

  Maintenance and accommodation

  Husbands

  4

  —

  2

  5

  Wives

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1990

  Quarter 1

  Husbands

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Wives

  —

  —

  1

  4

  1 After probationary year on general considerations, including recourse to public funds.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) British nationals and (b) holders of certificates of identity from Hong Kong have been admitted to the United Kingdom in each quarter since January 1989 as (i) persons on independent

  Admissions to the United Kingdom of British Dependent Territories Citizens and British Nationals (Overseas) from Hong Kong

  Number of persons

  1989

  Admission category

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Total 1989

  1 1990 1st quarter

  Visitors

  6,260

  7,740

  13,700

  6,040

  33,800

  5,980

  Business visitors

  1,400

  1,320

  1,450

  1,250

  5,420

  1,430

  Students

  360

  290

  5,490

  1,090

  7,230

  430

  Husbands and fiancés

  10

  10

  20

  10

  50

  10

  Wives and fiancées

  30

  40

  40

  30

  150

  40

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was (i) the budgeted cost and (ii) the actual cost of processing nationality applications in the nationality division during 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The budgeted cost of processing applications for citizenship during 1989–90 was £7,922,000. Final outturn costs are not yet available but are expected to be in the region of £7.1 million.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will produce a table to show, for 1989 and the first quarter of 1990, the number of settlement applications at the post in Dhaka which were(a) received, (b) granted, (c) refused, (d) deferred at first interview, (e) lapsed, (f) outstanding and (g) outstanding and awaiting first interview.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Applications in Bangladesh for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom1

  Number of persons

  Applications

  1989

  1990 1st quarter

  Newly received2

  6,910

  1,730

  Granted3

  7,960

  1,640

  Refused initially4

  2,450

  750

  Estimated numbers of applicants in the Indian sub-continent on 31 March 1990 awaiting their first interview for entry to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Post

  Category1

  Queue 1

  Queue 2

  Queue 3

  Queue 4

  Queue 5

  Dhaka

  370

  900

  130

  830

  —

  New Delhi2

  3—

  250

  170

  60

  160

  Bombay

  —

  630

  380

  120

  140

  Calcutta

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  396
  means, (ii) self-employed persons, (iii) business people, (iv) visitors, (v) students, (vi) husbands and fiancés, (vii) wives and fiancées and (viii) other dependent relatives.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information for BDTCs and BN(O)s from Hong Kong is given in the table. Figures on admissions of holders of certificates of identity from Hong Kong are not available.

  Applications

  1989

  1990 1st quarter

  Referred or deferred5

  2,920

  580

  Withdrawn or lapsed4

  1,840

  350

  Outstanding at end of period

  5,800

  4,500

  Of which, awaiting first interview

  2,100

  2,200

  1 Including applications for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

  2 Data include some double counting in respect of applications recorded initially for entry clearance and then subsequently for a certificate of entitlement.

  3 Granted initially or on appeal.

  4 Since about the end of 1989, settlement applications have been refused in those circumstances where previously they would have been lapsed.

  5 Referred to the Home Office for decision or deferred for further inquiries.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children were waiting in each queue at each post in the Indian subcontinent on 31 March.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the estimated total numbers in each queue is given in the table; separate information on men, women and children is not available centrally.
  397

  Post

  Category1

  Queue 1

  Queue 2

  Queue 3

  Queue 4

  Queue 5

  Madras

  —

  50

  10

  —

  10

  Islamabad

  100

  2,200

  440

  320

  890

  Karachi

  3—

  100

  20

  10

  3—

  Total Indian sub-continent

  480

  4,100

  1,100

  1,300

  1,200

  1 Queue 1: Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years old, and special compassionate cases (first-time applicants for settlement).

  Queue 2: Spouses, and children under 18 years old (first-time applicants for settlement).

  Queue 3: Fiance(e)s, and other applicants (first-time applicants for settlement).

  Queue 4: Re-applicants for settlement.

  Queue 5: Other applicants (not for settlement).

  2 Data exclude Afghans seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom.

  3 Five or fewer.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting for special quota vouchers in (i) India and (ii) east Africa in(a) May 1989, (b) December 1989 and (c) May 1990; when those issued with vouchers on those dates had applied; how many vouchers were issued in (1) India and (2) east Africa in (i)

  Table 1: Persons applying for a special voucher for entry to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Country

  Applications newly received1

  Vouchers issued

  Applications awaiting a decision at end of month

  1989

  1990 1st quarter

  1989

  1990 1st quarter

  May 1989

  December 1989

  March 1990

  India

  320

  100

  600

  160

  1,600

  1,300

  1,000

  Kenya

  350

  70

  290

  70

  590

  570

  560

  Tanzania

  40

  10

  30

  2—

  70

  70

  80

  Malawi

  10

  2—

  20

  2—

  20

  20

  10

  Zambia

  50

  10

  50

  10

  50

  40

  30

  Elsewhere

  20

  2—

  10

  2—

  10

  10

  2—

  Total

  810

  200

  990

  260

  2,300

  2,000

  1,700

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2 5 or fewer.

  Table 2: Waiting times for persons applying for a special voucher

  Months

  Waiting time to main interview for: Persons interviewed at end of month

  May 1989

  December 1989

  March 1990

  Persons applying at end of month1 March 1990

  India2

  72.0

  48.0

  36.0

  318.0

  Kenya

  2.0

  1.5

  4—

  4—

  Tanzania

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Malawi

  —

  —

  0.5

  0.5

  Zambia

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1 Data relate to expected waiting time.

  2 Data relate to non-priority applicants. Priority applicants (ie. widows with a child in the United Kingdom, heads of household aged 65 or over, and special compassionate cases) are interviewed within three months.

  3 Provisional estimate.

  4— within a week.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a response to his communication of 26 April on behalf of Maria Giles of 74 Rosemellin, Camborne, Cornwall, on an issue involving experiments on animals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 21 May.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the
  398
  1989 and (ii) the first quarter of 1990; when those applying now can expect to receive vouchers; and how many applicants there were for vouchers in (x) India and (y) east Africa in (a) 1989 and (b) the first half of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information which is currently available is given in the tables.

  hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde sent to his Department on 25 June regarding the establishment of the Football Licensing Authority.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and noble Friend replied to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde on 12 July.

  AIDS Videos
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the showing of his Department's two videos on AIDS to(a) prison officers and (b) prisoners; and if he will make a statement on progress towards his objectives.
  399
  Mr. Mellor
  The staff training film "AIDS Inside" is shown to all new entrant prison officers as part of their initial training. Since the film was introduced in August 1987 governors have been set annual training targets designed to enable all other operational staff to receive a showing of the film. We have recently asked governors to report the progress made towards meeting that objective.

  "AIDS Inside and Out", a film for prisoners, was introduced in March 1989. Governors were set a target of showing the film at least once to every willing prisoner expected to be in custody for four weeks or longer. They were asked to include a progress report in their annual report for 1990–91. The target will be reviewed in the light of their reports.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 360, what stage has now been reached in making appointments to the Football Licensing Authority; and when he expects the authority to be in place.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following the appointment of Mr. Norman Jacobs as chairman of the Football Licensing Authority, announced on 12 July, the other members and staff of the authority will now be appointed as soon as possible. It will nevertheless be some months before the authority is fully operational.

  Trafalgar Square (Incident)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of providing the answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East,Official Report, 13 June, columns 191–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The reply given to the hon. Member on 13 June contained information which was readily available from police records. No estimate of the cost of the reply was therefore made.

  Football Supporters Association
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet officials of the Football Supporters Association.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans at present.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to recruit extra staff to replace the 24 police liaison officers in the forensic science laboratories, who are being shed as a result of the current forensic science service reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Police liaison officer attachments to the FSS will be phased out by April 1991 as part of the Government's programme of civilianisation of non-operational posts. Replacement is planned over this year and next.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated effect on(a) the
  400
  existing backlog of case work and (b) in-house work in the forensic science service, of scientists being taken off existing work to participate in project work and implementation teams, for the current reorganisation of the service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am pleased to say that the staff of the forensic science service have been fully involved in all the work and changes necessary to introduce direct charging and become an executive agency in April 1991. This has been to the benefit of in-house work. The number of cases waiting to be examined has grown recently for a number of reasons including this one. We expect this position to be remedied with the changes now in place.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used by the Police Complaints Authority to determine which complaint cases will be supervised.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These are set out in section 89(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met with the chairman of the Mid Glamorgan health authority to discuss the formation of hospital trusts.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has not discussed the formation of hospital trusts with the chairman of Mid Glamorgan health authority.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inward investment projects have been received in Wales over the last five years for which figures are available; and what has been the total worth of such investment.

  Mr. David Hunt
  During the five years to 31 March, Wales secured a total of 488 inward investment projects—a rate of almost two every week. The companies involved estimated the capital investment at some £2.5 billion. Since March a further 32 projects have been secured with an estimated capital investment of £263 million.

  Housing
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet district council leaders in Wales to discuss housing provision.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department regularly meets all housing authorities in Wales to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of owner-occupation in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  It is estimated that at December 1989, a total of 71 per cent. of the housing stock in Wales was owner-occupied.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of consultations on the introduction of a new Welsh Language Act.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend awaits the formal outcome of the consultation exercise, which the Welsh Language Board has been conducting on its legislative proposals. The board is now considering the results of this. It will present its conclusion to my right hon. Friend in due course.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the need for a new Welsh Language Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office has received a number of representations from individuals and organisations about Welsh language legislation. This issue is currently being considered by the Welsh Language Board. My right hon. Friend will consider very carefully any specific proposals it puts to him.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contact he has had with members of the West Glamorgan family practitioner committee about the effect of charges on eye tests.

  Mr. Grist
  Our officials discussed this matter at the annual review of West Glamorgan family practitioner committee in December 1989. More recently, the Department has received some papers on this subject via the family practitioner committee.

  Environmental Policy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the priorities of his Department in environmental policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Our priorities are to prevent undue risks to human life and health, to protect the natural environment and to improve public amenity, particularly in those areas with the worst environments.

  Mid-Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the board of the Mid-Glamorgan training and enterprise council to discuss the new budget for 1990–91.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The budget of the Mid-Glamorgan TEC for the current year has just been agreed. I am pleased to say that contracts for both the Mid-Glamorgan and West Wales TECs will be signed tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be meeting all the TEC chairmen in Wales very shortly.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about train services in the Principality and the need for further investment.
  402
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I receive many representations about rail services and rail investment in Wales.

  Brymbo Steelworks
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further plans he has to maintain steelworking jobs at the Brymbo steelworks.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Development Agency, with full support from me, is continuing to explore all possible options for the future of the works.

  Roads
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of road developments in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Significant progress has been made since 1979, with 152 miles of motorway and trunk roads completed. Nine schemes, totalling 21 miles, are currently under construction, and a further five schemes, totalling 19 miles, are planned to start in the current financial year.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received in favour of setting up an assembly in Cardiff.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Beef
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current state of the beef industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The December 1989 sample census figures showed that the Welsh beef breeding herd had increased by 6 per cent. compared with December 1988. Specialist beef producers have also benefited from last year's 42 per cent. increase in the rate of suckler cow premium which was worth some £8 million to producers in Wales in the 1989–90 scheme year; and hill livestock compensatory allowance payments on cattle in 1989 amounted to more than £8 million.

  Following the devaluation of the green pound agreed at the 1990 price fixing, support prices have increased by 8.5 per cent. with the rate of beef special premium increasing from £29.19 to £31.80 a head from 14 May 1990.

  Although the market is currently depressed, with numbers and prices down, the safety net measures for intervention together with the lifting of bans on our exports should help to sustain the market.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the less-favoured area status farms in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Farmers in our less-favoured areas benefit directly from a number of special measures including the hill livestock compensatory allowances. I remain confident that less-favoured areas farmers will meet the challenges that face them in the future.

  A470, Cardiff
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to(a) eliminating unnecessary junctions on the A470 in Cardiff, North or (b) other measures to improve the flow of traffic on this trunk road.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  These are matters for South Glamorgan county council to consider as the responsible highway authority for the A470 to the south of the Coryton interchange. Measures to improve traffic flows on the A470 trunk road north of Coryton are being considered as part of the south Wales traffic study scheduled to be completed later this year.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the causes of the increase in those sewage works serving a population band of 1,000 to 5,000 and failing to meet the Welsh water authority quality standards in 1988–89; and what action his Department has taken to reverse this trend.

  Mr. Grist
  The prospectus for the water share offers attributed the difficulties experienced in recent years mainly to undercapacity, inadequate maintenance, outmoded equipment or breakdowns. A new regulatory body, the National Rivers Authority, has now been established and an investment programme, totalling £395 million in the next five years alone, to improve the quality of Dwr Cymru's sewerage services, including its sewage treatment works, has been approved.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Development Board for Rural Wales to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 10 to 14 December 1990.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all members of non-departmental public bodies in Wales who are members of(a) two such bodies and (b) more than two such bodies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Executive non-departmental public bodies in Wales

  (a) Members of two bodies

  Mr. J. Allen CBE

  Housing for Wales (Chairman)

  Land Authority for Wales (Deputy Chairman)

  Mr. A. G. Davies

  Court of National Museum of Wales

  Council of National Museum of Wales

  Mr. J. H. Davies

  Court of National Library of Wales

  Council of National Library of Wales

  404
  Mr. H. Hudson-Davies

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Welsh Development Agency

  Mr. I. G. M. Hughes

  Court of National Library of Wales

  Council of National Library of Wales

  Mr. G. D. Inkin OBE

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (Chairman)

  Land Authority for Wales (Chairman)

  Mr. J. Morgan

  Court of National Library of Wales

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Miss M. Owen

  Court of National Library of Wales

  Council of National Library of Wales

  Mr. P. G. Price

  Court of National Library of Wales

  Council of National Library of Wales

  The right hon. Lord Rees

  Court of National Museum of Wales

  Council of National Museum of Wales

  Mr. J. E. H. Rees

  Court of National Museum of Wales

  Council of National Museum of Wales

  Mr. R. P. V. Rees

  Land Authority for Wales

  Welsh Development Agency

  Mr. W. Elfed Roberts

  Wales Tourist Board

  Welsh Development Agency

  Mr. J. Watkin

  Court of National Library of Wales

  Council of National Library of Wales

  Cllr. R. F. Watkiss

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Land Authority for Wales

  Sir Donald Walters

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Welsh Development Agency (Deputy Chairman)

  (b) Members of more than two bodies

  Mr. E. G. Davies

  Development Board for Rural Wales (Chairman)

  Welsh Development Agency

  Wales Tourist Board

  Health Authority Meetings
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that public access to the meetings of health authorities in Wales and their committees and sub-committees should be required to be on the same basis as that required of local authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  No. District health authorities conduct their meetings in as open a manner as is reasonable. They will continue to be subject to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce the results of his consultation on the future of community health councils in Wales.
  405
  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 13 July 1990 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  NHS Funds
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any additional funds are to be made available to the NHS in Wales over and above those set out in the public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Grist
  Additional funds were announced in the supplementary estimates presented to the House in June in respect of pay awards recommended in the reports of the review bodies. Future needs will be considered as part of the public expenditure survey in the normal way.

  School Closures
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales of fewer than 50 pupils closed in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department does not maintain records of school closures by size of school.

  Renewal Areas Scheme
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the actions taken by his Department to promote the renewal areas scheme in respect of older housing in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  In addition to supplying very detailed guidance circulars, our officials have met representatives from all Welsh authorities to promote renewal area schemes.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money his Department is making available(a) in the present financial year and (b) in the 1991–92 financial year towards the renewal areas scheme for older housing in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Credit approvals of £1 million are being held by the Department to meet local authorities' proposals for renewal areas. This is in addition to £26 million provided for area-based renovation projects such as enveloping and group repair schemes. No decision has yet been made about resources for 1991–92.

  Enveloping Schemes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was provided by his Department in each of the last 10 years on enveloping schemes(a) in Cardiff and (b) in Wales; and how much is being made available in the current year and in the 1991–92 financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  Since 1984–85 capital allocations totalling £75.7 million have been made available to local authorities in Wales for enveloping projects. Cardiff has been allocated over £9 million. Subsidy payments by the Department for the last two available years have been:

  Cardiff £

  All-Wales £

  1987–88

  467,124

  2,733,822

  1988–89

  583,420

  4,131,189

  406
  The amounts paid in earlier years are not readily available; the amount for 1989–90 is not yet available. For the current financial year credit approvals of £26 million are available for area-based renovation projects. No decisions have yet been made about resources for 1991–92.

  Tourism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to enable the Wales tourist board to market overseas the attractions of tourism in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The overseas marketing of Wales as a tourist destination is one of the responsibilities of the British Tourist Authority. However, the Wales tourist board, with the agreement of the BTA, can undertake overseas promotion of Wales on behalf of the authority.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total revenue from overseas tourism in Wales in 1989 and in the previous three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Wales tourist board estimates that revenue from overseas tourism in Wales in 1989 on the basis of the returns for the first three quarters of the year will be around £100 million. Figures for the three previous years are as follows:

  £ million

  1986

  102

  1987

  119

  1988

  98

  Source: International Passenger Survey.

  The implementation of the recommendations of last year's tourist review of the British Tourist Authority, undertaken by the Secretary of State for Employment, is intended to improve the marketing of Britain as a whole, and should thus be of direct benefit to Wales. The Secretary of State and I shall be monitoring the effectiveness of these changes as they relate to the promotion of Wales.

HEALTH

  Environmental Health and Food Safety Division
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the environmental health and food safety division of his Department was established.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The division was set up on 1 January 1990 following a reorganisation involving a number of existing divisions.

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by national health service region the hospitals in England which had consultant obstetric and/or general practitioner maternity beds in 1980, 1985 or the most recent year for which information is available and the numbers of beds of each type in each hospital and each region in each year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Residential Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women are in residential care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated total number of women in local authority and registered private and voluntary residential care homes at 31 March 1988 was 190,000.

  Housing
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's strategy for ensuring housing is available for those people covered by community care legislation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The housing aspects of the care in the community proposals are the subject of discussions between the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, in consultation with the local authority associations.

  Housing (Women)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women patients who are in need of housing are discharged annually from psychiatric hospitals; and how many are allocated housing by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in England and Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department.

  Abortions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of abortions carried out on resident women from zero to 12 weeks, 12 to 24 weeks and over 24 weeks for each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 by regional health authority in England.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Number of abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 by gestation weeks and Regional Health Authority (RHA) of usual residence in England, 1986

  Gestation weeks

  Area of residence

  0 to 12

  13 to 24

  25 and over

  England

  122,964

  17,879

  24

  Regional Health Authority

  Northern

  5,581

  681

  1

  Yorkshire

  7,448

  1,068

  1

  Trent

  9,314

  1,475

  2

  East Anglian

  4,082

  577

  3

  North West Thames

  13,953

  1,815

  1

  North East Thames

  15,144

  1,954

  4

  South East Thames

  12,031

  1,769

  2

  South West Thames

  9,166

  1,016

  —

  Wessex

  5,754

  1,188

  —

  Oxford

  5,961

  875

  1

  South Western

  5,876

  933

  2

  West Midlands

  13,384

  2,397

  4

  Mersey

  6,029

  796

  —

  North Western

  9,241

  1,335

  3

  408

  Number of abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 by gestation weeks and Regional Health Authority (RHA) of usual residence in England, 1987

  Gestation weeks

  Area of residence

  0 to 12

  13 to 24

  25 and over

  England

  130,021

  19,331

  23

  Regional Health Authority

  Northern

  5,699

  740

  1

  Yorkshire

  7,928

  1,199

  1

  Trent

  9,780

  1,476

  3

  East Anglian

  4,140

  630

  1

  North West Thames

  14,546

  1,962

  —

  North East Thames

  16,686

  2,213

  4

  South East Thames

  12,837

  1,980

  3

  South West Thames

  9,295

  1,164

  1

  Wessex

  5,897

  1,255

  1

  Oxford

  6,396

  888

  1

  South Western

  6,285

  1,028

  2

  West Midlands

  14,229

  2,517

  1

  Mersey

  6,222

  840

  2

  North Western

  10,081

  1,439

  2

  Number of abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 by gestation weeks and Regional Health Aurthority (RHA) of usual residence in England, 1988

  Gestation weeks

  Area of residence

  0 to 12

  13 to 24

  25 and over

  England

  139,734

  21,151

  22

  Regional Health Authority

  Northern

  6,240

  832

  2

  Yorkshire

  8,320

  1,247

  —

  Trent

  10,476

  1,580

  3

  East Anglian

  4,239

  647

  2

  North West Thames

  15,358

  2,031

  —

  North East Thames

  18,609

  2,583

  3

  South East Thames

  14,183

  2,191

  3

  South West Thames

  10,171

  1,328

  1

  Wessex

  6,599

  1,211

  1

  Oxford

  6,798

  934

  1

  South Western

  6,500

  1,194

  2

  West Midlands

  15,045

  2,833

  4

  Mersey

  6,458

  919

  North Western

  10,738

  1,621

  —

  Number of abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 by gestation weeks and Regional Health Authority (RHA) of usual residence in England, 19891

  Gestation weeks

  Area of residence

  0 to 12

  13 to 24

  25 and over

  England

  143,517

  19,560

  18

  Regional Health Authority

  Northern

  6,253

  720

  1

  Yorkshire

  8,702

  1,238

  3

  Trent

  10,888

  1,600

  1

  East Anglian

  4,357

  573

  —

  North West Thames

  16,000

  1,818

  1

  North East Thames

  19,395

  2,500

  1

  South East Thames

  14,409

  2,045

  2

  South West Thames

  10,288

  1,171

  3

  Wessex

  6,834

  1,033

  1

  Oxford

  7,098

  951

  —

  South Western

  6,434

  929

  1

  West Midlands

  15,687

  2,705

  —

  Mersey

  6,471

  810

  3

  North Western

  10,701

  1,467

  1

  1 Provisional.

  Social Work
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy with regard to generic social work within local authority social service departments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for local authorities to decide which approaches to social work best meet the needs of the people they serve. While a generic approach to social work was generally adopted following the Seebohm report of 1968, we recognise that social workers who develop specialist skills equally have an important role to play.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis is made by his Department of the ability of individual local authorities to undertake their statutory social work functions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department's social services inspectorate keeps the Department informed about the provision of personal social services by individual local authorities.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider introducing legislation to specify a maximum permitted number of beds in residential or nursing homes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. We see no need to specify in legislation the maximum number of beds in such homes. It is for local social services authorities and health authorities to specify the maximum number of people for which individual homes may cater, in the light of such factors as the premises, staffing levels and the quality of care which can be provided for residents.

  Trees Park Village, Darlington
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department received any representations regarding the eligibility of Trees Park Village in Darlington for registration under the Registered Homes Act.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received no such representations.

  Registration of homes under the Registered Homes Act 1984 is a matter for the local registration authority.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a detailed breakdown of the specific elements included in his Department's estimate of community care costs proposed for inclusion in the revenue support grant for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's provisional assessment of what local authorities need to spend on personal social services in 1991–92 will be announced in the autumn. There is no intention to identify specific elements within that overall assessment, as it is for local authorities to determine their own spending priorities.

  Bedford (Population)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the population of Bedford(a) north of the Great Ouse and (b) south of that river, including Kempston.
  410
  Mr. Dorrell
  Annual population estimates are prepared by OPCS for the areas administered by local authorities and by health authorities, but not for smaller areas. The estimated resident population of the North Bedfordshire county district (including Bedford) at mid-1988 was 136,800 (compared with 133,400 at mid-1981). The numbers of usual residents of the continuously built-up urban areas of Bedford/Kempston and Bedford enumerated in the 1981 census were 91,086 and 75,632 respectively.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is Her Majesty's Government's current policy in respect of the implementation of Project 2000; in how many schools of nursing it will be introduced during 1990–91; how many schools will remain thereafter without the Project 2000 system; and what are the constraints on bringing all nurse training within Project 2000 within a specified time scale.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 5 June at column 595.

  General Practices
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities about the extent to which established cross-boundary flows of patients should be reflected in the contractual arrangements which will apply to non-budget holding general practices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Principles" and "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts", copies of which are available in the Library, give guidance to health authorities on all major contract issues. District health authorities will be expected to let contracts which secure the referral patterns their local general practitioners prefer whether they be inside or outside their district's boundary, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so.

  Wheelchairs (Tourists)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will set up a scheme to provide short-term wheelchair loans to aid elderly tourists while visiting tourist areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The provision of wheelchairs on short-term loan is a matter for local authority social service departments. I am advised that there are a number of such schemes in existence. The hon. Member may like to consult the local authority concerned.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the names of the chairmen of the new family health services authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have placed in the Library a list of the appointments made with effect from 17 September 1990, the date on which the new authorities come into being.

  Good quality primary health care is fundamental to the success of our health service. We attach great importance to the enhanced work and wider responsibilities of the

  411
  newly constituted family health services authorities. The chairman's role is a challenging one in implementing the national health service changes for the general benefit of patients.

  Health Service Commissioner (Report)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the annual report of the health service commissioner for 1989–90.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The health service commissioner has, as in previous years, made a report on the performance of his functions in England, Scotland and Wales.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I presented the report to the House on Wednesday 11 July. It was published on Thursday 12 July (House of Commons paper No. HC 538) and copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Revenue expenditure on blood transfusion service (£ million cash)

  By region

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Northern

  1.945

  2.349

  2.533

  2.729

  2.850

  2.977

  3.361

  3.730

  3.719

  4.011

  Yorkshire

  1.896

  2.423

  2.661

  3.377

  3.497

  3.646

  4.207

  5.070

  5.571

  5.627

  Trent

  2.256

  2.847

  3.199

  3.476

  3.878

  4.256

  4.758

  5.518

  5.910

  6.454

  East Anglia

  1.366

  1.645

  1.743

  1.903

  2.012

  2.179

  2.388

  2.553

  2.846

  2.991

  North West Thames

  2.119

  2.654

  2.970

  3.163

  3.377

  3.726

  4.683

  5.357

  5.671

  6.483

  North East Thames

  2.062

  2.761

  2.816

  2.982

  3.115

  3.224

  3.638

  3.836

  4.255

  5.043

  South East Thames and South West Thames

  3.581

  4.435

  4.983

  5.339

  5.423

  6.102

  6.991

  7.283

  7.831

  9.150

  Wessex

  1.496

  1.704

  1.800

  1.911

  2.082

  2.204

  2.679

  2.698

  3.089

  3.077

  Oxford

  1.655

  2.080

  2.294

  2.511

  2.562

  2.759

  2.886

  3.238

  3.253

  3.332

  South Western

  2.106

  2.436

  2.825

  3.057

  3.307

  3.461

  4.134

  4.373

  4.610

  4.934

  West Midlands

  2.345

  2.900

  3.207

  3.436

  3.690

  4.098

  4.885

  5.579

  6.449

  6.664

  Mersey

  1.572

  1.974

  2.280

  2.464

  2.683

  2.957

  3.368

  3.780

  3.782

  3.900

  North Western

  3.126

  3.841

  4.388

  4.644

  4.876

  5.315

  6.309

  6.835

  6.801

  6.754

  TOTAL

  27.524

  34.050

  37.698

  40.989

  43.352

  46.903

  54.286

  59.849

  63.788

  68.420

  GPs (Prescribing)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has issued in the past 10 years in respect of(a) over-prescribing and (b) under-prescribing by general practitioners; and if he will place in the Library a copy of all such guidelines currently in force.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: The Department spends around £2.2 million each year in providing free of charge to all national health service doctors a variety of professional publications which contain information about drugs and advice on prescribing. These include "British National Formulary", "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin" and "Prescribers' Journal". In addition, from April 1990, family practitioner committees have taken over from the Department's regional medical service responsibility for giving advice to practices on prescribing.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rights of the Child
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to extend the effectiveness of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the operating cost of the blood transfusion service for each year since 1979 by regional transfusion service;

  (2) if operating costs of the blood transfusion service currently include an element for (a) capital costs and (b) research.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The revenue costs of operating the national blood transfusion service since 1979 are shown in the table.

  In addition to identifiable revenue expenditure the national blood transfusion service will incur expenditure on both capital items and research, but this is not separately identified in the accounts of health authorities.

  Figures are derived from the annual accounts of regional and district health authorities.

  The figures in individual columns may not always add up to the totals shown because of rounding.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom signed the convention on the rights of the child on 19 April and intends to ratify it as soon as possible.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty's Government's policy towards economic assistance to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We believe that it is in the interest of all concerned that the process of economic reform in the Soviet Union should continue and be successful. We are strongly committed to helping this process by providing the Russians with the skills and expertise needed to take advantage of their country's enormous potential.

  We welcome the decisions of the Dublin European Council and the G7 in Houston to commission an analysis of the Soviet Union's economic problems and of ways in which the west might help. This should provide the essential basis on which to take decisions about possible future assistance.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ways and means are being employed by Her Majesty's Government to keep the
  413
  situtation at the United Nations Educational, Science and Cultural Organisation under review over the next 12 months; what are the terms of reference for the United Kingdom's observer at the United Nations Educational, Science and Cultural Organisation; and if he will make it his policy to report to the House, on a regular basis, the results of this monitoring and the progress made by the United Nations Educational, Science and Cultural Organisation, leading to the further consideration in 1991 of a return by the United Kingdom to membership of the United Nations Educational, Science and Cultural Organisation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The British observer delegation to UNESCO at the British embassy in Paris closely monitors developments at UNESCO. The observer delegation also serves as a channel of communication for those activities of UNESCO in which we still participate. We keep our policy to UNESCO constantly under review in the light of any progress towards reform but do not believe that a specific timetable would be appropriate.

  Professional Qualifications
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made and what issues remain unresolved concerning the acceptance between the United Kingdom and other nations of the European Community of each other's professional qualifications in each other's countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The higher education diplomas directive was adopted in December 1988 for implementation by 4 January 1991. In August 1989 the Commission proposed a further directive for a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training which is intended to complement the first. This proposal remains under discussion.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the types of applications which entry clearance officers abroad are instructed must be referred to the Home Department; and if he will publish these instructions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Entry clearance officers—ECOs—are required to refer the following categories of application to the Home Office:

  (i) applications for asylum;

  (ii) applicants who do not qualify for entry under the Immigration Rules, but whose applications reveal special circumstances;

  (iii) applicants wishing to establish themselves in business in the United Kingdom;

  (iv) applications from children coming for adoption;

  (v) applications from certain nationals and individuals.

  It is not our policy to publish instructions to ECOs.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the maximum, minimum and average periods between the receipt of a first application for settlement at the post in Dhaka and the decision on whether or not to grant entry clearance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In Dhaka, as elsewhere, decisions on whether to grant entry clearance may in some cases be made immediately after interview; in others the applicant 414
  may be asked to submit documentary evidence, following which the ECO may have to make further inquiries, either locally or in the United Kingdom. As each case is sui generis, it is not possible to give the average time taken to reach a decision.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are in force for dealing with entry clearance applications from Iranian citizens(a) in Iran and (b) outside Iran; and what delays can be expected by people applying for (i) settlement, (ii) visits and (iii) studies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Iranian nationals must apply for entry clearance at one of our visa-issuing posts outside Iran. There are no separate queuing arrangements for settlement, visits or studies in these posts.

  Delays experienced by applicants in any of these categories vary from a few days for some posts in Europe to several months for certain posts in the Gulf and near east which attract large numbers of entry clearance applications from Iranian citizens.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for naturalisation as British dependent territories citizens on the basis of a connection with Hong Kong have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused, for each year since 1988 and to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Maude
  According to Hong Kong Government statistics, the number of applications for naturalisation as British dependent territories citizens, Hong Kong were:

  1988

  1989

  11990

  No. of applications received

  1,016

  3,098

  3,491

  No. of applications approved

  1,074

  1,098

  579

  No. of applications rejected

  60

  73

  41

  1 Up to end of June.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British dependent territories citizens from Hong Kong have(a) applied for and (b) been granted the status of British national (overseas).

  Mr. Maude
  From 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1990, a total of 137,142 applications from Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens for the British national (overseas) passport were received, of which 131,628 were granted. The remaining applications are still being processed.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present waiting times to first interview for all categories of applicant in each country and at each post in the Indian subcontinent.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 26 June,Official Report, column 137.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person applying for entry clearance on 31 March, or the latest convenient date, at each post in the Indian subcontinent could expect to wait, in each queue, for(a) first interview, (b) referral of the case to the Home Department and the requested information being received by the post, (c) decision after

  415
  first interview and (d) the explanatory statement prepared by the post in the case of appeal against any refusal to be dispatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  (a) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 26 June; (b) and (c) this information is not available. Processing times vary according to the circumstances of individual cases. (d) Average dispatch times of explanatory statements from receipt of an appeal are, at 6 July:

  Settlement

  Non-settlement

  New Delhi

  16 weeks

  12 weeks

  Madras

  12 weeks

  4 weeks

  Bombay

  12 weeks

  8 weeks

  Islamabad

  6 weeks

  4 weeks

  Calcutta

  same day

  same day

  Karachi

  12 weeks

  5 weeks

  Dhaka

  12 weeks

  6 weeks

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person applying for entry clearance for settlement at the British post in(a) Manila, (b) Accra, (c) Lagos, (d) Kingston, (e) Nicosia, (f) Cairo, (g) Bangkok, (h) Ankara and (i) Istanbul on 31 March, or the latest convenient date, could expect to wait for (i) interview, (ii) referral of the case to the Home Department and the requested information being received by the post, (iii) decisions and (iv) an explanatory statement prepared by the post in the event of an appeal against a refusal to be dispatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information required at (ii) and (iii) is not available as processing times vary according to the circumstances of individual cases.

