Sitting of 25 July 1990

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

  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, having been signified—
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.
  To be considered on Monday 15 October at Seven o'clock.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Lords amendments agreed to.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
  That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 October.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 October.
  Mr. Speaker: As all the Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 October.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 October.

  SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 October.

  EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 October.

  KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 October.

  HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session:
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time.
  That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented with the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Wednesday 17 October at Seven o'clock.

  KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the

  443
  Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

  MIDLAND MEMO BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Midland Metro Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

  445
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Local Authorities (Expenditure)
    Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any assessment of spending needs of local authorities for the coming financial year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made to the House on 19 July.
    Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State will probably recall that on 25 April he said that he would reconsider the standard spending assessment calculations for next year in the light of local authority representations. He will also probably recall that his Minister of State said on 12 July that he would not reconsider the standard spending assessment system. Which of the two right hon. and hon. Members is right?
    Mr. Patten: We have always made it entirely clear that we are prepared to consider fresh evidence on the methodology that underlies the new grant distribution formula. That has been, and remains, our position. We shall consider fresh evidence and make our proposals in due course.
    Mr. Ward: When my right hon. Friend comes to consider spending needs for the coming year, will he ensure that councils that have not really bothered to try to collect the community charge do not receive any special recompense? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate Poole borough council, which has collected 97 per cent. of the community charge—the highest in the country?
    Mr. Patten: The collection figures of the more competent local authorities are pretty good. I congratulate the elected members and officers in my hon. Friend's local authority on the record that they have set. Overall, the figures for collection of the community charge are about the same as those for domestic rates in their last year.
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Secretary of State now agree that there is overwhelming evidence that many of the SSAs are wrong; and will he give an assurance that action will be taken to help county councils such as Lancashire, so that it receives a fair allocation of Government resources with which to meet the needs for essential services of the community that elected that council?
    Mr. Patten: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about SSAs, but I believe that several local authorities, including Lancashire county council, have not been providing value for money.

    Environmentally Friendly Goods
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to encourage uniform standards in the labelling of environmentally friendly goods.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): A national

    447
    advisory group has been appointed to help develop a workable scheme for awarding environmental labels to products so as to inform consumer choice. We hope that that will be part of a European Communitywide scheme which will facilitate trade.
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful for that answer. Most people, given a choice, would want to purchase environmentally friendly goods. Will my hon. Friend ensure that goods are clearly labelled in future so that consumers can readily identify which of them are environmentally friendly?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, we are aware that there are several less than satisfactory labelling schemes. The Department of Trade and Industry is looking into whether they should be banned under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. One of the advantages of having our own authoritative scheme is that it will clear the market of the less than satisfactory alternatives.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister discuss with Ministers in the Department of Energy environmental labelling of power stations? Will he consider putting the same information in very big writing on power stations as he would like on other goods—that is, the environmental disadvantages and the cost of nuclear power—so that everyone can see what the real choices in energy consumption are and, in the light of today's Select Committee report, what a waste of money nuclear power is?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: All methods of generating electricity show a balance of environmental advantages and disadvantages. As the hon. Gentleman knows, nuclear power produces no gaseous emissions and is therefore benign from the point of view of global warming. It may also have disadvantages, but the information is freely available and nuclear power does not require a separate labelling system.
    Mr. Squire: Given that few products are wholly benign, and as my hon. Friend is looking at a cradle-to-grave concept, is he looking into a series of gradations in labelling so that consumers can have an idea of comparative benefit, rather than a system of absolute benefits or absolute disadvantages?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is open to the advisory committee to come up with a number of alternatives such as my hon. Friend suggests, but I believe that simplicity is a virtue. We want to guide the consumer with a scheme that is readily understood, and that might work against making labels too complex.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Which soap powder is used in the Minister's household, and why is it environmentally friendly?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No doubt the advisory committee will be labelling soap powders, but which soap powders are used in the House of Commons is not my responsibility.

    Chipboard Factories
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received on chipboard factory emissions; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I have received several representations, including some from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), whom I met to discuss the issue early this week. I also met delegations from Cowie and Chirk at the same meeting.
    Mr. Amos: Pursuant to the meeting between my hon. Friend and the delegation from Hexham on Monday, may I express the thanks of the people of Hexham to my hon. Friend for so promptly establishing a system of air pollution control to deal with emissions from the Egger factory, without in any way affecting the commercial viability or economic success of the factory? While asking him to look sympathetically at the few outstanding items of detail, may I urge him to accept that this has brought about a real improvement—at long last—for my constituents in the Hexham area? Is not this yet another example of how the Government listen and take prompt and effective action, compared with the Opposition, who promise everything and do nothing?
    Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I congratulate him on his leadership of the three delegations that I saw early this week. I am delighted to tell him that I shall respond in detail to the outstanding matters that were discussed at our earlier meeting and I am confident that my letter will please him.
    Mr. Speller: May I ask my hon. Friend also to bear it in mind that there are other chipboard factories throughout the country? There is a large one in South Molton, which has always co-operated fully with the local authority. This year it received a clean bill of health and intends to keep it that way. It is easy to seek to be especially awkward about anything that appears to be outside the norm of the wonderful green countryside.
    Mr. Trippier: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's latter point. The purpose of the delegation that came to see me was to try to establish the correct balance between the economic activity that is generated by these important companies and the environment in which they operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has said, the environment in which chipboard companies operate has not been acceptable in recent times. As a result of our discussions and the improvements that have been catalogued in the Environmental Protection Bill, we think that we have the balance right.

    Home Ownership
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of adults owned their own homes in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1989.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): Some 54 per cent. of households in England were owner-occupiers in 1979, 59 per cent. in 1983 and 65 per cent. in 1987 and 1988. Survey results for 1989 are not yet

    449
    available, but between 1979 and 1988 the number of owner-occupier households has increased by nearly 3 million.
    Dr. Twinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steady progress made by the Government over the past seven years in extending owner-occupation. Does he agree that the time is now right further to extend that, particularly by helping council flat tenants through bringing in the rents-to-morgage scheme as soon as possible?
    Mr. Spicer: We are looking at several ways of increasing home ownership among lower-income groups. The rents-to-mortgage scheme is one of the options that we are considering, but we are also looking at other schemes such as increasing shared ownership and part-mortgage schemes.
    Mr. Cryer: In pursuit of the right to buy, does the Minister intend to introduce rights for private tenants to buy their property or is the discrimination by the Tory party against private tenants and in favour of private landlords to continue? When will he consider those who cannot afford to buy, people who want decent homes at reasonable rents? The Minister must know that local authorities, which have traditionally provided such homes, are short of funds to build council housing, which remains the basic prerequisite for people who need housing.
    Mr. Spicer: Unlike the Labour party, we do not believe in the sequestration of private property. I hope that people will look at the Labour party's pronouncements and writings on that subject, because it avowedly believes in the sequestration of private property. The hon. Gentleman asked about reasonable rents. I totally agree that we want a more thriving rented sector, especially in the private rented sector. One of the ways to reduce rents in the private sector is to supply more properties.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend accept that those encouraging figures are very much due to the successful Government policy over the years of selling council houses? Is he aware that the Labour-controlled Norwich city council has never been keen on that policy and is still actively discouraging the sale of council houses? Does he agree that such a policy does nothing to increase the housing stock in Norwich or anywhere else?
    Mr. Spicer: Norwich has to comply with the law. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the right-to-buy policy has been a tremendous success. More than 1·2 million households have now exercised that right. The pressure from people to buy is increasing and we think that about 80,000 people will buy this year. My hon. Friend is right to press his council to comply with the law.
    Mr. George Howarth: When will the Minister recognise that there is no virtue in either owning or renting a property, but that the real difficulty is that the housing finance system is more chaotic and useless than that of any other European country? When will he introduce proposals to increase people's choice of whether to rent or buy, and when will he reform the housing finance system? The real problem is that people do not have a choice.
    Mr. Spicer: I agree that we want a more thriving rented sector. However, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not agree when I say that we want that to be largely in the private and housing association sectors. Therefore, it is of
    450
    great concern to us that the Labour party is preparing policies further to undermine and possibly to kill off the private rented sector, as that would kill the choice that the hon. Gentleman goes on about.

    Land Register
    Mr. Ashby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of unused land from the land register.
    Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of derelict land from the land register.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: We are considering various possibilities. Any firm proposals would be the subject of public consultation.
    Mr. Ashby: Is not it a scandal that so much public land in our towns and cities is lying idle? Will my hon. Friend take urgent steps to ensure that that land is sold off to the private sector, which knows how to put it into good and productive use?
    Mr. Spicer: I listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say on the matter. He is right that a great amount of vacant land is held in the public sector. There are at least 80,000 acres on the register, and there are questions as to whether that accurately reflects the total amount of vacant land. We are looking urgently and seriously at that matter.
    Mr. Alison: Given that plenty of land is still on the register, will my hon. Friend undertake to call in proposals to develop a substantial small new town with new housing on Acaster Malbis airfield near York, in my constituency, given that that development is unrelated to any present settlements and is in conflict with the local structure and the local plan?
    Mr. Spicer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on specific applications. When we have further information about the plans in his constituency, and in particular about the local planning authority's view, we shall be able to take a view about calling in.
    Mr. Winnick: In so far as this building land is for housing, will the Minister bear it in mind that the majority of people who are in desperate housing need, and others who sympathise with them, believe that local authorities should once again be in a position to build? Is the Minister aware that a recent survey published by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux shows the failure, arising from the Housing Act 1988, of the private rented sector to provide accommodation for people with ordinary incomes? Does not that demonstrate that those who cannot afford a mortgage should be able to have decent accommodation without having to live with their families or their in-laws, or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?
    Mr. Spicer: The problems of the private rented sector have nothing to do with the 1988 Act. That Act has started the process of putting them right. The problems have more to do with the denigration of private landlords, which has gone on, largely led by the Labour party, over many years. That is very much in contrast with what happens in most other industrialised countries.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister will recognise that much of the derelict and unused land is contaminated. Do the Government intend to respond to the report on contaminated land by the Select Committee on the Environment, which said that that is a major problem in many of the older and industrial towns?
    Mr. Spicer: We are reviewing policy on contaminated land, but already £70 million of derelict land grant is available for contaminated as well as other vacant land.
    Mr. Steen: I am sure that the House would like to know whether the Minister sleeps well at night knowing that there are 80,000 acres of derelict land on the register, another 80,000 acres of public vacant land that should be on the register, and three quarters of a million empty houses. Should not an embargo be placed on building houses on green-field sites until the derelict and vacant land in public ownership is used up and the empty houses all over the country are occupied?
    Mr. Spicer: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend wants an answer about my sleeping habits, but I do understand that green-field development is questionable when large sectors of public land are vacant. Under present plans, we would be urbanising—if that is the right word—about 140,000 acres up to the end of the century, whereas, if my hon. Friend's figures are right—and I have no reason to dispute them—the area of public vacant land exceeds that figure. My hon. Friend is right to point that out.

    Nature Conservancy Council
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has available on the cost to date of his proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council and for the establishment of new posts to cover work previously undertaken by Nature Conservancy Council headquarters in Peterborough.
    Mr. Trippier: The Government have allocated £1·4 million in the current financial year to cover costs arising directly from the proposal to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council and the other conservation agencies. To date, just over £95,000 has been spent. Work on the staffing and organisational structures of the new bodies continues, and we hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is William Wilkinson's figure of £30 million correct or incorrect?
    Mr. Trippier: It is incorrect. Some rather wild estimates have been published in the national newspapers, but they have no basis in fact and are, at best, pure speculation. There is genuine confusion between what could be earmarked as reorganisation costs and the real costs of the new organisations that will be set up as a result of the green Bill currently going through Parliament. There is no basis for those estimates and I believe that the figure will be much more modest.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that the exaggerations expressed in those figures are of a piece with the chairman's propensity to exaggerate? Does he further accept that the reorganisation of the structure on which the Government have embarked is widely welcomed in Scotland because it will lead to a more sensitive handling of environmental issues there?
    Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his latter comments, which I believe are realistic and present to the House a true and fair picture of precisely what will happen. The proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill will deliver improved conservation. There is no change in the Government's policy. We are simply changing the machinery.
    Mr. Gould: But is not it the case that the slur that we have just heard cast on the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council can be removed only when the figure produced by independent consultants is released for public information? Is not that figure in the area of £30 million? If the Minister does not accept that figure, why not, and what is his estimate? Why will not he guarantee that any extra administrative costs, whether £30 million or something like that, that are the result of the Government's unnecessary reorganisation, will be met by new money, not from the existing Nature Conservancy Council budget? If he will not do that, will not his refusal further undermine the Government's already and justifiably fading green pretensions as well as the vital nature conservancy effort?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman will have taken note of the fact that I carefully did not join in the remonstration by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in the earlier part of his question, nor should I wish to. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) would not wish to be associated with that. I met Sir William Wilkinson last week and we discussed the figure that has just been mentioned. There was a clear conflict between his understanding and the understanding of Mr. Timothy Hornsby, who also attended the meeting. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a much more realistic figure was agreed between Mr. Timothy Hornsby and my officials at the Department of the Environment. I have never sought to deny in any way, shape or form that reorganisation will cost more money. If we are to deliver the policy to which I referred earlier, it will cost more money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are clear about the matter. We are under the microscope. We know that we have to deliver improved conservation. That we have already shown in the 11 years that we have been in office. During that period we have increased expenditure on nature conservation by 160 per cent. in real terms. The previous Labour Government cut it. Labour Members just talk about conservation; they do absolutely nothing about it.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I give notice that I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Pollution Inspectorate and National Rivers Authority
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of employees of (a) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and (b) the National Rivers Authority.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The total number of staff in post in HMIP is 215. The National Rivers Authority employs a total of some 6,700 staff, of which some 750 are engaged in pollution control responsibilities.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister accept that there are appalling double standards in that the NRA has 6,000 staff