  As to (i) and (iv) the position at 6 July was as follows:

  (i) interview

  (iv) referral

  Manila

  12 weeks

  3 to 5 months

  Accra

  3 days

  within 2 months

  Lagos

  4 days

  15 weeks

  Kingston

  16 weeks

  within 2 months

  Nicosia

  day of application

  1 week

  Cairo

  day of application

  within 2 months

  Bangkok

  12 weeks

  within 2 weeks

  Ankara

  2 to 3 days

  within 3 months

  Istanbul

  2 to 3 days

  within 3 months

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many explanatory statements related to entry clearance appeals were awaiting typing at each post in the Indian subcontinent and in Manila, Lagos and Accra, on the latest available date; how many staff are employed, both full-time and part-time, to type statements; and when he expects any backlogs to be cleared.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is given in the following table—as at 6 July.

  (a)

  (b)

  New Delhi

  126

  (5)

  Madras

  4

  (1)

  Bombay

  28

  1 and (8)

  Islamabad

  34

  13

  416

  (a)

  (b)

  Karachi

  3

  (2)

  Dhaka

  74

  5

  Calcutta

  12

  (1)

  Manila

  76

  (2)

  Lagos

  28

  (3)

  Accra

  2

  1

  (a) number of explanatory statements awaiting typing.

  (b) staff whose duties include typing explanatory statements (staff employed on other typing work shown in brackets).

  It is expected that the backlog at New Delhi will be cleared by the employment of casual typists.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Cyprus's aspiration to join the European Community.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on 12 July,Official Report, column 307.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the National Federation of Women's Institutes in respect of Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have received representations from four local groups of the women's institute drawing attention to a resolution passed at the annual general meeting of their national federation on 7 June.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has on recent civil disturbances in Somalia and reports of deaths caused by actions by Government forces; and what representations have been made to the Government of Somalia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We understand that at least 50 people were killed and many more wounded when security forces guarding President Barré opened fire on an unruly crowd at Mogadishu football stadium on 6 July. Our charge d'affaires has been instructed to raise our strong concern with the Somali Government.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook),Official Report, 2 July, column 402, any matters regarding nuclear non-proliferation controls were discussed at the Turnberry meeting of the NATO Ministers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  NATO Foreign Ministers did not discuss the issue of nuclear non-proliferation controls at the North Atlantic Council meeting at Turnberry.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on
  417
  the outcome of his most recent meeting with non-governmental organisations where the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was discussed; and if he will give details of any further plans he has for meetings with non-governmental organisations on nuclear non-proliferation before the start of the nuclear non-proliferation forum review conference on 20 August.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I last met non-governmental organisations on 3 April, when a wide range of topics, including the non-proliferation treaty, was discussed. The next such biannual meeting will be held in the autumn after the NPT fourth review conference.

  Brian Tristram
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how long Brian Tristram has been in the Peruvian gaol San Pedro de Lurigancho without trial; whether it is possible to extradite him for trial in the United Kingdom; what is his current state of health; when British embassy staff last saw him in the gaol; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to ensure that proceedings in Peru against Brian Tristram are either expedited or discontinued.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Mr. Tristram was arrested at Jorge Chavel airport, Lima on 6 December 1988, allegedly with a suitcase containing 772 grams of cocaine. On 27 December 1988 he was formally charged with illicit trafficking in drugs and remanded in custody to Lurigancho prison. His case has been submitted to the fifth Callao provincial court for trial. I am not aware that Mr. Tristram has committed any offence in the United Kingdom for which his extradition might be sought.

  He was last seen by British consular officials on 22 June 1990. He was comparatively cheerful during that visit. He has no specific complaints about his health, other than that his epilepsy pills had earlier been stolen. They have since been replaced. The British embassy in Lima has made representations to the Peruvian authorities in an effort to have the case brought to trial.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the breakout recently from the maximum security prison, the Canto Grande, in Peru has had any effect upon the conditions in which Brian Tristram is held at San Pedro de Lurigancho gaol.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have consulted the British embassy at Lima, which has seen no evidence that conditions in Lurigancho prison have been affected by events at Canto Grande.

  EC Relations
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(1) what representations he has received from the Government of the Republic of France in the last two days concerning relations between the republic and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received from the Federal Republic of Germany in the last two days concerning relations between the republic and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  418
  Mr. Maude
  There has been comment, much of it public, from a number of sources on Britain's relations with her EC partners. But we have received no representations on the subject.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the last two days concerning relations between the republic and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  There has been comment, much of it public, from a number of sources on Britain's relations with her EC partners. But I have received no representations on the subject.

  Angola
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken to ensure that the Angolan peace corridors are put in place as soon as possible in order that international aid may reach the areas devastated by drought.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The "corridors of peace" are a UNITA proposal which has not yet been accepted by the Angolan Government. But the International Committee of the Red Cross is discussing with the Angolan Government arrangements for supplying emergency famine relief to all drought-affected areas of Angola.

  NATO (Japanese Delegation)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces,Official Report, 21 June, column 650, the meeting in Belgium between NATO officials and the Japanese political delegation discussed nuclear non-proliferation matters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Nuclear non-proliferation matters were not discussed at the meeting in Belgium between NATO officials and the Japanese political delegation on 17 to 19 June.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agreements exist between Britain and the United States of America for the exchange of information about chemical and biological weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no formal bilateral agreements between the two Governments for the exchange of such information.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Running Cost Control
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those Government agencies and bodies which are exempted from gross running cost control; what conditions are imposed on such agencies as a result of the exemption; and what are the procedures whereby such exemption is granted.
  419
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The gross running costs control system was introduced in April 1986. As explained in paragraph 3.10 of Cm 1021, exemption from such control may be agreed for bodies whose costs are fully met by their receipts, provided suitably robust monitoring and management control systems apply. Such cases are considered in the annual public expenditure survey, and those approved have been identified in the relevant public expenditure White Paper and summary and guide to supply estimates. There are currently 19 bodies for which exemption has been approved. They are:

  1. Building Research Establishment (DOE)

  2. Central Office of Information

  3. Civil Service College (OMCS)

  4. Companies House (DTI)

  5. Department of the Registers of Scotland

  6. Driving Standards Agency (DTp)

  7. Her Majesty's Land Registry

  8. Historic Royal Palaces Agency (DOE)

  9. Laboratory of the Government Chemist (DTI)

  10. Medicines Control Agency (DH)

  11. Natural Resources Institute (ODA)

  12. Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (HSE)

  13. PSA Services

  14. QEII Conference Centre (DOE)

  15. Radiocommunications Executive Agency (DTI)

  16. Social Survey Division (OPCS)

  17. Vehicle Certification Agency (DTp)

  18. Vehicle Inspectorate (DTp)

  19. Warren Springs Laboratory (DTI).

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product, was accounted for by the manufacturing sector(a) currently, (b) at the highest level since 1979 and (c) at the highest level since 1960.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1988, the latest year for which data are available, the manufacturing sector accounted for 24 per cent. of gross domestic product, much the same level as in the preceding five years. The corresponding percentage shares in 1960 and 1979–36 and 28 per cent. respectively—were, in both cases, higher than in all subsequent years.

  Exports
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of total United Kingdom exports for the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is available in table A3 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" which is available in the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database, which may be accessed through the Library.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his reply of 10 July,Official Report, column 112, what are the other main domestic and international influences on United Kingdom long-term interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Long-term interest rates are integrally bound up with monetary conditions generally. The factors bearing on monetary conditions are discussed in chapter 2 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Government Accountancy Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the heads of the Government accountancy service for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Mr.—later Sir—Kenneth Sharp from 1975 to October 1983, Sir Anthony Wilson from October 1984 to December 1988, Mr. A. J. Hardcastle from January 1989 to date.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 729, when he hopes to make a statement about whether and how changes will be made to the present arrangements for payment of value added tax on duty-free fuel by British fishing vessels.

  Mr. Ryder
  While the Government are considering whether and how changes to the present arrangements should be made, temporary measures have been introduced which broadly continue the VAT zero-rating of duty-free fuel supplied to British fishing vessels. A full review of the treatment of fuels supplied as stores to shipping and aircraft is to be undertaken. The trade will be consulted. My right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General hopes to make a statement on the subject by the end of the year.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church of England (Assembly) Powers Act
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent representations he has received about the operation of the procedures of the Church of England (Assembly) Powers Act 1919, as amended by the Synodical Government Measure 1969.

  Mr. Alison
  None.

  St. Marks, North Audley Street
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have for the future of St. Marks, North Audley street.

  Mr. Alison
  A proposal to use this redundant church for open-plan offices is at present under consideration.

TRANSPORT

  Manchester Ship Canal
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Manchester Ship Canal Harbour Revision Order 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I made this order on 26 February 1990. Because opponents of the order gave notice that they maintained their opposition, the order became subject to special parliamentary procedure and it was laid before Parliament on 18 April. Petitions against it have been referred to the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Minister for Aviation and Shipping will be writing to Mr. A. P. Lambert of Armor House, Carlidnack road, Mawnan Smith, Falmouth, Cornwall, in reply to that gentleman's letter to him of 3 April regarding retired staff travel facilities with Sealink UK Ltd.

  Mr. Freeman
  My hon. Friend will be aware of the complicated background to this correspondence. We will be sending Mr. Lambert a reply to his latest letter very shortly.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new money, excluding money already committed, would have been required for the Eurorail proposal to have proceeded for the fast rail link from the channel tunnel to London.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail plans investment of over £1 billion to enable passenger services to commence in 1993. Under Eurorail's proposals this investment expenditure would not have been reimbursed at the time the assets transferred to the joint venture: instead a combination of leasing and a low interest deferred loan of £1 billion was proposed. The joint venture further required a capital grant of £500 million toward the use of the new line by commuter services and British Rail investment of up to £400 million, mainly in commuter terminals.

  Disabled Travellers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to encourage major transport groups to pay more attention to the specific needs of disabled travellers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Transport is in regular contact, both directly and through the disabled persons transport advisory committee, with transport authorities and operators throughout the country to promote a better understanding of the transport needs of people with disabilities and to provide practical advice and information on how best to meet them.

  Railway Development
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any proposals for further development of the railway system north of Bedford.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a copy of the summary report of a study commissioned by the midland main line consortium of local authorities, advocating electrification north of Bedford, which I have read with interest. It is for British Rail to consider any worthwhile proposals that meet its normal investment criteria.

SCOTLAND

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many junior hospital doctors are currently working more than 72 hours per week;
  422
  (2) what is the average number of hours worked by junior hospital doctors;

  (3) when he expects to reduce to 72 hours per week the average number of hours worked by junior hospital doctors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of hours actually worked by junior hospital doctors is not collected centrally. As at 30 September 1989 there were 2,567 junior hospital doctors in Scotland contracted for more than 72 hours per week. The average number of contracted hours for all junior doctors was 80.2. The objective is to reduce junior doctors' hours to 72 per week as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the hours worked by junior hospital doctors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1989 we introduced measures aimed at eliminating junior doctors' rotas more onerous than one night and one weekend in three in Scotland. Health boards have forecast that this initiative will result in the number of juniors on such rotas being reduced to around 32 per cent. by September this year. Health boards have recently been requested to improve on their September 1990 targets.

  Charities
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints of criminality have been made against an officer or committee member of a registered charity in Scotland since 1979; what was the nature of the complaints; what action was taken; and what convictions, if any, were obtained.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not centrally held and cannot be made available since hitherto such complaints have been dealt with no differently from other complaints of criminality and cannot be differentiated from them.

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have been made since 1979 of non-registered charities in Scotland holding themselves out to be charities; and what action was taken.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At present charities operating in Scotland are not required to become recognised as charities for the purposes of section 505 of Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Where persons falsely and dishonestly hold themselves out to be acting as or on behalf of charities the ordinary criminal law applies and I would refer to my previous answer.

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints of misconduct or mismanagement have been made against an officer or committee member of a registered charity in Scotland since 1979; what was the nature of the complaints; and what were the names of the charities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is at present no machinery for the receiving and investigation of complaints where the complaint or evidence available fall short of an inference of criminality. Such misconduct or mismanagement has from time to time been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State and other agencies but
  423
  these have not been recorded. In the absence of any investigative machinery actively seeking out misconduct or mismanagement, it is impossible to say how many complaints have been made since 1979.

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals in Scotland which had consultant obstetric and/or general practitioner maternity

  Average available staffed beds

  year ending March 1980

  year ending March 1990 (provisional)

  Hospital

  Specialist Obstetrics

  GP Obstetrics

  Specialist Obstetrics

  GP Obstetrics

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Carlton

  —

  8

  —

  8

  Dunoon and District General

  —

  11

  —

  10

  Islay

  —

  2

  —

  3

  Mid Argyll

  —

  3

  —

  3

  The Maternity Hospital, Oban

  —

  10

  —

  9

  Victoria Hospital, Rothesay

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Vale of Leven District General

  54

  —

  37

  —

  Rankin Memorial

  42

  9

  38

  —

  Paisley Maternity

  99

  —

  80

  —

  Total

  195

  46

  155

  37

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Isle of Arran War Memorial

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Lady Margaret

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Thornyflat Maternity

  —

  18

  —

  18

  Davidson Cottage

  —

  4

  —

  2

  Ayrshire Central

  129

  —

  132

  —

  Kilmarnock Maternity

  —

  19

  —

  —

  Buckredden Maternity

  —

  29

  —

  —

  Lady Margaret

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Total

  129

  76

  132

  24

  Borders Health Board

  Coldstream Cottage

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Knoll

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders General

  —

  —

  39

  —

  Galashiels

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Kelso Cottage

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Sister Margaret's Cottage

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Haig Maternity

  —

  12

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  33

  39

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  Cresswell Maternity

  70

  —

  46

  —

  Dalrymple

  —

  8

  —

  8

  Total

  70

  8

  46

  8

  Fife Health Board

  Craigtoun Maternity

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Park Maternity

  66

  17

  87

  1

  Maternity Hospital, Dunfermline

  50

  —

  44

  —

  Total

  128

  17

  131

  1

  Forth Valley Health Board

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  67

  —

  56

  —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  80

  —

  54

  —

  Total

  146

  —

  110

  —

  Grampian Health Board

  Aberdeen Maternity

  94

  —

  92

  —

  Fonthill Maternity Home

  17

  —

  16

  —

  Summerfield Maternity Home

  30

  —

  30

  —

  Peterhead Cottage

  —

  11

  —

  10

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  —

  12

  —

  8

  Huntly Jubilee

  —

  10

  —

  7

  424
  beds in 1980, 1985 or the most recent year for which information is available and the numbers of beds of each type in each hospital in each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of average available staffed beds for specialist obstetrics and GP obstetrics by hospital in Scotland for the years ending 31 March 1980 and 31 March 1990—the latest available figures—are as follows:
  425

  Average available staffed beds

  year ending March 1980

  year ending March 1990 (provisional)

  Hospital

  Specialist Obstetrics

  GP Obstetrics

  Specialist Obstetrics

  GP Obstetrics

  Chalmers Hospital, Banff

  —

  13

  —

  10

  Seafield Hospital, Buckie

  —

  11

  —

  7

  Turner Hospital, Keith

  —

  7

  —

  5

  Inverurie

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Leanchoil Hospital, Forres

  —

  12

  —

  9

  Maryhill Hospital, Elgin

  —

  17

  —

  13

  Kincardine O'Neill War Memorial

  —

  5

  —

  8

  Insch War Memorial

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Turriff Cottage

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Arduthie

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Stephen Hospital, Dufftown

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Total

  141

  129

  138

  81

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Glasgow Royal Maternity

  148

  —

  99

  —

  Stobhill

  75

  —

  52

  —

  Rutherglen Maternity

  100

  —

  82

  —

  Southern General

  99

  13

  83

  —

  The Queen Mother's

  110

  —

  103

  —

  Total

  532

  13

  419

  —

  Highland health board

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  —

  8

  —

  8

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital, Broadford

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Portree

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Dunbar Hospital, Thurso

  14

  5

  —

  —

  Caithness Central

  —

  —

  15

  —

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  67

  —

  72

  —

  Town and County Hospital, Nairn

  7

  —

  7

  —

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  14

  —

  12

  —

  Ian Charles Hospital, Grantown

  —

  3

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  102

  20

  106

  10

  Lanarkshire health board

  Alexander

  —

  24

  —

  —

  Bellshill Maternity

  118

  —

  116

  —

  William Smellie Maternity

  50

  —

  50

  —

  Lady Home

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lockhart

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Motherwell Maternity

  36

  —

  —

  —

  Hairmyres Hospital

  —

  24

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  204

  51

  166

  —

  Lothian health board

  Eastern General

  50

  —

  50

  —

  Western General

  46

  —

  47

  —

  Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion

  177

  —

  126

  —

  Bangour General

  56

  —

  27

  —

  St. John's Hospital at Howden

  —

  —

  21

  —

  Elsie Inglis

  68

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  397

  —

  271

  —

  Orkney health board

  Balfour

  —

  11

  —

  8

  TOTAL

  —

  11

  —

  8

  Shetland health board

  Gilbert

  —

  11

  —

  11

  TOTAL

  —

  11

  —

  11

  Tayside health board

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  115

  14

  99

  4

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  52

  —

  41

  —

  Arbroath Infirmary

  —

  19

  —

  18

  Fyfe Jamieson Maternity Home, Forfar

  —

  12

  —

  12

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage

  —

  8

  —

  7

  426 427

  Average available staffed beds

  year ending March 1980

  year ending March 1990 (provisional)

  Hospital

  Specialist Obstetrics

  GP Obstetrics

  Specialist Obstetrics

  GP Obstetrics

  Aberfeldy Cottage

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Charleton Maternity Home, Montrose

  —

  19

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  167

  77

  140

  50

  Western Isles Health Board

  Lewis Hospital, Stornoway

  13

  —

  13

  —

  Daliburgh

  —

  4

  —

  3

  TOTAL

  13

  4

  13

  3

  SCOTLAND TOTAL

  2,224

  496

  1,865

  233

  Heart Transplants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland where and when the Scottish heart transplant centre is to be developed; and for how many patients each year it is to have funding.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish heart transplant centre will be established during 1991–92 with a capacity, when fully operational, to undertake 50 transplants per year. The decision on the location of the centre may be expected in the autumn.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which hospitals Scottish residents received heart transplants in each year since 1985; how many Scottish residents were treated in each hospital; and what transfers of revenue allocation were subsequently made to other national health service regions within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about the number of Scottish residents receiving heart transplants and hospitals where such treatment was provided is not held centrally. No transfers of revenue allocation were made from Scotland in respect of such treatment which is funded as as supra-regional service.

  Police

  Civilian Staff (Traffic Wardens, Clerical and Technical Staff)

  Force

  Authorised Establishment

  Actual Strength

  Shortfall1

  Authorised Establishment

  Actual Strength

  Shortfall

  Central

  638

  630

  -8

  139

  126

  -13

  Dumfries and Galloway

  344

  348

  +4

  92

  82

  -10

  Fife

  754

  755

  +1

  182

  173

  -9

  Grampian

  1,116

  1,103

  -13

  335

  325

  -10

  Lothian and Borders

  2,441

  2,482

  +41

  812

  793

  -19

  Northern

  631

  631

  —

  199

  183

  -16

  Strathclyde

  6,954

  6,886

  -68

  1,423

  1,322

  -101

  Tayside

  1,001

  1,012

  +11

  258

  253

  -5

  Scotland

  13,879

  13,847

  -32

  3,440

  3,257

  -183

  1 Authorities are permitted to recruit in excess of authorised establishment to replace officers on Scottish Crime Squad secondment etc.

  Bypass Operation
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics he holds in respect of the number of patients who had been identified as requiring a coronary artery bypass operation but who died prior to receiving surgery.

  Orthopaedic Beds
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will intervene to prevent the 65 per cent. reduction in orthopaedic beds in the south-east district of Glasgow proposed by the Greater Glasgow health board's strategy review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: I understand that the board proposes to reduce the number of orthopaedic beds in the south-east of Glasgow from 188 to 68, to reflect reductions in both the population of the area and the number of patients transferred from other boards, along with improved efficiency in the service. The board reached this decision following extensive consultation over a four-month period.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish police authorities, indicating if their manpower is up to the levels agreed with the chief constables and the police authorities, and indicating the shortfall where applicable.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: As at 31 March 1990 the information requested was as follows:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 July 1990]: In the year ending 31 March 1990 a total of 48 such deaths were recorded. Information on the actual cause of death is not recorded centrally.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to provide additional funding for the refurbishment of long-term wards in Scotland's national health service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 July 1990]: Each health board determines its capital expenditure priorities within the block capital allocation made annually by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of how cuts in national health service provision will affect the quality of patient care in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 July 1990]: There have been no cuts in the provision for hospital and community health services.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Question Time
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what procedural proposals he expects to bring forward to extend the accountability of Ministers at Question Time.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Ministers are already fully accountable to Parliament. Implementation of the

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Salaries etc. of Members of Parliament

  14,478,702.22

  15,785,477.81

  17,042,032.64

  Office costs expenses

  13,786,197.56

  14,568,579.36

  15,871,657.47

  Travel by Members between home, Westminster and constituency and within constituencies

  4,322,804.16

  5,023,845.31

  5,905,744.74

  Additional costs incurred in living away from home

  4,763,539.21

  5,384,650.53

  5,493,942.31

  The total expenditure from the House of Commons: Members' salaries etc. vote for each of those years was £42,444,582.70 for 1987–88, £46,905,668.40 for 1988–89 and £48,205,324.76 for 1989–90. The difference between the total of the specified amounts and the overall expenditure from the vote is accounted for by other expenses claimed by Members together with Exchequer contributions to the parliamentary contributory pension fund and Members' fund and payments for financial assistance to Opposition parties.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many reports have been produced by departmental Select Committees since 1979; and now many have been the subject of debate on a substantive motion on the Floor of the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  From 1979 to 29 June 1990, 591 reports and 231 special reports have been published by departmentally related Select Committees. Of these, seven have been debated in the House on substantive motions.
  430
  Procedure Committee's recommendations about oral questions will help to make Question Time more effective. As I told the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 25 June, I hope the recommendations can take effect from the start of the next Session.

  Political Parties (Offices)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to ensure that every recognised political party represented in the House shall have office space available to them within easy access of the Chamber.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I understand that this matter is being considered by the relevant sub-committees of the Services Committee.

  Members' Allowances
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council for the last three years for which figures are available, what was the total cost of Members'(a) salaries, (b) office costs allowance, (c) travel to and from and within their constituencies, (d) second home allowances and (e) any other benefits-allowances claimed by hon. Members.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Expenditure under the various headings specified in the years ending 31 March 1988, 1989 and 1990 was as follows:

  Child Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of 24 May,Official Report, column 297, on child care facilities, when he expects the feasibility study to be completed.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  It is expected that the study will be completed in time to be considered by the Services Committee at a meeting early in the autumn.

  Recycled Notepaper
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent inquiries he has made into the comparative cost of switching to the use of 100 per cent. recycled paper for the supplies of headed notepaper now made available to Members compared with continuing with that presently used.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 24 May 1990, column 297. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee considered the comparative costs when approval was given for recycled writing paper and envelopes to be introduced on an experimental basis along with the existing range of stationery.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Surplus Food
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for the distribution of surplus beef and butter in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The arrangements for the 1990 scheme follow closely those in successful operation over the last two years, while enhanced publicity this year has enabled the coverage of the country by the scheme to be improved.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the total numbers of cattle recorded as having BSE for each of the last 12 weeks.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of BSE cases confirmed each week is as follows:

  Week ending

  Number

  27 April 1990

  326

  4 May 1990

  316

  11 May 1990

  271

  18 May 1990

  238

  25 May 1990

  297

  1 June 1990

  141

  8 June 1990

  238

  15 June 1990

  365

  22 June 1990

  301

  29 June 1990

  248

  6 July 1990

  229

  13 July 1990

  292

  Lead in Cattle Order
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the reasons for imposing the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Lead in Cattle) (England) Order 1990, (S.I. No. 1391) on a farm in Hertfordshire, indicating the source of the contaminant, the number of cattle involved, the levels of lead in test tissues and milk and the date when his Department first discovered there was a problem.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following the death of five calves on one farm at the end of May, investigations were carried out by

  Transfers from taxpayers

  Transfers from consumers

  Budget revenues

  Total transfers

  ECU per head of population

  European Community

  125

  150

  2

  273

  United States

  170

  80

  2

  248

  Raspberry Pulp
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the proposals within the European Community to prevent the dumping of raspberry pulp from eastern European countries.

  Mr. Curry
  Discussions are taking place between the European Commission and the Polish and Yugoslav authorities. The Commission has undertaken to introduce differential prices for different qualities of semi-processed soft fruit and to improve monitoring to ensure that agreed 432
  the royal veterinary college and the Ministry's veterinary investigation service which suggested lead poisoning. These animals were among a group of 88 animals grazing a particular field. Blood test results for these cattle, are in the range of 0.06 to 5.63 micromo1/1. No milk is produced on this farm and tests carried out by the milk marketing board on general supplies from this area show no traces of lead. No animals have been taken for slaughter from this group during the period of these investigations. None the less, while further investigations are being undertaken to establish the cause of the problem, I have made a precautionary order under part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act to ensure that no meat from these animals is allowed to enter the food chain until it is shown to be safe for it to do so.

  Tyrrell Committee
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now place his further advice from the Tyrrell committee in the Library.

  Mr. Gummer
  I did so on 12 July.

  Agriculture (Assistance)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing in respect of the most recent year for which figures are available the assistance given to the agriculture industry in(a) European Economic Community aids, (b) national Government aids, (c) price enhancement caused by import levies and intervention, (d) export rebates and (e) other aids; and if he will also provide an indication of total aids of a comparable nature by the United States of America.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates prepared by OECD, recomputed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a per capita basis, of the transfers from taxpayers and consumers associated with agricultural policies in the European Community and the United States of America in 1989 are shown in the table. The estimates are based on many assumptions. The authors note that the estimates are static ones, taking no account of the effect that a reduction in assistance would have on world prices and thus on the magnitude of the transfers.

  prices are respected. United Kingdom Ministers have been pressing hard for this issue to be resolved quickly and my right hon. Friend will strongly urge the Commission to make a satisfactory statement at the forthcoming Council of Agriculture Ministers.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the annual cost if there were no increase in national insurance contributions, if the age of retirement for men were reduced to 60 years; and by how much national insurance contributions would have to rise if there were no Exchequer payments to meet the increase in cost.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest estimates, based on 1985–86 benefit rates, of the gross and net costs to public funds of reducing state pension age for men to age 60 are £4,200 million and £3,000 million respectively. Because of the number of changes affecting benefits, contributions and the labour force in the intervening period, I regret that it is not possible without disproportionate cost to relate such figures to 1990–91 contribution rates. However, the gross 1985–86 cost was equivalent to 18 per cent. of the national insurance fund's outgoings in that year.

  Mr. J. W. Davies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list and date the representations received from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North regarding Mr. J. W. Davies, of 30 Aspley Park drive, Aspley, Nottingham, and his claim for a war pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Letters were received from the hon. Member regarding Mr. Davies' claim for war pension on 26 February 1990 and 12 July 1990. The hon. Member also gave notice on 13 March 1990 of a parliamentary question (PQ 1361) on the subject of Mr. Davies' claim and four other questions (PQs 1357–60) requesting background information on war pension claims. A further parliamentary question on Mr. Davies' claim (PQ 2434) was listed on 10 July 1990.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women are in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the extra cost of the housing benefit scheme in England only if the rate of withdrawal of housing benefit or rent taper was, respectively, reduced from 65 per cent. to(a) 55 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 45 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 33 per cent., and (f) 26 per cent. showing the division between rent rebates and rent allowances.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for separate parts of the country. The table gives the estimated extra costs, in the current year and on a Great Britain basis, of altering the rate of withdrawal of housing benefit within the present structure of the scheme.
  434

  £ million

  Taper (per cent.)

  Rent Rebate

  Rent Allowance

  Total Cost

  55

  90

  70

  160

  50

  140

  110

  250

  45

  210

  160

  370

  40

  290

  230

  520

  33

  430

  340

  770

  26

  630

  500

  1,130

  (Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1985–6–7 Family Expenditure Surveys).

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the extra cost of the housing benefit scheme in England only, if the earnings disregards were increased to £10 for a single household, £25 for a couple and £35 for a single parent.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for separate parts of the country. However, for Great Britain, assuming that single people whose applicable amount includes the disability premium retain the £15 earnings disregard to which they are currently entitled, the estimated cost in the current year of increasing the earnings disregards in housing benefit would be about £110 million.

  (Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1985–6–7 Family Expenditure Surveys).

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the extra cost of the housing benefit scheme in England only, if the applicable amount for a single person aged 18 to 24 years was the same as that for a single person aged over 25 years and the applicable amount for a single-parent family was the same as that for a two-parent family.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for separate parts of the country. However, for Great Britain, assuming

  (a) the increase in the personal allowance would apply also to 16 and 17-year-olds on housing benefit (the applicable amount for this age group has been set at the same level as that for 18 to 24-year-olds since July 1989); and

  (b) the lone parent premium is subsumed into the increased personal allowance for lone parents, but the special earnings disregard is retained,

  the extra estimated cost in the current year for housing benefit would be about £40 million.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consultations he has undertaken regarding the future of the regional office of his Department at Gabalfa, Cardiff;

  (2) what is his best estimate of the (a) gross and (b) net job loss arising from the proposed reorganisation of the regional tier of administration of his Department's local office network;

  (3) what proposals he has to relocate the administration and management of the regional tier of his Department, currently located at Gabalfa, Cardiff.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The restructuring of social security operations, to improve service to the public under the benefits agency, will include the replacement of the present seven regions and two central offices by larger territorial directorates. Many of the functions at present
  435
  carried out by regional offices are likely to be devolved to local managers, as part of their increased accountability. The detailed implications of these changes will need to be worked out in the light of a study which we have commissioned to identify the continuing need for centralised regional services, and after discussion with the chief executive. The trade union side has been kept informed about this study and about management proposals for three territorial directorates, and it will continue to be consulted about the personnel aspects of the move to the benefits agency. Meanwhile, our concern is to ensure that we continue to meet the needs of the public and of our own staff in Wales to the fullest possible extent, and we have no plans to close the offices at Gabalfa, Cardiff.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to his Department of the current advertisements to inform the public of their entitlement to family credit; what increase in applications has resulted from this; and how many additional staff have been employed to deal with this.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cost of the current advertising campaign on television and in the press is £2.4 million. The campaign has not yet been running long enough for the full impact to be reflected in the level of claims. Overtime is being worked at the family credit unit, but otherwise, to date, only one additional member of the staff has been employed, to deal with the requests for claim forms prompted by the adverts.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give figures for each of the last 12 months of the number of people on family credit who have not received a replacement claim book before their current one expired.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Family credit awards are for a fixed period of 26 weeks, and a fresh renewal claim has to be made for entitlement to continue when each period ends.

  Information is not available as to the number of cases where the new award is not received before the expiry of the previous book.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are made for representation of adjudication officers at commissioners' hearings; and whether he will make similar arrangements for representation of claimants who would otherwise be unrepresented.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Adjudication officers are represented at all oral hearings before a commissioner. The office of the chief adjudication officer arranges for representation by an adjudication officer from that office, from the central office in Scotland where the case is to be heard there, or by lawyers where complex legal issues are involved.

  Responsibility for the administration of the social security commissioners lies with the Lord Chancellor's Department, to which the hon. Member may wish to refer the question of the provision of representation for claimants at commissioners' hearings.

  Income Support
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the scheduled dates of publication for 1990 and 1991 of the information relating to income support referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) of 9 July,Official Report, column 75.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The data to which the hon. Member refers are collected as part of the Department's management information system. They are not published routinely but are available on request at quarterly intervals.

EMPLOYMENT

  Messrs. Graham Brabyn Ltd.
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when former employees of Messrs. Graham Brabyn Ltd. of Redruth, Cornwall, may expect to receive their payments under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 redundancy payments scheme; for what reason payments have not yet been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My officials are dealing with claims for arrears of wages, holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay for around 70 employees. The need to undertake the usual check of the company's wage records, which has proved difficult in this case, and the pressure of current casework in redundancy payments offices has given rise to some delay. I hope, however, to be able to begin making payments to the employees shortly.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the departmental scrutiny of drop-out rates of employment training, referred to by Sir Geoffrey Holland in his Department's evidence to the Select Committee on Employment concerning employment training, HC 394-i, Q 5-9.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on 9 July,Official Report, column 97.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish in the Official Report the guidelines used by his officials in deciding whether a question should be referred to the chief executive of the Employment Service.

  Mr. Eggar
  The criteria I use in deciding whether to refer a question to the chief executive of the Employment Service are set out in the Employment Service framework document published by my Department in March this year.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, 10 July,Official Report, column 146, if he will arrange for the 57 replies from the Employment Service Agency's chief executive made between 1 April and 6 July to be printed in the Official Report.
  437
  Mr. Eggar
  The chief executive of the Employment Service, when replying to questions referred to him, invites hon. Members to say whether they wish the reply to be placed in the Library of the House. The chief executive has informed me that, since 1 April, copies of 26 replies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Beaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of lost tourist trade to resorts that have failed to reach the European Economic Community blue flag safety levels on their beaches.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No such estimate has been made. Thanks to a major programme of remedial works, there has been a very marked improvement in bathing water quality in recent years, with 76 per cent. of identified waters now meeting European Community standards. Further planned capital investment of almost £3 billion should help to ensure that all bathing waters meet EC standards by the end of the century.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what expenditure was incurred on the action for jobs campaign in 1987–88 in addition to printed material, television advertising, press advertising, radio advertising, outdoor advertising, regional campaigns, exhibition material and research.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure of £194,000 was incurred on presentations in the action for jobs campaign in 1987–88, in addition to printed material, television advertising, press advertising, radio advertising, outdoor advertising, regional campaigns, exhibition material and research.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many final operational programme applications have been submitted to the European Commission from voluntary organisations in Wales.

  Mr. Eggar
  Operational programmes have not been submitted specifically by the voluntary sector in Wales. Operational programmes represent aggregated bids from all interested organisations to run groups of projects under particular European social fund priorities.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to ensure the continued existence of wages councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State's reply of 6 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett),Official Report, column 543.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will take action to prevent jobcentres from advertising vacancies at a rate of pay which is below the legal limit; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will take action to prevent jobcentres from advertising vacancies which do not specify the wages offered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

  Training Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer of 9 July from the Secretary of State for Wales, what terms and conditions he has discussed, with Astra Training Services for building a new industrial training centre at Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: No discussions have been held with Astra Training Services Ltd. on this subject. My Department is selling the freehold of the site, most of which is held by Astra on a three-year lease.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 July, if he has instructed King and Co. to convey any interest, leasehold or freehold, in any land at Western avenue to Astra Training Services for an industrial training centre.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The leasehold interest in the site at Western avenue, Cardiff, was conveyed to Astra Training Services Ltd. on completion of the sale of the training business. Should Astra wish to acquire the freehold interest it would be in the same position as any other purchaser and would need to discuss any interest with the Department's agent, King and Company.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 July, what instructions have been given to King and Co. to dispose of his Department's leasehold interest in the skill centre buildings and associated land at Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The leasehold interest in the site at Western avenue, Cardiff, was conveyed to Astra Training Services Ltd. on completion of the sale of the training business.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply from the Secretary of State for Wales of 9 July, what future plans he has for development of the Department's land and buildings at Western avenue, Cardiff after 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The land and buildings at Western avenue, Cardiff, are in the process of being marketed by King and Company. It will be for the purchaser to decide any future plans for development.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has undertaken with(a) Cardiff chamber of commerce and industry, (b) Confederation of British Industry, Wales region, (c) Engineering Employers Federation, south Wales region, (d) the Welsh Development Agency and (e) South Glamorgan training and enterprise council regarding the future use of land and buildings currently used for industrial training purposes at Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: My Department has had no consultation with the organisations listed. Negotiations about the sale of the freehold of land and buildings owned by my Department are being conducted on my behalf by King and Company.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what negotiations he is pursuing with Astra 440
  Training Services regarding its requirement for an industrial training centre at Western avenue, Cardiff (a) before 1993 and (b) after 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: No negotiations are being pursued with Astra Training Services Ltd. Astra has a three-year lease on most of the freehold site now being marketed by King and Company. It will be for Astra to decide its future requirements in the locality.

  Astra's plans for the future of the business it sought to purchase were discussed with my advisers before terms of sale were agreed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply from the Secretary of State for Wales of 9 July, whether he has discussed plans for long-term investment in an industrial training centre at Western avenue, Cardiff, with Astra Training Services.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: In the course of negotiations for the sale of the Skills Training Agency, my advisers discussed with all potential purchasers their plans for the future of the business they were seeking to buy and these plans were taken into account in reaching a decision on bids.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 July, what consultations he had with the manager of the skill centre at Western avenue, Cardiff, before instructing King and Company regarding the sale of his Department's interest in the site.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: I understand that King and Company, which is marketing my Department's freehold interest in the site, has liaised with the leaseholder, Astra Training Services Ltd., about viewing arrangements and the siting of sale boards etc.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the terms and conditions he has agreed with Astra Training Services for the disposal of his interest in the land and buildings currently sub-let to the employee rehabilitation centre at Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 July 1990]: Most of the area occupied by the employment rehabilitation centre (ERC) at Western avenue, Cardiff is outside that part of the site leased to Astra Training Services Ltd. The small part of the ERC that falls within Astra's leased area is covered by a three-year sub-lease between Astra and the Government. Should the ERC vacate within that period, Astra would be free to occupy that area itself or grant a new sub-lease to a third party. This would be until Astra itself vacates the site under the terms of its own three-year lease.

  Back-related Illnesses
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on how many working days have been lost in each of the last three years due to back-related illness.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is given in the following table. This shows the number of days of certified incapacity for sickness and invalidity benefit, where the cause of incapacity was due to a back-related illness.
  441

  Total number of days millions1

  7 April 1986 to 4 April 1987

  39.8

  6 April 1987 to 2 April 1988

  46.5

  4 April 1988 to 1 April 1989

  52.6

  1 This total excludes the first three days in any spell of sickness (waiting days). It also excludes all days of incapacity covered by statutory sick pay (payable for up to 28 weeks) and all days lost by other persons not entitled to sickness or invalidity benefit. It includes days of incapacity for which invalidity benefit was claimed by men aged 65 to 69 and women aged 60 to 64.

DEFENCE

  Radiation
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total occupational whole body equivalent radiation exposure of(a) Chatham and (b) Devonport dockyard workers in milliSieverts, for each year since the onset of the nuclear programme.

  Mr. Neubert
  The cumulative radiation doses for all workers at Chatham and Devonport dockyards for each of the years 1979 to 1989 inclusive are shown in the table. These figures include the cumulative radiation doses of employees monitored for exposure to ionising radiations by the local issue of direct reading dosimeters while employed under a written system of work. Figures for earlier years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table A Annual individual radiation dose equivalents Chatham Numbers of personnel in dose ranges

  10–l5mSv

  15–20mSv

  20–30mSv

  30–40mSv

  40–50mSv

  >50mSv

  >70mSv

  >100mSv

  1979

  821

  57

  74

  37

  18

  1

  0

  0

  1980

  1,703

  36

  77

  54

  44

  1

  0

  0

  1981

  1,285

  56

  84

  24

  7

  0

  0

  0

  1982

  1,175

  37

  30

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1983

  446

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1984

  22

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1985

  19

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1986

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1987

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1988

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1989

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Table B Annual individual radiation dose equivalents Devonport Numbers of personnel in dose ranges

  10–l5mSv

  l5–20mSv

  20–30mSv

  30–40mSv

  40–50mSv

  >50mSv

  >70mSv

  >100mSv

  1979

  1,258

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1980

  1,643

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1981

  2,159

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1982

  2,543

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1983

  2,968

  26

  17

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1984

  2,879

  77

  82

  31

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1985

  2,831

  48

  44

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1986

  2,945

  47

  38

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1987

  2,616

  34

  13

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  442

  Total occupational whole body equivalent radiation exposure

  Chatham (mSv)

  Devonport (mSv)

  1979

  8,214

  1,020

  1980

  9,653

  1,712

  1981

  7,330

  2,128

  1982

  4,109

  2,320

  1983

  390

  5,533

  1984

  62

  10,140

  1985

  9

  7,330

  1986

  6

  6,028

  1987

  1

  4,543

  1988

  2

  2,760

  1989

  9

  2,767

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 245, concerning exposure to radiation, when the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces expects to write to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will be writing to the right hon. Member shortly.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown for(a) Chatham and (b) Devonport dockyards of annual individual radiation exposure for workers in the bands of (i) 0 to 10, (ii) 10 to 20, (iii) 20 to 30, (iv) 30 to 40, (v) greater than 50, (vi) greater than 70 and (vii) greater than 100 milliSieverts for all years since the onset of nuclear work.

  Mr. Neubert
  A breakdown of annual individual radiation doses for(a) Chatham and (b) Devonport dockyard workers for each of the years 1979–89 is given in the tables. A more detailed or alternative breakdown of the figures and data for years earlier than 1979 can be produced only at disproportionate cost.
  443

  10–15mSv

  15–20mSv

  20–30mSv

  30–40mSv

  40–50mSv

  >50mSv

  >70mSv

  >100mSv

  1988

  2,676

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1989

  2,382

  9

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 The 0–15mSv dose band includes those employed on written systems of work.

  Helicopter Noise
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will publish the results of the review of the boundaries of the helicopter noise insulation grant scheme;

  (2) if he will publish the results of the noise survey carried out by the university of Ulster at sites affected by high levels of helicopter activity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is little that I can add to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 21 June, column 647. The results of the noise surveys undertaken by the university of Ulster in the vicinity of the helicopter landing sites at Bessbrook, Crossmaglen and Forkhill are currently being studied by my Department.

  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces expects to be in a position to write to the hon. Member, and other hon. Members who have expressed an interest, in the near future with details of the survey results. Local announcements will be made shortly afterwards.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many helicopter noise insulation grants have been issued since the insulation scheme was implemented;

  (2) how many buildings currently fall within the boundaries to which the helicopter noise insulation grant scheme applies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Noise insulation grant schemes were introduced at Bessbrook, Crossmaglen and Forkhill on 1 June 1988. These enabled residents of homes within the qualifying noise contour to apply for grants for secondary acoustic glazing for all bedrooms and up to two living rooms.

  The following table lists the number of grant applications received thus far for each scheme.

  Eligible dwellings

  Grant applications

  Bessbrook

  45

  22

  Crossmaglen

  30

  24

  Forkhill

  20

  1

  TOTAL

  95

  47

  Procurement Executive Airfields
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the procurement executive's airfields at Bedford, Farnborough and Boscombe Down.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 19 June,Official Report, column 547.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish a list of research contracts and agreements in universities and polytechnics funded by his Department which are not classified secret;

  (2) what contracts have been placed with universities and other institutions of higher education for research on zirconium and zirconium films since 1983;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report (a) a list of the five universities which were awarded the highest number of research and development contracts in the last financial year, (b) the number of contracts and agreements which each of these universities received and (c) the total worth of these contracts for each of the five universities;

  (4) if he will list the universities and polytechnics in Britain where his Department is currently funding research and development contracts and agreements.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 8 February at column 774.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how his Department intends to reduce its spending on defence research and development;

  (2) if he has any plans to reduce the amount of money his Department spends on research and development in (a) universities and polytechnics and (b) industry.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Government have announced their intention gradually to reduce the real level of their spending on defence research and development, while recognising there must be sufficient activity for defence needs. This will involve looking very carefully at what is available off the shelf and at the opportunities for international collaboration before embarking on major new development programmes. Within the total, spending in industry and the universities will depend on the requirements of the programme.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many research and development contracts and agreements in universities and polytechnics are currently being funded by the Admiralty Research Establishment; how many universities and polytechnics currently hold contracts and agreements funded by the Admiralty Research Establishment; and what is the total worth of these contracts and agreements;

  (2) how many research and development contracts and agreements in universities and polytechnics are currently being funded by the Royal Aircraft Establishment; and what is the total worth of these contracts and agreements;

  (3) how many research and development contracts and agreements in universities and polytechnics are currently being funded by the Atomic Weapons Establishment; how many universities and polytechnics currently hold contracts and agreements funded by the Atomic Weapons Establishment; and what is the total value of these contracts and agreements;

  (4) how many research and development contracts and agreements in universities and polytechnics are currently

  445
  being funded by the Chemical Defence Establishment; how many universities and polytechnics currently hold contracts and agreements funded by the Chemical Defence Establishment; and what is the total value of these contracts and agreements;

  (5) how many research and development contracts and agreements in universities and polytechnics are currently being funded by the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment; how many universities and polytechnics currently hold contracts and agreements funded by the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment; and what is the total value of these contracts and agreements;

  (6) how many research and development contracts and agreements in universities and polytechnics are currently being funded by the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment; how many universities and polytechnics currently hold contracts and agreements funded by the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment; and what is the total value of these contracts and agreements;

  (7) how many research and development contracts and agreements in universities and polytechnics are currently being funded by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment; how many universities and polytechnics currently hold contracts and agreements funded by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment; and what is the total value of these contracts and agreements.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested on research agreements funded by A&AEE, ARE, AWE, CDE, RAE, RARDE and RSRE is as follows:

  Funding establishment

  Number of current agreements

  Total value £ million

  Number of universities and polytechnics

  A&AEE

  0

  0.0

  0

  ARE

  113

  8.8

  40

  AWE

  0

  0.0

  0

  CDE

  64

  7.9

  33

  RAE

  188

  16.6

  43

  RARDE

  153

  13.0

  47

  RSRE

  101

  9.7

  40

  TOTAL

  619

  56.0

  203

  The Ministry of Defence currently has some 143 research and development contracts with universities and polytechnics. The total value of these is some £5.1 million. It is not possible to provide the information on research and development contracts at each establishment without incurring disproportionate expense.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Chemical Defence Establishment is funding research in universities and other institutions of higher education on various aspects of verification technology.

  Mr. Neubert
  As part of the United Kingdom's support for the negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive, global and verifiable chemical weapons convention, the Chemical Defence Establishment, together with other departments concerned, is undertaking work on various aspects of verification technology, supported by extramural contracts with universities and polytechnics as appropriate.
  446
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the positive results from his Department's funding of research and development in universities and polytechnics since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  This work has played an important role in support of the defence research programme and has provided good value for money. It is not possible to list individual benefits without incurring disproportionate expense.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons his Department has increased its spending on research and development in universities and polytechnics since 1984.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 8 February 1990 at column 775.

  Universities and Polytechnics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what formal links exist between universities and polytechnics and his Department, other than the awarding of contracts and agreements.

  Mr. Neubert
  The MOD currently funds six defence lectureships at British universities and is contributing towards the cost of the establishment and running of a new centre for defence studies at Kings college, university of London. Links are also maintained through the sponsorship of MOD personnel undertaking research and higher degrees at universities and polytechnics; and participation in seminars. Grants for work of relevance to defence are made under collaborative grants arrangements with the research councils. The MOD and the Science and Engineering Research Council co-fund awards to certain students who are jointly supervised by their university and defence research establishments. All activities are in support of the defence programme.

  Royal Marines School of Music
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reached a decision on the future of the Royal Marines school of music at Deal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A review carried out during 1989 recommended, on financial and management grounds, that the Royal Marines school of music (RMSM) should be relocated from Deal to Whale island, Portsmouth. My right hon. Friend has considered this recommendation carefully but concluded that a decision should be postponed until such time as the longer-term requirement for the RM barracks at Deal has been clarified. The RMSM will therefore remain at Deal for the foreseeable future.

ENVIRONMENT

  Creosote
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he has had in meetings of the European Council of Ministers on the failure of the Federal Republic of Germany to adopt new regulations on the use of creosote for wood preservation;
  447
  (2) if he has any proposals to increase controls over the use of creosote as a wood preservative.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are at present no Community regulations on the use of creosote for wood preservation. The German Government have notified the Commission in accordance with directive 83/189/EEC of their intention to introduce controls on certain uses of creosote. The Department of the Environment and the Health and Safety Executive are preparing a response to the proposals in consultation with other Departments and industry. This subject has not been discussed by the Council of Ministers.

  Big Ben
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 647, to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, what will be the cost of forging the new hammer arm for Big Ben.

  Mr. Chope
  About £8,000.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance was given by his Department to local authorities on the recruitment of suitably qualified computer systems operators for processing community charge payments;

  (2) what guidelines were issued by his Department on the operation of computer systems for processing community charge payments.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has issued guidance to local authorities and the major computer companies on the operation of all aspects of the community charge. We continue to keep them up to date as necessary with any changes in the arrangements. It is the responsibility of local authorities, which vary greatly in size and requirements, to ensure that they have suitable computer systems and staff to operate them.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers local authorities have to charge a different rate of community charge to those with two sets of accommodation in the light of individual circumstances.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: Local authorities have a wide discretion in levying the standard community charge on the owners of domestic properties which are not used as a sole or main residence. They may at the beginning of each financial year set for the whole of that year the multiplier for the standard charge at zero, half, one, one and a half or two times the personal community charge for the area. If the authority wishes, different multipliers may be set for different classes of circumstances providing these do not exceed the maximum multipliers prescribed for 11 particular circumstances defined in regulations. Authorities may also determine, within defined criteria, their own further classes for the purpose of applying different multipliers. They may also in certain classes prescribe periods of grace within which no charge is payable. Multipliers cannot be varied during the course of a year.

  My right hon. Friend is currently reviewing the use that authorities have made of their discretion during 1990–91 and may in due course propose further classes which are to be subject to maximum multipliers in 1991–92 and future years.
  448
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made of the extra administration costs for each authority which has been capped.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on 3 April 1990 about community charge capping in England—Official Report, Volume 170, column 1033—we estimate that the costs per authority will be about £200,000 per charging authority. The Secretary of State took account of this amongst the other relevant factors in deciding on the appropriate levels of cap.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average increase across England in standard spending assessments as against grant-related expenditure assessments for 1990–91 against 1989–90; what were the figures for Calderdale; and what were the causes of the deviation between Calderdale and the national average.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: Standard spending assessments (SSAs) for 1990–91 were around 10 per cent. higher than the total of grant-related expenditure assessments (GREs) for 1989–90, adjusted on to a comparable basis. The equivalent increase for Calderdale was 4.1 per cent. The SSA for Calderdale was calculated, as for all authorities, according to the formulae set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) approved by the House on 18 January, using the appropriate data (as described in annex A to that report) for Calderdale, reflecting its social, physical and demographic characteristics.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of administering the rates each year since 1979 in each of the authorities which have been capped.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The information as returned by authorities is given in the table:

  Cost of rate collection 1979–80

  £000

  Rochdale

  564

  Wigan

  675

  St. Helens

  444

  Barnsley

  422

  Doncaster

  532

  Rotherham

  245

  North Tyneside

  771

  Calderdale

  335

  Camden

  854

  Greenwich

  572

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  615

  Islington

  841

  Lambeth

  800

  Southwark

  787

  Brent

  738

  Haringey

  747

  Hillingdon

  548

  Bristol

  987

  Basildon

  184

  449

  1980–81

  £000

  Rochdale

  675

  Wigan

  825

  St. Helens

  566

  Barnsley

  443

  Doncaster

  659

  Rotherham

  485

  North Tyneside

  922

  Calderdale

  385

  Camden

  1,228

  Greenwich

  681

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  920

  Islington

  783

  Lambeth

  1,202

  Southwark

  1,001

  Brent

  930

  Haringey

  917

  Hillingdon

  685

  Bristol

  1,206

  Basildon

  217

  1981–82

  £000

  Rochdale

  584

  Wigan

  911

  St. Helens

  590

  Barnsley

  734

  Doncaster

  700

  Rotherham

  552

  North Tyneside

  1,219

  Calderdale

  534

  Camden

  1,817

  Greenwich

  721

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  950

  Islington

  1,286

  Lambeth

  1,014

  Southwark

  1,246

  Brent

  1,171

  Haringey

  813

  Hillingdon

  782

  Bristol

  1,129

  Basildon

  237

  1982–83

  £000

  Rochdale

  636

  Wigan

  1,092

  St. Helens

  599

  Barnsley

  887

  Doncaster

  688

  Rotherham

  601

  North Tyneside

  1,113

  Calderdale

  594

  Camden

  1,652

  Greenwich

  924

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  1,045

  Islington

  1,398

  Lambeth

  932

  Southwark

  1,184

  Brent

  1,226

  Haringey

  803

  Hillingdon

  810

  450

  £000

  Bristol

  1,353

  Basildon

  271

  1983–84

  £000

  Rochdale

  697

  Wigan

  1,082

  St. Helens

  660

  Barnsley

  923

  Doncaster

  625

  Rotherham

  556

  North Tyneside

  794

  Calderdale

  640

  Camden

  1,431

  Greenwich

  1,595

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  1,157

  Islington

  1,742

  Lambeth

  1,167

  Southwark

  1,324

  Brent

  2,036

  Haringey

  923

  Hillingdon

  970

  Bristol

  1,414

  Basildon

  319

  1984–85

  £000

  Rochdale

  682

  Wigan

  982

  St. Helens

  558

  Barnsley

  745

  Doncaster

  643

  Rotherham

  475

  North Tyneside

  555

  Calderdale

  818

  Camden

  1,480

  Greenwich

  1,639

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  961

  Islington

  1,894

  Lambeth

  1,103

  Southwark

  1,213

  Brent

  2,074

  Haringey

  827

  Hillingdon

  969

  Bristol

  1,213

  Basildon

  253

  1985–86

  £000

  Rochdale

  666

  Wigan

  1,058

  St. Helens

  720

  Barnsley

  1,043

  Doncaster

  682

  Rotherham

  627

  North Tyneside

  598

  Calderdale

  605

  Camden

  1,509

  Greenwich

  1,693

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  808

  Islington

  2,576

  Lambeth

  1,103

  Southwark

  1,059

  Brent

  2,643

  Haringey

  862

  451

  £000

  Hillingdon

  977

  Bristol

  1,336

  Basildon

  306

  1986–87

  £000

  Rochdale

  675

  Wigan

  1,071

  St. Helens

  727

  Barnsley

  1,161

  Doncaster

  772

  Rotherham

  691

  North Tyneside

  776

  Calderdale

  710

  Camden

  1,589

  Greenwich

  2,108

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  887

  Islington

  1,968

  Lambeth

  1,710

  Southwark

  998

  Brent

  1,682

  Haringey

  924

  Hillingdon

  937

  Bristol

  1,460

  Basildon

  367

  1987–88

  £000

  Rochdale

  774

  Wigan

  1,259

  St. Helens

  620

  Barnsley

  952

  Doncaster

  846

  Rotherham

  793

  North Tyneside

  1,208

  Calderdale

  637

  Camden

  1,554

  Greenwich

  1,516

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,503

  Islington

  2,194

  Lambeth

  1,756

  Southwark

  1,132

  Brent

  1,853

  Haringey

  1,019

  Hillingdon

  1,088

  Bristol

  1,470

  Basildon

  385

  1988–89

  £000

  Rochdale

  822

  Wigan

  1,473

  St. Helens

  500

  Barnsley

  943

  Doncaster

  856

  Rotherham

  943

  North Tyneside

  1,303

  Calderdale

  571

  Camden

  1,462

  Greenwich

  1,858

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,937

  Islington

  2,126

  Lambeth

  1,804

  Southwark

  1,189

  452

  £000

  Brent

  1,449

  Haringey

  827

  Hillingdon

  1,045

  Bristol

  1,636

  Basildon

  490

  1989–90

  £000

  Rochdale

  837

  Wigan

  1,375

  St. Helens

  793

  Barnsley

  981

  Doncaster

  1,046

  Rotherham

  704

  North Tyneside

  1,151

  Calderdale

  526

  Camden

  1,389

  Greenwich

  1,197

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,853

  Islington

  2,833

  Lambeth

  2,007

  Southwark

  1,562

  Brent

  2,253

  Haringey

  891

  Hillingdon

  1,191

  Bristol

  1,683

  Basildon

  561

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra resources the Government will make available to each poll tax-capped authority.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The Government will make available to authorities no extra resources as a consequence of designation for charge capping.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the clearing banks about the workings of the direct debit system to process community charge payments.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has been in close touch with the major clearing banks, the Association for Payment Clearing Services and local authorities about the use of direct debits for community charge payments. We have issued guidance to local authorities on the use of direct debit in our practice note on collection of the community charge. Since the commencement of the community charge system on 1 April 1990 we have not received any representations from the clearing banks.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he issues to district councils on the weight to be given to air safety in considering planning applications from gliding clubs and similar organisations.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department has issued no guidance on this matter. Statutory responsibility for safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now rescind permission for the discharge of radioactive waste into the River Thames.

  Mr. Trippier
  The levels of radioactive waste in the Thames are extremely low. Drinking water derived from the Thames contains levels of radioactivity well below those limits recommended by the World Health Organisation and the International Commission on Radiological Protection. As a consequence the risk to health is negligible and there is no reason to discontinue the present disposal arrangements to the River Thames.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites are currently under consideration by Nirex for a repository for intermediate-level and low-level radioactive waste; if he will name those sites; and if he will list the sites that are on any reserve list for consideration.

  Mr. Trippier
  Site investigations for a repository for low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste are currently under way in the vicinity of Sellafield and Dounreay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no information about consideration by Nirex of any other sites.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the results of the survey carried out by his Department on the workings of parish councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department is in the process of commissioning research on parish councils; the target date for the completion of the research will depend on the terms of the contract eventually made.

  Rent-to-Mortgage Scheme
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the expected take-up of the scheme for converting rents into mortgages;

  (2) whether the scheme for converting council rents into mortgages will include (a) recipients of housing benefit, (b) recipients of income support, (c) retirement pensioners and (d) people receiving poll tax rebate.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No such scheme has been announced for England.

  Homeless Women
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many single women(a) under 25 years, (b) over 25 years and (c) over 60 years are homeless.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Acts. The information provided does not identify those who are single women and my Department has no estimates.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many women-only(a) hostels and (b) night shelters there are.
  454
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the numbers of homeless women in the following categories:(a) pensioners, (b) young women, (c) single mothers and (d) women from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Acts. The information provided does not include the number of women accepted, nor those in the categories requested, and my Department has no such estimates.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has issued any guidelines to local authorities on the provision of housing for disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Local housing authorities are required by section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to have regard to the special housing needs of disabled people when considering the housing needs of their district. The Department has recently issued a circular to local authorities on the assistance available to disabled people for house adaptations under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has developed any proposals to seek to amend the Housing Act 1985 to extend the official definitions of homelessness and priority need.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend part III of the Housing Act 1985 to extend the statutory responsibilities of local authorities to include single women; and if he will make a statement about single women and homelessness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government recently reviewed the homelessness legislation and concluded that the Act provided an adequate safety net for the genuine homeless in priority need. We concluded that the Act was serving the purpose which Parliament had originally intended of it, and therefore proposed no changes to the statutory framework.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the £15 million recently allocated for the relief of homelessness will be spent on the provision of more hostel placements for young people in London.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We are in the process of consulting public bodies, local authorities and housing associations about the provision of direct access and move-on accommodation through the programme which I announced on 22 June.

  Housing
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities allocate housing to women who are the victims of domestic violence; and how many allocations were made for this purpose in 1989.
  455
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department has no information on this subject.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's strategy for ensuring housing is provided for those people covered by community care legislation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The housing aspects of the care in the community proposals are the subject of discussion between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health in consultation with the local authority associations.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he is developing to enable women heads of households on low incomes to gain easier access to housing;

  (2) what proposals he is developing to enable women heads of households to become owner-occupiers more easily.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government's policies designed to promote the supply of affordable housing to rent and buy will benefit households headed by men and women alike.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the causes, incidence and location of abnormally high concentrations of radon gas in domestic homes; and what action he intends to take further to assess and mitigate consequent problems for human health.

  Mr. David Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the free booklet issued by my Department, the "Householders' Guide to Radon". A second edition is to be issued shortly. Further information is given in the statement on radon in houses, published by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in documents of the NRPB, volume 1, number 1, January 1990. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. My Department is continuing to fund research on the distribution of homes with high concentrations of radon, on ways of reducing the radon levels, and on the effects of radon on human health.

  Alpha Lighting Ltd.
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department received an application from the London borough of Greenwich for a grant to Alpha Lighting Ltd. under section 6 of the Inner Urban Areas Act; and when it will be approved.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The London borough of Greenwich applied originally in January this year for urban programme grant approval for assistance for Alpha Lighting Ltd. The borough's 1989–90 allocation was already fully committed so the application was part of the 1990–91 inner area programme submission. That programme is not yet approved as further information is awaited from the borough. Nevertheless a provisional approval for an urban programme grant for Alpha Lighting Ltd. has been given by the Department in advance of final approval of the borough's full programme.

  Ozone Pollution
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch, 14 June,Official Report, column 294, if he will indicate to whom the 27 daily summaries have been released and publish a telephone number for the public to inquire about levels of ozone pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  We cannot precisely say to whom the daily summaries have been released because we do not record such information but the majority were requested by the media. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), in his reply to a question from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 27 June, gave the telephone number of the Department of the Environment's public inquiries—071 276 3000—from which information about low-level ozone is available during episodes.

  Water Meters
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will suspend expenditure by his Department on the water meter trials in the Normanton constituency until the Office of Water Services has published its consultative document in September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The water metering trials have been set up to provide information on the costs and problems of implementing an effective metering system and to determine the impact of charging by volume on consumption. They will continue for a further two to three years and provide valuable information on costs and benefits for the water industry, Government and the Director General of Water Services which will contribute to the debate about future methods of charging.

  Beaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to ensure that beaches awarded the European Economic Community blue flag safety levels maintain the standards and to monitor those standards.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It will be for the National Rivers Authority using its powers under the Water Act 1989 to monitor bathing waters and to ensure that they continue to meet the directive's standards. Responsibility for beaches rests with the local authority or, in some cases, with the owner. They have a clear incentive to ensure that their beaches continue to meet the requirements for the award of a blue flag.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the overall cost of cleaning the nation's beaches to European Economic Community blue flag safety levels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The cost of bringing the bathing waters up to the directive's standards and ensuring that all substantial discharges of sewage will be treated is estimated at £2.9 billion. The cost of bringing beaches up to the standards needed to qualify for a blue flag has not yet been estimated nationally.

  Football Supporters Association
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet officials of the Football Supporters Association.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the Football Supporters Association. Officials from my Department have had recent meetings with it both in England before the world cup finals and in Italy during the tournament.

  Bedford (Population)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessments have been made of population projections for Bedford, including Kempston, in 1995, 2000 and 2010 and the number of new houses likely to be built(a) south of the River Ouse and (b) north of it.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Population projections below national level are prepared by OCPS, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, for areas down to county level only. Assessments of expected population levels, and the equivalent requirements for house building at district level and below are a matter for county and district councils in reviewing and updating the development plans for their areas.

  The approved structure plan for Bedfordshire is currently being reviewed to 2001, taking into account the current regional planning guidance for the south-east. That review is expected to be submitted in the autumn of this year, and the population proposed, including that for the Bedford area, is expected to be assessed at an examination in public early in 1991.

  North Bedfordshire district council published a draft districtwide local plan for its area in July 1988 for public consultation. This was updated by an interim strategy published in February of this year. It is understood that the district council expects to place the local plan on deposit later this year, following the submission of the structure plan review by the county council. A local public inquiry into that plan by an independent inspector will provide an opportunity for the proposed levels of house building in Bedfordshire to be assessed.

  Housing Capital Grants
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the arrangements for paying new housing capital grants.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  New housing capital grants were introduced by part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The approval of Parliament for expenditure on these new grants is being sought in the main supply estimates for class VIII, vote 1; Housing England. Pending that approval urgent expenditure, estimated at £71.546 million, is being met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Drinking Water
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are considered to be safe levels of iodine 125 in drinking water; and what assessment he has made of the levels of the radioactive isotope in Thames water from Berkshire down to its mouth.
  458
  Mr. Trippier
  Limits for the levels of iodine 125 in drinking water are recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has a national programme for checking the levels of radioactivity in drinking water sources. This programme includes the sampling of the Thames including the stretch between Berkshire and the mouth of the Thames. The levels of iodine 125 in drinking water from the Thames are trivial and the risk to health is negligible.

  Planning Agreements
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the outcome of the consultation exercise about planning agreements, announced on 11 July 1989,Official Report, column 485; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The consultation paper provoked 229 responses. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have decided that the three proposed amendments to section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 should proceed as soon as there is a legislative opportunity. These are:

  (a) to enable a developer to give a unilateral undertaking to carry out certain works, or to do whatever the undertaking specified;

  (b) to make provision for a planning agreement or unilateral undertaking to be discharged when its planning purpose has ended; and

  (c) to enable the Crown to enter into section 52 agreements.

  It is also intended to make certain technical changes to section 52, designed to improve and clarify the drafting.

  The new policy guidance on which we consulted will be issued in due course, taking account of some of the points made by respondents to the consultation paper.

  Development (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Rothschild's representing shareholders in 3Ds Ltd. is currently involved in the negotiations for city grant for the West End development in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: Rothschild's is not involved in any negotiations with the Department in connection with the proposed West End development in Bradford.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when it is expected that the application for city grant by 3Ds Ltd. will be concluded; what is the estimated cost of considering the application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: 3Ds Ltd. has submitted details of its proposals for the West End development scheme, and discussions are continuing with the Department on what further information may be needed. I am not able to provide an estimate of the cost of considering the application.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of houses currently being considered in the application for city grant by 3Ds Ltd. for the West End development in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.
  459
  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him of Monday 18 June 1990 at column 482.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sum of money is currently allocated in the integrated development operation application by Bradford for the West End scheme; whether any such money will be subjected to the additionality rule; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: Private sector developments such as the proposed West End
  460
  scheme are not eligible for funding under the Bradford integrated development operation. The IDO supports public sector schemes.