    453
    to deal with water pollution while HMIP has only 200 staff to deal with air pollution and toxic waste management? Does that not result in poor monitoring and poor regulation? Is it not time that the Department considered the possibility of the NRA taking over the functions of HMIP, especially as the latter appears to be a shambles?
    Mr. Patten: I am delighted with the hon. Gentleman's well-merited commendation of the NRA, whose performance is a result of the Government's admirable legislation on water privatisation which has had a beneficial effect on the water environment.
    The hon. Gentleman may not have heard, but in my original answer I said that the correct figure for staff in the NRA doing jobs more or less comparable with those in HMIP was 750, not 6,700, although the jobs cannot be precisely compared. We are increasing the complement of HMIP, we have increased the salaries for pollution inspectors, and we are continuing to recruit.
    The problem faced by both the public sector and the private sector in Britain and in other countries is a shortage of people with the requisite skills. We shall be saying a great deal about higher education and training in our White Paper later this year.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the director of HMIP the strong exception taken by my constituents and by the people of Greater Manchester to the inspectorate's rubber stamping of a proposal for a chemical and clinical waste incinerator at Trafford Park? Does my hon. Friend agree that the centre of a conurbation of 3 million people is no fit place for chemical, clinical, and toxic waste incinerators and will he investigate the situation?
    Mr. Patten: I will certainly do that. As I understand it, my hon. Friend has an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment tomorrow and I am sure that he will be satisfied with the Government's response.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that many difficulties are being encountered by both the NRA and HMIP in trying to work out their new relationship? At times, the two bodies have to monitor the same pipe or outlet to different standards. Does not that emphasise the need for an independent, integrated environmental protection executive, and does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he was wrong in Committee to reject our proposals for such an executive? Does he accept that there will not be proper progress on protecting and cleaning up the environment until such an executive is established?
    Mr. Patten: No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady's last point. It is a matter to which we have paid close attention, but I am far from convinced that the right way to ensure better monitoring and regulation of pollution is to have a further reorganisation of the inspectorates charged with those responsibilities.
    We are always open to bright ideas, even when they come from the Opposition, although that is all too rare an occurrence. We are looking forward to the announcement of some bright ideas about local government finance from Mr. Peter Mandelson later today. I am sure that it will take account of all that the Opposition have said about domestic rates.
    I assure the hon. Lady that we shall deal with those institutional matters in our White Paper later this year. I
    454
    do not take the view that institutional arrangements can substitute for sensible policies—and we have been pursuing sensible policies.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to finalise the elements which will determine standard spending assessments for 1991–92.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals for standard spending assessments in the autumn.
    Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of standard spending assessments for the current year, the London borough of Havering has suffered a complete standstill in Government funding and thus finds itself charging adults £60 more each than if the settlement had allowed for even the average increase in outer London? Can my hon. Friend give even a cautious early warning of good news for my constituents in regard to next year's settlement, so that they may hope for a better outcome?
    Mr. Portillo: I know of the Havering situation because my hon. Friend has led a number of delegations to Ministers in that regard. Havering's settlement was less than the average above its old grant-related expenditure assessment, but that does not suggest to me that it was unfair. I remind my hon. Friend that total standard spending for next year, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, will be up 19 per cent. The likelihood is that SSAs will, on average, increase considerably. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) will have heard my right hon. Friend's remark that we are, of course, willing to consider new evidence in respect of SSAs.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What are the Minister's preliminary views on fixing the SSA for Wandsworth? Does he think that it is right for Wandsworth to be considering cutting its services to the elderly, the disabled and the blind in advance of fixing its poll tax for 199 I? Is cutting services to those most in need what this flagship of Conservative local government is all about? Is not that approach quite squalid?
    Mr. Portillo: Wandsworth's standard spending assessment was set on exactly the same basis as that used for every other authority. The proof of that is that Wandsworth received considerably less under its standard spending assessment than did a number of other London boroughs, such as Lambeth. There is no question of unfairness. I shall consider any new evidence relating to Wandsworth, as I shall in respect of other boroughs, but the spending decisions taken by local authorities are for them. In Wandsworth's case, the council is setting such a low community charge that there is, I am pleased to say, no question of capping.
    Mr. Paice: When a local authority has to raise money to pay for its spending, will my hon. Friend consider the implications if that money were raised by a rate system from which two thirds of those apparently liable are either exempt or receive a 100 per cent. rebate? Would not that represent a return to the rotten borough situation which

    455
    applied to so many Labour local authorities, which bought votes at the expense of the few ratepayers who had to meet the bills?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The twin evils of the rating system were that only about half the population paid for local authority spending, which was grossly unfair—particularly given how that sample was selected—and that with such a small proportion of the population paying, some local authorities felt that because there were so many freeloaders in the system they could spend very high amounts of money. It is inconceivable that any political party would want to return to the unfairness of a property-based system.
    Mr. Corbett: When SSAs are determined, what account is taken of housing need, and in particular of the special needs of councils such as the city of Birmingham, which has put in a £52 million bid to deal with property designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984?
    Mr. Portillo: That matter is dealt with under the housing revenue accounts, which are now ring fenced. Within the SSA falls the range of services provided by the local authority, but even under the new, simplified system they are established on a basis which is somewhat complicated. I shall be happy to take the hon. Gentleman through that procedure at any time, if he is interested.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any intention of limiting the liability for paying directly towards the cost of local government to heads of households only.
    Mr. Portillo: The community charge is based on the principle that it is only fair that nearly every adult should be liable to contribute to the cost of local authority spending. I believe that that principle is increasingly widely accepted.
    Mr. Mans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one way to ensure that everyone's liability is reduced is to encourage high-spending councils such as mine in Lancashire to cut their costs, and more specifically their overheads? Is my hon. Friend aware that my council has held back no less than 32 per cent. of the money granted from central Government for the administrative costs of education?
    Mr. Portillo: I have found it very disappointing that a number of local authorities have used the introduction of the community charge to boost their spending considerably. I am afraid that a large number of county councils that are not facing election this year have taken advantage of the transition to the new system and the confusion that there may have been in some voters' minds to boost their spending substantially, knowing that the district councils were sending out the bills. If my hon. Friend's constituents have suffered in that way, I regret it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is not there something absolutely grotesque in a system of taxation under which the Prime Minister and her husband in Dulwich will pay exactly the same poll tax as a couple round the corner living in a damp private flat? Is the Minister aware that during the summer, as councils struggle to collect the money from millions of people around the country who simply cannot afford to
    456
    pay, there will be a great deal of social upheaval as bailiffs move in to try to seize people's property to pay a tax which those people know is unfair and which they cannot afford to pay?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of local authorities. He should know that the community charge provides only a minority proportion of the total spending of local authorities. Because of that, a lot of the taxes that people pay are then recycled in the form of Government grant back to local authorities. The House will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announce that the external finance to local authorities next year is to increase by 12·8 per cent. That means, for example. that a barrister earning £100,000 is likely to make a contribution of about £7,300 to the cost of local authority services. That is a very substantial amount indeed.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most grotesque thing would be for half the population to receive the services and have a vote in the election, but make no contribution to the cost of the services? Is not it even more grotesque that the Labour party, having promised to abolish the rates in 1987, is now prepared to stand on its head and support that unfair tax?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that I saw it reported that the Leader of the Opposition had described the rates as a leap into the frying pan. I do not pretend entirely to understand what he meant by that, but I think that it must mean that at one time the Labour party thought that the rates were a very bad idea. There is a very good reason for thinking that. The rates are an unfair system. There is no relation between property ownership and income, and with only half the population paying, that is a fundamentally unfair system.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Minister define those whom he described a moment ago as "freeloaders"? Are they the people who traditionally have made their own contributions towards household liability for the rates by virtue of arrangements made within the household—exactly the people whom we regard as valuable citizens and voters with full civil rights?
    Mr. Portillo: I think that I can give a couple of examples of freeloaders. My first example, under the old system of rates—I gather that this would also be true under the system to which the Labour party wishes to return—would be the large number of wage earners in one house who pay a single rate bill between them, in comparison with the widow next door who has to pay the same amount or possibly more. My second example of freeloaders is those Labour Members who at the moment are choosing not to pay the community charge.
    Mr. Favell: No doubt my hon. Friend has studied carefully the Labour party's proposals to reintroduce the rates. If those proposals were adopted, what would happen to the family of five earners, to the widow and to the deserted wife who is struggling to go out to work instead of living off the state?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend flatters me in saying that I might have studied the proposals carefully. So far, I have not seen any detail worthy of study. I am afraid that my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point that returning to a property-based system such as the rates would recreate

    457
    all the problems of those people clustered in households who may have high incomes but participate in only one rates bill. I know of no way in which the Labour party could get out of that problem. That is the basic unfairness of the rating system and I am amazed that after 11 years the Labour party wants to return to it.
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the poll tax liability of people on low incomes whose poll tax bills have not been significantly reduced either by transitional relief or by rebates.
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend announced on 19 July that extra help would go next year to 7·5 million people receiving transitional relief and that 4 million more people would be brought into the transitional relief scheme.
    Mr. Beith: What does the Minister intend to do about those elderly people who have struggled to pay their own way and who are in sheltered housing schemes where they previously paid their rates to the housing association and therefore did not get transitional relief? They now find that they are paying much more than they paid in rates but their income from limited capital puts them over the rebate limit.
    Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, transitional relief is available to those in sheltered accommodation on the same basis as to other former ratepayers. The only defensible basis for a transitional relief scheme is an actual rates bill. In a large housing scheme, just as in a large house, there will be the difficulty that the rates bill is too large and divided between too few people. However, the calculation for those people is carried out on the same basis and, of course, if they are in need those charge payers will qualify for community charge rebate.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the people to whom the question refers, namely those on low or moderate incomes, would pay considerably more if they had to pay a local income tax, which is the plan proposed by the Liberal party?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, indeed. On previous occasions we have carried out exemplifications of that scheme, and the SLD party did not like the results. Of course, people on low incomes were treated worse under the old rating system because now, for every pound of income that a person on a low income may have, a 15p deduction is made from their benefit, whereas under the old rating system a 20p per pound deduction was made.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister take this opportunity to withdraw and apologise for his description a few moments ago of pensioners, the disabled, those on low wages and others in receipt of rebates under the rating system? If he does not do so, his description of such people as freeloaders will go down as one of the worst slurs by any Minister on the most vulnerable people in our society.
    Mr. Portillo: We are very fortunate that our words are recorded in Hansard. The official record will bear me out;I was asked by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to define whom I meant, and I spoke of those income earners who were clustered together paying only one rates bill. The second group of people was those
    458
    Labour Members of Parliament refusing to pay the community charge. I endorse both those definitions which arise from Labour party policy.

    Second Homes
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to introduce controls on the ownership of second homes.
    Mr. Nicholls: We have no plans to do so.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy of the Labour party to give councils the right to decide whether people should have second homes in their areas is the ultimate example of the Labour party's determination to give power to the bureaucrats over the freedom of the individual?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has it exactly. Although the Labour party does its best to disguise the true effect of most of its policies, on this occasion it has helpfully been made perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is on record as saying:
    "The way it would work is if you wanted to sell to someone who wanted to use the house as a second home, you couldn't".
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many modest second homes owned by people on low incomes, limited pensions and even income support? Will he consider extending transitional relief or rebates to those people?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend certainly makes an interesting point. People who own second homes do not always fit the rich profile that one may have in mind. The Labour party's policy would bite against everyone, particularly the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who has a country home in the Cotswolds.

    Joint and Several Liability
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to change the joint and several liability rule included in the community charge legislation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: It is important that every adult should receive a community charge bill of his or her own. Any couple on low income will have their need for benefit assessed as a couple, but where one partner is not earning, joint and several liability provides an important protection which I do not propose to remove.
    Mr. Michie: Why has the Minister chosen during the review period not to take into account strong representations about the present suffering, particularly of non-working wives and non-working mothers? Surely there is a good argument for giving those people special consideration, but for some reason the Minister has ignored it. Is it because he is blinded by the policy or does he regard those people, too, as freeloaders?
    Mr. Portillo: I reject what the hon. Gentleman says about suffering. The needs of people on low income are assessed to see whether they qualify for community charge benefit. A couple's needs are assessed together. Obviously, the system takes into account that a couple has higher needs than a single person and that if it is a pensioner couple, if one of the couple is disabled or if the couple has

    459
    children, the needs are higher again. The needs of a couple are fully assessed within the system. The provision of joint and several liability is there to ensure that where one of the partners is not earning, the debt can be recovered from the earning partner, who has liability for the couple as a whole.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend assure the community charge payers of Ealing that, with all of us, he will strenuously resist the reintroduction of rates, remembering that in 1987 the Labour-controlled Ealing council introduced a rates rise of 65 per cent? Some pensioners nearly starved as a result, but Labour Members do not care.
    Mr. Portillo: It was remarkable that throughout our recent two-day debate on charge capping, not one Labour Member once talked about the hardship for community charge payers of the high community charge bills being put out by Labour-controlled authorities. My hon. Friend has that concern for his constituents. I only wish that it was shared on the other side of the House.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware, or may I remind him, that millions of women stay at home to look after a family consisting of children or elderly relatives and thus do not earn any money or have any income or their own? Those women did not pay rates under the previous system, as the Minister pointed out. Is there any valid reason why they should not receive transitional relief, as they qualify in every way for it? Can the Minister explain why they do not qualify? When will he do away with the unfair and iniquitous provision of joint and several liability?
    Mr. Portillo: We believe in treating couples as couples. A couple may decide that one of the partners will not earn and that the partner who earns will bear the responsibilities of the entire family. That decision is made by couples. If the amount that the partner who is earning receives is so little that the couple qualifies for relief, they will be assessed as a couple and their needs taken into account. As I have explained, if a couple has children, is elderly or disabled, the assessment of their needs will be higher. That is appropriate. The provision of joint and several liability exists to protect the non-earning partner.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the position so clearly in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to bring home to the public the fact that the onus for paying the community charge within a couple where one partner has no income must rest on the partner with income?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have joint and several liability to emphasise the fact that, although under the benefit system we treat couples as couples, we recognise that two people who each receive a personal community charge bill, when one is earning but the other is not, should have joint and several liability so that liability can he recovered from the earning partner if required.

    Charge-capped Authorities
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has carried out any assessment of the costs to those local authorities which have been
    460
    charge-capped and have had to issue new community charge bills to each charge payer; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: As I made clear in my statement on 3 April 1990 about community charge in England, we estimate that the costs will be about £200,000 per charging authority. I took account of that when I decided the authorities' caps.
    Mr. Flannery: Is not it a fact that the Secretary of State, in whatever statements he has made, has never confessed that the Government are in total chaos about the poll tax and wish to God that they had never thought of it? Is not that the reality? If vast numbers of people are facing the bailiffs, and so on, and the chaos that that will produce, why on earth should local authorities now be having to raise an immense extra amount of money with no help from the Government and wondering what in God's name they are going to do? Is not it time that the Government withdrew the poll tax?
    Mr. Patten: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first, second and fourth questions is no. The answer to the third question is that local authorities should take some account of the consequences of excessive spending, not least for their community charge payers.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are incensed that the local authority is refusing to remit to them the whole of the charge cap?
    Mr. Patten: I recognise what my hon. Friend has said. It is astonishing, first, that some Labour local authorities are wriggling and squirming to avoid passing on budget reductions to their community charge payers and, secondly, that they have used so much of the community charge payers' money to try to ensure that community charge payers have to pay more. That is what the Labour party means by fiscal responsibility.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Surely it is understood that the community charge—[interruption]—that the poll tax is clearly unacceptable to people both north and south of the border. If they refuse to pay, is not it a clear indication of people voting with their feet and with their pockets? Does the Secretary of State agree that if hon. Members say that they are not paying, as I do, they are leading by example? That is certainly important in the coming period.
    Mr. Patten: Those Labour Members of Parliament and councillors who say that they will not pay the community charge are loading extra costs on to their own constituents. That is the worst sort of freeloading, and it should be deprecated by every hon. Member. I am sure that it is deprecated by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).