  The only project in the West End area of the city to have been allocated resources through the Bradford IDO is environmental improvement work in Quebec street. This project has attracted £12,625 in grant from the European regional development fund. The normal additionality arrangements apply. EC receipts are taken into account when domestic expenditure programmes are set so that these programmes are larger than they would otherwise have been.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Lord Lindsay of Birker Lord Lindsay of Birker —Took the Oath.

NHS: Chiropody Provision
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany asked Her Majesty's Government:
What improvements have been made in providing chiropody services within the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, there h As been a welcome and steady increase in the provision of NHS chiropody services over several years. The total number of people receiving chiropody treatment in the NHS increased by 22 per cent. between 1982 and 1988, and the number of chiropodists on a whole-time equivalent basis employed in the NHS increased by 20 per cent over the same period.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for reading her brief so accurately. As regards chiropody, I suggest that considerable hardship is arising in the National Health Service. Chiropody is an easy service to cut, and cuts are being made. Is the noble Baroness aware that chiropody does not mean only the cutting of toenails but includes also the treatment for callouses and corns? Is she also aware that a wait of three months, or no treatment at all, means considerable hardship for a number of elderly women who have suffered and who are still suffering through lack of mobility? Why should those people have to suffer? I accept that the noble Baroness has given the facts, but the fact is that cuts are taking place.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as in all health service matters, the health authorities determine the level of chiropody provision in their areas. I am well aware of the training and qualifications which full time chiropodists require. At 30th September 1988 there were 3,330 chiropodists employed by the NHS, an increase of 550 or 20 per cent. over the 1982 figure. Furthermore, the number of students qualifying increased from 264 to 385—some 46 per cent.—over the same period. I understand that the problem is rather that there are too many qualified people rather than not enough.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, notwithstanding the figures which the noble Baroness has given, is she aware that there is great strain on the London Foot Hospital which is known worldwide? Would it be possible for the department to offer some assistance to enable that hospital to overcome some of its problems?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the department is fulfilling its role by concentrating on the training aspects of this matter. As I said, it is for health authorities to provide the level of services required in their areas. However, I recognise that the London Foot Hospital has a worldwide reputation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that her department recently published the results of a survey which showed that the requirement was not for fewer but for twice as many chiropodists? Is she aware that at present there is a tremendous growth in the number of elderly people requiring chiropody services? Is she aware also that the NHS chiropody service in London is almost at crisis point? She sounded as though there is a marvellous success story. She should speak to the old people because there is no such success story.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as in other areas of provision, expectations are on the increase. However, I submit that provision is also on the increase. If the noble Lord was referring to the Cartwright Report called More Trouble with Feet, which was published in 1986, I agree that the report confirmed that the level of chiropody provision at that time was insufficient to meet all need. That has resulted in the steady improvement in the number of treatments given, the number of chiropody students in training and the number of chiropodists and footcare assistants employed in the National Health Service since 1986.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, for information only, perhaps I may ask whether there is a registration system. Are you allowed to call yourself a chiropodist without satisfying somebody else that you know what to do?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that there is a fairly wide use of the word "chiropodist". However, any chiropodist employed in the National Health Service is required to be state-registered. In essence, that means that only those people who have successfully completed a three-year training course approved by the Chiropodists Board of the Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine are eligible for NHS employment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will the noble Baroness discuss with her colleagues the importance of having standards for all activities in relation to health, not only for the National Health Service?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, My Lords.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, there may be more chiropodists, but many of them are operating in the private sector. If one cannot afford £5 to £10 a month, one has to do without. That is the position.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I referred to the figures for students in training. That is an important factor.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does it not appear that a three year training course is ridiculously long? If it were not so long it may be that those who at present practise without qualifications would take those qualifications.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, a three year qualification period for the type of work undertaken by chiropodists in the National Health Service is not considered excessive. Nevertheless there are foot care assistants being trained and employed in the National Health Service whose training requirements are somewhat shorter.

Nuclear Power: UK Expertise
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the event of a postponement of further orders for nuclear reactors, what steps they will take to ensure that United Kingdom expertise on this subject is not lost.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Nuclear Electric will be operating its existing stations until well into the next century and will complete and operate the PWR at Sizewell B. This will maintain a significant body of expertise. The Government will review the prospects for nuclear power in the longer term in 1994.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is it not sad that having started in the nuclear energy field, if we wait another four years we shall almost certainly have to buy nuclear plant off the shelf from a foreign nation? Does the Minister agree that it was a major mistake not to continue with Hinkley C?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the public sector company, Nuclear Electric, is responsible for 13 nuclear stations employing 14,000 people and contributing around 18 per cent towards the country's electricity needs. The company is building the first PWR at Sizewell B with start-up scheduled for early 1995. The Government will review the position in 1994, taking account of the environmental arguments for nuclear power. That hardly adds up to the end of nuclear power in this country, as the noble Viscount predicts.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while it is important that we maintain an expertise in nuclear power, does the noble Viscount agree that there should be a proper balance in our research into all forms of energy, in particular into the more efficient use of energy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware the Government pay a great deal of attention to energy efficiency. However, in the short term the perceived need for the amount of power being generated would include Sizewell B.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the United States there has not been a nuclear power station commissioned for the past 15 years. Can the noble Viscount say whether that factor has injured the United States nuclear energy business?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that the United States and Europe, especially Eastern Europe, are extremely concerned about the environment. One of the reasons
650
we have consistently maintained the use of nuclear power is so that we do not damage the environment by burning fossil fuels.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will respond to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Has the fact that no new nuclear power stations have been commissioned in the United States set that country back in terms of nuclear technology?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer. If I find any evidence on that matter I shall write to him.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the Minister clearly implied by his answers that the expertise in the field to which he referred is important and valuable. Have the Government taken steps to ensure that such expertise—subject to secrecy arrangements—is capable of being and will be exploited internationally for the benefit of the United Kingdom economy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there are still very good opportunities for the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry inspectorate will continue to inspect our nuclear stations and the Government are committed to maintaining its staffing levels. BNFL has fruitful overseas markets to exploit; the AEA's expertise is much in demand and it is diversifying its business. NNC Limited has been working on Sizewell and the fast reactor. Contractors will be working on Sizewell B until 1994 and that work is currently providing 10,000 jobs across the country. If nuclear power proves to be more competitive with other fuels by 1994 there may be new nuclear construction work in the future.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that comprehensive reply.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, the French are now building nuclear power stations in series and have therefore reduced the cost of the construction process. Is the Minister able to reassure the House that we have good arrangements with the French for using that technology as and when we require it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I know that the department studies very carefully what the French do. However, it would not be right to say that to purchase a PWR from the French would necessarily be a cheaper option as the nuclear installations inspectorate is very careful of our safety in this country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, referring to the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, does not the Minister accept that the French PWR is Westinghouse technology?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that there are and will remain a great many people in the nuclear field, but does he accept that as Hinkley Point C is not going ahead the designers will not be available in the future?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I cannot accept that argument. It will take until 1995 to get Sizewell B up and running. If the decision is taken in 1994 to

651
build further PWRs—I cannot say whether or not that decision will be taken—the designers will still be in this country.

NHS Trusts
2.51 p.m.
Lord Molloy asked Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that self-governing hospitals remain within the National Health Service
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, NHS trusts will remain fully part of the National Health Service and will continue to provide services for NHS patients free of charge at the point of use.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that recently the Prime Minister herself said that self-governing does not mean leaving the NHS altogether? Can the noble Baroness explain what that means? In circumstances where the majority of doctors and nurses wish to remain totally within the NHS, will their desires be acknowledged? Thirdly, can the noble Baroness—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Molloy: Thirdly, can the noble Baroness please explain what the inclusion of the words "other units" means? Many people would like to have that information.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to assist the noble Lord by making absolutely clear that NHS trusts will not opt out of the National Health Service. That has been said on many occasions prior to the statement made by the Prime Minister to which the noble Lord referred. They will remain firmly part of the National Health Service. They will continue to provide treatment free of charge at the point of delivery. However, what will change is that they will take over responsibility for their own management from district health authorities. The "other units" to which the noble Lord referred are, for example, ambulance units, not just hospital units.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that those who run the NHS trusts will be employed by the National Health Service as opposed to being employed by the trusts and that the premises will continue to be in the ownership of the NHS rather than the ownership of the trusts? Secondly, how can the Government justify spending million of NHS money on Conservative propaganda in the leaflet, The NHS Reforms and You, which is to go to every household? The Government attack the BMA for propaganda, paid for by the doctors, but their own propaganda is paid for by the hard-pressed taxpayer. Does the noble Baroness agree that that is the situation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if the BMA had not carried on such an unnecessary campaign perhaps it would not have been necessary to have had this leaflet in the first place. Having said that, certainly in regard to the NHS trusts the employees will be employed by
652
a trust which is a unit within the National Health Service. That means that those employees are within the NHS.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, did I mishear the Minister? Did she say that the purpose of the taxpayer-funded campaign on the NHS reforms was in retaliation against the doctors' campaign against aspects of these reforms? Is that the set-up?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is another question. Nevertheless, it is important that the patients, or consumers, who will benefit from our reforms should understand perfectly and properly what those reforms are, and not be misled.

Community Care Policy: Implementation
2.54 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the plans for community care set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 are to be introduced in full and without delay in April 1991.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we intend that our community care policy should get under way on 1st April 1991. As we have said for all our plans under the National Health Service and Community Care Act, implementation will be evolutionary.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but it is becoming increasingly clear why the Government have so adamantly refused any form of ring-fencing or earmarking of government funds for community care. Is the Minister aware that in this House on 8th May, in another place on 27th June, and again in this House on 28th June, a succession of Ministers gave repeated assurances that adequate resources will be made available next April for the proper funding of the full community care plans as set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill? The Bill received Royal Assent on 29th June. Does the Minister agree that it would be a record to renege on such an important commitment within three weeks of making it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we considered very carefully the arguments for ring-fencing which were advanced by the noble Lord, among others. However, we believe that many of those arguments could be applied to other local authority programmes. We are not seeking to take over responsibilities of local authorities for community care but to support and encourage them by providing the right legislative and financial framework and helping to develop good managerial and professional practice. We shall continue to do that between now and the full implementation of the community care arrangements.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is not an answer to the question I put to the Minister. My question was not about ring-fencing, which was a comment I made in passing. Are the plans to be introduced in full and without delay on 1st April 1991 as we have been told repeatedly in this House and in another place?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps that will teach the noble Lord that it is not wise to make

653
comments when asking questions. There is nothing further that I can say about the timetable except that we remain firmly committed to our policy on community care. The legislation is now in place and I know that the principles underpinning the policy are widely endorsed by those in the field.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister saying that she is, or is not, committed to the timetable accepted in the legislation to which my noble friend referred; namely, that it should be implemented from 1st April 1991? If she is not, will she please say so? Is the noble Baroness aware that local authorities and voluntary organisations who are providing community care—and the 6 million carers themselves—will be absolutely shocked if the Government do not proceed with the legislation which both Houses have recently passed? Would that not be a cynical betrayal for electoral purposes?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware of the many people in the field and throughout the service who are interested in the implementation of our community care proposals. I have said on previous occasions that we are delighted at the welcome given to our proposals. As I said in my original Answer, we still plan that implementation of the arrangements should get under way on 1st April 1991. Nevertheless, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, an Opposition debate on community care implementation in another place is scheduled for Wednesday of this week. No doubt my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will then make a statement about the timetable. I cannot anticipate the contents of that statement today.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not refreshing to find noble Lords opposite so enthusiastic about the implementation of government legislation? Would they not be wise to accept the assurances that my noble friend has given?
Baroness Hooper: To that, my Lords, I can only say yes.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the absence of any such assurances as to the completion of the process within reasonable time, is the noble Baroness aware that many people in the community care services are in a state of total bewilderment as to what is to happen? May we have an assurance that the statement to be made, we understand, on Wednesday will be repeated in this House? I am sure that noble Lords on all sides will wish to question the Minister on this subject.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in my experience those arrangements are left to the usual channels.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the use of the word evolutionary fills one with foreboding. Does the Minister appreciate that, from all we read, the Government are managing to give the impression that they simply did not do their sums when they decided at last to implement the main Griffiths recommendations? That caused us to spend hours and hours trying to make sure that what they were proposing was being done correctly. Contrary to the impression given by the media, and if the matter has not yet been decided,
654
does not the Minister agree that the Government would be well advised to pause and reflect? Is she aware that the possibility of avoiding a small increase in the poll tax, which appears to be one of the relevant considerations, has to be set against the disappointment and frustration which will be widely felt at prolonging the hardship of many elderly, disabled and mentally handicapped people and, as has been pointed out, the 6 million carers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, throughout our many discussions on this topic we have always made it clear that much of the detail had still to be sorted out. We certainly do not wish to slow down authorities who are getting ahead with their work on agreements with other agencies, planning their services and moving their approach to one of greater consumer and client orientation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, are the Government to provide the money to enable the local authorities and the voluntary organisations to go ahead with implementing the legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no doubt that will be made clear.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Redundancy Payments (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1990 will be taken.

Representation of the People Bill
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Bill
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Viscount Brentford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.] Clause 1 [Acquisition of British citizenship]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I, speaking from these Benches, were to express a certain view as to how I feel the Committee might want to deal with this stage of the Bill. Obviously the Minister will respond either immediately or in due course. It is the wish of the Government that this Bill be enacted as soon as possible in order, as they see it, to deal with the morale of the people in Hong Kong.
While we, from these Benches, have said that we do not like the basis of the Bill which deals with a points scheme, we too are anxious that as much as possible should be done for the morale of the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, it is my wish and that of those who sit on these Benches that the Committee stage of this Bill be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. With that end in view, the noble Earl has been kind enough to write and tell me that, from the Government's point of view as well, if there are no amendments passed at this Committee stage the Report stage will be moved immediately. But, in his usual kindly way, the Minister said that at Third Reading account will be taken of all that is said at Committee stage on these amendments and amendments can be moved at Third Reading.
There are some important amendments before the Committee this afternoon. I think it will be regarded as fair when I say that the Government have had a very long opportunity to consider the amendments that have been put down. The majority of them are a repetition of amendments that were tabled—if not in the precise words but the principle is the same—in the other place. I repeat: I hope that it is fair to say that quite obviously I am not going to ask for Divisions merely for the sake of them. However, on these essential matters I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government recognise the principle behind the important amendment and will deal with it appropriately at Third Reading. Therefore, I shall not be blamed for holding up the Bill—which I do not want to do—if I am forced to call for a Division despite the wish of all of us on these Benches to speed this Bill through. As I have said, the principle of the points system is one that we do not like. What we want to do in co-operation with the Government, and I should think with the support of all parts of the Committee, is to see to it that the morale of the people of Hong Kong is kept as high as it possibly can be.
My first amendment is one of principle. The Committee will see that the amendment provides that the word "may" shall be substituted for the word "shall". I ask Members of the Committee to turn to Clause 1 of the Bill, where it will be seen that there is a mandatory provision in subsection (1) that,
"the Secretary of State shall register … up to 50,000 persons recommended to him for that purpose by the Governor of Hong Kong".
It is a strange constitutional position when one finds that it is no longer the Secretary of State who has complete discretion concerning the award of British nationality. It is passed over not only to the Governor, for whom personally one has the greatest respect, but to a committee that will do most of the work, so we are told. I repeat that it is an odd situation which even the explanatory note to the Bill does not seem to like very much. We are told that it is mandatory on the Secretary of State to register applicants decided on by the Governor and committee.
When I refer to the explanatory note perhaps the Committee will look at the second paragraph which states:
"Clause 1 (taken with Schedules 1 and 2) enables the Secretary of State to register …".
In view of the word "shall" it should read,
"Clause 1 …orders the Secretary of State to register".
As I have said, that is not just a matter affecting this Bill, but one that affects the grant of British nationality wherever it may be granted. Are we in Parliament to say for the first time, as I understand it in this context, that the Secretary of State is to be put into a position where he has to accept what the Governor and committee say in Hong Kong, and register, and where Members of this House and of another place will presumably be debarred from asking any questions concerning the registration? The answer will be, "You have passed a Bill which has become an Act. You provided that, whatever the Secretary of State may feel, he has to register as British nationals those whose names are given to him by the Governor and committee in Hong Kong". I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: As a relatively new Member of the House, I have watched with some amazement and incomprehension the minuet being conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I too received a letter from the noble Earl which, spoken in plain English, said that the Government would accept no amendments at the Committee stage but that they would of course listen to them at Third Reading. Are we not therefore rather wasting our time? Would it not be better to go to Third Reading and get on with it? The fact of the matter is that the Government who are responsible for the business of this Chamber have allowed it to become so congested in the past fortnight that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may be up all this week and all next week on this Bill and on the Broadcasting Bill. There will be no time properly to discuss this important measure.
If the Government had organised their business a little better, we could have discussed the Committee

657
stage earlier than this. We would not then have had to go through the farce of making a case for amendments which the Government will not accept, moving on to Report, and finally going to Third Reading when by some chance it may be possible that the Government will listen to the amendments. I state it plainly that I find this a most unsatisfactory way of proceeding with legislation of great importance to this country, to its reputation and to at least 3 million British subjects in Hong Kong.
We have some responsibility for those people. Just because the Government cannot organise their business better we are riding roughshod over the proper discussion of a serious erosion of their rights. I do not regard "shall" and "may" as matters of fundamental importance. It is my view that the Governor of Hong Kong is probably in a far better position than the Secretary of State to judge who should or should not be registered under the scheme, with all its defects. I therefore do not particularly support the amendment, but I wish to place it on record that the way we are dealing with the Bill is little short of frivolous.
Lord Mishcon: I hope I shall be forgiven by the Committee, but I find it necessary to rise immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has completed his remarks. He is always courteous and he is usually accurate. This time he was courteous but not accurate.
The letter that I received from the Minister—the noble Earl will speak for himself—made it perfectly clear that, if an amendment were acceptable to the Government, the Third Reading stage would be used for the purpose of making that amendment. I have made it perfectly clear that I cannot accept a position whereby the Opposition regard an amendment as fundamental, but the Minister is not able to say that he accepts the principle of the amendment. I excuse myself to the Committee if I have to divide it when all I want to do is to speed the passage of the Bill—only for the reason that I have given, which is for the sake of the people of Hong Kong.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. That one should have to apologise to the Committee for having to divide it on an important Bill underlines the ludicrous nature of the position that we have got ourselves into. On these Benches we want to see the Bill on the statute book. It is not the best Bill, but it is the only one we are going to get. For the benefit of the people of Hong Kong it must be on the statute book early. However, my noble friend is quite right. It is a grave discourtesy to the House to be put into a position whereby somebody has to apologise for the possibility of having to divide the Committee on a matter on which the Government do not agree. I feel that I have to defend my noble friend from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Geddes: If I heard him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said to the Committee
658
that the letter that he had received stated quite clearly in his opinion that the Government would not accept any amendments. Unless he received a letter which is totally different from mine, it said nothing of the sort.
Lord Howie of Troon: The Committee will be extremely pleased to learn that I have not received a letter from anyone. If I were to advise the Government, I would tell them to follow that precedent and send letters to no one. It seems to cause nothing but alarm and despondency on the Benches in front of me.
I want to support my noble friend Lord Mishcon though I dissent, as my Front Bench knows, from my party's general view on this Bill. The Government are being quite sensible up to a point, which is as far as one would expect them to go. I want "may" rather than "shall" for wholly chauvinistic British reasons. I look at the Bill as a wholly pragmatic matter and not as a moralistic one. The morals of it are at best dubious. We are doing as best we can in murky circumstances. However, as a pragmatic matter, we should try to arrange the Bill to the best advantage of Hong Kong and of Britain. It may be difficult to reconcile those two aspects of the matter, but I think that we could have them both in our minds.
There are in Hong Kong a substantial number of architects and engineers who are employed by British consultants, either consulting engineers or consulting architects. As Members on all sides of the Committee will know, the consulting industry is one of the major contributors to the credit side of the balance of payments, such as it is. The firms of consulting engineers and architects are suffering a grievous handicap. Although they have among their employees in Hong Kong a very substantial number—and in most cases a substantial majority—of employees who are Hong Kong Chinese, they are seeing those employees leaving their employment in Hong Kong to seek abode in Australia, Canada, Singapore or more or less anywhere which will have them. That is imposing a severe burden on the continuing business of British consulting firms. It is very much to their disadvantage and very much to the disadvantage of our balance of payments.
I support "may" rather than "shall" for a simple reason. The schedules which we have seen are inadequate in the proportion of such persons who are included among the 50,000 families. The entire question of how many engineers, architects and other consultants are included among the 50,000 should be kept as open as possible. The proportions put forward by the Government are far too low.
There are around 600 members of the RIBA in Hong Kong and more than 1,000 members of the Institution of Civil Engineers. There are also members of the other institutions—the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and so on. The Hong Kong Institute of Engineers (which I visited last October) has around 10,000 members, some of whom are expatriates, the majority of whom are Hong Kong Chinese. The majority of the Hong Kong Chinese are employed either by the Hong Kong Government or by British

659
companies operating in Hong Kong. Those people are of importance both to Hong Kong and to us. We must not be too moralistic about this. Our interests in this matter are important, too. As an engineer, I was rather pleased that architects were included under engineers, though I do not think the architects were as pleased as I was. However, the proportion is wrong. Far too many businessmen and suchlike are included among the Government's schedules, and there are far too few professional people, who are the doers, the makers and the contributors to the well-being of the world as a whole.
In my view, we should have a situation where the Secretary of State has the right, the capability under the law, to examine the proposals of the Governor of Hong Kong and if he has any sense at all—which I am perfectly sure he has, although judging by the conduct of Secretaries of State in recent days I begin to wonder—he will ensure that the highest possible proportion of those who are allowed a right of abode in Britain come from that technological side of the population of Hong Kong. It is a small country, or colony, the technological contribution of which is second to none. We should try to take advantage of that fact both for the benefit of Hong Kong and of ourselves. As I said, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Renton: There are a few noble Lords on each side of the Committee who, like myself, have had the privilege of being either Minister of State or Under-Secretary at the Home Office, or both. In our experience we knew that, if we were handling that side of Home Office work, the grant of nationality and a passport were both matters of discretion. It was a discretion exercised by the Secretary of State and sometimes by a junior Minister on his behalf; it was a discretion which had derived from the exercise in earlier times of the Royal Prerogative.
Therefore, I must confess that, from the purely technical point of view, I consider the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, deserves careful consideration by the Government, especially as subsection (5) of the clause says:
"Neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decision made by him in the exercise of a discretion vested in him by or under this Act and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court".
Perhaps I may mention in passing that I find it strange and inconsistent with what the noble Lord said in moving Amendment No. 1 that he should want by way of a later amendment—Amendment No. 5—to remove that subsection from the Bill. I should have thought that if he wants the word in subsection (1) to be "may", then in confirmation of the argument which he used for having this word, we should also retain subsection (5).
As it is the first time I have spoken during the proceedings on the Bill, perhaps I should come clean and tell Members of the Committee that I helped the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden in the preparation and piloting of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 in another place. I should also say that I became
660
quite notorious for wanting the population of the United Kingdom not to be increased to any great extent. I still hold that view. However, in the very special circumstances of Hong Kong, where I have never been, I am persuaded by the arguments which have been put forward that we should make a special exception in favour of up to 50,000 people from Hong Kong.
I am most anxious to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers will have to say about this first amendment but, as I said, from the purely technical point of view, it seems to be worth consideration.
Lord Marsh: The problem here is that this is an almost unique situation where a comparatively large number of people will have British citizenship conferred upon them very quickly and speedily. It is essential that it does happen very quickly and speedily. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of a public company situated in Hong Kong the activities of which are concerned with direct and indirect investment in the People's Republic of China.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. There is a need to ensure that people from a wide range of professions are included in this number. I hope that the number will be increased. There are many people engaged in commercial activities within the colony who we would hope would remain. These are people with special skills. Many of them are Chinese and they have a unique relationship with the People's Republic of China. They are needed just as much as civil servants and members of the police force, and so on.
Therefore, the overwhelming need in this case is for speed. The issues have been discussed very broadly both within and without this Chamber. The issues are well-known. However, the degree of misunderstanding, of concern and cynicism which exists—in my view wrongly and unfairly—within the colony is very considerable. The quicker it is made clear that the Government will bring in these powers for the allocation of British citizenship to at least 50,000 people the better. I say that because until people in the colony see that this has actually happened the concern will simply grow. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves at this time of the parliamentary calendar, and regardless of what other problems of the management of government business there may be which have brought us to this stage, I hope that we shall proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible.
I see the difference between the words "may" and "shall" as relating to a minimum figure of 50,000 people. Moreover, apart from a few aberrations among senior politicians in another place who should know better, I do not think that anyone believes that the figure could realistically be less than 50,000. Therefore, I hope that we shall proceed on that basis, and that this Chamber will play its part in getting the Bill through and enacted. That would give the people of Hong Kong a genuine belief that we are concerned to ensure a level of stability in the colony after we have handed over sovereignty which they can recognise,

661
which will cause key people to stay there and which will give the Chinese less concern and worry than they have at present.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may first deal with a procedural problem. I find the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, a most charming but, if I may say so, a most difficult person with whom to deal. I merely tried to be helpful to Members of the Committee. I have often said that I learnt at school about Boyle's law, Ohm's law and Faraday's law and that I am tempted to introduce a law which I would call "Ferrer's law", which says quite simply that everything has the reverse effect of that intended. I wrote to those noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading debate. I did not write to the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Marsh, because they did not take part in the proceedings. The letter was supposed to be helpful.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should tell the noble Earl that that omission left me unconfused.
Earl Ferrers: I must say that I am delighted for any excuse not to write letters, and I am even more delighted for any excuse not to read them. I tried to point out in the letter the fact that the Government had no intention of tabling amendments in Committee. However, that did not mean that noble Lords would be prevented from tabling any amendments and voting upon them. Nevertheless, on the assumption that there were no Divisions and that the Bill was not amended, I would have moved that the Report be not received and that we should miss out the Report stage of the Bill. However, I also added in the letter that, if there were no Report stage, all the points which were mentioned in Committee would be taken carefully into consideration by the Government to see whether there should be any adjustment on Third Reading. That was supposed to be helpful. But along comes the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who says that it is not at all helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was normally courteous and accurate but that this time he was courteous but inaccurate. I thought he was discourteous and inaccurate because he said that the Government were being frivolous and were treating the Committee in such a way that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would have to apologise for what he proposed to do. I am not surprised that his noble friend Lord Tordoff supported him because I do not suppose that anyone else would have done so.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was entirely fair. He said that he did not want to be accused of delaying the Bill by calling Divisions and that he hoped we would take into account all that was said. Of course we shall, but I hope he will also realise that if he does not call a Division I do not want to feel propelled into a cul-de-sac by being made to feel obliged to consider everything that the noble Lord said and did not divide upon with the greatest sincerity and put it into the Bill on Third Reading. We shall consider everything that
662
has been said with the greatest care, but it is only right to make that point clear; and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will understand.
Having got over that hump—a hump that was supposed to be a helpful addition to the proceedings—perhaps I may come to the substance of the amendment. We accept that it is the Home Secretary who should have the final say on whether applicants are acceptable as British citizens. The Bill protects that important principle since it provides for citizenship to be withheld if the Home Secretary has reason to believe that a person is not of good character.
If we insert the word "may" in place of "shall" it will mean that the Secretary of State may register as British citizens up to 50,000 people. It also means that he may not. It would not be sensible to require the Home Secretary to review the Governor's judgment about which applicants are of the greatest value to Hong Kong. The amendment would require him to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, ran into an error because he thought that the insertion of the word "may" would mean that the Home Secretary may approve over 50,000 applicants. If "may" were to be inserted it would not meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, because all that it would do would be to provide that the Home Secretary may register as British citizens up to 50,000 applicants. It would not allow him to go beyond 50,000.
If the amendment were accepted, it would give the Home Secretary an unfettered discretion to reject anyone who had been selected by the Governor. In order to discharge that discretion properly, the Home Secretary would have to review the relevant merits of any applicant and would have to be provided with information to enable him to do so. The government view is that nothing would be gained by drawing the Home Secretary into the selection process in that way. This is a Bill for the benefit of Hong Kong. It is the Governor who is responsible for Hong Kong's administration and it is he who will have the local knowledge necessary to enable him to identify those of greatest value to the territory.
The Governor's selection will be constrained by the scheme which Parliament will have approved. The Order in Council will set out the criteria and points in considerable detail. However, to the extent that discretion has to be exercised, whether in relation to groups or individuals, the Home Secretary would have no basis upon which to substitute his judgment for that of the Governor, upon whom he would be dependent for advice.
The amendment would not improve the quality of the decision taken; but in making it necessary for the merits of each case to be considered not once but twice—by the Home Secretary as well as by the Governor—it would prolong the process substantially and therefore risk delaying the scheme's impact on confidence in Hong Kong. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will see that point and will consider that on the whole the word "shall" is better than "may".
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: In view of the reasonable spirit in which the Minister spoke, especially when he referred to my remarks and said that he agreed with them, I should love to be able to say that I am going to withdraw the amendment because I am satisfied with what he has said. I cannot say that. Mine was a question of principle. It was one which was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. A Secretary of State is not expected to go though every application and the marking system. All that he is required to do is to register the Governor's recommendations, he having exercised his discretion because discretion is implicit in the word "may".
If the noble Earl will forgive me, I shall quote what the Minister, Mr. Lloyd, said in Committee in another place. He said that he was going to take advice on the point, but I do not believe that the advice has ever been altered. At col. 63 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A on 8th May he said:
"As I understand it, the Secretary of State has to accept those who are registered under the system laid down by Parliament for which the Governor produces 50,000 names. He would have no option but to register them if they were of good character".
That would create a wrong constitutional precedent for our gift of nationality to be taken from the discretion which, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says, has always been vested in the Secretary of State.
The Minister gives us in answer to the point that there will be uncertainty in Hong Kong because the people of Hong Kong may feel that that may not necessarily follow: that the 50,000 names will be registered. There have been enough repetitions of the statement by the Secretary of State in another place, and I am sure there would be no harm if that were repeated. I am sure that it would be accepted at its face value in Hong Kong if he were to say that it is definitely his intention to see that 50,000 names are registered as British subjects. All I want to do is to ensure that there is no phrase in an Act of Parliament which gives someone, without Parliament or the Secretary of State having a say in it, the grant of British rationality by a committee—in practical terms that is what it will mean—nominated, if not elected, by the Governor.
Lord Renton: I am anxious that the noble Lord should not come to a conclusion until I have suggested to him and to my noble friend that there may be a bridge which will enable the two points of view to be reconciled. That bridge depends upon whether my noble friend can say that "register" merely means register and that it does not carry with it the automatic grant of nationality or a passport without any more ado. If that be the case, the word "shall" is appropriate. If it be not the case, I should think that "may" is appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is always helpful except when he opposes anything that I try to say. On this occasion he has been of great use. I wonder whether the Minister will reply to that intervention because it will dictate the course I take. If the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has helpfully
664
supported can be brought about, the last thing in the world I want to do is divide the Committee. As a matter of principle, if there is no concession I have no alternative.
Lord Marsh: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. Is it his view that if the amendment is accepted the individual circumstances of any one of those 50,000 people could be subject to being raised in Parliament? If that were so, I should certainly be opposed to it.
Lord Mishcon: No more than any other person applying for British nationality could now question, through a Member of Parliament, the Home Secretary's decision in regard to nationality. I am trying to put it on an equal basis with any application for British nationality, with the Secretary of State having made a clear pronouncement that it was his definite intention to register 50,000 of the citizens of Hong Kong who were recommended to him. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put it, it will be an essential factor that in due course the Secretary of State registers, but that does not remove from him the discretion that he has in regard to every application.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: It is with great diffidence that I intervene in a constitutional matter of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew the parallel of the British Nationality Act. There is no parallel here because the number of citizenships being issued is limited. This means that until the total number is known the citizenships cannot be issued. This in turn means that if each one is subject to review, or many of them are, none of the 50,000 can be issued. That is the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, it is an emergency measure to improve morale in Hong Kong. But if it is to be held up by these constitutional niceties I fear that it will miss the mark.
Lord Mishcon: I wish I could agree with the word "niceties" because that is not my intention. To interfere with the passing of a Bill or to try to put to the Committee an amendment purely for the purpose of a nicety would never be my intention in a Bill of this kind. A principle is involved. If one thinks in terms of practicalities, one knows perfectly well that the Home Secretary will take a great deal for granted in regard to the recommendations made to him. The last word on exercising discretion—whether he does anything about it or not—remains on the statute book as the discretion of the Secretary of State as to where British nationality is given. It does not rest in a mandatory way with a governor or any committee of a governor.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I propose to be helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, not because of the reproof delivered to him but because of the genuine respect in which I hold him. I cannot accept the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It seems to me that the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, are conclusive. This is a practical matter concerned with how to deal with an emergency situation. It seems to me that the Governor of Hong Kong is in a far better position than the Home Secretary in London to know who should or who should not be registered as a British citizen. Therefore my colleagues and I on

665
these Benches would be tempted to vote in favour of the Bill as it stands rather than support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: I did not speak on Second Reading but I have had a long connection with Hong Kong. I went there first in 1950 on business. There has hardly been a year since then when I have not visited the colony for one purpose or another. Therefore I believe that I can claim that I have seen the way in which the colony has evolved, growing in numbers, emerging in stature and in every form of respect. I can understand therefore what 1997 is bound to mean for some of those in Hong Kong. I say "some of those" because many—the vast majority—remain at heart, although they work, earn their living and live within Hong Kong, still part of mainland China. We are concerned today with the others who have emerged during that period.
Many years ago I was discussing the Labour Government's decision as to why India was granted independence within six months. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, as he then was, had been Secretary of State at the time. His explanation to me was that if independence had dragged on a question would always have been at the back of the minds of the civil servants and the judiciary in India as to where their loyalty lay. Did it lie with the viceroy or with the emerging political leadership of India? It was felt strongly then that what we could best bequeath to India was the quality of the judiciary and the Civil Service. The decision was taken in order to allow stability to remain in India up to the moment of independence.
I see this Bill solely within that context—how Her Majesty's Government and the Governor can maintain the loyalty of the Civil Service and the industrial community so that over the period running up to 1997 a firm, stable government may be retained. There is no doubt, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, indicates, that many people living in Hong Kong will find themselves in a position where they have no nationality. I do not know how that can be dealt with because many would find it difficult to establish a relationship with any country other than the colony of Hong Kong.
Here I share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that the Bill should be passed as soon as possible. I have only one concern over the procedures that we adopt. We may be persuaded not to vote today but to take the amendments next week on Report and Third Reading, only to find that an amendment we are asked to accept is defective. We may then have difficulties in dealing with it. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that that may not be so. As one who has been in government, I found that where amendments were passed in Committee, at the last moment the parliamentary draftsmen felt that further amendments were required. I should find it difficult in some respects to follow my noble friend Lord Mishcon into the Division Lobby. However, since we seem to be
666
discussing the whole issue, without any hesitation I should support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
The difficulty is whether 50,000 is the right figure. It may be less; it may be more. If we say that British citizenship should be granted to those who are necessary for the stability and good governance of Hong Kong, I do not know what the figure is. I doubt whether the Governor knows, or even the Secretary of State. My anxiety is that if at the last moment it appears that it should be 54,000, 55,000 or some figure like that, we may then leave out certain hard cases. I ask the Government to consider 50,000 as a benchmark figure.—that is a figure which most people appear to be satisfied with at the moment—but to at least allow the Governor and the Secretary of State one last loophole. Therefore if there is a need to grant further British citizenship for the sole purpose of the stability of Hong Kong, the Secretary of State could by order, if necessary by order, made under the affirmative resolution procedure, take such a step. In other words, it is neither open to the Governor nor to the Secretary of State to make such a provision willy-nilly. However, at least we would give the Secretary of State a mechanism for further action. None of us knows what 1997 will bring. It is far better to allow the Government a degree of flexibility, taking the figure of 50,000 as a benchmark.
I hope this Bill will be passed as quickly as possible and that some flexibility will be left within it around the benchmark of 50,000. However, the Committee must not misunderstand what will confront the present Governor or his successor between now and 1997. They will be confronted with a major task. I do not believe that the Secretary of State can say that it is for the Governor to make the decisions. In the end the responsibility will be laid before the Secretary of State and the British Parliament. I beg the Government to consider at this final moment whether a degree of flexibility could be introduced so that wise heads could be employed to make further decisions if circumstances so dictate.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I Believe that the noble Lord has carried the debate beyond the point of this amendment. However, as the amendment is so fundamental, we should come back to it if we possibly can. As I understand the position, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made is extremely important and fundamental. He has said that it has always been the case, and should remain the case, that the final word on nationality should come from the Secretary of State who represents Parliament and the nation. That has always been the case and that is how I personally would like it to remain.
The noble Lord from the Cross-Benches who has special knowledge of this problem agreed that that is normally the case. However, he added that this matter constitutes an emergency. He said that because of the priority that should be given to the emergency aspect of the matter, we should not necessarily follow the niceties—that was the expression the noble Lord used—of the process whereby the Secretary of State has the final word.

667
I repeat that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is important and it should not be glossed over. Can my noble friend say, without any hesitation, that if the Governor has been given the power to decide who shall have British nationality because this situation is considered to be an emergency, that position will in no sense set a precedent that can be used on other occasions? We know very well that on such sensitive matters, the slightest loophole will be grasped in such situations in the future and the provision may be widened in circumstances that may be fundamentally different to the current circumstances that we are at present discussing.
It looks as if the suggestion of my noble friend could get us over the immediate difficulty of this Committee stage. All who have spoken have expressed rather narrow intentions, as it were. Therefore, if it can possibly be avoided, the Committee should not give its collective opinion by a vote at the moment. I hope my noble friend will say that this matter can be reconsidered, and that he will give a categorical assurance that this provision could not be considered a precedent under any circumstances. If my noble friend can tell us that, we may well be able to find a form of words later on to meet all the points that have been made. However, at this stage I do not think that we should interfere with any future practice in a show of impetuosity because of our desire to deal speedily with this important and sensitive problem. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made that point well.
Lord Howie of Troon: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—he knows I often agree with him—as regards this matter being an emergency. It is an emergency and it must be dealt with with some urgency. However, we have all day and we may even have all week to deal with it. That is enough time to deal with it. The position is not only an emergency for the people of Hong Kong but also for those British companies operating in Hong Kong. The Committee knows that, as a consulting engineer, I have associations with consulting engineers and consulting architects who employ people in Hong Kong. The situation is an emergency for them because of the erosion of the technical base of the Hong Kong economy. Engineers and architects are rapidly emigrating from the colony.
I have a letter from a very well known British consulting engineering firm which employs over 300 staff in Hong Kong, 90 per cent. of whom are Hong Kong Chinese. That letter was published in The Times not long ago. I have met many of those people and all of them intend to emigrate from Hong Kong as soon as possible. Many of them have already made arrangements to emigrate. That process does not merely strike a blow at the economy of Hong Kong, but also at the economy of their employers. That is in consequence a matter of importance for this country as well as for Hong Kong. That is why I dissent from the view expressed from the Liberal Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that this is a matter where the Governor of Hong Kong knows best. That is not so. He may possibly know best as
668
regards what is right for Hong Kong, but he cannot know best what is right for Hong Kong and Britain. This emergency must be dealt with in the sense that it is an emergency for both countries. We must attempt to resolve it in such a way that will be least disadvantageous to both countries. We shall not, of course, obtain all we want, but we must try to follow the least disadvantageous course.
I do not think the figure of 50,000 is high enough. I would like to see a higher figure. If the figure were higher my fears could be allayed because all the engineers and architects and those in the associated professions could be included in that higher figure. However, in the context of Clause 1 as it stands, we are talking about a figure of 50,000. I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench is right in the sense—I am not sure whether he intended this to be the effect of his remarks—that the Secretary of State will have the capacity to consider this emergency in the Hong Kong context and in the British context, and will attempt to resolve it in the least disadvantageous way to both countries. Both countries will be disadvantaged, but it is up to the Secretary of State to make a decision rather than to accept the judgment of the UK and of the Governor of Hong Kong.
Lord Lindsay of Birker: When I was in Hong Kong last year, I discovered wide mistrust as regards the courage of the Governor in standing up to demands from Peking. I have read statements from Peking which are critical about the whole process of granting British citizenship to a large number of Hong Kong citizens. It is perfectly possible that the Governor may face a demand from Peking that classes of technically qualified people, whom Peking wants, should not be given British citizenship. The Governor, when faced with such a demand, would be in a vastly stronger position if he could say that the matter of British citizenship was not purely his decision and that he could not give in to Peking's demands unless he obtained the approval of the authorities in London.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I Wish to say a few words. The more I have listened to this debate, the more certain I am that this amendment should be resisted. In reality we are discussing a two-stage decision-making process—one decision by the Governor and one by the Secretary of State. However, on the basis of my experience in the Home Office, I can tell the Committee that the effect of such a process would be to introduce massive delays in decision-making. At the end of that, would the decisions be any different? I find it hard to believe that, unless there is an overwhelming case against the Governor's decision, Home Office officials would dream of varying it because he is the man on the spot with a clear knowledge of the situation. It has been said on all sides of the Committee that we want speed in this matter. However, I can guarantee that if the amendment were passed it would lead to massive delays in the process and, therefore, increase instability in Hong Kong.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrets: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who summed up the position as we see it most succinctly. Various Members of the Committee, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the figure of 50,000. Whether the amendment is accepted or not, the figure of 50,000 is not altered because the Bill gives the right to the Secretary of State to register as British citizens up to 50,000 people. It does not matter whether the word used is "may" or "shall"; he cannot go above that figure. Therefore, we do not need to discuss that aspect in relation to this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, was right in saying that this is an emergency measure. Its purpose is to provide a scheme whereby certain people can be given British citizenship swiftly in order to overcome the problems which are peculiar to Hong Kong. If we insert the word "may", as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, we shall provide that the Secretary of State "may register as British citizens". That implies that he may not register as British citizens such people up to a limit of 50,000. As I have tried to explain, it could enable the Secretary of State to adjudicate or to reconsider every application. In other words, every application could be considered not only by the Governor but reconsidered by the Home Secretary. We have always taken the view that the person on the spot—that is the Governor—knows the situation and the key people who are likely to be required in Hong Kong. We believe that, unless there is a good reason for doing so, it would be wrong for the Home Secretary then to say, "Yes, we will accept those people but not those".
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed anxiety and said that the Secretary of State always has the right to determine citizenship. So he has and he has the final right under this Bill. Clause 6 provides that the Home Secretary may refuse citizenship to anyone considered not to be of good character, even though he is recommended by the Governor and the whole scheme operative in Hong Kong. Therefore, the Home Secretary has the final say.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked whether being on the register meant citizenship. The answer is that it does. Once a person was accepted on the register—and he would not be put on the register without the approval of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—he would be entitled to citizenship and from citizenship comes the passport—
Lord Renton: I 3am sorry but I did not hear my noble friend. Did he go on to say sotto voce, "And would entitle him to a passport"?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, I said that if one is on the register one is entitled to citizenship and from citizenship comes the right to a passport. That is a fact.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls asked whether the Bill will act as a precedent. I confirm that the Bill is an exceptional measure to deal with an exceptional situation. We do not contemplate the acquisition of citizenship by this means as a normal feature. However, it is impossible to say what any
670
future government might do. It would be wrong for me to say that no future government would treat anything as a precedent. Certainly, it is not our intention to alter the methods for citizenship. The last say as to who is acceptable as a British citizen rests with the Home Secretary.
Lord Howie of Troon: The Minister explained that for a variety of reasons, including bad character and so forth, the Secretary of State has the right to remove people from the list submitted by the Governor. Does the Secretary of State have the right to add people to the list which is what I wish to see?
Earl Ferrers: Those who are entitled to British citizenship are those referred to as suitable by the Governor of Hong Kong.
Baroness Phillips: I have listened carefully to the Minister's explanations and to Members on all sides of the Committee. I wish to clarify a simple point. Does "shall" mean that no more than 50,000 people would ever be considered? Surely, "may" means that it is open because 50,000 is a mere bagatelle as regards the situation in Hong Kong. Several Members have cited examples. I remember a Chinese doctor of great distinction working in the hospitals. He said to me, "I shall be number 1 running dog when the Red Chinese come here. I was born in China but my education was in America and I practise Western medicine". He is the type of person that we have in mind.
I reject the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that because the matter is urgent we must not discuss it. That is the most dangerous argument of all and one which as a consequence has led to bad legislation. If the Bill is passed in its present form without the amendment being put to a vote, does it mean that we are saying that no more than 50,000 will ever be considered?
Lord Bonham-Carter: I should like to correct the noble Baroness's interpretation of my remarks. I did not say that because the matter was urgent we should not discuss it. Indeed, in my preliminary remarks I urged that we should discuss it at greater length.
Baroness Phillips: At Third Reading.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness was concerned about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. The noble Lord was extremely helpful. I do not believe that he said we should not discuss the matter; he said that he believed the amendment was wrong. I believe that the noble Lord was right. That is a happy position to be in and let it remain so.
As regards the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I should like to invoke the aid of her noble friend Lord Mishcon who is a lawyer. However, I am hesitant to do so because perhaps his interpretation would not be as I would wish it. Perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to look at the Bill. If the word "may" were inserted the provision would read:
"the Secretary of State may register as British citizens up to 50,000 persons".
Nowhere does that provision permit the Secretary of State to go above 50,000, even with the inclusion of

671
the word "may". Therefore, 50,000 is the limit, whether the word "may" or "shall" is used. The noble Baroness shakes her head but I suggest that "shall" is the better word.
Lord Mishcon: I am worried. If I merely concede and say, "Well, there it is, there have been arguments for and against. Is it worthwhile the Committee expressing its view? Could it hold up the matter, which is not what I would want to happen?" I am worried that something will be conceded beyond what various Members of the Committee anticipated when they spoke against the amendment. I am even worried by the fact that the noble Earl referred to me as a lawyer. I am not alone in this Committee in being a lawyer. I invite my colleagues and laymen to look at the situation about which the noble Earl has spoken. He has said that the Secretary of State has the last word because under Clause 6 he must make a decision about character and can refuse to register if he is of the opinion that the person concerned is not of good character.
Let us look at Clause 1. I ask the Committee to be patient with me. Clause 1(1) is completely mandatory at the moment. It says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens … under a scheme or schemes made and approved in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act".
So it is absolutely definite that he must register subject to the provisions of this section. The section involved is Claus, 1. It does not even say "subject to Clause 6"; it says subject to … this section".
One then turns to Clause 6, to which the noble Earl referred as giving the Secretary of State some discretion and indeed some powers. Clause 6(2) states:
"A person shall not under this Act be recommended for registration".
That is all right. It goes on:
"or registered as such a citizen by the Secretary of State if the Governor or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State has reason to believe that he is not of good character".
As worded, Clauses 1 and 6(2) are inconsistent. But that is not my main point in regard to the wording of Clause 1 although I think that it has been somewhat hastily worded. My main point concerns the Explanatory Memorandum. Not even the person who compiled that memorandum thought that the provision would be mandatory because—I repeat—it says that:
"Clause 1 … enables the Secretary of State to register".
We all know perfectly well that we are not talking practical sense when we imagine that some civil servant advising the Secretary of State says, "If you have the word 'may' it puts upon the Secretary of State the burden of examining each application". If one were to say that, I would argue that the Minister had given the game away by saying, "Well, the last word depends upon the Secretary of State when he looks at character". If that is so, it is his duty to ask about every person the question: "Do we know about his character?" He will say, "I see this in regard to character. The Governor has said that it is all right; the applicant was only guilty of a motoring offence.
672
But I don't know. With regard to that motoring offence he did not report the matter to the police. I do not like dishonest people. I do not like giving them British nationality".
If that is a proper argument, there is a duty imposed on the Secretary of State in any event and it can hold everything up. I ask in regard to the discretion to grant British nationality—whether or not it be in an emergency—for the responsibility to lie with the Secretary of State. That will not delay the matter for one moment but it will settle a very definite constitutional issue.
I said that I was worried about dividing the Committee on this amendment. It is a serious matter, as the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, Lord Renton and others have said. I ask the Minister at this stage to take into account what I said about the wording of Clause 1 (1) and the contradictory wording of Clause 6. I ask him to consider whether we cannot build the bridge which was so helpfully suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If the Minister says that he will give this matter very serious consideration, I shall not divide the Committee on Amendment No. 1.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is always enormously persuasive and he would like me to consider this matter. I have of course considered it in great detail and for the very many reasons that I gave, I do not think that, even if we were to consider it now, we should come to the conclusion that the noble Lord's amendment is right.
If the noble Lord does not want to divide the Committee, I am quite happy to consider the matter without one single obligation at all because I am almost certain—in fact I am as certain as I can be—that I shall not be able to concede the point to the noble Lord. But I do not wish to be unchivalrous and say that I shall not consider anything that the noble Lord said. What I do not want is to be pushed into a cul-de-sac on this point with the implication that because the noble Lord does not divide the Committee I shall be obliged to consider this amendment and probably come to the same view as the noble Lord. I do not think that that is likely to happen.
It is up to the noble Lord to take the opinion of the Committee if he wishes to do so. If he takes that course, I hope that the House will agree that it is better to use the word "shall" rather than "may".
Lord Mishcon: I would never ask for chivalry from the noble Earl because he always gives it without my asking. Therefore I have not added to the benefits that I might otherwise have received by calling for chivalry. I wanted something practical. In view of the way in which the noble Earl saw fit to answer my submission—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the noble Lord says a final word about his decision, perhaps I may point out to my noble friend that he said that he had already given the matter much consideration, that the circumstances had not changed and that therefore it would be waste of time to give the noble Lord an indication that there might be an alteration. Perhaps

673
I may remind him that he had not heard this debate when he came to that earlier conclusion. I hope that we have not reached a point at which the thoughts and sensibilities of individual Members of this Chamber cannot be taken into account.
I imagine that many people would see it as vitally important for the future—I hope for many centuries to come, quite apart from those years that have gone—as regards citizenship that the representative of the people, who in this case is the Secretary of State through Parliament, ought to have the final word. From the debate as I heard it there has been some doubt cast on whether that practice would continue. My noble friend could have gone so far as to give an indication, without the qualifications which I rather gather made such an indication meaningless to the noble Lord, to give the matter consideration. Indeed, I should like to think that the noble Lord would think again if he had it in mind to push the matter to a vote.
We are very well aware of my noble friend's feelings on this matter and we are aware of the strong advice that he has already had. However, his feelings and the advice that he was given had been resolved before he heard the debate today. After the debate perhaps he could have another thought.
Lord Shepherd: This Bill was introduced in another place in the name of the Secretary of State. It is the tradition in this Chamber that when a Minister has been asked to take another look at an issue before him in the light of the debate, he would agree to do so. It would be done in an honourable way so that there would be consideration not only by himself but by the Secretary of State in whose name the Bill was originally introduced in another place.
The noble Earl certainly places me in a very difficult situation. I made clear in my opening remarks that I would find it difficult to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, unless the noble Earl is willing to be more forthcoming and undertake a review, as a matter of pure principle and in the interests of this Chamber and the Committee I shall vote with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the hope that a majority may be obtained which would require the matter to be looked at further. I hope that the Minister will now be more forthcoming.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall speak only briefly. The noble Earl has been as forthcoming as he possibly could be. He indicated, first, that he would certainly consider what was said in the course of the debate; but he said subsequently that, on the basis of the situation as he appreciated it, it would be very nearly impossible for him to concede this amendment. I do not see anything inconsistent with the tradition of this Chamber in what he said.
Lord Mishcon: There is nothing inconsistent, but it is not very helpful.
Earl Ferrers: The Committee places one in difficulty. I said that of course I would consider what was said. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls confirmed that but said that I had not heard the debate. That is perfectly true. I had not heard it. But
674
I have heard it now and I still feel, with the greatest respect, that my decision is the right one. Of course I shall agree to consider all that the Committee has said. I qualified that remark only by trying to explain to the Committee that, even having considered the matter, I doubt whether the Government would be able to accept the amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, pooh-poohs the idea, but the Committee knows perfectly well that if a Minister says, "I shall certainly consider this," it usually means that there is a considerable chance of agreeing. I think that there is a pretty slender chance of agreeing. Of course I shall consider the issue if that is what the Committee wishes. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to make a point of it, it is up to him to divide the Committee. I am happy to consider what has been said but I do not want to feel an obligation to say that it is likely to be acceptable.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that the Minister will agree to consider the matter with an open mind and to give consideration to what has been said in the debate. If he will say that, I shall be perfectly content.
Earl Ferrers: I can do nothing other than to say I shall do that.
Lord Mishcon: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may register as British any persons settled in Hong Kong, who are British Dependant Territories Citizens, British Overseas Citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British Protected Persons or British subjects and who can show that they arc entitled to no other citizenship or nationality status.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that I can move this and the following amendments more briefly than Amendment No. 1.
We are considering the ethnic minority in Hong Kong. I wish the Committee to remember the stand that has been taken in this Chamber on this subject almost from the beginning when Parliament was considering the implications of 1997. Indeed, I am looking at the report of a debate in this Chamber as long ago as January 1986. In the Official Report of 20th January 1986 at col. 100 the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur—then the very able Minister dealing with these matters (which of course is not an inference that anyone other than an able Minister is now dealing with the Bill)—said:
"There is the question of British citizenship for non-ethnic Chinese. I note the views and concerns that have been expressed this evening. Nearly everyone who has spoken has expressed their support for the view that those in Hong Kong who are not ethnic Chinese should be offered British citizenship".
That was in answer to a speech that I ventured to make on that occasion with regard to the non-ethnic minority. I intervened to say,
"Will the noble Lord the Minister forgive me? He used the words 'nearly' all. Would he kindly tell his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that every single speaker in this House made that recommendation?".
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was good enough to say that he should possibly have said "every" speaker and not "nearly" every speaker.
As long ago as 1986 noble Lords had in mind the plight of the non-ethnic in Hong Kong who were suffering under a very grave disability as a result, in the main, of having opted between British citizenship and Indian citizenship. India has been mentioned in the course of the debate on the previous amendment. It was an option because when India attained its independence it declined to admit the idea of dual nationality. Therefore one either chooses to have Indian nationality or to have a kind of British nationality and remain in Hong Kong, feeling that one is British but possibly not becoming British in the formal sense.
A great number of Indians—who have had the reputation for being hard working people and contributing a great deal to the economic success of Hong Kong—opted to remain in Hong Kong and not to take up Indian citizenship. That means this. By holding only one of the passports that I have dealt with in Amendment No. 2 they will be faced with the position in 1997 of not being recognised as Chinese under Chinese custom and Chinese law. They will hold a passport which the Committee may think is really a travel document. All it does is to enable the person concerned to travel and to show that there is a passport in that person's possession. But it carries no right of abode anywhere except Hong Kong.
Many of us have uttered prayers as to what may happen to Hong Kong after 1997. We all hope that our prayers will be answered: that there will not be any repetition of the events of which we read and saw on television in June 1989; that there will be (if I may put it bluntly) a more civilised Chinese Government than perpetrated what happened in and around that square in June 1989; and that there will be a return to what we hoped for, which was a very much more enlightened view of the Chinese Government. But while we utter the prayers, when we are thinking of other people we must also have the fears. All that we ask is that those of the ethnic minority who have been put in that position, who really will be stateless in all practical ways, shall receive the definite undertaking that, should they require it, they will be given British citizenship in 1997 or thereafter.
That was the view expressed unanimously in this Chamber in 1986. Since then there have been assurances by the Government that every sympathy will be shown. With the state of morale in Hong Kong, expressions of sympathy are not enough. There ought to be an undertaking. There ought to be some measure incorporated in the Bill to protect these people. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: We are certainly into the numbers game on this Bill; and we cannot avoid it. I very nearly interrupted the noble Lord while he was moving the amendment to ask him to give us an idea of how many people would be involved. How many would be entitled to registration if his amendment were accepted? Does he envisage that they would come within the quota of up to 50,000 people? Whether or
676
not they are to come within the quota, I believe that his new subsection would have to be linked with subsection (1), because unless that point is dealt with there will be great uncertainty in the interpretation and application of his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may at once answer the question that the noble Lord so courteously put to me. I understand the figure to be about 11,000 Indians and 2,000 Eurasians. That is a total of 13,000. I obviously envisage that they would be in addition to the 50,000 under the scheme.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Perhaps on this occasion I may return to my usual position of being able to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the amendment that he has put forward. The figures that I have of the numbers involved are, oddly enough, the same as those that he has given because we happened to discuss the matter. They are approximate figures. However, they are not very significant. I wholly agree with him that they should be in addition to the quota of 50,000 families. The categories describing whom it would cover are set forth in Amendments Nos. 2 or 9.
Like other noble Lords, I suspect, I am particularly concerned with Indians and what are known in some cases as Eurasians. As the noble Lord has said, neither will have the option of Chinese citizenship; nor will they have a right of abode outside Hong Kong. Hence, given the traditional Chinese attitudes towards foreigners who I am told they tend to regard as barbari, these groups will be particularly vulnerable.
Therefore, there can be little doubt as to where our responsibilities lie. The numbers are not substantial. Both groups fall into a special category, and in my view both groups deserve special treatment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I should like to draw the Committee's attention to a very much smaller category of deserving cases than those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The noble Earl and his Front Bench colleagues may have seen an article in the Spectator—not the most recent edition of the Spectator, over which many noble Lords will have been eagerly poring but the previous one of 7th July 1990—in which William McGurn maintains that there is a very small number of exceptionally deserving people in Hong Kong who are excluded from the nationality Bill. More specifically, he says:
"There are a number of people who deserve full British passports because of their or their husbands' service to the Crown in the second world war, and they fall under three broad categories: widows of British Army Aid Group fighters executed by the Japanese; wives or widows of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps …; and the Hong Kong Chinese servicemen, along with their wives and widows, who were in the regular British Army. All together they add up to no more than 200 old men and women".
I wonder whether some provision could be made for those people.
Lord Geddes: With regard to the numbers and the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, perhaps I may say to the Committee and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I, too, have heard

677
the figure of 13,000 raised, but my understanding is that it is relative to the rather loose figure of 225,000, and not relative to 50,000. When we talk of 13,000 on the one hand and 50,000 on the other, I am not sure that we are comparing like with like. If my understanding is correct, in percentage terms 13,000 is a very small percentage of the total even if, as I said at Second Reading of the Bill, one assumes that none of those 13,000 would fall into the quota of, say, 225,000 anyway. The numbers will almost certainly be very much lower than that.
Having dealt with the numbers problem, I must tell your Lordships' Committee that I also have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment, or at least for the object behind the amendment as I understand it. Indeed, I and many other noble Lords have spoken to this effect on past occasions, most recently at Second Reading. The dilemma in which I find myself concerns a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, on the discussion of Amendment No. 1; namely, the need for speed.
If the amendment were to be passed, if I understand parliamentary procedure correctly it would require the Bill to go back to another place so that it could approve the amendment of this House. By definition, that will slow up the passage of the Bill, and we are running to the end of this Session.
I wonder if my noble friend on the Front Bench could effectively cover the same ground as is looked for in this amendment by giving a statement—hopefully even stronger than that given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur some years ago—that the Government would look after these people in the event of them being stateless after 1997. If that is the object—and it is certainly the object to which I would look—dare I say that we should get almost the best of both worlds: we would not delay the passage of the Bill but we would cover the problem addressed by the amendment being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Carver: As the matter has been raised by my noble friend Lord Monson, although I do not think it is relevant to the amendment, I should like to raise the question of those who served in the British forces in the Second World War and who are residents of Hong Kong. I hope the Government would be prepared to give an assurance that they and any of their immediate dependants would have the right to reside in this country, even though they might not be included under the provisions of this Bill, which is really looking for another category.
Lord Marsh: The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has raised a very important issue. There undoubtedly are a number of cases which could be made in relation to this situation which are deeply moving. In my submission, they are not matters which should be dealt with in the Bill. One would hope the Minister might be able to say that these matters would be looked at separately, because I think it is very important that they should be. This is a very caring Chamber, and it is not always popular to take issue
678
with expressions of sympathy, but it is important that we should have no illusions about the basis and objectives of the Bill.
Whatever the final outcome of these discussions, whatever shape the Act takes at the end, there will be a large number of people in Hong Kong who will be deeply aggrieved, who will feel that they have been denied rights which they think should apply to them, who will be able to make a very strong case against which it would be difficult to argue. But the issue of this Bill is not concerned with compassion; it is not concerned with fairness. One has to face that fact. We are dealing with a formula which is designed solely to achieve a single objective, that is that the Hong Kong citizens who are essential if Hong Kong is to retain the skills and experience which have made it so uniquely successful stay in Hong Kong for the benefit of all the people in Hong Kong.
That is a brutal thing to say because one is saying that the Bill is not based on compassion; it is not based on principle. It does not pretend to be based on those things. It is based on expediency. It is an example of expediency which I should be prepared to defend to the end because it is crucial to all the citizens in Hong Kong that that group of people, however they be defined—some will be in commerce, some in the public services, some in the police force—stay behind because if they do not Hong Kong could easily become a shambles for everyone who is left behind in it.
I conclude by saying that I believe that the cases that have been raised are so moving that they do not have to be supported by a great deal of argument. They are the kind of circumstances with which most people would immediately identify and support. But once we move down that road in the Bill the central objective will have been abandoned, and if we do that it would not be any small group of Hong Kong citizens who would be at risk, but all the people in Hong Kong post-1997.
The Earl of Onslow: I have not spoken to the Bill before, but the Government must be congratulated on steering a course between Scylla and Charybdis. I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
The first point that I wish to make concerns the Indians. If the thing goes totally wrong, surely Ministers in the Foreign Office and the Home Office can lean heavily on the Indian Government to take some of those people whose name is Patel, Singh or whatever and whose natural home is the Indian sub-continent. That should be done.
My second point is that we should not kid ourselves. If the whole thing goes totally and hideously wrong and there are 3 million people floating round the South China Sea, waving damp British passports endorsed with "Hong Kong residents only" and with the royal coat of arms, they will end up as our responsibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, the aim of the Bill is to try to avoid that possibility. The Bill is an example of rare quality. Thank goodness for the attitude taken by the

679
Government. They must be congratulated on their courage. Those two points are my only contribution to the Bill.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: I find myself in some difficulty. I agree with almost everyone who has spoken. But it does not add up. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The undertaking given in 1986, which he quoted, was a helpful move at that time. It was well received, but times have changed. If they had not changed, we would not be considering the Bill.
In the new circumstances, the minorities—a horrible phrase; we mean people of mixed descent, Indians and various other categories—feel exposed in spite of the Joint Declaration and in spite of the provisions of the Basic Law. They fear that old prejudices might resurface and that life might be intolerable for them. They do not want to wait until those pressures emerge, as they would have to do under the 1986 assurance. They want something now.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I could not support an amendment which subtracted from the numbers for which the Bill provides. Nor, on the other hand, could I support an amendment similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will move to increase the numbers. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, I would not wish to have the Bill sent hick to another place where it would invite debate that might damage and delay it. That would have to be done on the basis of numbers and situations which were unquantified and undefined. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quoted a figure of 13,000. I understand that he also quoted a figure of 2,000 Eurasians. I believe that the figure is much less. I have a letter from the president of the Welfare Association for the Eurasians giving a figure of 1,000. I am not sure what the Indian numbers are. I do not think that they have ever been investigated.
We must look more carefully at entitlement to other nationalities. I do not know what the situation of, for instance, Eurasian people would be under the Chinese nationality law if application were made. We just do not know. I am quite sure that it is not what they want in most cases, but it is a factor. There is the question of the Indian Government. What would their situation be if Indians in Hong Kong reapplied for Indian nationality?
In all that, there is a strong case for the Government initiating careful study so that, by the time the first report on the operation of the Bill is made or the second tranche of registrations comes to be recommended, the Government will be ready with proposals which would be quantified and carefully researched and could form the basis for providing British nationality for those people who need it and who are so very much in our minds.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and other noble Lords have said that, because the Bill is urgently needed, we should not amend it. It makes one wonder why it is referred to a revising Chamber such a.5 your Lordships' Committee if that is to be the
680
situation. The Bill should be capable of amendment, but I go along with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, by saying that, if we are to invite another place to go into the numbers game, that might cause delay. It might cause half a day's delay.
The difficulty that I find about the amendment is that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not envisage that the people whom he has mentioned would be within the quota of 50,000. When legislating for a potential increase of 50,000 in the population of the United Kingdom, surely we owe it to the people already here—whatever their ethnic origin or, like most noble Lords, native British—not to have a larger increase than can be avoided. It would be a difficult and embarrassing exercise if there were an amendment which added to the 50,000. I regret that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Monkswell: Some of the expressions used by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, are a little unfortunate. I believe that he used the word expedient which we probably all associate with the Bill. I am not sure whether the term pragmatic is right. The suggestion was that those concepts were more important than principle and fairness and that we should therefore discount the concepts of principle and fairness. Although we are asked to consider an objectionable Bill, which is both unprincipled and unfair, we are still honour bound to ensure that it is as fair and principled as we can make it within the context. I hope that we shall not be put off making amendments which will ensure that the scheme is as principled and fair as we can make it, rather than just taking it as it is and saying that, however unprincipled or unfair it is, it is okay.
Lord Marsh: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This is a crucial point. I support the Bill in its broad proposals, but it is not based on fairness or principle. It is based on a set of fairly arbitrary qualifications which will entitle people to passports, paradoxically to stop them leaving the place. That is not an issue of principle. Some people there will be frightened at the prospect of not being able to leave. I understand that, but I believe that if one seeks to impute ideas such as fairness to the Bill one destroys its very objective. That is not to say that one does not have great sympathy with some of the groups who will be at risk and who are unhappy. But the Bill is based on expediency to keep in Hong Kong people who will make it work. There is no principle of fairness in that.
Lord Monkswell: I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I agree with him in the sense that the Bill is unprincipled and unfair. I disagree with his view and the Government's view that it will work. I cannot conceive of a situation in which you encourage people to stay in one place by giving them the ability to move to another place to which they want to move anyway. That is not logical.
However, if one puts that to one side, the Government have gone down an illogical path. In that case, it surely behoves us to say that we must look at the details of the mechanism which will be used to go down that illogical path and try to make sure that they are as fair and principled as possible.