    Institution of Civil Engineers
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the report on pollution issued by the Institution of Civil Engineers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: The institution sent me a copy of its report, entitled "Pollution and its Containment", which it

    461
    published on 19 July. I welcome the report as a valuable contribution to continuing studies of environmental issues.
    Mr. Thurnham: While fully considering the fuel needs of poorer households, will my hon. Friend consider the need for a tax on carbon fuels, as recommended by the Institution of Civil Engineers?
    Mr. Trippier: Taxation is entirely for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the recommendations in the document to which my hon. Friend referred, particularly in terms of the stabilisation of carbon dioxide levels at present levels by the year 2005, we shall address that matter in the forthcoming White Paper.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend read the report carefully before he passes comment, unlike the reporter of The Observer newspaper who last Sunday was able to write about the Environment Select Committee's report on beaches before having seen it, allegedly on the basis of a leaked document? Five days later the reporter asked the Clerk to the Committee for a free copy so that she could rewrite what she had written the previous Sunday completely inaccurately.
    Mr. Trippier: I share the disgust of my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Environment, about the article that appeared in the Sunday newspapers. It was far from the truth. I welcome the Select Committee's report and the nice things that it said, particularly about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister concede, either now or later, that the Government's best intentions to do environmentally good things in the White Paper have been shot through by the Treasury refusing to accept any fiscal penalty or advantage? There are to be no green taxes. Does not that undermine the pollution policy that the Government intended to introduce?
    Mr. Trippier: The speculation in which the hon. Gentleman indulges is about as wide of the mark as The Observer article on bathing beaches to which my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) referred. Were I to convey to the hon. Gentleman the import of the White Paper, there would be no point in having the document.

Sikorsky Helicopter Crash
3.30 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement following the crash of a British International helicopter in the North sea this morning on its way to the Brent Spar platform.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): A Sikorsky S-61 helicopter on charter to Shell UK from British International Helicopters crashed into the North sea in the Brent field at about 10.45 am today. The helicopter was on its way to the Brent Spar loading rig, 116 miles north-east of Lerwick, from an accommodation unit also in the Brent field. The helicopter came down alongside the rig itself. The cause is not yet known.
Thirteen persons are known to have been on board the helicopter. Seven have so far been rescued, of whom four are seriously injured. They are being taken to the Aberdeen royal infirmary, along with the other three less seriously injured survivors. The two crew and four other passengers are so far unaccounted for, but the search is continuing.
Two Shell search-and-rescue helicopters based in the Brent field were on the scene within minutes of the accident. They were joined by a coastguard helicopter based at Sumburgh and an RAF Nimrod.
The rescue operations are being co-ordinated by the Aberdeen coastguards, assisted by the rescue co-ordination centre at Edinburgh. The wreckage of the aircraft has been located on the sea bed, in 400 ft of water. Specialist diving craft are on the scene.
Shell and Grampian police have set up contact telephone lines for relatives at their Aberdeen emergency control rooms.
The Chief Inspector of Air Accidents has ordered a formal investigation.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing sympathy for the families of those injured and missing.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his full statement about this very unfortunate incident. May I extend on my own behalf, as constituency Member, and on behalf of my party and colleagues our sympathy to the families of those who have lost their lives and to those who have been injured, apparently seriously. This is just another example of how risky a business it is to win oil from the North sea and of how thousands of people every day are putting their lives at risk on behalf of the whole community. We should be grateful to them for that.
I have a few specific questions for the Secretary of State relating to the incident. Does he acknowledge that a similar helicopter, a Sikorsky S-61, burst into flames and crashed into the North sea—fortunately, without loss of life—on 13 July 1988 and that we have not yet received the accident investigation report? It has apparently been delayed for administrative reasons. Does the Secretary of State accept that we should not have to wait so long? In the case of this incident, will he ensure that a report is prepared more speedily? Will he also ensure that a fatal accident inquiry is set in motion as quickly as possible? I understand that an inquiry has been called for by British International Helicopters. I believe that an inquiry will be welcomed by the whole community. Does he accept that
464
such incidents show how important offshore safety must be in all operations in the North sea? Once again, we are extremely grateful to those who put their lives at risk.
Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in my former job I went offshore to various platforms and rigs. I confirm what he says. We take for granted the work of people who produce great wealth for the country at some risk to themselves.
I shall look into the question about the air accident investigation branch report on the fatal accident two years ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the AAIB is a highly regarded body and it has been very busy recently. In particular, the Lockerbie investigation has taken up a tremendous amount of its time. However, I shall make sure that that report is issued as soon as possible.
The fatal accident inquiry is a matter not for me but for the Scottish legal authorities. I am sure that they will get on with making the necessary arrangements.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of safety in the North sea. The Department of Transport uniquely funds research into helicopter operations and safety in conjuction with the Department of Energy, the Civil Aviation Authority and the United Kingdom offshore operators. So we recognise the importance of safety and, above all, the importance of safety in helicopters, which are a key way of moving people about the North sea.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: At this moment, are there not only two things that matter—first, on behalf of the whole House, to express our deep sadness over the incident; and, secondly, again on behalf of the whole House, to express our deepest sympathy to the families of those involved?
Mr. Parkinson: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Frank Doran: May I, too, extend my sympathy to the families and friends of those involved in the incident? Since I heard about the incident, I have spent a great deal of time on the telephone talking to people from my constituency who work offshore or represent those who work offshore. There is a genuine sense of anger today about the incident. It is the latest in a long line of such incidents. We have had 250 deaths in the North sea on offshore installations and vessels alone. There have been 74 deaths in helicopters, not counting any deaths arising out of today's incident. That is a shocking total.
I wish to raise one important specific point with the Secretary of State. I understand that a survey was carried out recently on the Kittiwake platform, which is going through the hook-up process. In that survey, 36 people were found not to have offshore survival certificates, which hitherto were regarded as mandatory. The Secretary of State will be aware from his experience that helicopter evacuation is an essential part of that training process. If the survey results are correct—again, it is a shocking indictment of the attitude of the oil companies to safety in the North sea—will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the question of offshore survival certificates is investigated as part of the process of investigating this incident?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman strikes a wrong note when he talks about increased helicopter accidents. There is no discernible trend of increase in the number of

465
accidents in helicopters. I am sure that he is as pleased as I am that for the past three years there have been no fatal accidents. There were two bad tragedies in the mid-1980s, but the record has not worsened. It is misleading for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it has.
I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point about Kittiwake. I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will look into the matter.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that all hon. Members whose Scottish constituencies have offshore workers will be saddened by today's accident. Does he agree that the investigation branch always does its work splendidly and thoroughly after such accidents, and that if anything is found during the investigation that requires immediate action it is dealt with immediately and all operators are instructed to implement the requirements? Does he agree that we should not require the full report before taking any necessary action to ensure that operations are safe?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, the formal investigation that the chief inspector authorised is the highest priority investigation. The report will come forward in two stages. Any immediate lessons will be learned and information will be disseminated throughout the industry. In addition, a full report will follow, which will be published.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As a Member of Parliament from north-east Scotland, may I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the sincere comments that other hon. Members have addressed to families who have lost members and the seriously injured? I also pay tribute to the rescue services, including the crew and staff of RAF Nimrod from my home town of Lossiemouth.
Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the time scale that he invisages for the report's production? We all wish to see it undertaken quickly because of its implications. Do the Government have a view about the type of insurance policy advocated for such companies? Surely one of the difficulties that the families of the deceased will face is that of finance.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for her opening remarks.
The chief inspector will get on with the work and report as soon as possible. He sets his own timetable and wants to do the job thoroughly, which he will. I will convey to him the hon. Lady's views. I do not know about the insurance policies, but I shall find out and let the hon. Lady know.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The all-party group on energy studies will visit Shell in Aberdeen during the recess and we shall be able to express our condolences direct to the people involved. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the S-61 is a good helicopter with a good accident record? Does he agree that, although the winning of oil and gas from the North sea is a risky business, travelling to and from the rigs is not necessarily the most risky part of it, and that the record in our sector compares favourably with that of the Norwegian sector?
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the S-61 has a good safety record on the whole: there has been one fatal accident in S-61 operations in the past 10 years. We should not draw up a league table in the North
466
sea between the Norwegians and us. We both want to do everything possible to avoid accidents, which operators on both sides of the North sea do.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On behalf of myself and others, may I join in the expressions of sympathy for those who have suffered loss and serious injury in the accident, and pay tribute to the rescue services.
While I accept that it is impossible to make snap judgments on the information available, will the Secretary of State say whether weather was a factor at the time? Does he understand that the most urgent need is to determine whether the S-61 is similar to that which at one time suffered a spate of gearbox trouble? That must be determined as quickly as possible, and, if necessary, such helicopters will have to he grounded in the interests of the safety of people who continue to use them. Will he assure us that that will be done as quickly as possible because there will be great worry and concern among those people who have to fly over the North sea every day and their relatives?
Mr. Parkinson: I confirm that, although there was a little fog and cloud about in the North sea earlier today, visibility was about two miles. Therefore, visibility does not appear to have been a factor.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about snap judgments. The S-61 has a good record, but I shall ensure that the accident investigation branch is made aware of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
Mr. John Prescott: May I join the Secretary of State and other hon. Members in offering our condolences and deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who are injured or missing, and yet again record our admiration for and thanks to the rescue services, on behalf of the survivors.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Sikorsky S-61 has been involved in three losses in the past two years and eight ditchings in the past 20 years; and that, according to my information, a door fell off one yesterday? This anxiety is shared by many oil workers, and it is also highlighted in the Civil Aviation Authority's report, which the Secretary of State received yesterday. May I suggest that he reads that report about helicopter safety?
In the light of experience of inquiries, may I add my voice to those of others who have asked the right hon. Gentleman to press the Crown Office to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in the fatal accident inquiry? As for the excellent aviation inspector's formal investigations, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no extraordinary pressures are brought to bear, as happened in the case of the Boeing company over the loss of the Chinook helicopter in 1986, when the inspector's report was delayed by more than two years? That caused unnecessary anguish among the relatives of the 45 men who died in it.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. It appears that, once again, the rescue services have performed superbly.
I repeat what I have already said about helicopter safety: in the past 10 years there has been one fatal accident involving an S-61, so there is no reason to make sweeping remarks about the aircraft. The hon. Gentleman should do nothing to suggest that he has made a snap

467
judgment, which would cause unnecessary concern on the part of the relatives of those who are still working today in the North sea.
As the hon. Gentleman heard me tell the House, the fatal accident inquiry is a matter not for me but for the Law Officers. I shall convey to them the fact that the House feels that the matter should be treated urgently. I cannot do more than that; they must make their own arrangements, and I am sure that they will.
The accident investigation branch caries out its work, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) kindly said, in a most thorough way which has earned it worldwide recognition as the leading operator in this area. I am sure that it will do its job as thoroughly and quickly as possible.

Defence (Options for Change)
3.47 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
In the defence debate last month, I set out the basis on which we have been considering options for change in defence. I would now like to advise the House of the broad proposals that we are considering and on which we will now be consulting with the NATO authorities and our allies, with the defence industries, and, most importantly, with all those directly affected in the armed forces and the MOD's civilian staff. My statement today follows the publication this morning of a valuable report from the Select Committee on Defence on the defence implications of recent events in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
The declaration issued at the NATO summit meeting here in London earlier this month said:
"Europe has entered a new, promising era … This alliance must and will adapt".
The "Options for Change" have identified the ways in which our forces might be restructured by the mid-1990s in the light of these developments. The pace of change will depend upon the signature and implementation of a Conventional Forces in Europe agreement, on the progress of the two-plus-four talks, and on how quickly Soviet troops leave eastern Europe and other Soviet forces are run down. The precise shape of our contributions to NATO must reflect discussions yet to come with the NATO authorities and with our allies.
In the options for change studies, we have sought to devise a structure for our regular forces appropriate to the new security situation and meeting our essential peacetime operational needs. The framework that we have provided would be reinforced in a period of tension by drawing on volunteer reserves and reservists, who will have an important role to play. We have also allowed for the possible need to build back up our forces over a longer period should international circumstances ever require us to do so.
There clearly are opportunities but also risks in Europe; and elsewhere some worrying trends—not least, the proliferation of sophisticated weapons systems. We shall therfore continue to need a robust defence capability as our insurance against the unexpected. Our armed forces, albeit at lower levels, will be as important a safeguard for our country in the future as they have been in the past.
Our proposals will bring savings and a reduction in the share of GDP taken by defence. We need force levels which we can afford and which can realistically be manned, given demographic pressures in the 1990s. The aim is smaller forces, better equipped, properly trained and housed, and well motivated. They will need to be flexible and mobile and able to contribute both in NATO and, if necessary, elsewhere.
What I now have to put before the House are some proposals for change and some elements that will not change.
We shall retain our strategic deterrent with a four-boat Trident force. In accordance with NATO policy for an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, based in Europe, we shall also need a sub-strategic force of dual-capable Tornados with a stand-off missile.

469
We must also continue to ensure the effective defence of the United Kingdom itself. A comprehensive air defence capability will still be essential, although with a smaller fighter force than had been planned. The United Kingdom fighter force would be held at seven squadrons of air-defence Tornados, supplemented by armed Hawks, and the remaining two Phantom squadrons would be withdrawn. We plan to retain at about present levels our home defence forces and our capability to deal with hostile mine-laying in home waters. We shall sustain our contribution in support of the police in Northern Ireland. For as long as they are needed, we will provide forces for our dependent territories and other overseas responsibilities in the Falklands, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Belize and—until 1997—Hong Kong.
We will continue to play our full part in the defence of Europe. We will continue to deploy forces in Germany alongside our German and other allies, a contribution which is, I know, warmly welcomed by the German Government. We envisage that, in the changed circumstances of the mid-1990s, our stationed forces could be roughly half their present strength. When reinforced from the United Kingdom, our Army contribution could comprise about two divisions, rather than four as at present. Our contribution will need to be shaped with that of our allies to fit the new force structures which we expect to see in the central region.
We expect to reduce the RAF presence in Germany from four bases to two. We envisage retaining Harrier and helicopter forces there. As Germany takes on the air-policing responsibility for its territory, we would envisage phasing out our air-defence contribution. We envisage maintaining six squadrons of Tornado aircraft in Germany and the United Kingdom with nuclear and conventional roles in Europe. The two variants of Tornado will provide the backbone of the future Royal Air Force. Aircraft not deployed in peacetime will be retained for use should we need to build back up our capability.
In view of Chancellor Kohl's request that troops of the three western powers should stay in Berlin as long as Soviet forces are in the present German Democratic Republic, we envisage continuing to contribute to an allied presence, including an RAF contingent, for this period in Berlin. We intend to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term, the role of which will include reinforcement of NATO's northern region. We shall also maintain an air contribution, to the defence of the northern region, but we are looking again at the future requirement for the United Kingdom mobile force.
Elsewhere in our maritime contribution, we need to take account of the decline in the size of the Soviet navy but also of its continuing modernisation, especially with new classes of submarine. We propose to maintain three carriers, update their Sea Harrier aircraft and, subject to satisfactory progress, proceed with the EH 101 helicopter programme. I envisage a future destroyer/frigate force of about 40 ships. The reduction would be achieved by paying off older, less capable ships. In addition to Trident, we envisage a future submarine force of about 16 boats of which three quarters would be nuclear powered. We see the Buccaneer force in the anti-ship role being replaced by dual-capable Tornados redeployed from Germany and re-equipped with Sea Eagle missiles. There would be a small reduction in Nimrod numbers.
A capability for other contingencies would be provided by establishing a strategic reserve division bringing
470
together amphibious, parachute, airmobile and armoured formations with roles also in Europe or in national defence.
I have described how we now see the armed forces evolving in the period to 1995. These proposals are now for further study and consultation with NATO and or Brussels treaty partners. When we are able to take final decisions will depend on many factors, not least progress in the autumn on CFE talks, a successful outcome to the two-plus-four talks, a clear timetable for Soviet withdrawals from Europe, and the pace of discussions with our allies on the evolution of NATO strategy and operational concepts.
We shall want in particular fully to consult the German Government over changes in our deployments in Germany. We aim to move in an orderly and properly planned way to our new force structure, after the consultations that I have described and when the necessary conditions have been met. We shall at the same time conduct a detailed scrutiny of our equipment plans, including our research and development effort, to ensure that they would be in keeping with our changed requirements.
Work remains to be done on detailed force structures and on changes in the support area, where we will be looking for substantial savings, before we can clarify the implications for individual units. We envisage in broad terms by the mid-1990s a Regular Army of about 120,000, Royal Navy/Royal Marines of about 60,000 and a Royal Air Force of about 75,000. On that basis, the overall reduction in regular service manpower would be about 18 per cent. We expect our civilian numbers to be similarly reduced. The volunteer reserves will continue to play a key role, and we wish to consider the appropriate numbers for the future, having regard to our needs and realistic levels of recruitment and retention.
There will now be further work on the detailed implications of these broad proposals. Their costs will, of course, be within the expenditure plans published in the last public expenditure White Paper. Revised figures for defence expenditure will be announced as part of the Government's decisions on the total public expenditure programme in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement. In respect of the current year, the House is aware that I am taking steps to constrain expenditure within the agreed provision. Announcements have been made on aircraft. Consistent with our longer-term plans, we shall be easing back on Army recruiting and retiring early several ships and submarines, and making some other short-term changes to the programme which will be announced shortly.
This country has owed a great debt to its armed services throughout its history. Their abilities and professionalism are not something that can be lightly discarded and then easily recalled when they may suddenly be needed. We have a duty to tell them what we believe the future is likely to hold for them at a time when the pace and scale of events in Europe offer real opportunities for change.
We believe that the new force structures that we envisage can give us strong and reliable defences, in changing circumstances, and at an affordable cost. Our proposals provide for us to continue to make a major contribution to the north Atlantic alliance as it adapts to the changes that its resolution and cohesion have done so much to make possible.