681
Apart from the inherent importance of that for our own consciences, there is also a practical element. If the people of Hong Kong gain the impression that the British Government's attitude to Hong Kong is a totally expedient one of damage limitation and that they are saying, "We want to get out with the least trouble and we will be totally unprincipled about it and do what is necessary to achieve that", then I suspect that the reaction of the people of Hong Kong to the British Government will be rather cynical. If we treat them cynically, they will react cynically. I do not believe that that is a very satisfactory relationship between governed and governors. That is why I raise this point.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said when moving this amendment, this issue has been aired on many occasions both in this Chamber and elsewhere over the past few years. The position of the non-ethnic Chinese minorities in Hong Kong was carefully considered before we announced our proposals in December. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met representatives of the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations last November to hear their case, and Indian community leaders have made representations to the Government on several occasions since then.
A number of figures have been bandied about the Committee this afternoon and perhaps I should clarify the matter. The Hong Kong Government's best estimate of the number of non-ethnic Chinese British dependent territory citizens who have no other citizenship or nationality is 11,500. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, that figure should be compared with a figure of 225,000 rather than 50,000.
It will of course be open to members of the minority communities to apply under the selection scheme if they meet the eligibility criteria. But the Government remain of the view that no special provision for them is warranted. Their position is safeguarded by the terms of the Joint Declaration, which provide specifically for non-Chinese residents of Hong Kong to retain the right of abode in the territory after 1997. Like all Hong Kong residents they will benefit also from other provisions of the Joint Declaration, including the guarantee of continued freedom of movement and the continued protection of the existing laws in Hong Kong. In the Government's view there is no reason to believe that these people will be particularly at risk.
The Government recognise, however, that it is natural for the non-Chinese community in Hong Kong to be anxious about their position after 1997, in particular because they may not qualify for Chinese citizenship. For that reason the Government have already made provision for them. Those who have British dependent territory citizenship on 30th June 1997, and their descendants, will benefit from the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986. Under that order, British overseas citizenship will be available to those who would otherwise be stateless.
682
Furthermore, their children and grandchildren born after 1997 will also qualify for British overseas citizenship if they could otherwise be stateless.
The non-Chinese ethnic minorities—and here I am referring more to the Eurasian community which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned—cannot expect to be regarded automatically as Chinese citizens after 1997. However, Chinese nationality law allows foreign nationals to acquire Chinese nationality on approval of an application. Therefore, we have looked carefully at the position of the Eurasian community in Hong Kong and have considered sympathetically the representations made on their behalf. We recognise the valuable contribution which those citizens have made over the years.
As with the Indian community, members of the Eurasian community will be able to apply for British citizenship under the Bill where eligible. The position of those who do not qualify for British citizenship under the Bill will naturally depend upon their individual circumstances. It may well be that many Eurasians will qualify for Chinese nationality after 1997. That will clearly be a matter for China and its nationality laws. However, we recognise that the Eurasians may be uncertain about their position after 1997 and that that uncertainty causes them anxiety. We shall discuss that with the Chinese authorities to see whether they can clarify the position and whether there is anything that we or they can do to reassure the Eurasian community that their future is secure.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, all referred to the widows of former British servicemen and an article which appeared a couple of weeks ago in the Spectator. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary dealt with that matter on Second Reading in another place and my honourable friend Mr. Peter Lloyd wrote to the Spectator on 11th July. I have a copy of his letter. The Spectator did not print it last Friday. Perhaps it had other things on its mind.
However, I shall quote a couple of paragraphs from the letter:
"During the Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, the Home Secretary gave a clear assurance that the widows of former servicemen who served in the defence of Hong Kong during the Second World War would be allowed to come here at any time, either before or after 1997, irrespective of the husband's nationality.
This follows an assurance which the then Home Secretary gave in 1986 that any ex-servicemen who had fought in defence of Hong Kong and was still resident there would be allowed to settle in this country at any time together with their dependants. In addition, to those of them who were British Dependent Territories Citizens he undertook to exercise his discretion and register them as British Citizens if they so applied".
I hope that that clarifies the situation.
The non-Chinese community also have a specific parliamentary assurance given on a number of occasions that if, contrary to our expectations, any solely British national came under severe pressure to leave Hong Kong in the future and had nowhere else to go we should expect the government of the day to consider their case for admission here with particular

683
sympathy. In debate on the previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was encouraging about assurances given by Secretaries of State in the context of the numbers involved. I hope that he and my noble friend Lord Geddes and the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, will be similarly assured by my repetition today of that assurance. I am very pleased to do that. I am glad to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, confirmed on Second Reading that Her Majesty's Opposition would also offer that assurance.
With those assurances and for the reasons I have given I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—because we are speaking also to Amendment No. 9—will be satisfied that the position of those people is adequately safeguarded.
Lord Mishcon: We should reflect for a moment on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. He spoke in his usual forceful way with great knowledge of Hong Kong. I should not like it to be thought that this Chamber is content with the view that we are merely considering a measure out of expediency and expediency alone, conscious of the fact that we are not acting in any way on principle or fairness. Quoted in Hong Kong as a headline, that might make mincemeat of the Spectator article to which, by inference, some Members of this Committee have referred. That is a sentence that, left on its own without qualification, is something which even the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, would not want.
I hope the Committee will agree, as a matter of principle, that we are trying to ensure that the morale of the people of Hong Kong is kept to as high a level as possible. That is not just expediency; we on these Benches say it is not simply looking after those who happen to contribute materially to Hong Kong, worthy though those people may be. The morale of Hong Kong affects little people as well as big people, whether or not people belong to the ethnic minority.
Perhaps I may say that I never know whether to say "ethnic minority" or "non-ethnic minority". I was using the term "ethnic minority" and the Minister answered with the phrase "non-ethnic minority". However, the Committee and I know exactly who we are talking about, so perhaps it does not matter very much.
It was in the spirit of keeping morale high in Hong Kong among all who deserve it that I moved the amendment relating to the ethnic minority. Whatever one thinks of the British overseas passport, and worthy though it may be as a possession, it gives one no statehood. Statehood means, "I am entitled to be there". The one thing that the British overseas passport does not allow is for somebody to come here and stay. It does not give the right of abode.
The Minister has repeated an undertaking. I hope that that undertaking means something, whichever government have to carry out these matters in 1997 and thereafter. It may be wrong for me to expect the provision to be incorporated in the Bill, as I wanted by
684
the amendment. I hope that the assurance means what it says. I hope that it will give comfort in Hong Kong and that the headline I anticipated will not occur.
5 P.m.
Lord Marsh: Before the noble Lord sits down, and so that there will be no misunderstanding, perhaps I may say that I disagree with no part of his interpretation of how he sees the Bill. Of course it is designed to maintain morale in Hong Kong. However, it would be equally dangerous and cynical to give the impression that this Bill, which will provide much coveted passports to people who, on the whole, will be young highly successful men in good jobs, is based on anything other than trying to maintain morale in Hong Kong. If the noble Lord regards that as a principle, I can agree with him, and would not argue with him about the semantics.
Lord Mishcon: Without dividing the Committee in regard to its opinion I tried to make clear the position of the Opposition in this matter. We believe that fairness and principle should take a part. I do not want that statement, that we were content with something which had neither fairness nor principles as its objective, to be seen as the view of the whole of the Committee.
When the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, perfectly properly intervened I was intimating the hope that that assurance is one that will bring comfort to the ethnic minority people in Hong Kong. It is the word of a British Government which still stands in the world as being a word that means something. On that basis I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("minor") and insert ("dependent").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to change the description of the children of British citizens who are to acquire citizenship under the scheme from "minor" to "dependent".
We feel that applying an age limit to the children of a person registered under the scheme is inappropriate and unnecessary in the context of Hong Kong. More often than not the children's welfare is one of the main concerns of parents who decide to emigrate. They decide that the future of their children is too insecure and it is for their sake that they decide to take the very large step of leaving Hong Kong.
It is also true that the parents' concern does not diminish after the children have gone to college or begun work. There is a different family spirit in Chinese families whereby it is also the wish of children to stay with their parents so that in many cases they may be able to look after them. That may differ from our culture where in many cases children cannot wait to leave the family nest. In Hong Kong children often stay much longer at home and are expected so to do.
The Catholic Institute of International Relations suggested that to qualify for inclusion under the scheme children should be required to be unmarried. They made the very good and strong point that that

685
practice is adopted by the governments of Canada and the United States, which receive many applications from families from Hong Kong.
There is no doubt that the change we propose would be more acceptable and appropriate, and indeed welcome to the people of Hong Kong. In this way it would contribute to the Government's aim of giving greater confidence to the key people of Hong Kong in order to persuade them to remain.
The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the resolve, not to go against the objective of the Bill; it is to make it more acceptable to the very people that the Government wish to retain in Hong Kong. I hope that this very simple but practical, and we believe appropriate, amendment will find favour with the Minister.
Lord Derwent: I Want to support the amendment, particularly because points are being given to people in the late 30 early 40 age groups, many of whom have children undergoing college education in Hong Kong and may not technically be minors. If the parents leave we will lose not only the parents, but also some of the more promising young people, and they are the people likely to step into their parents' shoes in the business community.
I believe we will still be within the overall limit of 250,000 mentioned in the House of Commons because families in Hong Kong are smaller than they are here. I should therefore like to support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: It is principle that the registration of a child as a British citizen should be conditional on an application being made before he or she reaches the age of majority—the age of 18. There are a number of precedents for this in existing nationality law. For example, under Section 3(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981, where a British citizen by descent has a child abroad and the family subsequently move to the UK, that child becomes eligible for registration after the family have been here for three years; but the application must be made while the child is still a minor.
There is no precedent in the 1981 Act for making eligibility for British citizenship conditional on a child's being dependent; and it would, in our view, be inappropriate to create one in the context of the Bill. Furthermore, dependency would be a much more complex test to apply than age. The need for a simple test of eligibility is especially important in this context, where speed of implementation will be critical to the scheme's effectiveness. A dependency test could also encourage—though this may be seen to be scheming—some people to distort their lives; by not marrying, not taking a job, or remaining in education in order to try and further their claim for dependence. I do not think that that would be right.
There are a number of points in the Bill where a balance has to be found between the need to make assurances to beneficiaries and their families as effective as possible and the need to keep the extent of the potential commitment within reasonable limits.
686
We believe that the age of 18 is a sensible point at which to end the entitlement of children to registration under the Bill.
I remind the Committee that should parents settle in the United Kingdom it is possible for their genuinely dependent children who, although over age, nevertheless for reasons such as ill health have to rely on their parents for support, to be considered for settlement outside the rules on compassionate grounds. That possibility already exists and I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore think it right for it to remain.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I can understand that the Minister believes the word "dependent" to be more difficult to evaluate than a simple age limit. However, I found difficulty in accepting another of his reasons; that it would encourage young people to stay at home, not get married, and so on. That is highly unlikely.
The noble Earl has not accepted the point that the age of 18 may be right within our family lives here but it is inappropriate for families who stay together much longer, as they obviously do in Hong Kong. I maintain and keep to my point that the age limit might well mean that some families will go to Canada or the United States where the requirement is that children should be unmarried. As the major point of this Bill is to retain people in Hong Kong, I feel that retaining the word "minor" rather than changing it to "dependent" might well lose some of the people whom we particularly wish to keep in Hong Kong. Therefore, it is a pity that the Minister has not looked at this more favourably and at least said that he will endeavour to find a way of evaluating the word "dependent", as I feel that it would be a useful adjustment to the Bill. However, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment raises an issue of principle to which I devoted my speech on Second Reading. Clause 1(5) is in two parts. The first part provides that:
"Neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decision made by him in the exercise of a discretion vested in him by or under this Act".
That is a superfluous provision because it merely re-emphasises what is already English administrative law—that there is no general obligation on administrative authorities to give reasons for their decisions. If the provision were not in the Bill there would be no obligation on the Secretary of State or the Governor to give reasons.
Therefore, I emphasise that this amendment to take out Clause 1(5) would not require reasons to be given. If Clause 1(5) goes the Secretary of State and the Governor would remain absolutely free not to give reasons, desirable though in practice it may be for them to do so. The Governor may choose to give reasons to uphold public confidence in the administration of the system, but if Clause 1(5) goes there will be

687
no obligation whatever on the Governor to give reasons because, under the general law, he is under no obligation to give reasons. There is, therefore, no doubt at all but that the first part of this provision is superfluous and there is no need to retain it.
The second part of the subsection, the "ouster" clause, is equally superfluous if—and I emphasise "if"—the Minister's advice to this Chamber on Second Reading was correct. The "ouster" clause is that,
"no such decision"—
that is, no decision made by the Secretary of State or the Governor in the exercise of discretion given to them under this Bill—
"shall be subject to appeal or … be questioned in any court".
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, claimed that that prevents review only of the discretionary decision itself, but not the method by which the decision is arrived at. If that were right the provision would be wholly superfluous. That is because it is a first principle of English administrative law that the courts will never substitute their discretion for the discretion of the administrative body, and they never ever do. They review essentially only if the administrative body has gone wrong in law in the manner in which the decision was reached. Examples are: by breaching natural justice; by taking into account irrelevant considerations; and by failing to apply the procedures to which the applicant was entitled.
I do not understand why this "ouster" clause is in the Bill if its sole purpose is to prevent the courts doing what they never would do in any event. My concern, therefore, is that there is a real risk that the courts in Hong Kong will decide that the "ouster" clause cannot simply have been intended to prevent them doing what every law student knows they cannot in any event do—that is, substitute their discretion for that or the Governor—and so must have been intended to preclude any review of the discretionary decision when the attack is confined to questioning the lawfulness of the manner in which the discretionary decision was reached.
The courts could well reason, "Parliament cannot have legislated in vain. It cannot be telling us not to do what we never would do in any event. Therefore, the clause is intended to oust judicial review". The point is that a court is questioning the discretionary decision itself when questioning the manner by which the decision is reached. Invariably in court, when it is only the ma finer of arriving at the decision which is being challenged, the court is being asked on these very grounds to quash the decision itself and order the decision-making body to reconsider in accordance with law.
My concern, therefore, is that this "ouster" clause may will be interpreted as excluding judicial review altogether. The argument is simple. We gain nothing from keeping Clause 1(5) and we run the risk that it will interpreted as ousting judicial review altogether. The Minister said that that is what he does not want to achieve. Why, therefore, run the risk when, on the Government's view of the effect of this
688
clause, there can be no doubt at all that it is superfluous and could be taken out without loss to anyone?
I repeat the examples I gave on Second Reading. Under Clause 3 the Governor may make regulations governing,
"the manner in which applications are to be made to him".
The regulations will almost certainly make different provisions for different cases. There should be no doubt that anyone denied his rights under the regulations should be entitled to go to the courts to have them upheld.
Another example is that the selection scheme to be set out by Order in Council, referred to in Schedule I, may specify different criteria or selection methods for different classes of person. Suppose the Governor, in error, departs from these in a specific case and applies the wrong criteria or the wrong selection methods. In both cases I daresay the noble Earl will say, as he said previously, that his advice is that Clause 1(5) does not oust judicial review. My concern is that his advice is wrong. Moreover, as the noble Earl well knows, his categoric assurances to this Chamber to the contrary cannot even be referred to in the courts when the true interpretation of Clause 1(5) is being decided exclusively.
We should do one of two things. We should take this subsection out altogether, because on the Government's view of its meaning it is plainly and obviously superfluous. If it came out there would be judicial review in the ordinary way, which the Government say that they want to retain. The courts would never question the discretionary aspect of the decision of the Secretary of State or of the Governor. If the subsection stays in, there is a real risk that it will be construed as excluding judicial review altogether and the Government's assurances to the contrary given in this House will come to be seen as a snare and a delusion.
What I now have to say also concerns Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. The arguments are so integrated that I ask leave of the Committee to say something about these two amendments. Alternatively, we should insert a new clause called for by these amendments along the lines of Amendment No. 8:
"Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings for judicial review in respect of the operation of any provisions of this Act".
At Second Reading the noble Earl the Minister said that by seeking to clarify the position in that way we might raise doubts about the powers of the courts in relation to other legislation which does not contain such provision. That is not so. There is no doubt about the availability of judicial review generally, provided that we abstain from these ouster clauses. The only doubts that are created are raised by Clause 1(5) itself. The additional clause proposed by Amendment No. 8 is required only to remove the doubt created by Clause 1(5) in the first place.
It is necessary to take out Clause 1(5) and then the problem would go away. There would be no need for the new clause contained in Amendment No. 8. I hope

689
that the Minister will respond positively to this argument. It is professionally and not politically based. It is designed only to ensure that the Government's stated intention does not miss its mark by a subsection which, if he wishes to reflect with care on this provision, the noble Earl may come to think is misconceived. It risks taking away the one provision that will underpin confidence in Hong Kong in the administration of a system which will inevitably attract charges of favouritism; that one provision being judicial review.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I suggest that we discuss Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I do not know whether that is convenient to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. This point has been made by his noble friend. The argument appears to be exactly the same. One of these amendments is ours.
Lord Mishcon: I am quite happy with that.
Lord Renton: It will be very sensible to discuss Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 with Amendment No. 5.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That was the suggestion I was endeavouring to make. It will avoid the tedium of Members of the Committee having the opportunity of listening to us twice on the same issue. I too spoke on this matter at Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I very much agree with what he said. To be blunt, I was rather puzzled by the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It is as clear as can be that the effect of passing this clause, as it is now drafted, would be to exclude judicial review entirely. Therefore, I find it difficult to comprehend why the noble Earl took a different view.
I remind the Committee of the issues that we are debating and the powers that we are conferring on the Governor. Clause 3(1) says:
"The Governor of Hong Kong may by regulations make provision—
(a) with respect to the manner in which applications are to be made to him under any scheme …".
Subsection (2) of that clause states the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It says that the Governor of Hong Kong may make regulations that,
"make different provision for different cases".
Finally, there is Clause 6, which was referred to by a number of Members of the Committee including the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when we were discussing the first amendment to the Bill. That gives the Governor and, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State, power to exclude a person on the ground that he is not of good character. That power is substantial. We have to recognise that, given the strength of feeling that there is in Hong Kong and the concern of many people about their future after 1997, all kinds of charges may be levelled at the Governor about the circumstances in which decisions have been arrived at.
So far as this amendment is concerned in clarifying the position, no one is suggesting for a moment that we are talking about some kind of appeals system against the Governor. As both the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and I pointed out during Second
690
Reading, the grounds for judicial review are extremely narrow. You have to demonstrate that there has been, for instance, some breach of natural justice or that a decision is perverse or irrational and so on.
Let us take one illustration of the kind of problem that may arise and where, if this clause is passed unamended, the person concerned would have no redress whatever. I refer to Clause 6(2) which is the not-of-good-character clause. I can understand the grounds for this and I support them. Let us assume that a man believes that he is being excluded on those grounds because of a belief that he has a criminal record, but it is a false criminal record. The noble Earl will be aware that such a situation is not inconceivable. There are many errors made concerning criminal records held in this country. There may be a situation where a person was excluded because the Governor believed, according to the information available to him, that the person had a criminal record.
In a circumstance of that kind are we really saying that the man should not have the right to judicial review against such a belief, particularly if it is founded in fact? There are many such examples. For example, a member of his family who is a minor may have a serious criminal conviction. At the moment the person referred to in Clause 6 is clearly the head of the household. He may feel that he had been excluded on the ground of the criminal conviction of a minor in his family.
I have given two examples, and there can be many others. They could cause very serious public disquiet if it were established that mistaken decisions honestly made were being decided on by the Governor of Hong Kong and that there was no official redress whatever. It is quite wrong that we should entertain such a proposition. As I indicated at Second Reading—and I do not intend to make an unduly controversial point before I sit down—such a provision would be impossible were this country to have a written constitution. It is the view of many of us that one of the many arguments in favour of a written constitution is that the Executive would be unable to exclude the judiciary in the way that this Bill does at the moment. However, I do not propose to develop that argument. I very much hope that we shall receive a much more encouraging reply from the noble Earl than we did when he wound up the Second Reading debate.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was perfectly right in saying—my noble friends on the Front Bench will not dispute it—that the grant of nationality and of a passport are not only matters that have always been at the discretion of the Secretary of State but, because the decisions are founded on the exercise of prerogative, no reasons for them have ever been given. The noble Lord. Lord Irvine, was perfectly right in saying that for that reason the courts have never entertained appeals against such decisions.
The noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Harris of Greenwich, wondered why we have the first part of subsection (5). I shall deal with the second part in a moment. I shall be glad to hear from my noble friends

691
on the Front Bench why we have it but I imagine that there are various reasons why subsection (5) has been inserted. Perhaps it is because it is an unusual Bill anyway. Perhaps it is because for the first time the question of registration for purposes of British nationality has been delegated to someone other than the Secretary of State—namely, the Governor. Perhaps one can say that the subsection has been inserted for the removal of doubt. I hope that I am not being unfair to those who drafted the Bill or to my noble friends on the Front Bench when I say that the use of the word "shall" in subsection (1), an issue which we debated at length on Amendment No. 1, gives rise to a doubt. If subsection (5) helps to dispel that doubt I welcome it.
I come to the second part of subsection (5). It is suggested that the words,
"and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court",
would exclude judicial review even as to the method used to reach decisions and even as to questions of whether the statutory procedures had been followed. One must respect any doubt about the meaning of a provision in a statute, especially when it is produced by such an efficient lawyer as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. But express words in a statute are needed to overrule the common law or the established law in any way. I would interpret this, as I think the courts probably would, as meaning that if judicial review was to be excluded for the purpose of considering the methods by which decisions were reached, the statute should and would have said so; and as the statute does not expressly say it, judicial review is not excluded as to method. But, as is conceded, it is rightly excluded from the point of view of the decisions themselves. We discussed absurdities earlier in our discussion this afternoon but it would be absurd if the courts were allowed to entertain an appeal against any decision by the Governor refusing the recommendation of registration or any decision by the Home Secretary.
I must confess that I am not so unhappy about subsection (5). If it helps to remove any doubts that there might be, and even though it would have been thought and might reasonably have been thought to have been unnecessary in any other nationality Bill—I had responsibility in years gone by for piloting several of them through Parliament—I would still say that in the unusual circumstances of this Bill it might be just as well to have subsection (5) there. I am not as worried as the noble Lord about the point concerning judicial review.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would agree that it is a logical sequence of what he is saying that if one does not wish to exclude judicial review that should be said in the Bill. That would make it doubly clear.
Lord Renton: I cannot deny that that is so, but that leads me to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. They are most categoric in their terms and I must invite attention to them. Amendment No. 7 states:
692
"Nothing in this Section affects the jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of this Act".
That would go too far in the other direction, as would the next amendment which is not very different from it. That would mean that one could have judicial review even as to the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion on matters of nationality or the granting of a passport. Therefore I would he very surprised if my noble friends on the Front Bench gave any encouragement to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I would find them very difficult.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord seemed initially to indicate that, if there were any doubt in relation to the ouster of judicial review, the matter might be tackled; but he then went on to assert that the machinery listed in Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 might be inappropriate. Does he agree that if there is any doubt about it—apparently the Government assert that there is no intention of that kind—it would be as well if the Minister were to agree to the principle being inserted by way of amendment at a later stage?
Lord Renton: I shall not take my noble friend's name in vain. I should have thought that with subsection (5) there, and knowing that express words would be needed to exclude judicial review from consideration of the methods used, there would be no uncertainty to be removed.
Lord Monkswell: I enter the debate from the point of view of the layman. We have heard distinguished legal argument on the subject, and from what has been said I would come down on the side of not having subsection (5) in the Bill. We are asked to believe that the purpose of the Bill is to provide confidence to people in Hong Kong, most of whom, I suspect, are laymen. They are not highly skilled and professional figures in the judicial environment. The clause says to me as a layman that, however the Governor or the Secretary of State acts, however illegally, harshly or irrationally, the courts cannot review the position. I spoke earlier about the principle of fairness. The whole panoply of our judicial system is there to ensure fairness. If through this Bill we say to the people of Hong Kong that they will have no access to the courts, their reaction will be that the provisions are unfair.
For that reason I feel that the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is the right one for us to take on board and is preferable to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 which insert another clause. In effect, one clause would say that the judicial system cannot become involved; and then a little later another provision would say that it can, but in a particular manner. I suspect that a layman reading such wording would say, "They are not giving us the full opportunities available under the legal system; they are trying to keep some of it from us". For that reason I hope that the Government will take on board the sense of removing subsection (5) which does not appear, despite all that has been said, to confer any particular benefit.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was an important one about which I can understand noble Lords being most concerned. The matter was discussed extensively in another place. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State went to some lengths to explain the background of Clause 1 (5) and the scope of the exemption which it provides from judicial review, although it will ultimately be for the courts, rather than the Home Secretary, to decide what is reviewable having regard to the provisions of the legislation. Clause 1(5) makes absolutely clear the intention that the exemption from having to give reasons, and from judicial review, will apply only to discretionary decisions.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stated that I had said that Clause 1(5) does not oust judicial review. That is correct; it does not oust it. The areas in which the Governor and Home Secretary are to be given discretion are those which involve the exercise of judgment, often about matters which may be finely balanced or on which there may be no clear right or wrong answer.
I should point out to the noble Lord that if Clause 1(5) were omitted, the courts could review every aspect of the decision, including the discretionary parts. In particular, they could review discretionary decisions on the grounds that they are unreasonable. That would encourage disappointed applicants to challenge discretionary decisions and thereby delay the implementation of the entire scheme. Perhaps I may give two examples of situations where the discretion could be considered.
The Governor will have discretion to award 150 "special circumstances" points. One of the purposes of this is to enable him to give extra points to applicants from specific occupations which are suffering especially severe depletion due to emigration. A large number of detailed decisions will need to be taken about the points-weighting to be given to particular occupations or for particular qualities. I should make it clear that the Governor intends to publish all of those decisions.
I could well imagine that, if the exemption from judicial review were dropped from the Bill, applicants from an occupation or profession which had not been awarded extra points under this category, or had been awarded fewer extra points than another occupation, would seek to take the Governor to court. The potential scope for litigation is enormous, and until such cases had been resolved the Governor might well conclude that he had no alternative but to await their outcome before proceeding. One of the factors in such a situation would be that this would cause enormous delay.
I turn now to my second example. Although in the great majority of cases places will be allocated on the basis of points, it may happen occasionally that two or more applicants score the same points but that there are not enough places for them. For such an eventuality to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,
694
referred on Second Reading, Schedule 1 includes a provision empowering the Governor at his discretion to choose between "equally qualified" applicants. Since the applicants will be, by definition, equally qualified in terms of the criteria of the scheme, the Governor's selection must inevitably involve making a subjective judgment. It is very difficult to see what justifiable issues there could be in such a judgment.
If I may say so, this illustrates that where Parliament has placed a discretionary decision upon the shoulders of the Governor of Hong Kong or the Secretary of State, I do not believe that anything can usefully be achieved by inviting the courts to look at it again. The implications of permitting judicial review in these circumstances might well be that the entire scheme ground to a halt while applications were dealt with by the courts. That kind of delay to the swift implementation of the scheme could be fatal to its effectiveness. The whole premise of this Bill is the need to issue most of the 50,000 assurances as speedily as possible.
It is reasonable to ask for judicial review where a right, to which a person may be entitled, has been refused. However, the Bill gives no rights of citizenship. It permits the award of citizenship to be given in certain circumstances. It is not reasonable for the courts to pass judgment on the results of the selection, but it is reasonable for them to pass judgment on whether the methods by which the selection was made were carried out in accordance with the law.
It is also important to bear in mind that the exemption afforded by Clause 1(5) will apply only to the extent that the Governor and the Home Secretary act within the proper limits of the discretion which the Bill has given them. It follows that any failure by them to apply the law correctly, or to abide by the prescribed procedures and criteria, would fall outside the scope of the exemption and would, therefore, be reviewable even where the decision on the merits is a purely discretionary one. It would of course be for the courts themselves to decide in each case whether a particular action or decision that was being challenged fell within the scope of the exemption.
There is nothing new in the exemption which Clause 1(5) would provide in respect of discretionary decisions. The exemption is deliberately modelled on, and is similar in intention and effect to, one which has formed part of our nationality law for the past 40 years, under Section 26 of the British Nationality Act 1948 and more recently under Section 44(2) of the 1981 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was concerned to know whether, if a person was refused the right of abode because he was not of good character, his case would be subject to judicial review. That is not the kind of case (a case where a person has had a criminal record) where a person might have his application refused. However, if that were to happen two courses of action would result. First, the Governor or the Secretary of State would carefully check the facts to see whether or not the person was of good character. Secondly, they might well invite representations on

695
borderline cases from the applicants. In nationality law it has always been a principle that assessments of good character in nationality cases should not be challenged by way of judicial review.
As regards the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if a decision on character was based on false information then in such a situation what would be reviewed would not be the discretionary decision based on agreed facts; it would be the misapplication of the facts in the applicant's case. That is the aspect which would be reviewable.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, would therefore depart from a principle which has been a very long-standing feature of our nationality law under successive governments. The need for the exemption is, if anything, more pressing in this Bill for the reasons which I have given and bemuse of the competitive nature of the scheme. With a ceiling of 50,000 places we can expect a high proportion of unsuccessful applications. Where a person felt that a discretionary decision had deprived him of selection, that decision could often only be reviewed if the courts also looked at the relative claims of all the others against whom the applicant had been competing. I do not believe that that would be either practicable or desirable.
It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that, contrary to the Government's assurance, Clause. 1(5) would prevent review of a failure to accord statutory rights en route to a discretionary decision. I have looked carefully at that point, and I am satisfied—I hope that the noble Lord will be—that the Government's assurance on that point holds good. The case of Syed in 1984 involved judicial review of a discretionary decision about whether to naturalise an applicant under the British Nationality Act, and, notwithstanding the comparable provision of Section 44(2) excluding judicial review of discretionary decisions, the court had no difficulty in deciding that the procedure leading up to the decision in that case was flawed. The Government are content to accept that as a general statement of law, and I am satisfied that a court would take a similar approach under the Bill.
Perhaps I may turn to the non-discretionary areas of the Bill. We spoke to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, which proposes inserting a provision to state explicitly that those areas would fall outside the scope of the exemption and therefore within the purview of the courts. The Government's view is that the amendment is unnecessary and undesirable. It is unnecessary because the ability of the courts to review the actions of public officers does not derive from statutory authority. It is undesirable because inclusion of such a provision could raise doubts about the powers of the courts in relation to other statutes.
Section 44(3) of the 1981 Act, which it is now proposed should be inserted into the Bill, has led to that problem. Of doubtful necessity even at the time, Section 44(3) has given rise to the needless anxieties which have been expressed during the Bill's passage. It has led some to assume that the courts cannot review
696
actions taken under a statute unless the statute specifically allows them to do so. This is not that case; but it is an assumption that we should be perpetuating if we were prepared to accept the amendment.
The state of that area of the law was perhaps less fully developed when Section 44(3) was drafted than it is today. The courts are now vigorous in asserting their right to review decisions taken by public bodies under powers conferred by Act of Parliament. The amendment is also inappropriate for another reason: it refers to the rights of persons under the Act. In that respect there is an important distinction between the Bill and the 1981 Act. Whereas in certain circumstances the Act confers British citizenship, or a right to registration as such, the Bill does not confer rights of citizenship. There is no one in Hong Kong who can state that he or she has a right to be registered under the Bill in the same way that people can say that they have a right to be registered under the British Nationality Act 1981. There will be a selection process, and all cases will be subject to recommendation by the Governor and to the character requirements. A provision following Section 44(3) is inappropriate for a Bill which establishes a competitive selection scheme of the kind that the Government propose.
The Bill will impose duties upon the Governor and the Secretary of State, for example, properly to apply the Order in Council. If, for example, an applicant believes that the correct procedures have not been followed, or that he has been wrongly treated as ineligible for consideration under the Bill, nothing in the Bill rules out judicial review. I hope that that makes the position clear. I have been rather long in replying but it is an important point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, will realise the reasoning behind the reply.
Lord Mishcon: Everyone will appreciate the way in which the Minister has endeavoured to tackle the matter. The fact that he has had to make such a long speech—although all of us welcome every word that he uttered—means that there is a complex issue involved. One would have hoped that if there were no point in the amendment it could be answered shortly. It is a simple point. If I may say so, deferentially, it does not need complex legal knowledge to understand it.
The first principle is that we do not put into statute anything which is unnecessary because we cause ourselves a great deal of trouble if we do. No one knows that better than the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has said it many times, and his historic committee said it. We need not repeat it ad nauseam. In those circumstances, I repeat: we do not put something into a statute which is unnecessary. I should have said that that was even more of a principle in this case where every lawyer in Hong Kong will undoubtedly be looking at every word of the Bill so that they may properly advise the many people who will come to them to say that they have been unjustly treated or that they have not even been looked at when they should have been.

697
We have an extra duty of care as a revising Chamber. Everyone admits—this is the simplicity of the point—that when we have ministerial discretion which derives from the prerogative, one does not have to give reasons. It is a definite principle of administrative law, as my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg has said. So clear is it that where in certain town planning matters, for example, there is a requirement to give reasons, the statute spells that out. The statute provides that reasons have to be given by the Minister so that people may have rights of appeal, whether that applies to listed buildings, or whatever; and it applies to listed buildings under planning legislation.
The Bill, dealing with an emergency and a situation where, I repeat, every lawyer will be scanning every word, suddenly decides—I shall deal with the Nationality Act in a moment—to spell out that one cannot go to court over the lack of reasons. The answer to that is that there is no point in putting in that provision unless one has something at the back of one's mind. The point upon which the lawyer in Hong Kong will hit, I imagine—my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg also imagined it—is that the British Parliament is not so ignorant of the law of the land, which has been so clearly laid down, as to spell out the fact that reasons do not have to be given for that discretionary use of the power which derives from the prerogative; and so, as he said, it must have something else in mind.
I wish to put an additional argument to the one advanced by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg on this occasion, although it is one that he advanced on Second Reading. If one looks at the British Nationality Act where the provision relating to not having to give reasons occurs, as the Minister rightly points out, one will find that although Parliament was not then dealing with the possible situation of the Hong Kong lawyer scanning every word of the Act, the British Nationality Act in fact—the Minister did not say this, not because he was misleading the Committee but because, I feel, the point did not occur to him—after using those words says that judicial review applies.
Obviously, I repeat, in Hong Kong, looking at the fact that in this case Parliament has presumably something at the back of its mind when dealing with the obvious in law, the lawyer will say, "But they do not mention, as the British Nationality Act did, judicial review, and that means they have excluded judicial review". The Minister does not want to exclude judicial review, as I understand him. He is saying that judicial review is available. It will not be on the question of the discretion. It will not necessarily be on the question of conduct; but it applies to the machinery that has been used by the Governor and the committee and as to whether they were intra vires when they did what they purported to do. The Minister cannot have it both ways. We shall be in a mess if we accept his judgment on the matter, which is usually infallible; but human beings being less than that, he has fallen for the law of averages. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot leave matters in the
698
muddle where the clause in the Bill must be interpreted on the basis that judicial review applies, and then say, "Ah, but don't make it clear and don't use the words of the nationality Act—" which is what Amendment No. 8 spells out—"and don't tell them that the judicial review is applicable".
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: Surely, the operative word is "decision" which appears twice in the subsection. The courts know that they are not competent to entertain an appeal where a Secretary of State has made a decision on nationality, citizenship or the issue of a passport. However, as my noble friend pointed out, and as I said earlier, it is still open to the courts to entertain an appeal on the ground that the method used, the procedure followed was not correct. It would have required express words which are not here to exclude the judicial review of those matters. What is the noble Lord worrying about?
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is worrying about the doubt that has been engendered by the following matters. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, admits, words appear in the Bill which are completely otiose. As he said, everyone knows that one cannot challenge a ministerial decision—if we can call it that for all purposes—on the basis that discretion has been wrongly exercised unless the machinery which should have been used has not been used leading up to the decision. The noble Lord admits that we start with the fact that this is unnecessary. We then reach the stage of asking why it has been put in. We look at the wording and find that it does not follow the nationality Act in providing specifically that judicial review is available. Therefore the immediate effect is to think, "The intention of the statute is to omit the right of judicial review".
The other situation is that if there is any doubt at all—and I hope that it will be conceded that there must be some doubt, the amendment has already taken a long time to debate—should not a revising Chamber make the position abundantly clear? It is made abundantly clear by providing—if that is what the Minister prefers—that the words of subsection (5) are retained but in addition, when we come to it, Amendment No. 8 is passed in order that the clear indication in the Bill is that the right of judicial review applies.
I hope that I am not out of order in discussing an amendment that we have not yet reached, Amendment No. 8. I do so only to make my position clear. I would not even mind if the words,
"in respect of the operation of any provisions of this Act"
were excluded so that the legislation merely said:
"Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings for judicial review".
Then it is clear, the lawyers are satisfied and all the lawyers in Hong Kong will not have to spend endless hours debating, as we have done this afternoon. They will know that the House of Lords has made the position clear, as it always does.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will permit me to make one point. He has,

699
in a delightful way, chided me for making a long speech. He said that as I did so, there was obviously something wrong with what I was trying to get over; in other words, there was a bogey in it somewhere. He said that the point was simple and then, if I may say so, ma de a not insubstantial speech himself on how simple it was.
The noble Lord's simple point was that we should not put into the statute something that was unnecessary. I agree. We also agree that one should not take out of a proposed statute what is necessary. If we removed this provision, and added the words in Amendment No. 8—an addition which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not like but which nevertheless he proposes—we would give the courts the right to review every discretionary decision. Everyone who is told that he has not been successful will be entitled to or may aim for a judicial review. The system would be clogged.
There are no rights of citizenship under the Bill. What will be reviewed is not a right but a discretionary award which will be given to a limited number of people out of a large number of applicants. I do not believe that that would be suitable.
Lord Monkswell: The Noble Earl has referred a number of times—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): The Question is that Amendment No. 5 be agreed to.
Lord Mishcon: As a courtesy to my noble friend Lord Monkswell, I believe that he wished to say something. At Committee stage he is permitted to do so. I therefore sit down to allow him to say what he wishes.
Lord Monkswell: I thank my noble friend. The reason I rise is that there has been some reference to the Bill conferring no rights of citizenship. That seems curious to me in the sense that so far as I am aware, 50,000 citizenships, or even more, 50,000 heads of households would be given citizenship in this country. There are two ways of looking at that. Either we can assume that the Government do not consider that conferring British citizenship is a right. I suspect that even the Government would not go that far.
Alternatively, the points system that will be laid by the Government will amount to nothing. If the points scheme is laid, somebody applying with a high points total could legitimately expect the right of citizenship. Are the Government saying that that is null and void? The high points score of a person of good character under the scheme will be totally irrelevant when it comes to determining citizenship. If that is the case, we are in a different ball game from the one we were in earlier. I am sure that is not the case, but it is the impression given by the Minister. Perhaps he could clarify the concept that the Bill confers no rights. It does not seem to make sense to me.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about his anxiety that the Bill confers no rights. Fifty thousand people will be given citizenship, but 50,000 people will not have a right to
700
that citizenship. It will be awarded to them. Of course, once they have citizenship that award contains rights, but they have no right to the award.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the noble Earl sits down, in the course of his remarks, to which I listened with great care, I was at a loss to understand why he omitted to deal with the last point raised by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. It was an issue of principle on which he sought to elicit a reply from the noble Earl. If a different phraseology were introduced into the Bill to the effect that, "Nothing in this Act shall prohibit the right of judicial review where it operates"—if that was the quotation that my noble friend used—what is wrong with that? Why should not the certainty of that right prevail in relation to the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: I refer to the very good reason which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, himself gave; namely, there is no point in putting into the Bill something which is unnecessary.
Lord Mishcon: I am so sorry that the debate has ended on that note, not because it was an unpleasant note, but because we are now told that the only reason for resisting the solution that I thought proper to bring before the Committee in regard to this amendment and Amendment No. 8, is because it would introduce something which presumably would make life too clear for lawyers and everyone else. I find that an unacceptable argument. In those circumstances, I am afraid that I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
6.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNair, L.

Ennals, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mishcon, L.

Falkender, B.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

701

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Lyell, L.

Balfour, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Bethell, L.

Marsh, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Monson, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brain, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Mottistone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Caldecote, V.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Derwent, L.

Rodney, L.

Downshire, M.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elton, L.

Selborne, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Slim, V.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of

Swinfen, L.

Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thurlow, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wise, L.

Joseph, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) above by substituting a higher figure for the figure for the time being specified there if the Governor recommends that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong or the safety of its residents.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to emphasise that the object of the whole of this Bill is to provide reassurance to the people in Hong Kong. That reassurance has to be sufficient to persuade them to stay in Hong Kong in order to staunch the haemorrhage of emigration which is taking place at the moment at the rate of between 55,000 and 60,000 people a year. I believe that most people would agree that we cannot afford to allow that rate of emigration to continue indefinitely.
On Second Reading the most reverend Primate gave interesting figures on the size of the emigration that is taking place and its composition in relation to sections of the population with which he has particular familiarity. No doubt the position is no different in other areas. The most reverend Primate told us that by 1992 or 1993 10 per cent. of the Hong Kong population will have gone. That figure will include 20 per cent. of Hong Kong Christians and 25 per cent. of Hong Kong clergy. If that is translated into more commercial terms it indicates that the more skilled the segment of the population that one takes the higher the rate of emigration. He added that the crying need was now to restore confidence.
I understand that that lies at the heart of government policy. It is based on the proposition that only by assuring people that they can leave will they be persuaded to stay. Without that assurance they will leave. The Government believe that if they offer registration as British citizens for up to 50,000 heads of families that will do the trick. They believe that those people will stay in Hong Kong, the haemorrhage of emigration will be staunched and the prosperity of Hong Kong will be maintained.
Members of the Committee are aware that we on these Benches take the assumption on which the Government's policy is based rather more seriously than they do. We believe the Government's assumption that the promise of British citizenship to 50,000 heads of families will persuade them to stay in Hong Kong. We believe that if that is true of those 50,000 families it will be true of a far greater number.
I am aware that the Government will not accept that argument. Even if they agree that the figure of 50,000 was plucked out of the air, or that it was a figure they believed to be the maximum they could sell to some of their colleagues in another place, and if they further agree, as they must, that the future is extremely difficult to read and that conditions may change between now and 1997, I believe that they would wish to give themselves some flexibility to alter the number if they find it to be insufficient. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to say that and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, to indicate some sympathy with the view. We cannot know for sure that 50,000 is enough to provide the reassurance and persuade a sufficient number of people to stay in Hong Kong who are otherwise threatening or planning to leave.
It is to address that hypothetical position that the amendment has been framed. It tries to provide the Government, on the recommendations of the Governor, with some flexibility in action in pursuing successfully the policy to which they are committed. I hope that the Government will welcome the amendment. If they cannot do so I hope that they will consider it seriously and confirm that that is their intention. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. The proposal to take 50,000 more people into this overcrowded country of ours with, in places, heavy unemployment, over-urbanised areas and various social problems is challenging

703
enough and it was rightly accepted by Parliament. However, to go beyond the substantial figure of 50,000 would, in my opinion, be contrary to the wishes of the people of this country. I am sure that honour will be satisfied by taking 50,000 people from Hong Kong in the manner laid down in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will stick at that.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I support the amendment. It was always my understanding that the Government intended to watch the situation carefully. I understood that if he situation with regard to Peking deteriorated considerably the Government would consider taking a number greater than 50,000. It is better to have the amendment on the face of the Bill because it will give latitude to the Governor and enable him to answer circumstances that might change for the worse. On the other hand, circumstances may change for the better and the provision will never be activated. However, if it were on the face of the Bill a great deal of unnecessary discussion would be saved should an emergency arise.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It would be possible to hold the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, but to be opposed to the amendment. If the time should come when, because of unforeseen circumstances, the figure should be raised, Parliament should do so. To do so under an order from the Secretary of State is not the right way. None of us is oblivious of the strong feelings that were expressed and de bated prior to the publishing of the Bill now before us. If circumstances should arise—and who can rule out anything—where the figure should be raised, Parliament should do so after full and proper discussions. Full and proper account should be taken of the national circumstances and the strength of feeling as regards whether we could afford to have them and whether it would be right to do so. Even if the circumstances envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. arose, the amendment should not be accepted enabling the Secretary of State to raise the figure by order. The issue would be greater than that and we should not pass this amendment, however we view the possibility.
Lord Monson: I oppose the amendment because there is no mandate for it. Indeed, it flies in the face of public opinion. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that there exists majority support for admission in extremis into this overcrowded island of up to 50,000 carefully selected heads of families plus their wives and children. In addition, perhaps there should be a few hundred deserving hard cases who are not covered by the Bill before us. However, I am certain that there is no majority support for any material raising of the upper limit of 50,000.
Lord Howie of Troon: This is probably one of the most important amendments before the Committee. I accept the general proposition stated by the Government that there should be a limit to the number of residents of Hong Kong who are entitled to come here, whether or not they do so. I also accept the general proposition expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter that there should be more than 50,000. However, I do not know how many more.
704
I do not believe that 50,000 is a figure which has any mandate which, unless I misunderstood him, was suggested by the last speaker. It is a figure that has been plucked out of the air and it would be reasonable to pluck another figure out of the air. It might be 60,000, 75,000 or 100,000—I do not know. However, no particular figure is inherent in the amendment. It suggests a figure that would maintain stability in Hong Kong.
As a result of my interventions on an earlier amendment it will be clear to the Committee that I believe that an engineering dimension is extremely important in this matter. I am supported in that view by comments made by the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. It described that colony—or what will be a former colony—by stating:
"Hong Kong, which has often been summed up as a place of trade"—
and we all think of it as a place of trade—
"could be described just as fittingly as a place of engineering. Indeed, it is an engineered place in a most direct sense—bits and pieces of picturesque but unproductive land so small as to be invisible on a map of the world, transformed into the world's busiest harbour city. Without engineering the bits would never have come together. Without ongoing engineering they would fall apart".
That is the basis of the argument which I put earlier today and put now. Without a continuing engineering dimension, Hong Kong will not be there in any real sense in 1997; at any rate, it might be there in 1997 but it will fall apart fairly soon afterwards. As I said before, for that reason I do not believe in the proposition put before the Committee directly in the sense of 50,000 people and their families and indirectly in the sense of the scheme detailed in the Library, but not unfortunately in this Bill. I should much prefer the scheme to have been a schedule to this Bill so that we could have discussed it and amended it in detail on the Floor of this Chamber.
As I understand it, some 10 per cent. of the first tranche of 32,000 or more of the 50,000 people comprises engineers, among others. Engineers in this case is a very wide grouping which includes all kinds of engineers and others who would not normally be thought of as engineers. That means 3,200 people—in fact 3,230 but let us not be too pernickety about the odd 30. But membership of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers is more than twice that number. So, in speaking of 50,000 plus the provisions of the schedule (which is not in fact before us) we exclude more than half the members of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, although it is the first and as yet the only overseas engineering institution which is affiliated to the Engineering Council in this country.
There are different ways to approach the difficulty. I believe that the stability of Hong Kong means sustaining the engineering population of that country, which can be done in two ways. One is to increase the 10 per cent. proportion which is suggested in the schedule before us; the other is to increase the total number to which that 10 per cent. applies. The Government have not shown any inclination to increase the proportion. Indeed, they have ignored

705
everything that I said in the earlier part of the debate. However, one way of ensuring the continued stability of Hong Kong as an engineered colony and an engineering colony is to increase the total number to which that 10 per cent. applies.
For those reasons, I support the amendment. In passing—this is no more than an aside and no great attention should be paid to it—I simply say that the citizens of Macao will be able to come here anyway through Portugal and the Common Market. I believe that we could stand a few more Hong Kong Chinese as well as a few more Macao Chinese.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord before he sits down because he challenged my assertion that there was a mandate for the admission of no more than 50,000 heads of family. It is true that, strictly speaking, there is no electoral mandate as such but public opinion polls seem to suggest that public opinion would be agreeable to the admission of 50,000 middle class (if you like) heads of family plus their wives and children—a total of about 225,000 people—but would not be happy with the admission of a substantially greater number.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me. I thought that a mandate meant a mandate rather than some sort of opinion poll. No doubt that was my fault. However, I was not thinking of a substantially greater number; I was thinking of a greater number.
Lord Marsh: It is possible to put a number of arguments against this amendment. Personally, I shall be very interested to hear the arguments put forward by the Government. However, the arguments against the amendment at the moment amaze me. If this Bill is successful, the very people who will qualify for registration are those who are privileged now and will remain privileged certainly with the People's Republic of China because it is recognised that they are the people who will make things work.
Does one believe that the moment these people get their hands on their new passports they will flood out of Hong Kong? If so, with the greatest respect, the sensible course would have been to have voted against the Bill on Second Reading so that the whole basis of the Bill would have fallen. One respects considerably the views of every Member of this Chamber; but I cannot understand that argument.
If one believes that the purpose of the Bill is to enable an unknown number of people to leave Hong Kong and come to the United Kingdom, the basis of qualification would have to be totally different. On that basis, the system of qualification envisaged in the Bill is indefensible. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I had a slight disagreement earlier; but I could not defend the Bill if that were the objective because it would be totally wrong—
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is quite right in talking about the assumption of the Bill. It is the assumption that most people have made; namely, that these people, if given
706
passports, will not necessarily come here. But suppose that things become very oppressive in Hong Kong as the result of turning to China, and that these people, perhaps even because they have applied for passports, are subject to serious oppression. They may then come here in very large numbers.
Lord Marsh: This Chamber has to work on the assumption that the Bill is a real contribution to stability in that area. If one does not believe that, it is pointless. I come back to my basic point: if one does not believe it, one should look for an entirely different basis of selection. In conclusion, I believe that there are arguments which can be advanced against this amendment. At the moment my thoughts are very ambivalent toward it. However, with great respect, the argument that I have heard so far cannot be supported by logic.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Does the noble Lord think that it should be done by order even if those things happen? Is not the proper way to proceed through Parliament because of the fundamentals behind the change?
Lord Marsh: I do not want to get involved in a duel of words. I make the assumption that the problem can be faced and that this solution can work. If I did not believe that, I think that one would be looking at something very different indeed.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I admit that I share the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter: that we might have been able to offer more passports. But at this stage I am not able to support his amendment simply because of the delay. After all, this is a short-term Bill and Hong Kong needs it now. If we send it back for revision to another place for the numbers to be picked over, who knows when it will be enacted. Hong Kong needs this Bill now. Therefore I feel unable to support the amendment of the noble Lord.
Lord Shepherd: We are only in the difficulty that the Bill is at this stage at this part of the Session. The Bill had its Second Reading some three weeks ago. If it had been so important to get the legislation through, the Bill could have been brought forward a week or Parliament could sit into August. We are dealing with the last of our colonies, the last of our responsibilities. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and to the Committee. I spoke on an earlier amendment thinking that it was a general debate. I shall not say who misled me; but I was misled.
The crucial issue is not that we are giving British citizenship to Hong Kong Chinese or those who live in Hong Kong. We are seeking a way in which the Governor, the Government of Hong Kong and Her Majesty's Government can sustain the rule, the commercial benefits and commercial strengths of the colony up to 1997. I consider that 50,000 might be about right. It could be right; it could be wrong. I support the amendment because it gives a degree of flexibility. A figure above 50,000 would only be agreed to with the permission of this Chamber and by another place approving the order.

707
I believe that the movers are seeking to provide a degree of flexibility—not an open door for a massive influx of numbers—by which judgments can be made in the interests of Hong Kong during that period. That is the way in which I regard the amendment.
If the amendment were passed, and it went to another place, such an arrangement is not beyond the wit or those who are responsible for business management in Parliament. I know that it can be done if that is the wish because I have done so both as a Chief Whip and as Leader of the House. But to resist the amendment on the basis that it would create difficulties for the administration of the two Houses, would be unfair with regard to the critical responsibility of the present Governor and his successor in Hong Kong. At the end of the day we shall be held responsible.
I support the amendment. I do not say that the figure should be 50,000, or 60,000. I simply wish to see some degree of flexibility so that Hong Kong can be sustained during the difficult years that lie ahead.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have listened carefully to the arguments expressed in support of the amendment but I am afraid that I have not been persuaded by them. To us the amendment is unacceptable for two reasons.
First—and I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls—it is the Government's view that it must be for Parliament to approve the size of the assurance scheme. It would be wrong in principle to accept an amendment which empowered the Home Secretary to make such an important change without seeking Parliament's approval through further legislation. I have little doubt that it would also cause considerable public disquiet. That is why the ceiling on the numbers has been written on the face of the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: Why would further legislation be required if the amendment were accepted? Would not such a measure be the further legislation? The Secretary of State would be in no way incommoded.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The amendment states "by order". It does not state that it has to be approved by either or both Houses of Parliament. I believe that that is the very least that would be required.
Lord Shepherd: It is not legislation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I disagree with the noble Lord. The amendment provides that the Home Secretary can make an order to increase the numbers without seeking Parliament's approval.
Secondly, I believe that in making provision for 50,000 families the Government have the figure about right. I recognise that there are some both here and in Hong Kong who think that the Bill should cater for a much larger number of people. Some of those have spoken this afternoon. There are some who have called for citizenship to be granted to all 3.25 million British dependent territory citizens in Hong Kong. That I believe is the view of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. That was certainly the view in principle of Members of our party as articulated by my right honourable friend the Leader of my party in another place. However, it is quite clear that we have taken the view that this is the Bill now before us and that it is our job to amend it. With all due respect to the Minister, it is unfair for him to suggest in any way that the amendment that we put forward is an indication that we wish to see 3.25 million people involved in this process. My noble friends and others have made the position quite clear. We accept that this is the only Bill that we shall have. We are trying to make it workable.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I did not say that the effect of the amendment would be to allow all 3.25 million British dependent territory citizens in Hong Kong to come here. I merely said that there were those who held the view that 50,000 was right; there were those who held the view that it should be more; and there were those who held the view that it should be all the 3.25 million. I believe that that was the policy of the noble Lord's party. I was not trying to say that he would let them all in at one go if the amendment were passed.
I believe that there is now a widespread recognition even in Hong Kong that that would not be feasible or realistic. In fixing the ceiling the Government have had to balance the need for a figure capable of having a real impact on confidence in Hong Kong with the need to limit the commitment to one which this country could honour if, against our expectations, most of the beneficiaries decided to settle here. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Renton and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I hope that it answers the points of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
The Government have undertaken extensive consultations both here and in Hong Kong. They have examined the occupational profile of Hong Kong's working population, the rates at which different groups of people are emigrating, and the representations made to us by people from many different walks of life. Here I admire the pleading of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for his own special interest group. I am sure that if other special interest groups were represented in this Chamber they would also say that not enough of the other professions were included in the figures.
However, the figure of 50,000 is the result of weighing up those factors. Of course it is a judgment, not a scientific calculation. But 50,000 is equivalent to over half the number of key personnel who might be expected to leave Hong Kong by 1997 at the present rate of emigration. Both we and the Governor of Hong Kong believe that a scheme on this scale will make a significant contribution to bolstering morale and slowing down the haemorrhage of skilled and talented people from the territory. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Rees: Before my noble friend sits down, will he be so kind as to answer one question which arises from the first point he made for looking with disfavour on the amendment? Let us suppose that at

709
Report stage a somewhat similar amendment was put down that obliged the Secretary of State to lay an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I apologise if the point has already been disposed of. It seems to me that that procedure would not be open to the same constitutional objections. It would ensure that if a different figure were put forward it would be subject to proper review and debate by both Houses of Parliament. Can my noble friend reassure us on that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It would certainly go a long way towards answering the first criticism that I made of the amendment. But it would not answer the second criticism: that the 50,000 figure appears to us to be the right figure and we simply could not accommodate more than that if the cheque had to be cashed.
Lord Howie of Troon: Perhaps the noble Lord will accept my thanks for the kind words that he directed towards me. However, will he think again about his comment on my special interest group? I do not have a special interest group in the shape of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. I happen to be an engineer, and consequently I look on engineers with more sympathy than most people in this country do, but I do not have in any way a special interest group in Hong Kong. I wish that to be made absolutely and totally clear.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Of course I accept that. But what I was saying is that others would no doubt argue for a greater number of different groups if they had the opportunity.
Lord Shepherd: I take it from what the noble Lord has said that he has closed his mind to any situation that may arise between now and 1997 when, in the interests of the stability of Hong Kong, both the Governor and the Secretary of State may feel the figure should be uplifted, not by dramatic figures but maybe by 1,000, in order to ensure stability. The Government have closed their mind so far as this legislation is concerned, but in order to deal with the situation they would need a Bill similar to that before the Committee today. That is what the noble Lord is saying, is he not?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not think the noble Lord is fair in putting his argument in the form of "closed mind". In terms of stability, there is the stability of this country too to be borne in mind. Of course we want stability in Hong Kong, and we hope we have arrived at the point where we have been able to achieve that. But it has taken a long time to get to the point where that stability for Hong Kong is accepted by people who are concerned about the stability here. For those of us who live in parts of the world where the immigration problem is making a fundamental difference to the very nature and general impetus of the area, that has to be taken into account. It is not a matter of having a closed mind. The Government have reached this point after long discussion and negotiation, after having tested the water in Hong Kong, here and everywhere else. It is a matter of having arrived at what one hopes is the formula that will work at both sides of the problem.
Lord Shepherd: The noble Lord has gone a little further than I had in mind. I was putting to the Minister that by rejecting the amendment before the House, if in the interests of the stability of Hong Kong between now and 1997 50,000 proved to be unattainable, new legislation would be required. In other words, if the amendment were passed, it could be done by statutory order, Order in Council, or whatever it might be, subject to the affirmative resolution of either House.
Lord Mishcon: I have been keeping a discreet silence on the amendment; but I might be misleading the Committee if I did not rise from this Front Bench as a result of the views expressed perfectly sincerely by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The Opposition have made their position abundantly clear; namely, that the dislike the points system and regard it as unfair. If we supported this amendment, it would mean that we were supporting anew the increase in the figure under the points system. For that reason alone, if this were put to a Division I should have to advise my noble friends to vote against the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
We believe that the proposition that a maximum figure should be written on the face of the Bill has always been fundamental to this piece of legislation, and to accept an amendment such as this would stimulate expectations in Hong Kong that we could not fulfil.
We are convinced that the scheme will be effective. We also believe that it would be difficult for this country to honour a commitment on a significantly larger scale. Therefore, we have no plans to come back to Parliament to seek approval for additional assurances in a further Bill.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may say a few words in defence of Lord Howie of Troon and in rebutting what the Minister said. The Minister seemed to give the impression that engineers were a particular interest group.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: One of many interest groups.
Lord Monkswell: I accept that the Minister is suggesting that engineers are only one of many interest groups, but perhaps I may put it to the Government that in terms of the material continuation of Hong Kong engineers are an essential requirement. Effectively the point that Lord Howie was making was that Hong Kong would literally fall down if it were not for engineers. It is not a question of them being a special interest group; it is a question of them being an essential requirement for the future material well being of Hong Kong.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I must confess that I have found the response to this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, deeply unsatisfactory. The position put by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has been very clearly and satisfactorily answered. I said at the beginning of the debate that it

711
did not seem to me that it was up to us on these Benches to arrange the Government's business. It is up to the Government to arrange their business, and if at the end of the Session they get themselves in a position in which a very important measure which affects the lives of millions of people, and which affects and reflects on our responsibilities to those people, is given too little time to be discussed properly, that is not the fault of us on these Benches or on the Labour Benches; it is the responsibility or the irresponsibility of the Government.
The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, seemed to be strange. Of course I should be perfectly happy if the order were one which was approved by both Houses of Parliament, if that makes the whole difference. I see very clearly the case to be made for that, and I accept it. That can easily be dealt with. The difficulty is when the noble Lord says that the Government believe they have the figure right. How can they possibly believe they have the figure right? It is not a judgment; it is a guess about what is going to happen between now and 1997. How can the Government claim that that they have such prescience, such X-ray eyes into the future, that they can actually foretell how things will develop between now and 1997? So confident are they that they have the fig are right that they are not prepared to give themselves flexibility to change course by one iota should it prove that events do not develop in quite the way that they guess they will now.
Secondly, one must respond to the fears expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Harmar-Nicholls. The problem with their case is that it actually denies the whole basis on which the Bill has been put before both Houses of Parliament. The basis on which the Bill has been put before the Houses of Parliament of this country is that if we can supply sufficient reassurance to the people of Hong Kong they will stay there, but that if we do not supply sufficient reassurance they will come here or go somewhere else, but above all they will leave Hong Kong and will gravely damage its prosperity, and therefore they will gravely damage its prospects in the future.
To go on saying that the prospect is that 50,000 or 75,000 people will come here is to deny the whole argument on which the Bill is constructed. One cannot really accept it, quite apart from the fact that the figures show that people from Hong Kong do not come here. They go first of all to Canada, next to Australia, thirdly to the United States, and finally they may come here. So both in theory and in practice the noble Lord's argument does not hold water.
Finally, he raised the question of things going from bad to worse—what was called the Armageddon scenario. That is something which I would not advise anyone to neglect in their calculations. But if the Armageddon scenario takes place, one must remember what was said on 14th June last year by Sir Geoffrey Howe:
"In the … last resort situation of events overwhelming the people of Hong Kong, then in those circumstances it is, I think, inescapable that the United Kingdom with its special responsibility for the territory would be the country to which
712
they would look for treatment as refugees and we would have to try and discharge that responsibility with the help of others".
That was true then and it remains true now.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is at least consistent in his view that we should not have any. It is a view which I cannot accept, nor, to be honest, can I admire it. However, he has taken a consistent view: the way in which we can help the people of Hong Kong is by installing democracy there. As I said on Second Reading, that is all very well, but it will not ensure their future.
7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is kind to give way. I have never said we should not have any. I have never said that we should not have any more. I shall not repeat my Second Reading speech, but I made it perfectly clear that we could not support an amendment which meant that additional people from Hong Kong were selected under a points scheme. Perhaps I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who apparently believes that the public of this country have expressed a view that they would not mind a few more provided that they came from the middle class. I wondered whether the working class of this country were included in that assessment of public opinion.
Lord Howie of Troon: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may say that I found the intervention of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, not just now but earlier, quite shameful. Whatever my Front Bench may do on the amendment, I shall certainly support it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if I misinterpreted the position that he explained at some length at Second Reading. However, I do not altogether blame myself for not having a totally clear picture of his position.
As I said, I am disappointed by what the noble Lord said in reply to my speech. We may return to the matter on Third Reading, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Derwent: I have given notice to my noble friend the Minister that, as the clause authorises a scheme to be set up in accordance with Schedule 1, this would be the right moment to record my views on one of the detailed provisions of the draft scheme which the Government have circulated and which will in due course be laid before your Lordships, if the Bill is passed.
Earl Ferrets: Perhaps my noble friend will forgive me if I interrupt him. I fancy that he wishes to talk on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, as I dare say that one or two other noble Lords wish to do. I wonder whether it would be more for the Committee's convenience if we took that after dinner rather than straightaway.
Viscount Ullswater: I suggest that we return to this business at 8 o'clock. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Redundancy Payments (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973 (Revocation) Order 1990
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this somewhat unusually entitled order is intended to achieve a very simple purpose. It repeals with effect from 30th September 1990 a small piece of legislation, which is no longer necessary, relating to redundancy arrangements in the Merchant Navy. As your Lordships will know, our statutory provisions for redundancy payments date from 1965 and give employees a right to compensation according to a fixed formula if they are made redundant after working for an employer for at least two years.
The legislation relates to the workforce as a whole, but it was recognised at the outset that there might be a few cases where working arrangements within an industry made the statutory scheme inappropriate and where it would make good industrial relations sense to allow that industry to continue with its own arrangements.
There is therefore a power in the redundancy legislation for Parliament to make an order excluding particular groups of workers from the statutory scheme on the basis that they are covered by redundancy arrangements at least as favourable in their own industry. Such an exclusion order was made in respect of merchant seamen in 1968 and renewed in 1973. It affected seamen whose terms of employment were covered by National Maritime Board agreements and a few special categories such as radio operators. Under those agreements, redundancy entitlement is based on continuous employment under the established service scheme, not necessarily with a single employer or a single vessel, so that employees may qualify who might not have satisfied the two years' service requirement of the general state scheme.
That is the historical position. However, conditions have changed greatly in merchant shipping in recent years and the industry has decided that its collective arrangements are no longer relevant or useful. The workforce in the merchant marine has contracted for a variety of reasons and the vast majority are now employed on company contracts which typically run for more than two years. In those circumstances, the employers' side of the industry has given notice that it proposes to end its established service scheme and proceed on the basis of contracts negotiated within
714
companies. I understand that that effectively acknowledges a state of affairs that already exist in practice.
Those changes are not matters for government. They are for the industry, although it seems to me sensible that individual shipping firms should negotiate terms with their own employees in the light of their own commercial circumstances. It is, however, a logical consequence of the ending of the established service scheme that the exclusion from the statutory redundancy provisions is no longer required. When the industry-wide scheme ceases, the seamen concerned will once again be entitled to the benefits of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, like all other employees, supplemented of course by such contractual severance payments as apply in particular companies.
As I have made clear to your Lordships, the revocation order is a necessary consequence of the ending of the shipping industry's special arrangements. It is not for me to justify the course that the industry has adopted, though I believe it to be sensible. It falls to me merely to invite your Lordships to agree to the making of the order, so returning our merchant seamen to the protection of the statutory redundancy scheme on the same footing as the rest of the workforce. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne).
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the order. There is little that we on this side of the House can add to what he has said. Obviously, if the special arrangements governing redundancy provisions in the shipping industry no longer apply, the employees concerned should have the cover of the state redundancy scheme. I therefore welcome the fact that the order is being introduced to make sure that they have that protection.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for her kind remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.8 to 8 p.m.]