471
It is a time of opportunity and hope for change, yet without putting at risk the safe protection of our country nor neglecting fair consideration of those whose task that is. Our aim is an orderly and planned transition to the new world now unfolding, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: The House welcomes the statement. For a while, it was uncertain whether we would have it before the House rose, and today was both the first and last possible time to have it. The statement is the first useful step in the consideration of our response to changing events. As the Secretary of State said, it dovetails with the report of the Select Committee on Defence. I am sure that the House will agree that many of the changes set out in the statement will come as a consequence of arms control and of Soviet withdrawals from Germany.
I realise that the statement was lengthy, and that many hon. Members wish to ask questions about it, but some points must be made. What significance does the withdrawal of two Army divisions have for equipment requirements, and in particular the orders for the replacement of the Challenger tanks? What implications will that have for the proposed multinational force? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his NATO allies about what form this will take?
The Secretary of State said that the two variants of Tornado will provide the backbone of the RAF. Where does this leave the European fighter aircraft programme? How many of the proposed nuclear-capable aircraft will be in Germany? Have the German Government been consulted about this? My understanding is that there is widespread reluctance within Germany to accept this nuclear-equipped aircraft and nuclear weapons. What is the basis for this hosting programme?
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the Select Committee on Defence has expressed considerable reservations about the tactical air-to-surface missile project. The House is entitled to know roughly what the costs of this programme will be and from where the weapons will be procured. Will they be American or Franco-British?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that this is the first occasion on which he has recognised that there are Soviet naval reductions? On a number of occasions we have had lectures about the Soviet naval procurement programme. In the light of these reductions, and in the light of the reduction in our Navy to about 40 frigates, will there be a replacement for the type 42? There will be all-party relief at his remarks about the EH 101 programme, about which there was great anxiety. His remarks will be taken as encouragement.
The significance of the announcements to service morale will not be lost on the House. In his statement, the Secretary of State suggests that there could be a reduction in recruitment, almost hinting at natural wastage as one of the solutions to the personnel problem. Will he confirm that natural wastage will not be the only method of securing reductions in troop numbers? Will he concede that it will be necessary to change the nature of service conditions and to attract to the services, for the new types of forces that he has recommended, a different breed of
472
soldier who may well have to be paid more and who will certainly be looking for better conditions than those that have been suggested recently?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the absence of any reference to an extended out-of-area role is in line with the views expressed in the Select Committee's report? Will he also confirm that we are seeing here an operation that will be working within the existing limits of British capabilities and that we will not have an enhanced out-of-area capability?
The Secretary of State's proposals will require much consideration within the House and outside. A number of people involved in the defence industries and the services have made a great contribution to the defence of Britain and they must be taken account of at this time.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make the financial implications of the changes known to the House as soon as possible and ensure that we have an early debate when the House returns after the recess or as soon as the autumn statement is available, so that we can discern the economic consequences of the cuts? They will mean little to the House without a price tag attached to them.
Will the Secretary of State arrange perhaps a two-day debate in Government time as soon as the House resumes so that we can examine properly the implications of his useful contribution to what we regard as a process which will be far longer and more extensive than he described today.
Mr. King: The House must respect the hon. Gentleman's courage. He rose to his feet with hon. Members behind him who are pledged, under a Labour party conference motion, to slash defence expenditure by as much as £9,000 million, and then made a moving speech on behalf of the workers in Leeds who hope to provide tanks, the workers of Westland who hope to provide helicopters and the workers in Edinburgh and Lancashire who hope to produce the EFA. We hope that it will be possible to proceed on all those projects, and I note his great concern for their future.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that this is a first useful step in putting forward proposals in response to the changing circumstances. I suspect that only the Conservative party will put forward concrete proposals on the matter. We shall look forward with great interest to a coherent response from the Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman referred to consultation in respect of the other proposals that I made. I sought to emphasise that I am putting forward a number of proposals on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in respect of our future defence structure which are precisely for consultation because we are determined to play our proper and full part in the NATO alliance.
The hon. Gentleman referred to TASM and the sub-strategic missiles with dual capable aircraft, but he will know that only this month the NATO summit here in London made the unanimous statement that there should be an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional weapons based in Europe, and my announcement is absolutely consistent with that.
I am not hinting at natural wastage. I regard the opportunity to ensure that we make a proper, orderly and planned change as a virtue. We hope to achieve that in a way that takes proper account of the lifetime of service that many have given. We want to make changes to the

473
new structure in an orderly and planned way. That is a duty that we have to those in the armed forces, and it is one that the Government are determined to discharge.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a major statement, and the House will be aware that there is another statement to follow and then the Report stage—for which 45 groups of amendments have been tabled—and Third Reading of a Bill. I regret that I must impose some limit, and so will allow questions on this statement to continue until 5 o'clock. I ask for single questions, please.
Mr. Michael Mates: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the Select Committee's report, which I hope is an analysis of the circumstances in which changes are taking place, and which I hope will be helpful to the House. I strongly recommend it as holiday reading.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the thoughtful way in which he has produced the proposals for change, which must now be debated extensively and discussed in detail. He rightly said that it is in the context of our NATO obligations that we will decide the final shape of our forces. How does he envisage NATO making its options for change known, and how does he envisage that developing as the collective response to the changed circumstances in western Europe?
Mr. King: Our allies have made certain statements. For example, Chancellor Kohl announced a figure of 370,000 for the Bundeswehr for a united Germany. Other NATO allies have also made proposals. It is now urgent that NATO gets together with the various elements and components to determine how that might develop.
I did not respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about the concept of multinationality. There is the possibility of a multinational corps in which we could make a significantcontribution. That is the way to go forward.
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Select Committee, had to say and for the encouragement expressed in the report for the view that it is necessary to tell as soon as possible all those who work in the armed forces about the likely shape for the future. That is the purpose of my statement. I shall honour my pledge of a genuine opportunity for consultation so that the charges can be orderly and sensible, with the maximum involvement of those concerned.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the broad thrust of the proposals as a first step for conventional forces. I support the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for a fleet of four Trident submarines. I hope that he will understand my disappointment that, as yet, no consideration has been given to the suggestion that the number of warheads to be deployed should be no greater than those presently deployed in the Polaris system.
The right hon. Gentleman should understand that there will be great disappointment about the suggestion that the United Kingdom might seek to deploy the tactical air-to-surface missile. There may be a NATO case for the deployment of that weapon, but thus far no compelling evidence has been produced to justify the United Kingdom embarking upon that course.
Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's general welcome, even though he let himself down a little at the end of his remarks. The biggest. waste of money conceivable would be to have a nuclear deterrent that was not credible and not effective. That is the base line. There is no point in having a deterrent if it is not likely to work and is not likely to provide the deterrent effect that we seek. The deterrent has proved to be the biggest life saver in the history of man, and we are determined to maintain that capability. That is my first point.
Secondly, our policy is absolutely clear in the sense that the background to my statement today is the success of the policy to which we have held over the years. Part of that is not to depend solely on a strategic nuclear deterrent but to have a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent. That of course has the unanimous agreement of NATO.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the caution with which he has made his statement today, both as to the size of the possible economies and the time scale within which they may be available, will be much welcomed on this side of the House? Will he continue to reaffirm that the reason why he is able to make his statement—cautiously optimistic as it is—is precisely because this Government supported the policies of the NATO alliance, which brought about the reassessment of Soviet foreign policy, against continual opposition from the Labour party at every stage? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he sees the ever-increasing costs of weapons procurement within a constrained defence budget being met unless we recognise the need for ever-wider international co-operation in weapons procurement?
Mr. King: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. The leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as one of my predecessors, in standing firm at a critical moment in our history, is now viewed by many as the turning point that opened up the possibility of the wonderful changes that we have seen. One might have hoped that some of those lessons would at last be appreciated by some Labour Members.
We now begin an intensive period of examination of force structures, equipment programmes and support arrangements. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley made the point that our allies face similar challenges. I spoke to our major allies this afternoon, and they are considering at this moment the difficult challenges that confront them. We shall wherever possible examine taking advantage of co-operation and cost sharing in programmes.
Mr. Michael Foot: As far as I can see, the Secretary of State's statement makes no reference—any more than did his defence statement of a few weeks ago—to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, even though it comes up for possible renewal or may end in a few months. The Government must surely have a policy on that issue. Do not the Government understand that, especially in the light of the most welcome ending of the cold war, far and away the worst danger of the world being blown to pieces is the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries? If Defence Ministers in other parts of the world listen to the Secretary of State, it might be a recipe

475
for the multiplication of their weapons. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government will take to make the nuclear non-proliferation treaty truly effective?
Mr. King: The House will certainly hand to the right hon. Gentleman any award for consistency of position, no matter how consistently wrong that position has been. Our position has always been abundantly clear. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot distinguish the benefits that have come from our possession of a deterrent and the sensible maintenance of it, there is little that 1 can add to the length of previous debates.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his measured and orderly response to the challenge of the momentous events in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. He will recall the disastrous effects of some of the cuts of the past—from the mindless disarmament talks in the 1930s to the more recent cuts that affected the Army's regimental system in the 1960s and 1970s. To help Army morale, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that we will not repeat the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s?
Mr. King: I hoped in my statement to give a broad outline of our proposals. There have been some very worrying rumours suggesting that the reductions in the Army would be much more substantial, and the figure of 80,000 was quoted, implying that one in two people in the Army would lose their jobs. I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance about the numbers and the time scale.
The defence staff and the chiefs of staff have worked quite excellently on what I have been able to say today. We now want to widen the circle so that the individual services can also address the particular problems that they have to address and we can therefore have a wider involvement of people. That is the best way to achieve a more sensible outcome.
I do not conceal from the House the fact that we will have to face some very difficult decisions and problems. However, throughout the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence there is a recognition that this is an opportunity for change. If it can be a movement towards a smaller and better defence structure for our country, it is to be welcomed.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Is not this statement a case of no serious change and no significant savings? Are not the Government guilty of extreme cowardice in failing to face up to the opportunities for disarmament and so transfer resources from war to peace? Will not the consequences be a slowdown in world disarmament and an increase in arms proliferation as other countries quote Britain's military posture as a reason for their actions?
Mr. King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman talks to the leader of his party about his policy. However, he may have noticed that my statement today, in certain important respects, follows on from the outcome of the NATO summit. He may not have noticed that, when the Leader of the Opposition was in Washington and talking about developments in Europe and the NATO summit agreement, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was good to be alive. I am not sure whether that spirit has quite spread to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Julian Amery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on making it clear that the reductions that he envisages will depend not just on agreement over Soviet withdrawal and disarmament, but on the achievement of what is agreed. May I also congratulate him on making it clear that British forces will remain in Germany? The presence of British and French forces in Germany is fundamental under the Brussels treaty to the maintanance of the European Community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that developments in the Gulf over the past few days have made it clear that we may well have to share responsibility for out-of-area operations?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind welcome for what I have said today. With regard to the continuing presence of British forces in Germany, it has always been made clear to me by the German Government and NATO that stationed forces—those of the United States, the British and our other allies—are an important element in the cohesion of the alliance.
With regard to my right hon. Friend's second point about developments elsewhere, whatever implications such developments may have for us, in many areas the world is not a very steady and safe place at the moment. It is very important for the basic needs of this country, with its responsibilities, alliances, interests and connections, that we maintain an adequate defence capability.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I welcome the undertaking to continue the commitment to Northern Ireland, but would it be possible to increase the number of specialist elements, including the supply of helicopters, which are urgently needed by the Regular Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the police, particularly in the light of yesterday's atrocity.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for noting that I confirmed our determination to maintain our contribution. We will certainly consider specialist aspects. There is always a steady stream of requests for one thing or another, as I know very well, wearing one hat or another. We will certainly seek to respond to those requests as effectively as we can.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: May I commend my right hon. Friend on his timely statement and on appearing to get the balance about right in these crucial matters? I wish him well in carrying out the restructuring and making sure that we shift slowly towards a maritime strategy as opposed to a continental one. In that context, I note the considerable reduction in submarines.
I wish my right hon. Friend well in making sure that his future programme is led by strategic needs and not by the considerable pressures of the Treasury Bench.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend waited until my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had withdrawn before embarking on that brave sally. Certainly we have tried to strike a fair balance. I understand why my hon. Friend picked up my point about the change in submarine numbers from 27 to 16. The reduction appears bigger than the reality. The Soviet Union is reducing the number of submarines but introducing more capable, effective and modern submarines. That is exactly what we shall be doing.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State agree that the first challenge which faces him in his restructuring task is to preserve the high quality and motivation of British service men, who are so widely admired throughout the western alliance? His second challenge is to find the right strategic decision when no one can foresee the strategic shape of things to come. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the lack of agreement on CFE and two-plus-four; he might have mentioned instability in the Soviet Union. Therefore, he is quite right to resist the temptation to cut the services ruthlessly and arbitrarily. If the House is entitled to look for a peace dividend, the services are entitled to look for a services dividend. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the force structure that he envisages for the strategic reserve division?
Mr. King: The whole House knows the keen interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in these matters. I am extremely grateful for what he said. Now that our words go rather further afield, I know that his comments will be deeply appreciated by our armed forces who serve in many parts of the world. On a day when two of them have just been awarded the George medal, it is a reminder of the professionalism and courage that they bring to bear in quite unexpected circumstances and of the debt that we owe them.
The exact structure of the strategic reserve division will require further consideration. I have tried to set out the elements that will be within it, and that work will now be carried forward.
Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement today illustrates the fact that a multi-balanced force reduction approach is more appropriate than a unilateralist approach? He would not have been able to make reductions without reductions on the other side of the iron curtain. Will he say a little more about the future of amphibious capability, as many of us take the view that the Royal Marines and the flexibility they provide are particularly appropriate to modern defence?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I made it clear that we intend to maintain an amphibious capability in the longer term. Obviously, that includes the capability of marine commandos to discharge their amphibious work. The House knows that we are considering the vessels that are required for that, but it is important that we maintain that capability which provides the flexibility and mobility that will become increasingly important if we have lower force structures and levels.
Mr. John Cartwright: In adding my welcome to the broad objectives of the statement, may I put it to the Secretary of State that, in an uncertain world, it is prudent common sense for Britain to maintain an effective minimum nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future? As the sub-strategic systems are just as important as the four-boat Trident force, when will the Secretary of State be able to announce a decision on the weapons system to be carried by the Tornado?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close and well-informed interest in these matters which qualifies him to contribute to defence debates in the House. On the latter point, as he knows, we are considering two alternatives—the American and the
478
French options. I cannot give him a precise date, but by the end of the year we hope to have formed a view on that. I cannot say anything more precise than that.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many thousands of people with the sort of experiences of my generation will regard this as a sensible package, above all because we retain the capability to meet unforeseen circumstances, albeit at a lower level? Will he ensure that the three services can, within the overall figures, make their proposals for reductions and give their ideas on the new form of services? Will he say how pleased many thousands of people will be that the Harrier and EH101 programmes are to proceed?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a distinguished record. Obviously, the House listens with great respect to his comments. He may be interested in the quotation that I found today, which says of the Korean war:
"It was a contingency which took the British Government and its military Chiefs of Staff by surprise; the first of many in following years to make unexpected and irresistible claims on money and manpower."
We certainly hope that we shall not face anything like that again. My job is not to take risks but to ensure that, if what we do not want to happen occurs, we can defend ourselves. My hon. Friend knows the importance of that better than any. In answer to his two points, yes, I hope that that will be possible.
Mr. John McWilliam: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to make a statement before the recess, but may I press him for a debate when we return? Will he give the House the benefit of his thinking on the threat assessment, which led him to his conclusion to go ahead with the tactical air-to-surface missile? How many ships does he intend to decommission, given that we have about 40 frigates and destroyers? In view of the importance of the statement to the economy of the fourth poorest country in the world, will he reassure the House that today's announcement does not entail any change to his previous statement about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas?
Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has a good line to my right hon, and learned Friend the Leader of the House and he will have heard the hon. Gentleman's first comment. I would welcome the opportunity for a debate, the timing of which can be discussed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of frigates. The current number is 48 and, as I said, it will decrease to about 40 through decommissioning or disposing of some older frigates. There will not be an equivalent reduction in capability. I am aware of the statement on the Gurkhas made by my predecessor in May last year.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most welcome part of his statement was the undertaking that the reductions are entirely dependent on successful CFE and two-plus-four talks, and the reduction of Soviet troops in eastern Europe? Can he assure us that he is aware that, at a time when he is reducing manpower in the services, it has never been more important to ensure that our troops are given

479
the best possible equipment available in the world, whether tanks or whatever, regardless of where it is manufactured?
Mr. King: I again confirm that what I have said today is conditional on the developments going in the direction that we want them to go. We can change direction or arrest development and build back up if our hopes are dashed. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) picked up the phrase "service dividend". I attach importance to that, as well as to any implication of savings called a peace dividend. In a service dividend I certainly include equipment which is reliable, which works and for which there are spares, so that we can ensure better equipped, even if smaller, armed forces.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State, in simple and straightforward terms, tell the House exactly how much money the Government envisage saving as a result of his statement? Will he confirm that there will be an early opportunity for debate, particularly as the announcement that four Trident submarines will be based on the Clyde will be met with bitter resentment in Scotland? Will there be an opportunity in the course of that debate to explore why the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman did not carry through the clear declaration from the Labour party conference in Scotland that it did not wish Trident submarines to be based on the Clyde?
Mr. King: On the first point, which I sought to cover in my statement, I cannot give an answer to the hon. Lady, for the obvious reason that I have set out our policy. We believe that this is the right approach to the defence strategy of our country. We must now examine the matter in detail and cost in detail the implications of it. I have talked about an 18 per cent. reduction in the level of our armed forces, equivalent reductions in civilian manpower, the need to examine the support area for equivalent savings, and the need to examine our procurement budget and weapons system as well. The outcome of that will produce significant savings during the later part of the year.
As I have told the House, as for this year, I am facing serious problems with transitional costs and inflation. I have already announced to the House certain savings that we must make. We shall obviously live within whatever cash base line we have for this year. That is the answer to the first point about money.
On the second point, I do not want to intrude on private grief between the hon. Lady and whichever is the nuclear wing of the Labour party.
Sir Hector Monro: Following my right hon. Friend's most constructive statement, will he give an assurance that the regimental system will be maintained and that the old regimental area and county names and Scottish regimental names will be retained? In view of the statement by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), I assure my right hon. Friend that Scotland will play its full part in the defence of the United Kingdom with pleasure.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can give him that confirmation. Unlike the Opposition spokesman, we believe that the regimental system has real relevance and is a valuable part of our structure. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr.
480
O'Neill) should say that he no longer regards it as relevant. I have no doubt that he will live to regret his remark very much. Anybody who knows anything about the Army deeply believes in the importance of the regimental system.
Mr. David Lambie: When will the Government recognise that England is no longer an imperial power? Instead of continuing with the overseas commitments that the Secretary of State has announced today, in the present political and military climate, is it not about time that we withdrew completely from those commitments? Now that the Soviet Union has agreed to withdraw Soviet forces from eastern Europe within four years, why does not the Secretary of State announce that we shall withdraw British forces from the mainland of western Europe in the same time scale?
Mr. King: I am not pretending that we are an imperial power; I am making it clear that we are a loyal member of an alliance. I am interested to know whether it is the hon. Gentleman's party's policy to dishonour an alliance and to betray the allies with whom we have stood for 45 years. If that is his policy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us.
Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed for clarifying the future of the armed forces as well as the wider community. Will he give an assurance that the welcome plan to form the new division to bring together our various land and air capabilities will take full account of the present instabilities in the middle east, not only in the Persian gulf but in other parts of the middle east where there are considerable threats to security and the supply of oil to western Europe.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I commented earlier on instabilities in the world. Certainly we must recognise that the proliferation of weapons and the tensions combine in a worrying way at this time. We are certainly aware of that.
Mr. Bruce George: It may be possible in two years' time to cut even more substantially the present force levels. Most people would agree that, because there are so many uncertainties, prudence is necessary in the meantime. The cuts that have already been announced are substantial and will hurt deeply. If, as appears to be correct, the Soviet naval building programme continues and the Royal Navy is unable adequately to meet its existing commitments with about 50 frigates and destroyers, how can the Secretary of State believe that with about 40 frigates and destroyers there will be no loss of capability? I await anxiously his reply. I simply do not believe that it will be possible to cut to 40 without having to reduce capability. Is the Secretary of State considering reducing capability?
Mr. King: Our naval capability has to be matched to our assessment of the threat, as it has been in the past. As I have already made clear, the Soviet numbers are being reduced. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the enhanced capability and quality of the new submarines are high. Our changes are in much the same direction. We know the enhanced capability of our newer submarines. The reduction in submarine and frigate numbers relates to older boats. We shall seek to ensure that a balance is kept.
I ought to warn the hon. Gentleman—he may not be aware of this—that his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who is the shadow

481
spokesman on defence, used the phrase, "This is something that we shall have to pay very close attention to," when referring to a new study, published today, that proposes that no more tanks, frigates or attack submarines should be bought. Apparently, the European fighter aircraft will be cancelled, but Trident will be kept. I do not know whether that is the new Labour party policy, but it shows how confused it is getting.
Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend's statement will be admired well beyond the House. Within the NATO alliance, however, there are certain nations, and many more political parties, that wish more drastic cuts to be made in their national defence structures than that which my right hon. Friend suggests for the United Kingdom. Will he bear in mind the fact that the CFE negotiations in Vienna are not going as well as might have been expected? We hope that a treaty will be signed in December, but until it is signed, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear in NATO that our defence structures must stay as strong as he has suggested and that we must not give way to demands for a peace dividend?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are trying to get the balance right. There have been massive changes. Whatever happens in Vienna, it is difficult to believe that east Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia will shortly return as fully paid-up membes of the Warsaw pact, as they were, say, two years ago. The position in the Soviet Union is much more uncertain; there are enormous tensions there. That is why I believe that the balance that I have put before the House today is the right one to strike.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Before the right hon. Gentleman's statement, Britain was spending 40 per cent. more of its gross domestic product on defence than West Germany, although West Germany is closer to the Soviet Union than we are. However, his statement means that we shall be spending a greater proportion of our gross domestic product on defence than West Germany. How does he justify that?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining in the debate. We know that he speaks for the majority of Labour party members. At the Labour party conference, the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and Bruce Kent carried their motion by a 2:1 majority against the Opposition Front Bench, so he is entitled to speak, and he speaks with authority. He wants a £9 billion cut in the defence budget, so it is either the end of the Royal Navy, or the end of the Royal Air Force, or both.
My announcement will lead to a reduction in our armed forces from 310,000 to some 255,000. In Moscow, Chancellor Kohl announced a figure of 370,000 for the Bundeswehr in Germany. That is for a country that does not carry responsibilities that some other countries have to bear. I am not sure whether behind his question lies the proposal that we should shift to conscription. Anybody who examines the financial costs knows that one of the reasons why German costs could be lowered is that Germany does not have a volunteer army: it has conscription.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome the soundness of my right hon. Friend's statement, but will
482
he confirm that the retention of trained personnel will be of even more importance in the future? Will he emphasise the role of the services in the peace dividend?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that he understands that we shall approach that question positively. I am anxious that the consultation should be meaningful. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out the framework within which we shall work. We shall consider a number of suggestions, such as the one that my hon. Friend made.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was meant in the statement by
"a detailed scrutiny of research and development in keeping with changed requirements"?
I acknowledge that it is a complex subject, that there are many contracts with people and that there is a great deal of talent in the research industries and establishments of this country, so could they not be put to use by British industry? Why is it that our industrial costs are so much greater than those of the Germans and the Japanese in terms of research expertise? Could not an imaginative plan be devised before September or October to help not only the universities but institutions such as the natural history museum, which is important for its research into global warming? We have obligations to skilled people. Can we honour them?
Mr. King: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the sentence means exactly what it says. It may lead in part in the direction in which he looks. We must examine the scale of research and development in defence and decide how much we can afford and what research and development is justified. If that means that we can release resources, they may be able to go to some of the institutions to which he referred.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that both the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment will be delighted with the formation of the new division? I am sure that they will work in friendly rivalry within it.
In all that my right hon. Friend said there is the presumption that Germany will remain within the NATO alliance. However, he knows that there is a very outside chance that the socialists and the greens in Germany will win the election in December. Does he agree that, if that unfortunate circumstance were to come about, there might have to be yet another rethink?
Mr. King: I would have expected my hon. Friend's opening comments. I know of his great loyalty to and support for the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment. As for his question about Germany's membership of NATO, I have always believed that in the end the Soviet Union, whether reluctantly or otherwise, will be forced to accept the democratic decision of the people of East Germany and of a united Germany. It is important for the coherence of NATO that that remains the position.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The statement is a welcome start, but the Secretary of State cannot be accused of seizing opportunities or grasping nettles, let alone of beginning to convert the defence industries. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Select Committee's report. May I therefore appeal to him to pay particular attention to the cautionary remarks of the Select

483
Committee about the danger of nuclear escalation through the deployment of tactical air-to-surface missiles? Would it not be a vicious irony if a conventional peace dividend were to clear the decks for a nuclear war?
Mr. King: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman ended, because I lost the thread in the middle. Although he may think that my statement was modest, I assure him that its implications will be profound for both those in the armed forces and those who work in support industries. He should reflect on the implications of that. There will also be implications on the procurement side for some of the defence industries. I dare say that even in his surgery he may find people who will not believe that my statement was modest.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that recruiting will continue at a sufficient level to maintain an appropriate profile of age and experience in the armed forces and to ensure that the armed forces continue to provide a worthwhile and rewarding career? Does he share my surprise, indeed incredulity, that the Opposition spokesman should express anxiety about pay in the armed forces when his party held down pay as a matter of policy? As a result, our first act in government was to increase armed forces' pay by 32 per cent. to bring it back in line.
Mr. King: Whatever the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman may say, I shudder to think what the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would propose for armed forces' pay in view of his proposals for defence as a whole.
My hon. Friend's first point was an important one. It will be a challenge for us to ensure that the changes are made in a way that maintains the structure of the armed forces and a sensible age profile. I am under no illusions that that will be a real challenge.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Without casting aspersions on the morals of the Secretary of State, may I say that he sounds like a religious prostitute who said, "Oh God, make me pure, but not yet." [Interruption.] The House should not get so excited; I have waited all this time. We are slower than any other major nation to realise precisely what has happened in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. The Secretary of State and the Government act as if the Russians were about to attack next Thursday. In all conscience, why do the Government not realise that this is not only a militaristic matter? The poor, the sick and the old are waiting for the peace dividend, and it is time that we did something about the money. What does the Secretary of State intend to do, other than being so militaristic or conveying that impression? Do we always need an enemy? Will the enemy continue to be the Soviet Union, or could it be that we are getting weapons together like Gaddafi and others and that the Arabs are the real enemy?
Mr. King: I was in the House last week when the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) had something to say as someone who had fought in the last world war. It was an attitude like that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) which made people believe that they could safely plan on the basis that there would not be a war for the next 10 years. It was the 10-year rule.
484
That was carried through from a Cabinet to the defence chiefs in 1919 and it rolled forward to 1932. It resulted in soldiers having to exercise with football rattles instead of real ammunition and it left the country dangerously undefended. It is precisely that attitude—
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend fought in the war.
Mr. King:—which assumes that there cannot be a risk in future from which—
Mr. Flannery: Do not be patronising. I was wounded in the last war.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman talks about morals. Our responsibility is to ensure above all the security of our country.
Mr. Robert Key: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his courageous statement, may I ask him to take special care with the 173,000 civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence? Will he bear in mind the fact that health, education and housing costs for soldiers are borne at present by the defence budget but in future will be borne by the civil budget? Will he take particular care to consult the local authorities and the providers of those services?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend's point is beginning to sink in with some Opposition Members. It is that some of the changes may have greater impact in some constituencies than certain Opposition Members appear to appreciate. I certainly take note of the proper concern of my hon. Friend about the position that may arise in his constituency. I understand why he is anxious about it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision not to cancel Trident and thereby save billions of pounds is immoral and outrageous? What will he say to the 139 non-nuclear nations which renounced the possession and deployment of nuclear weapons at the review conference? What does he intend to say in his pompous and arrogant tones? Will he say that, as Secretary of State, he is prepared to be disloyal and to dishonour clause 6 of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which his Government support, which successive Governments have signed, which commits us to getting rid of nuclear weapons and which he is betraying?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting us hear the real voice of the Labour party.
Mr. Cryer: Tell us about the treaty.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows that what he said is not the view of any Labour Front-Bench Member or that of the leader of his party.
Mr. Cryer: Tell me the answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. King: I know that the hon. Gentleman holds that conviction passionately and sincerely. I happen to believe that he is profoundly wrong, and that at this very moment the lesson of history proves it.
Dame Janet Fookes: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to maintain or reduce the number