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Derwent: I agreed with the Minister that since this clause deals with authorising a scheme to be set up in accordance with Schedule 1, this is an appropriate

715
moment to express one's views on some of the detailed provisions of the draft scheme which the Government have circulated and which will in course be laid before your Lordships if this Bill is passed.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the point which worries some of us concerned with business in Hong Kong—and I declare my interest—is the definition of the provision that points should be awarded to those working for British firms. First, I should make it absolutely clear that I am strongly in favour of giving points to those individuals who have personal British links. Indeed, I imagine that all Members of the Committee would agree with this, and I even feel that perhaps more points should be awarded under this head than is at present envisaged.
Secondly, it seems to me obvious that Britain should look to further its own commercial self-interest; and I have no difficulty at all with the proposition that those who may further Anglo-Hong Kong business relations should be favoured.
But it does not follow at all that it is in the British commercial interest to favour those firms which happen to be registered in Britain over those who are registered in Hong Kong itself. The important point is to get at those individuals and firms who are actually helping Anglo-Hong Kong business.
Perhaps I may give two examples. Both electricity generating companies in Hong Kong, Hong Kong Electric. and China Light and Power, which is controlled by the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, are buyers of British generating machinery. They employ engineers and others who are familiar with British equipment and are good clients of British companies. It must be in the British interest that these individuals should remain with their companies and in Hong Kong. However, those employees do not work for English based companies. Furthermore, they are likely to be less favourably inclined to continue to buy British if they feel that they have been discriminated against in the award of points.
Another example is presented by the two note-issuing banks, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and the Standard Chartered Bank—the first registered in Hong Kong and the second in London. Is it seriously suggested that it is in Britain's commercial interests to discriminate against the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation which is intimately involved in probably the bulk of Anglo-Hong Kong trade?
There is also a serious political point. The Government have been at pains to stress that Hong Kong is until 1997 in all senses British. Only the right of abode has been in question. If we now claim that "Hong Kong firms" are not "British firms" this will be taken as showing that we no longer regard Hong Kong is British in any true sense.
This is a matter which has been considered in depth in the past. Members of the Committee may recall that in 1981 the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank made a bid to acquire the Royal Bank of Scotland. The question arose as to whether the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation incorporated in Hong
716
Kong was a British or a foreign bank. The Lord Privy Seal, speaking in another place for the Government stated:
"It is a misapprehension held by some people, regrettably, that the HongkongBank Group is a foreign bank. It is not a foreign bank. It is a bank that is incorporated in a British Dependent Territory and it is subject to the rules of that territory".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/81; col. 275.]
The Monopolies Commission took the same view. Page 90 of its report states:
"Certainly there is no question of our regarding the Hong Kong Bank as a 'foreign' bank".
I therefore suggest to the Committee—and I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for the suggestion—that the definition of a British firm for the purposes of awarding points should be "any firm which is incorporated in the UK or in any of its dependent territories", which includes Hong Kong. In order not to cast the net too wide I would add the provision that the firm must engage in substantial business between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.
My suggested formula would be fair, clear and easy to administer. Clarity is important. Vague concepts such as "British managed" are impossible to define and will be considered deeply suspect. The formula would achieve also the primary objective of favouring firms involved in business with the UK over firms incorporated in, say, France or Germany or Japan or the United States, and it would help those Hong Kong firms which are major clients of this country.
I very much hope that this is a matter to which the Government and the Governor will give careful thought when they come to draft the scheme in its final form.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said. I support the concept of giving points as set out in paragraph 14 of the draft scheme—a copy of which has been placed in the Library—for connections with the UK through, as stated in the draft, investment, relatives, residents, education and so on. However, the inclusion of the phrase "service with British firms" causes a great many unintended problems, and I believe that further thought should be given to that matter. It would discriminate in the most bizarre way between firms which are all British but which happen to be domiciled in different parts of British territory.
Many firms, large and small, which are pillars of Hong Kong, do great good for British business interests but happen to be domiciled either in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong or other British territory such as Bermuda. To discriminate between them at this juncture, even in this small way, would be most unfortunate. It might undo some of the good which has undoubtedly been done by the publication of the Bill.
Perhaps something can be done by tighter drafting to give a lift to British firms, whether domiciled in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong or other British territory, and which conduct substantial business between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. If that could be done in a way which was simple to

717
administer, then I would support it. If it is to be complicated, it is only a small part of the scheme and I suggest that it would be better to drop it.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Derwent for restraining himself from speaking to Clause 1 stand part before dinner and for making his contribution now. I am also grateful to him for drawing this point to the attention of the Committee. It is an important point and Members of the Committee who are well versed in company matters and familiar with the intricacies of company structure will not be surprised to learn that the Government are finding it somewhat difficult to establish a definition of what should constitute a British firm for the purposes of the Bill. A number of different suggestions have been put forward and the range of firms likely to be included varies one from another.
We are seeking to find a definition which will include firms which have a real claim to be regarded as British, while excluding the rest. There would be no point in a definition which was so broad that a higher proportion of applicants qualified for the extra points; the intended advantage would be cancelled out. It is plain that any criteria would have to be clear, readily verifiable and would not result in an administrative burden which would slow down the whole process of selection under the scheme.
That response may not be very satisfactory to my noble friend, nor indeed to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who is deeply concerned about this matter. We are continuing to consider the possibilities and will bear in mind the suggestions made by the Committee this evening. I cannot give a strict definition tonight. We shall also reflect carefully on the implications of what has been said regarding the potentially divisive effect of awarding British links points on any basis not widely regarded as reasonable and fair. I also note the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Derwent that points for individual links with Britain should be considered.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Registration of widowed spouses
. The Secretary of State shall register as a British citizen a widowed spouse of a British Citizen resident in Hong Kong who dies after the coming into force of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to protect widowed spouses of British citizens resident in Hong Kong who die after the coming into effect of the Act. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, added his name to the amendment although he cannot be with us this evening.
There was considerable debate regarding this subject in another place, both following amendments tabled at Committee stage by the Labour Party and amendments tabled by Mr. Paul Channon at Report stage, which had all-party support. However, the
718
response from the Minister was not very clear; it did not go far enough to satisfy the concerned group of people in Hong Kong or the organisations representing them. It is for that reason that I move this amendment—in order to persuade the Minister to state very clearly what is the position regarding this small but vulnerable group of people and to see what reassurance he can give them.
The members of the organisation called the Concerned British Expatriate Society put forward the grounds for their anxiety. They are as follows. They say that they understand that the Home Secretary indicated some provision for spouses in the event of a British citizen's death in Hong Kong, and assume that that means that those spouses will in theory be permitted to settle in Britain. However, they are not happy about the procedures which might follow.
Members of the organisation wonder what procedures will be necessary before the surviving spouses could exercise their options, and how long it would take before the arrangements were completed. They wonder what the situation would be in the case of an emergency. For example, if a British husband dies leaving a widow in Hong Kong with the children at school in Britain, would the widow have an absolute right to return immediately to Britain to be with her children and to deal with the necessary arrangements? They want to know what assurance will be given that she will not in any circumstances be denied entry in such a situation, and that she would not need to rely on the discretion of the duty immigration officer.
The members want to know whether that widow would be forced into the position of having to claim that she was a tourist in order to ensure entry, thus placing herself at risk by not having disclosed her true intentions at immigration. Those are very real concerns of British citizens in Hong Kong as to the future and what will happen to their bereaved spouses.
The members of the society are not clear whether the provision relates only to spouses who hold BDTC or BN(O) passports and hence that spouses of other nationalities may be denied even this encouragement. That point is of very real concern. When Mr. Peter Lloyd in another place gave his assurance regarding widowed spouses he said that the Home Secretary,
"has therefore given an assurance that applies specifically to British citizens in Hong Kong, that the widowed spouse of a British citizen who was resident in the territory at the time of his or her death will be allowed to settle here as a concession outside the immigration rules".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/90; col. 396.]
That goes a long way, but not quite as far as answering the anxieties put forward by the members of the society. Furthermore, Mr. Lloyd found himself in a dilemma when he was pressed by Mr. Channon in another place regarding the case of a United Kingdom citizen having a spouse who was not Hong Kong Chinese, but may be Japanese, Filipino, Thai or some other nationality. He wanted to know whether that spouse would be covered and what assurances there were for that widow. It was to that question that Mr. Peter Lloyd said,

719
"Such widowed spouses were not included in the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend. However, we should like to consider some of the further points that my right honourable Friend has raised".—[Col. 396.]
He did not go any nearer to clarifying that position. When asked whether the widowed spouses in question would be allowed to enter the United Kingdom for settlement or merely permitted to enter and be required later to make application for indefinite leave to remain, he said,
"I am trying to remember the exact terms of my right hon. and learned Friend's undertaking, but I believe it is for settlement".—[Col. 397.]
Later he said that he wanted to look again at this whole question. That, I think, is the end. We have not heard what the exact terms are, and we have not heard the result of his wanting to look again at this question. Indeed, Mr. Channon and his colleagues were not satisfied with the answer that he gave. Therefore, it is right that we should ask the noble Earl to outline in this debate his intentions about those spouses who have another nationality. As I say, these could be Japanese or Thai who may well have children in England, who have no more connection with the country of their birth and who have supported their husbands during their time in Hong Kong and who might wish to join their children in England. What would be their position?
It is true that there is an anomaly. Those who are offered passports under the scheme proposed by the Government will be able to bring their spouses and children into Britain, whereas UK citizens living in Hong Kong who have married citizens from other countries—those covered by this amendment—will not have the same rights.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a clear answer. We believe that our amendment will remove the anomaly and the worries that I have described and will bring parity. I hope that the Minister will look at the amendment seriously and will give an explanation which will satisfy that small but vulnerable group of people in Hong Kong.
Earl Ferrers: The whole basis of the British Nationality Act 1981 is that the acquisition of citizenship should involve a period of residence in this country. For the spouse of a British citizen that period of residence is three years. It is designed to ensure that the non-British spouse has some links with the United Kingdom, independent of marriage; and, there is, of course, no provision in the 1981 Act for widowed spouses.
The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, represents a fundamental departure from that position. It is essential to our proposals that existing nationality principles should continue to operate normally, except in relation to the 50,000 key personnel selected under the Bill and their immediate families. Nevertheless, I can understand that British expatriates in Hong Kong are anxious that their spouses might become stranded in Hong Kong in the event of their death.
In response to this legitimate worry my right honourable friend gave, during the Second Reading of
720
this Bill in another place, an assurance which applies specifically to all British citizens in Hong Kong. He announced that the widowed spouse of a British citizen who was resident in the territory at the time of his or her death would be allowed to settle here as a concession under the immigration rules, as if coming here as the spouse of a living British citizen. I know that was a point of concern to the noble Baroness and I hope that reply met her approval. The concession was to apply provided that the widow or widower had remained resident in Hong Kong, had not remarried and did not have citizenship of a third country.
My right honourable friend has given further thought to the terms of that assurance. Widowed spouses having citizenship of a third country were excluded from it on the grounds that, if they found it difficult to continue living in Hong Kong, they would have somewhere else to go and would not need to seek refuge here. However, on reflection we accept the argument that, even where the spouse does have citizenship of a third country—the noble Baroness referred to Japan or Thailand—he or she might well have a genuine concern about his or her position if the British partner were to die. My right honourable friend has therefore decided to extend the assurance to widowed spouses with a third country nationality. The assurance of settlement in the United Kingdom is therefore available, provided only that the widowed spouse has not remarried and is still resident in Hong Kong. The assurance can be taken up at any time, whether before or after 1997. British citizens resident in Hong Kong need therefore feel no reason to leave the territory in order to secure their spouse's future.
The Bill has been criticised for differentiating between the spouses of the 50,000 and the spouses of other British citizens. It is perfectly true that in granting the 50,000 immediate access to British citizenship the Bill would be treating them more favourably. The justification for that is the one I set out when I gave our views on Second Reading. The Bill is an exceptional measure directed at a specific group of people who, by definition, are essential to Hong Kong but who are leaving in large numbers.
I hope that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness and that she will feel content with the assurances given.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am most grateful to the Minister. He has responded exactly to the anxieties expressed. I repeat my gratitude and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Procedure]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("Governor of Hong Kong") and insert ("Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12, and I do so extremely briefly. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that it is not the Governor, with due respect to him, who is in charge of the

721
regulations, but the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be answerable to Parliament. That seems to us to be right. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am left aghast at the brevity of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and in admiration of it.
It is of course right that the selection scheme should be set out in an Order in Council and that this should be submitted to Parliament by the Home Secretary. It is the scheme which will set out the principles and criteria according to which applicants will be selected. By contrast, the regulations, with which we are concerned here, will deal with the practical aspects of the administration of the nationality package, specifically with procedural matters and with fees.
The approach which the Government have proposed is to make the Governor and the Secretary of State respectively responsible for regulating those aspects of the arrangements of which they will be in charge. I hope that makes sound sense.
The Bill is constructed on the principle that the responsibility for considering applications, selecting up to 50,000 key people and recommending them and their spouses and children for British citizenship, should rest upon the shoulders of the Governor. In those circumstances, it should be for him to regulate those stages of the process. The Governor has control of the administrative machinery and the necessary local knowledge. Therefore, it is he who is best placed to prescribe the most suitable procedures.
It has been suggested that the final decision on the composition of the advisory committee should rest with the Secretary of State. I do not believe that it would be either sensible or helpful to transfer the appointment of the committee to the Secretary of State. The committee's role will be purely advisory and the person who will need its advice will be the Governor of Hong Kong. It is upon his shoulders that the responsibility for operating the selection scheme will lie. In those circumstances, it must be for him to appoint to the committee those people whom he feels can best assist him in his task. What is more, only the Governor will have the necessary local knowledge to enable him to make a sensible judgment.
I do not believe that transferring to Whitehall the appointment of the committee would improve either the quality or the impartiality of the appointment process. On the contrary, I think that Hong Kong is more likely to have confidence in the committee if it is appointed locally by the Governor rather than by a Government Minister in London.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister is so generous that he has dealt not only with amendments that I moved but with Amendment No. 13, which I have not yet moved. In order to expedite the proceedings of the Committee I say at once that it seems a great shame that the Government are recommending that Parliament be excluded from vital matters that affect the citizens of a colony that they have looked after for so many years. It is a shame that all this is being done locally
722
in Hong Kong by the Governor without Parliament being able to deal with the regulations in any way. The Governor will make them, and that is that.
As the Minister has been kind enough to deal with Amendment No. 13, which I have not yet moved, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak to it with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 and deal later with the moving or not moving of it. Again, this committee will have a great deal of power. I believe that the estimate of the number of applicants is about 250,000. They will come before the committee, and again the Governor is given the power not just to nominate but to appoint. No questions can be asked in Parliament about the suitability or unsuitability of the committee concerned. All that is vested in the Governor. Quite obviously, Parliament disapproves because the lights have immediately become dimmed. I point out that this diminution of parliamentary power is taking place at the wish of the Government. I hope that there will be second thoughts concerning this matter. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("appoint") and insert ("nominate").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, as has the Minister. I hope that some of the words that I have uttered, quite apart from the miraculous intervention of providence, will enable the Minister to think again about nomination by the Governor and not appointment. I beg to move.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: We spent a considerable time earlier deciding whether or not to delete "shall" and insert "may". In that respect we were talking about the allocation of powers and responsibilities between the Governor of Hong Kong and the Secretary of State. If the Government are not persuaded by the eloquent pleadings of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, supported in part in the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Renton, and if "shall" stands part of Clause 1, we should spend a little time discussing the machinery by which the Governor of Hong Kong is going to exercise his powers and responsibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, made a trenchant contribution about the consultants' needs and responsibilities in terms of keeping Hong Kong going. He made the point that while the Governor may be the best judge of what is in the best interests of Hong Kong, he is not necessarily the best judge of what is in the best interests of Hong Kong and Britain. In that regard I wish to make a narrow point about the composition of the committee. At Second Reading I expressed my concern about the operation of the points system. I heartily concur with my noble friend Lord Derwent in his comments. The operation of that scheme may be inimical to the interests of British industry and commerce.
I suggest to the Committee that my concern would be alleviated somewhat if the UK senior trade commissioner was appointed to the committee. He is

723
responsible for the protection, promotion and advancement of British trade and commerce and industrial interests. He has ambassadorial status and he is an ex-Foreign Office man. He has been appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry to represent those trade, industrial and commercial interests. I urge the Secretary of State to make strong representations to the Governor of Hong Kong that, in the general interests of interpreting what is in the best interests of British companies, however defined, and other related matters the appointment of the senior trade commissioner be considered.
Earl Ferrers: I am enormously excited that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should think that I spoke to Amendment No. 13 at the same time as speaking to Amendment No. 11. I try to prepare myself with a certain amount of rigidity towards the matters that I have to speak to. I also have to prepare myself for all the vicissitudes that I am likely to be subjected to by the noble Lord. I can assure him that it was not part of my intention to divest myself of all my thoughts on Amendment No. 13 when dealing with Amendment No. 11. The fact is that, had I not done so, I should be bound to tell the noble Lord that essentially the same objection applies to Amendment No. 13 as I gave to Amendment No. 11. It is that the decision should be taken locally by the Governor because he has the best knowledge of all the circumstances in Hong Kong and of local personalities.
My noble friend Lord Sharp asked whether the Governor of Hong Kong would take it on himself to include the senior trade commissioner. I must tell him that it is up to the Governor to appoint those whom he feels are most suitable to advise him on these matters. No doubt he will take note of what my noble friend has said. I cannot go further than that and give my not le friend any suggestion that the Governor will or will not follow his proposal.
Lord Mishcon: With his admirable and usual ingenuity, the Minister paraphrased what he said under Amendment No. 11 with eloquence and clarity when he dealt with Amendment No. 13. I have failed to convince him that Parliament should play some part in this matter and that there should be ministerial responsibility instead of placing it all in Hong Kong. I seem to have failed in that effort. At this time it is inappropriate to do anything other than ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert:
("(5) Regulations made under this section shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I rise with the same objective in mind that I had when moving Amendments Nos. 11 to 13. It is at least to give some residuary power to Parliament so that the regulations can be formally placed before both Houses and approved. If Parliament feels that they are not fair in any respect then at least the parliamentary voice will have been heard. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough not to say that I had spoken to this amendment as well. Had he done so I should have been bound to tell him that, in response to Amendment No. 11, the Committee endorsed the Government's view that it would be inappropriate for the regulations governing the procedures in Hong Kong in relation to applications and to the selection scheme to be made by the Secretary of State. These must and will be local regulations made by the Governor. It follows from that that it would be inappropriate for the regulations to be laid before Parliament. There would be no mechanism for it. The Governor would have no locus to enable him to lay the regulations before us. While I can understand the noble Lord's desire to have parliamentary approval, this matter is the responsibility of the Governor.
Lord Mishcon: At least I have advanced in the sense that the point I made is understandable. That indeed is progress. It does not really mean that I think that the Government accept the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, savings, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: In the course of moving Amendment No. 1 I pointed out what appeared to be a contrast, to say the least—if not an inconsistency—between Clause 1 and Clause 6. Clause 1 says that the Governor recommends and the Secretary of State has to accept—the mandatory word is now in. The only exceptions to that are made by Clause 1.
Clause 6 differs from that in that it says that the Secretary of State has the right not to register any of the families recommended by the Governor if the Secretary of State takes a certain view about the applicant's character or the character of a member of the applicant's family. I shall not argue the point now, and the Committee would not expect me to do so. I merely draw attention again to what seems to me to be an inconsistency. All I ask of the Minister is that he does not forget the point that I have raised. It may well be that I shall receive a letter from him with reasons as to why I am wrong. If I happen to be right he will have an opportunity at Third Reading to put the situation right.
Earl Ferrers: I find 3it difficult to forget any points which the noble Lord makes. I shall certainly see that the point about which he is concerned is considered, as I said I would do in regard to Clause 1. I shall, if I may, take up his suggestion and write to him about it.
Lord Mishcon: I am much obliged.
Clause 6 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Selection Schemes]:
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: It is interesting that at this stage of the evening's debate the amendment assumes greater importance than it would otherwise have through the Government not accepting Amendments Nos. 11 to 14. By not accepting those amendments the Government have effectively surrendered the Secretary of State's powers to the Governor, who is not answerable to Parliament in the way that the Secretary of State is. On that basis it behoves us to be very careful about the authority we devolve to the Governor.
In moving the amendment I am attempting to take away from the Governor a certain amount of discretion with regard to his determination of which persons should be recommended for British citizenship. As we heard in the first debate today on whether the word used should be "shall" or "may", the Secretary of State is by virtue of the Bill required to confer British citizenship on. whoever the Governor recommends. Given that circumstance it becomes very important for the decision of the Governor to be completely open and above board and beyond question. We have also heard that the discretion of the Governor cannot be challenged in the sense that judicial review will not be available regarding a discretionary decision.
The argument against this amendment will concern how a decision will be made between two or more applicants who have the same points total. There are three possibilities. First, the situation would not arise if the scheme were so devised that points allocated did not produce a tie. It should not be beyond the wit of man, of computers or of a committee—a committee would be the perfect instrument to do it—to devise a scheme which did not produce a tie. Another option is to provide what I would describe as random selection. In effect, one would put all the names into a hat or box and draw out the requisite number of names. The first names out of the box would achieve the result.
The worst possibility is the one with which we are faced by the Bill as it is drafted. I refer to the Governor having to make the decision on some criterion which is not written down. Such a scheme is bound to be almost by definition an arbitrary decision which is not capable of rational explanation and, what is worse, is capable of misinterpretation. Some Members of the Committee will remember that at Second Reading I raised the possibility of monetary arrangements being involved in the selection system. That would be a very unfortunate possibility for people to associate with the selection of these 50,000 heads of household. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and I studied what he said at Second Reading. What I fail to understand is his assertion that in some way others would be better suited and better fitted than the Governor to decide between two people who might have the same number of points. To
726
suggest that somebody over here would be more suited is the same argument as was so well answered by my noble friend Lord Ferrers with regard to the importance of the Governor knowing his own area better than anyone else.
To suggest, as the noble Lord has said again tonight, that in some way a form of bribery is even practicable in these circumstances is outrageous. What he says impinges not only on the Governor of Hong Kong but on an extremely able body of people who serve the Governor. It is a monstrous allegation. I hope that the noble Lord will think carefully before going further in that way.
Lord Mishcon: I Was not in the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, spoke at Second Reading. However, I hope that I know him well enough to know that he did not wish to give offence to anyone. If he meant literally what he said I do not think that he did—I should like to dissociate the Front Bench of this party from any such suggestion.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for making that intervention. Those of us who heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, on Second Reading were frankly horrified by what was suggested. Although the noble Lord has come to his rescue as best he can in saying that the noble Lord did not really mean what he said, all I can say is that to those of us who heard his speech it sounded very much as if he did mean what he said. However, if he did not mean what he said he would have been better advised not to have spoken.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, actually returned to the subject, although in a more modest way, this evening. He referred to "monetary transactions". My noble friend Lord Glenarthur is quite right to suggest that if there is any question of bribery being insinuated in any of these considerations, it is indeed a monstrous suggestion. I hope that the noble Lord will, if I may put it this way, get that out of his system as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord suggested two changes. He moved Amendment No. 15, but I presume that he was speaking also to Amendment No. 16 as they are grouped together. His proposed changes to the Bill would affect the form of the selection scheme and would take away from the Governor, as he put it, the discretion as to who should have citizenship.
I can well understand the concern which some people may feel about the Governor having the power to choose between two equally qualified candidates. However, I believe that it is justified as an essential power of last resort. The intention is that in general the points scheme will pick out those applicants with the best claim, on the basis of the criteria to be approved by Parliament; and the special circumstances points, which will be awarded after taking into account the advice of the steering group, will help to distinguish between otherwise equally qualified candidates.
But there may, nevertheless, be circumstances when more than one candidate has secured a particular points total, and the number of places available is

727
insufficient. In these cases, either available places must be left unfilled, or someone must choose who will fill them. In my view, it is in the best interests of Hong Kong that such places should not be wasted. Therefore, a choice should be made, and I think that the Governor, who is in the best position to take account of local circumstances, is the right person to make the choice. He will, if he wishes, be able to call upon the advice of the steering group before exercising this discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is concerned about the power, in subparagraph (2), for the Governor to recommend people on the basis of their outstanding contribution to Hong Kong's economy. That Provision is directed to the key entrepreneurs section of the scheme described in the Explanatory Memorandum.
The key entrepreneurs section covers just 1 per cent. of the 50,000 places available, and is intended for those businessmen who have, over the years, built up some of Hong Kong's most successful commercial enterprises. Large numbers of people depend on them for employment, and there is no doubt that if such key businessmen left Hong Kong, their departure would damage confidence.
It therefore seems entirely fitting that a small proportion of places should be reserved for this category. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a scheme which is designed to select key people in Hong Kong should not specifically include them.
Lord Monkswell: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, some in support of my proposals and others seeking clarification. By my remarks, and the amendments tabled in my name, I do not intend to cast any aspersions upon the character or the position of the Governor of Hong Kong or members of the Civil Service. That was not my intention. However, it is to protect their good name and position that I wish to take away the discretion which may bring them into a situation where other people may think that they may be unduly influenced by money or bribery. By keeping the legislation as it is, we would be putting them in an invidious situation. I see no reason why we should do so.
Perhaps the Minister can give me some explanation as to why a lottery system is not an acceptable method of determining between a small number of applicants who may have the same number of points, as opposed to using the discretion of the Governor. I do not think he answered that point. I think that it would be useful for us to know the Government's view on the matter.
I turn now to deal with Amendment No. 16. In regard to the selection of entrepreneurs to which the noble Earl referred, I fail to see why the recommendation must be at the discretion of the Governor and why it cannot be determined by some scheme or arrangement.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was concerned about the situation where a number of people had achieved the same number of points. He suggested that, when the Governor had to choose who
728
should be acceptable, perhaps a lottery system could be used. Whatever system one devises, there is always the possibility that there will be more than the correct number of people who are theoretically available for acceptance to the scheme.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked what would happen if there were 50,001 applicants who were acceptable. In such a situation someone has to choose. One can either use the rather disagreeable suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, whereby you have a lottery and simply spin the wheel, or one can consult the person who is more likely to be the most knowledgeable on the matter—namely, the Governor—who will then be able to say, "From all those who are equally qualified I must make a decision on who is the most qualified". In the end, it comes down to a personal decision. Of course the system is not infallible and wrong decisions may be made. However, a wrong decision made in that way is more likely to be right than a decision made by way of a lottery.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for his reply. It was not terribly satisfactory. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Registration of Spouses and Minor Children]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, leave out lines 6 and 7.
The noble Lord said: Again we have a situation where there is a discretion given to the Governor to recommend whether a spouse or a child of someone who has obtained British citizenship by virtue of the scheme should or should not become a British citizen. It seems to me to be rather an unsatisfactory arrangement when, having gone through the procedures of the scheme, someone has obtained the qualifications to become a British citizen and the Governor quite arbitrarily—because there are no requirements upon him to seek guidance as to how he should reach such a decision—may or may not allow the spouse or the child to become a British citizen alongside the person who is a registered British citizen.
We come under enough criticism in this country in our immigration procedures for separating families. Therefore, to allow the possibility for such a situation to arise under the provisions of the Bill, for whatever reason—and the Governor is not given any advice as to how he should reach his decision—is quite unsatisfactory.
I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. Effectively it is a continuation of the Governor's power to withhold British citizenship from spouses or children. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment on the basis that it must fly in the face of

729
our human rights obligations to give the Governor of one of our colonies the power effectively to separate a family.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, says that he hopes that the Government will accept the amendment because it goes against the human rights convention. I do not advise the Committee to accept the amendment for reasons which I shall give. The amendments seek to make acquisition of British citizenship by spouses and children automatic rather than conditional on a recommendation by the Governor. The amendment would require the Home Secretary to register spouses and children whether or not they wish for or had applied for it. That is undesirable. Any spouses and existing children should be given a choice.
I should make it clear that spouses and children will normally be recommended as a matter of course. The requirement for them to be recommended, however, ensures that their applications will initially be processed by the Hong Kong Government who will be in a much better position than the small team of United Kingdom officials whom we expect to establish in the territory to undertake the task of carrying out the relevant checks, ensuring that the information provided is correct and confirming whether the applicants are eligible for registration in accordance with the Bill's requirements.
The requirement for a recommendation from the Governor will also ensure that he can check whether applicants meet the good character requirements. The amendments are also inappropriate because they remove the 1997 cut-off date. Under the amendment, spouses would continue to be eligible long after the intended life of the assurance package had passed. For example, a principal beneficiary who contracted a marriage well into the next century, having remained settled in Hong Kong, would be able to transmit citizenship to the new spouse. In the Government's view, spouses acquired after 1997 should be subject to the normal rules governing the acquisition of citizenship by spouses as set out in the 1981 Act.
Lord Monkswell: On the basis that we shall not get far with the Government and the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 12, leave out from ("above") to end of line 14.
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to delete from the Bill the restriction that it appears to place on the ability of a British citizen to marry the person of his or her choice. As I understand it, the Bill provides that someone who is registered as a British citizen under the procedures of the Bill will not be permitted to marry someone unless he or she is resident and settled in Hong Kong. That flies in the face of the established situation as I understand it: that a British citizen is free to marry whomsoever he or she chooses. I am not a legal expert, but as far as
730
I am aware the Government have not yet seen fit to restrict the ability of a British citizen to marry whomsoever he or she wishes.
The Bill appears to place such a restriction on a British citizen. If the Minister can assure me that my interpretation of the Bill is wrong, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. On the basis that that is my understanding, I feel that the Bill is wrong. I hope that most of the Committee thinks that it is wrong. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to remove the proviso under which a spouse acquired after the registration of the principal beneficiary will be eligible under the Bill only if the principal beneficiary is settled in Hong Kong at the time of the marriage.
The justification for that proviso is self-evident. The privilege of immediate British citizenship for a spouse is justified only by the Bill's objective of anchoring principal beneficiaries in the territory.
Clearly, in those cases (which we believe will be few) where the recipient of an assurance emigrates from Hong Kong, contrary to our intention in granting citizenship, it follows that there can no longer be any justification for the spouse of a subsequent marriage to be registered under the Bill. In those circumstances, it must be right that such a spouse should have to meet the normal requirements for the acquisition of British citizenship, as set out in the 1981 Act.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it would be appropriate to say a few words in regard to this Motion.
We all appreciate the courtesy with which the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, when he dealt with amendments, treated us during Committee stage. They fully realise, however, that courtesy is not sufficient on such a Bill. Important points have been raised at this stage. If I repeat myself, I apologise, but it is necessary. I hope that because the points are so important constitutionally and for the sake of our name in Hong Kong, the debate will be seriously considered by the Minister and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Perhaps they will consider them with a view to seeing that there is a completely open mind on the important matters that have been raised, and that possibly we shall receive some benefit from this stage when we reach Third Reading.
Earl Ferrers: My 3Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for making those remarks and for doing so as briefly as possible. I greatly appreciate the co-operation which he has given over the Bill. I realise that some aspects are fairly unacceptable to

731
Her Majesty's Opposition for various reasons, yet the noble Lord has seen that the progress of the Bill has been as equable as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is the first to realise that there is a problem in Hong Kong which we did not wish to happen. We had to take steps to alleviate it. Whatever steps we took would not have been acceptable to everyone. We took those steps that we thought were right and that would command the greatest acceptance not only in Hong Kong but also in this country.
As we have gone through the Committee stage today, various aspects have not found favour with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He has been kind enough to express reservations but not in an offensive or
732
unduly penetrating way. I have told him that I shall consider the matters that he raised with as open a mind as possible. He will realise that when a whole department of government has been considering matters strenuously over the past six months to try to reach the right conclusions, it is difficult to contemplate that possibly all the conclusions are wrong. Despite that, I shall keep as open a mind as I can in considering the points which I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others have made seriously.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report received.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past nine o'clock.

  AMBULANCE DISPUTE: COST
  AMBULANCE DISPUTE: COST
  PATENT LIFE
  PATENT LIFE
  SERVICE FAMILIES: ACCOMMODATION HIRINGS
  SERVICE FAMILIES: ACCOMMODATION HIRINGS
  SERVICE FAMILIES' MARRIED QUARTERS: SCRUTINY
  SERVICE FAMILIES' MARRIED QUARTERS: SCRUTINY
  RAF MARRIED QUARTERS, BIGGIN HILL
  RAF MARRIED QUARTERS, BIGGIN HILL
  PRINCESS MARY'S RAF HOSPITAL
  PRINCESS MARY'S RAF HOSPITAL
  RAF TRADE TRAINING
  RAF TRADE TRAINING
  RAF OFFICER AND AIRCREW SELECTION
  RAF OFFICER AND AIRCREW SELECTION
  PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT LICENCES
  PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT LICENCES
  BST IN COWS' MILK: RESEARCH
  BST IN COWS' MILK: RESEARCH
  BST: PRODUCT STATUS
  BST: PRODUCT STATUS
  EMU: CONSULTATIONS
  EMU: CONSULTATIONS
  INTRA-EC TRADE FIGURES AND VAT RECORDS
  INTRA-EC TRADE FIGURES AND VAT RECORDS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO STATUTORY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO STATUTORY BODIES