485
of the Royal Marines, bearing in mind the excellence of that corps and its capacity to turn its hand to almost anything? May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the Government may be considering the amphibious capability but that they have been doing so for longer than I care to remember?
Mr. King: No. we are not considering it—we intend to maintain it. I make that absolutely clear. I ask my hon. Friend not to read anything specific into my statement. I made a broad statement of our approach. I have tried to give as much reassurance and clarification as possible.
Several hon. Members asked about the position and prospects of individual units. I do not anticipate any significant change in the position of the marine commandos. However, I want to have a genuine consultation exercise in which we can carry forward our approach and, under the broad structure that I have defined, consider what the future should be. I do not want to dictate it from the Dispatch Box. I want the people involved to take part in the process.
Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. At least I have been able to produce my own peace dividend by betting that I would be the last to be called!
The Secretary of State's statement tells me two things. First, it is a defeat for the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Secondly. the Secretary of State has missed a wonderful opportunity. The people of Britain expect a peace dividend. The opportunities were there for the Secretary of State to cut defence by as much as 50 per cent. to allow the real problems, not the problems from the Soviet Union, to be addressed, including the education crisis in our schools. homelessness and poverty. We are left, as before, with the best defended cardboard cities and dole queues in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has missed a wonderful opportunity.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's oratory sounds impressive, but why has he totally failed to persuade the leadership of his party of the arguments that he just advanced? He knows that that is not its policy. I have sought to put before the House a sensible response to the changes that have occurred. It will maintain the security of our country against the unexpected. A defence policy must provide that insurance. The hon. Gentleman was wrong on his second point, and completely wrong on the first.
Mr. Cecil Franks: The majority of the House will welcome the commitment to a four-boat Trident submarine fleet. That is good news, not only for those who believe in a credible nuclear deterrent but for my constituents, even if it is bad news for the Opposition and the Labour party in my area.
Will my right hon. Friend clarify one part of his statement? He said that he envisaged a 16-boat submarine fleet, three quarters of which will be nuclear-powered. Will he elaborate on the future shipbuilding programme and, in particular, say whether there is to be a follow-on to the Trafalgar class submarine, a nuclear-powered submarine, the seventh and last of which is currently being completed in Barrow?
Mr. King: For the reasons I gave in relation to the Marines, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not talk in detail about the programmes. We are looking at them now. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we are committed to a four-boat Trident programme and we are looking at the future programme. We see a continuing need for nuclear submarines and to maintain a modern nuclear capability. I would rather not go any further today than my statement.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: According to some newspapers, my right hon. Friend and the chiefs of staff do not see eye to eye. Is that correct, or do the chiefs of staff fully support his approach?
Mr. King: I read those reports, too, as did the chiefs of staff. If I failed to make it clear earlier, I reaffirm my deep appreciation of the work of the Chief of the Defence Staff, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir David Craig, and the chiefs of staff of the individual services. There is a new structure in the Ministry of Defence under the Chief of the Defence Staff which has been responsible for the work I have been able to announce today. Signals have gone out to all the individual services today, and I am pleased to see the positive approach that has been taken. I have referred to the concept of smaller and better. Throughout the services, I think that it is genuinely felt that this is an opportunity to reshape the services on a basis that can provide benefits, albeit on lower force numbers, for the services. I have been encouraged by the positive and helpful way in which the Chief of the Defence Staff and the chiefs of the individual services have responded to the challenge.
Mr. David Martin: With the reduction in the surface fleet, can my right hon. Friend give as much reassurance as possible to me and the people of Portsmouth about the future of the naval base there. the fleet maintenance repair organisation and other supporting roles within the naval base?
Mr. King: I am afraid that I have to give my hon. Friend the same reply as I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). There are some detailed issues that now have to be examined against the broad structure I have described. I do not want to go into that today. They are matters of concern to my hon. Friend, with his close interest in issues affecting his constituency, and we shall try to reach conclusions on them as early as possible.
Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State accept that his substantial statement today, much of which will have been welcomed by many in the House, will be largely meaningless if price tags are not quickly applied? We urge the Secretary of State to make available all the financial information as early as possible, so that the best and widest possible debate can take place.
Mr. King: That work is in hand now, but I cannot say when it will be ready. As I have said, in part it has to be incorporated within the autumn statement.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)
5.2 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my proposed financial settlement for Scottish local authorities for 1991–92.
This is the first year in which the Scottish announcement is in respect of the total level of local authority resources that are determined by the Government—that is, revenue support grant, specific grants and business rates. Collectively, those are known as aggregate external finance. In determining the settlement I have taken into account the views of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed when I met it on 6 July regarding the spending levels that it thought were required for next year. I have also had full regard to the additional burdens facing local authorities and to the scope that undoubtedly exists in local government for improved efficiency.
I propose that aggregate external finance for 1991–92 should be set at £4,338 million. That is £410 million higher than the corresponding figure for the current year. The House will realise that that is substantially more than the application of the normal formula rules to the comparable English settlement would produce. In addition, a further sum of £15 million will be provided for safety netting next year. This also will be the second year in which the safety net has been funded entirely by the Exchequer. So, overall, the settlement amounts to a total of £425 million. Proposals for the distribution of that amount to individual authorities will he announced in the usual way in the autumn.
In reaching this settlement, I have assumed that local authorities will contribute the sum of £10 million in the second year of the Government's policy of moving to a common rate poundage with England and thereby reduce the excess rate burden on Scottish business. I shall announce the total reduction that will be made in business rates next year at a later date, but the fact that the local authorities' contribution has already been taken into account in this settlement means that the reduction in non-domestic rate income will not require a reduction in aggregate Exchequer finance below the figure that I have just announced.
Overall, the settlement that I have announced today is a very fair one. Even if, as COSLA has forecast, authorities were to budget to increase their expenditure next year by as much as 9 per cent.,—that is, close to the current rate of retail prices index inflation—there should be no need for community charges to increase, on average, by more than that amount. And if, particularly with the expected fall in the rate of inflation, authorities increase spending by rather less than 9 per cent.—as I would hope they would—there should be scope for next year's charge levels to be lower in real terms. I hope that Scottish local authorities will also take into account their very high expenditure compared to local authorities in England and Wales. If local authorities in Scotland were to reduce their spending to levels closer to those elsewhere in Britain, there would be scope for large reductions in the community charge.
As hon. Members will know, I announced last Thursday a number of changes to the community charge. Those included major revisions to the transitional relief
488
scheme, the prescription of a boundary for the rating of bed-and-breakfast establishments and additional classes with restricted maximum multipliers for the standard community charge. The changes to the transitional relief scheme, which will take effect in Scotland from 1 April 1990, will increase significantly the value of relief received by individuals and the numbers entitled to receive relief. Our decision to set a boundary for the rating of bed-and-breakfast establishments has been widely welcomed, while the additional standard charge classes have been identified as a result of experience gained in operating the new powers, which took effect at the beginning of this year.
Those changes and the settlement that I have announced today represent good news for community charge payers in Scotland.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that the adjustment to the transitional relief scheme to which he has just referred and which was announced earlier in the week is no substitute for the fundamental reform that the injustices of the poll tax demand? Can he confirm that the first year of transitional relief has been worth only £11 million to poll tax payers and not the £30 million that he promised when it was announced? Why is the scheme still to be fraudulently based on notional poll tax figures dreamt up by the Scottish Office rather than on what people actually pay? Will he confirm that barely one in six will qualify for help under the new scheme, even with the so-called improvements? Can he give an undertaking that this small cosmetic change will not be funded from money already allocated but not used in earlier years of the transitional relief scheme and that the Treasury will be providing additional help? Will he say what the transitional relief changes will be worth to the poll tax payer in a full year and will he give the cost of the total package that he has announced, on which there has been a remarkable silence so far?
On the aggregate external finance figure, the Secretary of State sounded remarkably smug. Does he accept that there are some question marks about the figures? Is it not the case that the Government's contribution to the cost of rebates has been cut by 2 per cent. and that the resultant shortfall of £14 million has, for the first time, been included in the aggregate external finance figure? If he takes the aggregate external finance total with the safety net contribution included, for the current and coming year, is not the picture rather different? The Government's contribution to the safety net is being halved from £30 million to £15 million. When that is taken into account, the increase in grant falls to a true figure of £395 million or 10 per cent. The Secretary of State might remember that the comparable figure announced by the Secretary of State in England a few days ago was 12·8 per cent.
The Secretary of State proclaims that this statement is good news for the poll tax payer. Does he accept that, on a standstill budget with no expansion of service, the average payment is likely to rise by about £30 a year? This package will not do.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the most bitter disappointment will be felt not in local government circles but in the community at large, where no one will see this minor tinkering with transitional relief as an answer to the desperate need for radical changes in the poll tax system? It will be condemned as inadequate to the point of insult.

489
Does the Secretary of State realise that, to restore his damaged reputation, he must tackle the unjust principles of the poll tax? He cannot get away with doling out a little conscience money in the vain hope of buying peace.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's protestations about the community charge would sound more convincing if he was not wallowing in a sea of controversy as a result of his ill-judged proposals for a roof tax in Scotland. Scotland is still waiting to hear what the hon. Gentleman proposes to do with his misguided, ill-judged and ill-thought-out proposals.
Today, the hon. Gentleman started by asking about transitional relief. It is indeed the case that the cost of transitional relief in the first year is likely to be less than originally anticipated. The precise amount is not yet known because there are a still several applications to come forward. There is likely to be less cost because it has become clear that the cost of the transition to community charge from rates has imposed less of a burden in Scotland than south of the border, about which the hon. Gentleman should be pleased, not sad. The criteria are exactly the same throughout Britain—fewer people meet those criteria in Scotland precisely because the change to the new system has produced less individual hardship.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why it was a notional community charge payment that was taken into account. The reason is simple—the purpose of the taxpayer paying transitional relief is to help those whose bills have gone up purely because of the change from a rating system to a community charge system. It is not intended to compensate for decisions taken by individual local authorities to increase their real spending and impose additional burdens on their charge payers, which is a matter for them to answer for to their charge payers.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the percentage increase that he said that today's aggregate external finance statement represents, and suggested that it was 10 per cent. He is wrong—the figure is actually 10·4 per cent. The hon. Gentleman said that the figure was nevertheless less than the percentage increase announced to the House last week by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which was 12·8 per cent. Of course it is less—does the hon. Gentleman realise that, because of the huge level of Scottish local authority spending compared with that in England, to achieve an equal percentage to that announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, I should have to provide for Scottish local authorities no less than £70 million more than COSLA even requested? I would have to give Scotland £165 million more than its normal formula share of United Kingdom expenditure—a formula that is already generous to Scottish requirements.
The hon. Gentleman and Scottish local authorities cannot avoid the fact that their expenditure is no less than 32 per cent. higher for every adult in Scotland than comparable expenditure in England and 29 per cent. higher than comparable expenditure in Wales. As long as they insist on such excessively high expenditure, comparisons in terms of percentages are, frankly, meaningless. The settlement that I announced today represents not only the full formula consequentials of the announcement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but £70 million more than the formula would have provided for. I take no great comfort in that, because, if I were not providing that £70 million to help
490
support local authority current expenditure, those resources could be made available for health, and capital expenditure on housing, education or elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should take that into account.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Am I correct in thinking that the sum announced by my right hon. and learned Friend is close to the sum bid for by local authorities in Scotland? If that is so, does it not put particular responsibility on local authorities in Scotland to act properly and fairly towards the community charge and rate payers in their districts in the coming year?
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities asked for a settlement of £433 million, and the figure that I announced today is £410 million, which is so close to the figure that it was seeking that it can hardly make a great song and dance about the settlement that I announced.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the changes to the poll tax, particularly those relating to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which will be helpful in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that all those changes to the poll tax have increased administrators' problems and shown that the system is in a terrible mess? The changes have also increased problems for the elderly, particularly those who applied for transitional relief and found that they were ineligible, and others who did not apply. Is the Secretary of State aware that the elderly are suffering stress and distress as a result of the number of forms with which they have to cope, because the administrators cannot cope with all the changes?
In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the high expenditure of local authorities in Scotland compared with those in England and Wales. Is it not time that he started to compare like with like, in population terms, and gave us a breakdown of the subsidies and public expenditure that go to regions of England, particularly the south-east, where there is such benefit from mortgage tax relief? Will the Secretary of State do some work during the summer, return for the new Session and tell us exactly what Scotland contributes to the Exchequer from its industries and the amount spent by the Departments, not the Scottish Office, on Scotland, compared with England? If he did that work, we might prevent much of the argument.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the changes in relation to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which will be important, particularly for the tourist industry in the rural regions of Scotland.
The hon. Lady is correct to say that pensioners—and indeed others—can be disturbed and upset by complicated and difficult forms, whether in this or any other sector of public administration. With regard to the community charge, I am entitled to add that single pensioners are among those who have benefited most from the change from the old rating system to the community charge. The hon. Lady should consider that.
The hon. Lady is right to say that the south-east of England may have considerable prosperity that is not enjoyed by some other districts. That is why I concentrated on a comparison between Scotland and Wales, which is a part of the United Kingdom with a similar economy and social profile. Expenditure per adult by local authorities in

491
Wales is £776; in Scotland it is £978—I am curious to know the explanation for that. When I asked COSLA whether it had an explanation, I was met with blank incomprehension. It admitted that it had no explanation and said that it would try to find one. I hope that it does, because I am genuinely curious to know whether there is a good basis for a higher level of local authority spending. If there is a good reason, we all wish to know it, and if there is not, there may be scope for reduced spending and reduced tax bills.
Sir Hector Monro: May I, too, thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the changes that he has made in the community charge this week, particularly with reference to the anomaly over bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the tourist industry? Does he agree that his announcement today of 10·4 per cent. is above the likely level of inflation next year and should give local authorities an opportunity at least to hold, if not reduce, the community charge?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The percentage increase is likely to be considerably above the inflation rate for the financial year in which the settlement will apply.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State accept that the poll tax is, of itself, a local authority cost that need not exist if we had a proper system for funding local government, which he has refused to introduce? Instead of making fundamental changes to the poll tax, he continues to tinker with the system, with the attendant costs to local authorities in the administration of the tax. Could not he be more flexible in his approach, give local authorities the power to reintroduce the rating system if they consider that appropriate for their district and get rid of a poll tax that is thoroughly unpopular?
Mr. Rifkind: I am increasingly interested by various comments by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) has just called for the reintroduction of the rating system. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is still thirled to a roof tax—
Mr. Dewar: What is the difference?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no difference, which is an interesting statement. If it is the Labour party's view that there is no difference between roof tax and rates, perhaps there is more agreement between both sides of the House than I realise.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this fair and generous settlement. Can he give the House a broad idea of the probable implications for community charge payers in Renfrew and Eastwood district councils? Looking ahead, will he agree to study with care over the recess the strong representations that he has received from the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and myself against the absurd proposal to transfer large parts of Hillington industrial estate from Renfrew to Glasgow district, which would result in an unfair burden on community charge payers in Renfrew?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's latter point, which is presumably in the first instance a matter for the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
Although at the end of the day it will be the local authority that determines the level of the local community charge on the basis of its proposed expenditure, in the light of the settlement announced today there is every prospect that authorities—particularly good authorities such as Eastwood district council—will be able to reduce their community charge in real terms.
Mr. John McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that his previous so-called concessions on transitional relief amounted to nothing less than a fraud perpetrated on Scottish poll tax payers? When he announced that the upper savings limit for rebate purposes had been increased to £18,000, there were 500 inquiries in Dundee alone, yet only 17 of the cases qualified for rebate.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to make a genuine concession by announcing the restoration of 100 per cent. rebates for those on income support and rebates for those who are entitled to rebates but who have not received them for whatever reason?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman appears to leave out of the equation the fact that those who pay the minimum 20 per cent. community charge and who paid the minimum 20 per cent. rates in the last year of the rating system received—if they were on income support—an increase in income support equivalent to the average community charge. As the community charge in Scotland is below that in England, the hon. Gentleman cannot call for a 100 per cent. rebate unless he simultaneously accepts that that would lead to a reduction in income support—and I cannot believe that he would want that.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this generous settlement, which is almost exactly what local authorities requested, is certainly not in keeping with all the girning and greetin' from hon. Members?
How can the constituents of Tayside, North protect themselves from councillors who refuse to pay the community charge but who also collect their expenses and set the charge levels for their expenditure? What do my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government propose to do if councillors continue to follow that unsatisfactory and unsavoury practice?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is certainly right that Labour or nationalist councillors who collect their allowances but who refuse to pay their taxes put themselves in a position that is neither ethical nor moral. It would be a matter either for the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland or for the local authority itself to ensure that councillors do not put themselves above the law in terms of their community charge obligations, which are the same as those of the rest of the public, who I believe hold such people in contempt.
Mr. Alexander EadieAs the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned ill-judged schemes of raising local government revenue, does he not realise that he is the number one expert when it comes to ill-judged schemes in Scotland, to the extent that the poll tax is one of the most hated taxes ever inflicted on the Scottish people? The fact that the Conservative party's rating in

493
Scotland is now equivalent to the vote received by the communists in the elections in East Germany is a political indictment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
As the settlement is based on the assumption that inflation will remain in the region of 9 per cent.—it is actually higher than that now—does the Secretary of State realise that, even in his own area, there is talk about free travel for the elderly, home helps and education services being cut? Does he realise that this announcement is accompanied by appeals to local authorities to cut services for the people?
Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman shares my pleasure at the Conservative victory in the East German elections; I have no doubt that that will give East German Conservatives great pleasure, too.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that, even in the Scottish context, Lothian community charge payers, of whom I am one, have the dubious privilege of paying the highest community charge in Scotland. The suggestion that Lothian cannot modify its expenditure to a level that seems sufficient for many other local authorities, including Labour-controlled local authorities in other parts of Scotland and Britain, does not carry credibility.
Mr. Alex Salmond: If the Secretary of State is to continue with the con trick of basing transitional relief on notional poll tax payments, why are they not also based on notional rate levels? Why has he announced further changes, modest though they are, to the poll tax today instead of a year ago, after three months' experience of it? If three months' experience of the poll tax was enough for a review in England, why was not three months enough for a review in Scotland? Is it not true that every change in the poll tax has been dictated by circumstances south of the border? What level of resistance and antagonism in Scotland will be necessary to convince the Secretary of State that this unjust tax will never be accepted by the Scottish people?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is, not uncharacteristically, wrong. About half the changes that the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last week about the standard charge we announced last year and they have been in force in Scotland for some time. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts before he makes such allegations.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as a Lothian poll tax payer, he is £40 a week better off as a result of the legislation that he himself introduced, whereas many of the constituents whom he represents are a great deal of money out of pocket as a result of that legislation? When will he stop being more anti-Scottish than the Prime Minister? Today he has given a good impression of being the most anti-Scottish Secretary of State that Scotland has ever had.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's original remark could not have been more wrong. If he consults the old valuation rolls he will discover that he owes me a substantial apology. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] These are public matters that can easily be scrutinised in the valuation rolls.
The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is nothing anti-Scottish in pointing out that Scottish local authorities levy taxes which must be paid by people in Scotland and which result in local authority expenditure being
494
dramatically higher than that in any other part of Britain. Why the hon. Gentleman should believe that drawing that to the attention of the Scottish public is against Scotland's interests I fail to understand. If the local authorities have a convincing explanation for it, they will no doubt provide it; so far, they have failed to do so.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear the Secretary of State telling us how much he saved from the poll tax. Will he please repeat it?
Mr. Speaker: I heard clearly enough.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Why is it that, when the Secretary of State believes that he has given a generous settlement, he preens himself at the Dispatch Box, whereas today he has come here blustering and foaming at the mouth? Does not that disguise the fact that the settlement that he has announced—[Interruption.] I could do without heckling from my own side. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman trying to disguise the fact that the settlement that he has announced is below that considered necessary merely to keep pace with a standstill budget? As he has always said that the main purpose of the poll tax is to bring about accountability in local government, will he take into account the fact that we recently had regional council elections; and will he pledge that the verdict of the Scottish people will not be set aside by capping authorities which believe that they have to deliver services?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would realise that the settlement is more than even the current rate of inflation, never mind next year's likely rate. I have powers granted by Parliament to take selective action on capping. I did not use them in the current year because I did not think that it would be appropriate to do so, given the decisions of some local authorities. I should certainly use them if I thought that that was justified. We shall have to await the expenditure decisions of Scottish local authorities to see whether the criteria laid down in the Act would persuade me to use those powers. I do not rule that out. I have not used the powers since the introduction of the community charge, and would use them only if I felt it right and proper in the circumstances.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the legitimate interests of hon. Members waiting to take part in the debate on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, on which there are 45 amendment groupings as well as Third Reading. If hon. Members ask brief questions, I may be able to get them all in.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the Secretary of State aware that many thousands of those who are in arrears with the community charge are in that position because of the administration of the rebate system? Will he confirm what was said early this morning by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) in Committee on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill—that local authorities have been administering the rebate system unfairly, and perhaps unlawfully, by imposing a three-month limit on the backdating of rebate? Will he also confirm what the Under-Secretary of State told that Committee, that those who are in trouble with

495
community charge arrears because of administration difficulties, which are outside their control, can get rebate not only back to the beginning of this year but back to April 1989?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did not say what has been attributed to him by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend said that the legislation has always permitted those who can show good cause for not having applied for a rebate within the prescribed time to be entitled to a rebate if they can satisfy the criteria to which I have referred.
Sir David Steel: May I caution the Secretary of State against the extravagant use of the phrase "excessive public expenditure by local authorities"? I have looked carefully at the expenditure by district and regional authorities in my area and found that the biggest single increase in the past two years has been in the cost of collecting the poll tax. That is his fault, not theirs. I invite him to come to the Borders and look at the unmet needs for housing, nursery education and other items and to tell those councils where their spending is excessive.
Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair, he will acknowledge that local authorities were fully reimbursed for the additional cost of collecting the community charge.
Sir David Steel indicated assent.
Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. We are now talking about other areas of expenditure. I have no doubt that any local authority could find new ways to spend taxpayers' money, because that would not require too much imagination. We are entitled to know from local authorities whether they have good reasons for much higher public expenditure than that of comparable authorities in other parts of the kingdom.
Mr. Mike Watson: The Secretary of State should withdraw the profoundly insulting remark that Scotland, the country that he is supposed to represent, is over-provided for in terms of local authority finance and services. I invite him to come with me during the recess to parts of my constituency, such as Royston and the Gorbals, where schools and houses are crumbling and potholes in roads left unfilled because the local authority does not have adequate finance to do the things that people who come to my surgeries ask to be done.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman continually asks why local authority spending in Scotland is higher than in England and Wales. Why does he not take up the offer made to him by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which remains on the table, to fund a proper inquiry to look into the reasons, not least of which is geography? That would give him the answers and he might be prepared to fight Scotland's corner for the level of services we need and not give us a reduced figure that is below the 12·8 per cent. that the Secretary of State for the Environment announced for England last week.
Mr. Rifkind: I am perfectly prepared to have the matter examined. It is significant that the local authorities that are responsible for this expenditure cannot provide any explanation and say that they need to study the matter
496
before they can come up with a preliminary response to the question. Geography might be relevant if we were talking simply about Highland region, but why Glasgow, Dundee, Hamilton or Motherwell should require so much additional expenditure compared with similar industrial towns in Wales or England is a legitimate matter for public debate, given that it is the same United Kingdom taxpayer and Parliament who are funding that expenditure.
Mr. David Lambie: Recently the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) met representatives of the Scottish Federation of Small Businesses, who complained that many members of the federation were suffering because of increasing rates and facing bankruptcy. They compared business rates in Scotland with those paid by comparable businesses in England and Wales. When the representatives emerged from the meeting they confidently said that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary had given them a sympathetic hearing. What help is available in the settlement for small businesses in Scotland that was not available in last year's settlement?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are committed to eliminating the discriminatory high level of business rates in Scotland, which is damaging to employment and the economy. We have already reduced the gap by about £80 million, and later this year I shall make an announcement about next year's proposals. Protests about that from the Labour party are crocodile tears, because the Labour party is committed, not to completing that process, but to reversing it. It has made it quite explicit that, when it has the power to do so, it will return to local authorities total freedom to determine the level of business rates. As such local discretion has led to Scottish business, industry and commerce paying higher business rates then those in other parts of the kingdom, it would be disastrous to the prospects for employment and inward investment in Scotland if the Labour party were to carry out the policy to which it is publicly committed.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Of all the things on which to choose to spend more public money, why on earth did the Government insist on imposing this absurdly inefficient and unfair new tax system on Scotland? The Secretary of State spoke about inflation. As a fellow Lothian Member of Parliament, will he tell me what he proposes to do about the discrepancy between 52 per cent. accumulated inflation since 1983 and less than 15 per cent. extra Government funding for Lothian regional council over the same period?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise the community charge, it would at least be helpful if he told us to which wing of the Labour party he belongs and whether he wants to see a roof tax or rates, or whether he is part of the tendency that believes that the two are identical. That would be a helpful clarification of his aspirations. Like other local authorities, Lothian has been provided with increased resources to take account of inflation over the years. The fact that local authorities, and Lothian in particular, seem to feel committed to such high levels of spending is, in the first instance, a matter between them and their electorate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Leaving out the yah-boo for a moment, may I ask, if Lothian regional council quietly and politely asked to come to see the Secretary of State, would he be prepared and able at least to steer it in those directions where he thinks that there are so-called areas of excess spending?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's question in a moment, but first I shall deal with the distribution of resources between Lothian regional council and other local authorities. We discuss that matter with the convention as a whole. Clearly, the debate within Lothian about the level of its resources has identified various options put forward by the different political parties. It is not my business to suggest to a local authority a specific item of policy, but if it seeks taxpayers' money to help finance its spending, it is my business to point to the fact that the level of spending in Lothian is greater than that in other parts of Scotland as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ron Brown: As a lawyer, the governor-general will know that the poll tax, the so-called community charge, has doubtful legal status in Scotland. Why should anyone, irrespective of party, accept his edict, his Tory law? Plainly, many people do not and I support them. The mass non-payment campaign makes sense, and has forced his Government and his leader, the Prime Minister, to rethink the poll tax. They have not thought about it enough. The people should reject it and put it on the scrap heap of history, along with the Government. If there is any message, it is this. People power is important in Europe, important in Britain and most of all important in Scotland.
Mr. Rifkind: The legal status of the poll tax is being determined by the Scottish courts rather than by the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that, irrespective of the judgment of the Scottish courts, he intends to put his view of the matter before the law of the land and before a decision of Parliament. That approach is indicative of the hon. Gentleman's attitude.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this enormous grant. I suggest that it is a light so grand that he should find a big bushel before the Courts and Legal Services Bill is debated on Report, and the English appreciate his generosity. Given that the Welsh have said that their community charge could be reduced to £9 or £10 if they had the generosity that has been meted out to us—they are a similar nation—should not my right hon. and learned Friend say that, until COSLA can justify anything else, he will reduce our poll tax to £10?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My hon. and learned Friend has identified a strong argument in favour of COSLA recognising the need to identify the reasons for high expenditure in Scotland, and, if it is unable to justify that different level of expenditure, encouraging local authorities not only to reduce their spending but to pass on the benefits to their community charge payers, whom I am sure would be delighted to see such an initiative.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Last week, the Secretary of State for Health postponed implementation of the community care proposals on the grounds that local authorities were not ready, and that there was confusion over the poll tax in England and Wales. In Scotland, local authorities claim that they are ready and have put a great deal of effort into the work, and the Secretary of State claims that the poll tax is working well in Scotland. If the poll tax can come first to Scotland, why cannot community care come first to Scotland? By how much would the poll tax have had to go up in Scotland so as to implement community care? What calculations has he made?
The Secretary of State claims that the Scottish people were receiving an excessively high level of services—not that there were excessively high levels of expenditure. In education, Scotland is better served than England and Wales—the pupil-teacher ratio is better and there are better staying-on rates. Over 50 per cent. of local authority spending is on education. Would the Secretary of State like a cut in that sector?
Mr. Rifkind: We have said that we wish to see a phased introduction of community care. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed from today's reports in the Scottish newspapers that that decision has been welcomed by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, which feels that delay in implementing the Government's community care programme provides much-needed time to co-ordinate mental health services. [Interruption.]. On this matter, not unreasonably, I prefer the views of the commission to those of the Scotsman editorial.
Education expenditure is one of the issues that Scottish local authorities will wish to consider. They will also wish to consider whether higher expenditure on education compared with other parts of the kingdom gives a proportionate benefit to the youngsters who attended Scottish schools. We need to identify whether Scottish education is so demonstrably superior to that in England and Wales as to justify the higher expenditure. That is a legitimate matter of public debate, which the local authorities and no doubt others will wish to address.

Power Stations (Closure)
5.46 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: 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,
"the decision taken today by PowerGen to close two of its power stations.'
One of those power stations, Elland, is in Calderdale, which is near Halifax. This makes the proposed closure a problem for my constituents, many of whom work at the plant. The closures are likely to trigger a round of cost cutting as PowerGen and its rival National Power seek to maximise profits. This is the first sign of what will happen to the industry if Hanson takes over.
PowerGen has given the age of the power stations and the excuse of non-commercial viability as reasons for closure. It does not appear to have considered other factors, such as the importance of the position of Elland, which is within 20 miles of the Yorkshire coalfield, and the effect on the local community of job losses.
The unions do not accept the reasons given for the closures, and neither do I. In the past few months, Calderdale has lost more than 1,000 jobs in manufacturing, and a further 130 jobs will go if Elland closes. Under the Central Electricity Generating Board, all power stations had excellent and expensive regular overhauls. There was a good level of investment and superb background of training. The CEGB was scrupulous in providing safe and efficient power.
The Labour party is committed to clean, safe power and is looking at the clean coal burn technology, which could be fitted to power stations such as Elland. Experts inform me that, if proper maintenance is carried out, there is little difference between old and new plants. While power stations under the CEGB were valid, efficient, safe public assets, we are witnessing now the wicked, unacceptable face of privatisation, the worshipping of profit and the scattering of our precious assets to land speculators. The callous disregard for communities and skilled jobs, and the destructive wrecking of a superb public industry are issues that the House should debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision taken today by PowerGen to close two of its power stations."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Lady said about this matter, which affects her constituency. As she knows, the decision that I have to take is whether to give it precedence over the business set down for consideration today. I have to say that the matter that she has raised does not meet the criteria of the standing order. Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

Points of Order
5.49 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you and the Secretary of State for Education and Science brief notice. It concerns the rights of Parliament in respect of its duties to protect the public purse and to ensure that there is no abuse in expenditure of money voted by Parliament.
You, Mr. Speaker, will be aware that a detailed code of conduct has been laid down by the Cabinet Office in relation to expenditure on Government publicity. For example, paragraph 2(c) of that code says that Government publicity
"should not be, or be liable to misinterpretation as being, party political."
Paragraph 2(d) says that it should be produced
"in an economic and relevant way."
Paragraph 5 says:
"it is no less crucial if government publicity is to remain acceptable within the conventions, that it avoids any doubt about its purpose".
Paragraph 6 states:
"Image building, whether explicit or implied, whether by Government as a whole or by Ministers, is not acceptable."
Paragraph 10 says:
"in each case, those responsible must be able"
for the purposes of the expenditure
"to give a persuasive reply to the following questions…Is it necessary to have a publicity proposal which goes beyond what can be achieved in the normal way (eg Parliamentary announcement, Ministerial speech, regular publication)?"
Annex A says:
"distribution of unsolicited material should be carefully controlled."
It has come to my notice that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has had printed and distributed 76,500 copies of a little pink book which, according to the front, contains
"A summary of messages from recent speeches by the Rt. Hon. John MacGregor, OBE, MP, the Secretary of State for Education."
The cost, which will have run into thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, plainly breaches the code.
Moreover, it comes oddly from a Secretary of State who in February made a speech saying that he was taking measures to cut the burden of paperwork caused by the Education Reform Act 1988, and proclaimed that he had reduced the paperwork by 150,000 sheets, to allow 1,680,000 sheets of paper, paid for by the taxpayer, to be used in the production of such a booklet.
Given what I have read out from the code—that image building is not acceptable and that publicity, where there is any doubt about its purpose, is not acceptable—and given that the Secretary of State has already made those speeches and received a perfectly fair press in respect of them, there can be no doubt that the expenditure of thousands of pounds of public money clearly breaches the code. In addition, it smacks of the kind of the practice of some of the regimes to the east of Britain which have just collapsed.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that your powers are limited, but Parliament has a duty to control such abuses of expenditure. As you are the guardian of Parliament's rights and duties, I put it to you that, before the House rises, the Secretary of State—not the Under-Secretary of State—must have an opportunity to come to the House to make a statement about how he came to waste thousands

501
of pounds of Government money on what is explicitly party-political propaganda when cuts in education and schools are occurring throughout the country. The Government have clearly breached the dividing line between legitimate Government information and party-political propaganda.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. As he correctly stated, it is not a matter that I can deal with on a point of order. It is a matter for the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I am sure, however, that what the hon. Gentleman has said has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench, and we may hear more about the matter tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There is no point in saying anything further about it, because there is nothing that I can do.
Mr. Terry Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too have received complaints from governors, parents and teachers in my contituency about the booklet. I realise that this is not the time to debate the spending priorities of the Department of Education and Science which, to the consternation of my constituents, prefers to spend money on printing the Secretary of State's speeches rather than on textbooks for under-resourced schools. The Public Accounts Committee has recently recommended that accounting officers in Government Departments should not only consider the propriety of such publications, but record the results of their considerations. Is there any way in which we can discover the views of the accounting officer at the Department of Education and Science without waiting for the files to be opened in 30 years' time?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for me. It is not a question that I can answer.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Madden: It is on the point that this blatant party political propaganda was unsolicited by the schools which have been deluged with booklets. I have received many complaints about schools having to charge playgroups for the use of facilities this summer because of the new budget arrangements forced upon them by the Government. They will be shocked and dismayed to receive thousands of copies of this party-political propaganda, for which they have not asked, at a time when playgroups and many other users of school buildings have been placed in great difficulty. As we are approaching the recess, is there any way in which, you, Mr. Speaker, can pass on the concern of hon. Members about the matter to the Public Accounts Committee so that at least some investigations can be made during the summer?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should do that himself.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a point of order."] That is for you to decide, Mr. Speaker, not for Conservative Members.
502
It is increasingly the case that the Government twist and cheat the taxpayer in the interests of their own party-political propaganda. This is only the latest in a series of such disclosures. It is a matter on which the House should have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Who has authorised this expenditure and how can it possibly be justified, especially at a time when many children in schools throughout Britain arc short of basic educational materials? I place the matter on the record because I hope that we can have your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in obtaining later today or tomorrow a statement from the Secretary of State so that the House can ask him those important questions.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to grant a statement. The Chair does not have that authority. As the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Gentleman's best course would be to have a word with the Leader of the House himself to see whether a statement could be made.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to complain that I have not had a copy of what is clearly a valuable document? I hope that the Secretary of State will send me one.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be pleased to know that it is a different point of order, for the simple reason that the Minister responsible for education in Scotland would be dead scared to send us a copy of his speeches.
You, Mr. Speaker, heard the exchange between the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself during his statement, in which he said that I owed him an apology. You, Mr. Speaker, know better than most that I am always pleased to apologise, especially when I am wrong. I wish to put it on record that if the Secretary of State had not withheld the information that I sought I would willingly have apologised, but he chose to withhold the information.
Mr. David Winnick: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to pursue the point about booklets which come more or less direct from Tory central office being published at public expense.
I assume, Mr. Speaker, that you have not received a request from a Minister to deal with the tense situation in the middle east and the military threat by the Iraqi regime against Kuwait, because had you done so there would have been a statement. As it is important that hon. Members on both sides of the House should express their points of view about this dangerous situation which arises directly from the criminal regime which rules in Iraq, has serious consideration been given to recalling the House at the first instant should the situation become more tense and the British Government decide to take action of any kind?
Mr. Speaker: I do not initiate a recall of the House during the recess, but no doubt what the hon. Gentleman has said will be taken into account if anything serious were to occur. In that event, I am sure that what he has suggested would happen.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED

    PERSONAL RECORDS (EMPLOYMENT)
    Miss Emma Nicholson, supported by Mr. William Cash, Mr. Richard Holt, Mr. Steve Norris, Sir Geoffrey

    503
    Pattie, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Bowen Wells, Sir Jim Spicer, Mrs. Ray Michie and Mr. Greville Janner, presented a Bill to impose duties upon employers and other holders of factual information about employees or applicants for employment in respect of such information; to provide for the correction or deletion of incorrect information; to extend the powers and duties of the Director General of Fair Trading; to define offences and prescribe penalties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

Breath Tests on Licensed Premises
5.59 pm
Sir Ian Lloyd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require every holder of a justices' on-licence to install on the licensed premises concerned a device enabling persons who have consumed intoxicating liquor to take a breath test before leaving the premises; and for connected purposes.
No one will be more aware than you, Mr. Speaker, that much of the most basic controversy in the House is not about objective, but about method. Objectives are easily stated; implementation and method are altogether another matter, involving not only resources but generally that most difficult civil procedure, an adjustment of rights and obligations. The Bill is no exception. Its objective is quite clear and I wish to make it unequivocal. It is to reduce the incidence of dangerous driving associated with alcohol.
Both the motor vehicle and alcohol, taken separately, may be described as good servants and bad masters. Taken together, the combination can be lethal. We know that the current cost to society is some £400 million per annum and an unmeasurable quantity of tragedy, pain and grief. The current Government philosophy assumes that a total separation of the vehicle and its driver from alcohol is both desirable and possible. It is expressed in the exhortation, "Don't drink and drive", and that has been confirmed most recently in a letter to me from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. All concerned now accept that there is a gulf between the law and the advice given, and some advocate a stiffening of the law which, taken to its logical limit, would require a zero limit and random breath testing. My Bill is based on an analysis which seeks to demonstrate that the current philosophy is fundamentally flawed.
First, a zero limit implies that the motor vehicle can be used as an instrument for enforcing prohibition on the roads. No state has ever achieved that, and none ever will. It is an aspect of moral fundamentalism, and fundamentalism flies in the face of human nature. Secondly, it is based on an assumption that random breath testing, on a large enough scale and enforced with Cromwellian rigour, will eventually achieve the objective. That, too, flies in the face of experience. It is an emotional response to the problem, and that is something that we cannot afford.
Emotions are malleable; facts are very stubborn—and the House will probably not welcome the facts that I shall now place before it. They are drawn largely from two official reports from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, published within the past two years, on drinking and driving. They disclosed that, of some 2,500 people stopped and tested on a random basis in Warwickshire and Sussex recently, 52 per cent. had consumed alcohol within the last 12 hours; 17 per cent. had alcohol in their bloodstream; and that, of those, 3·6 per cent. were just under the limit and 1·3 per cent. over the limit. Some 33 per cent. of those sampled had visited a pub, club, hotel or restaurant.
What does that suggest? First, it suggests that the elimination of the 1·3 per cent. is an essential and legitimate target; secondly, that the reduction of the 3·6 per cent. is both desirable and practical; thirdly, that exhortation—however brilliant or intense—will not have much effect on the remaining 69 per cent. There is not

505
much point in endeavouring to push water uphill or alcohol back into the stills and vats of the distillers and brewers.
I come now to the crucial figure of 33 per cent. who had visited clubs, pubs, hotels and restaurants. There are about 135,000 licensed premises in the United Kingdom. Assuming that each receives a modest 50 visits per day by car, we have a target figure of more than 2,000 million visits per annum. If we apply the research laboratory's figures to that total, we must conclude that 344 million journeys will be made by drivers with alcohol in their bloodstreams, and that 2·6 million—1·3 per cent.—will be made by drivers unfit to drive.
That last figure is the real target of the Bill, bearing in mind two other research laboratory figures—that 40 to 50 per cent. of those tested drove themselves home and that a significant number of those tested who thought that they had consumed fewer than three units had, in fact, consumed more. Fifteen were over the limit. That ignorance cannot be right or justified, and it is not in the public interest.
What can be done? I have already eliminated draconian enforcement, which leaves only one obvious alternative—to assist members of the public to discover for themselves whether they are in categories 1, 2, 3 or 4. That requires the Government, first, to abandon the absurd notion that either laws or exhortation can achieve a total segregation of drinking and driving; secondly, to encourage drivers to test their alcohol levels as a matter of routine; and thirdly, to provide them with the means to do so.
My Bill would make the provision of such a facility an obligation on every licence-holder. I could not bring a machine into the Chamber, but I have a photograph with me which some hon. Members have already seen. The machine is accurate, reliable and easy to use. It has been successfully applied in Australia, California, Germany, Sweden and many other countries. It is estimated that 17,000 tests a day are carried out voluntarily by members of the public in Australia alone. The Royal Australian Navy has rated such machines an outstanding success, and some states are considering compulsory installation. It would cost £137 million, at a cost of £1,000 per machine, to install one in every pub in the United Kingdom—but what is that against a saving of thousands of lives and a medical bill of several hundred million pounds?
One outstanding criticism is that such devices would encourage drivers to drink up to the limit. There is no evidence to support that view. A pilot study in Australia revealed that there was
506
"no evidence of changes in respondents' behaviour as a result of obtaining BAC levels."
The inventor of the fuel cell—I have two examples with me, of the sort used by the police and of those that can be applied to the ignition lock of a car—concluded that
"their installation does not, contrary to some opinion, lead to brinkmanship but to responsible and knowledgeable drinking by an educated public."
That is our target.
Drivers should never be driving when out of the yellow zone depicted in the diagram I am holding. It is the zone of virtually nil risk. The whole of the red zone is a legitimate target and it should enjoy all our attention. If we endeavour to eliminate the yellow zone, we shall be squandering massive resources to no avail. There are about 7,000 breathalysers in the United Kingdom, almost all in the hands of the police. My purpose is to put 135,000 in the hands of the public, and thereby both reduce dangerous and drunken driving and release the police for much more important tasks.
I shall conclude with an analogy. Aircraft flying into Heathrow have their height and operations controlled by two devices—the radar at Heathrow and the altimeters in the aircraft. To suggest that the pilot should come in without altimeters and that the only people to know the aircraft's height should be the controllers at Heathrow, is obviously ridiculous. To suggest that vast numbers of the public who are likely to be driving with alcohol in their bloodstreams should have no method of discovering that fact until they are stopped by the police has always struck me as ridiculous. To put that right is the purpose of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Ian Lloyd, Sir Hal Miller, Mr. Stanley Orme, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr Ted Garrett, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mr. Michael Colvin.

Breath Tests on Licensed Premises
  BREATH TESTS ON PREMISES
  Sir Ian Lloyd accordingly presented a Bill to require every holder of a justices' on-licence to install on the licensed premises concerned a device enabling persons who have consumed intoxicating liquor to take a breath test before leaving the premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
WAYS AND MEANS

  Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you may know, I served on the Committee considering the Bill. You may know also that, in the past few weeks, the Government have tabled 30 new clauses and amendments to it. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that some of them are acceptable and welcome. However, it is usually the Government's practice—as it was in Committee—to produce guidance notes for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who have not had an opportunity fully to study new clauses and amendments. Such notes would be useful to members of the Committee and to all right hon. and hon. Members as we arrive at the Report stage.
  I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been informed by the Attorney-General whether such notes have been prepared and, if so, whether they have been circulated to members of the Committee.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The provision of guidance notes is not a matter for the Chair, but perhaps the Solicitor-General will comment when I ask him to address the House on the Ways and Means motion.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be paid by the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board by way of repayment of grants made to the Board by the Lord Chancellor.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is right to say that there are a large number of amendments. A high proportion of them arise in response to matters which were debated both on Second Reading and in Committee, and come forward as a result of constructive suggestions made during the course of the Committee stage. I apologise to the hon. Member if we have been unable to send him guidance notes, but I hope that the purpose of the amendments will become clear, and I am sure that he will make a constructive contribution to our debates.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be paid by the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board by way of repayment of grants made to the Board by the Lord Chancellor.

Orders of the Day
  Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]
    New clause 6

      ALLOCATION OF FAMILY PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS
      '.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, give directions that, in such circumstances as may be specified—

      (a) any family proceedings which are within the jurisdiction of county courts; or

      (b) any specified description of such proceedings,

      shall be allocated to specified judges or to specified descriptions of judge.
      (2) Any such direction shall have effect regardless of any rules of court.
      (3) Where any directions have been given under this section allocating any proceedings to specified judges, the validity of anything done by a judge in, or in relation to, the proceedings shall not be called into question by reason only of the fact that he was not a specified judge.
      (4) For the purposes of subsection (1) "county court" includes the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court in so far as it is treated as a county court.
      (5) In this section—
      "family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989;
      "judge" means any person who—

      (a) is capable of sitting as a judge for a county court district;

      (b) is a district judge, an assistant district judge or a deputy district judge; or

      (c) is a district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court; and

      "specified" means specified in the directions.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      6.11 pm
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clause 7—Family proceedings in magistrates courts and related matters.
      Government new clause 20—Extension of powers of justices' clerks.
      Government amendments Nos. 168, 47, 50, 53 to 58, 172, 59 to 61, 182, 62 to 64, 173, 76, 175, 79, and 82 to 85.
      The Solicitor-General: This group of new clauses and amendments relates to or arises from the Children Act 1989 and the need for new arrangements for family proceedings. The changes will allow the 1989 Act to deliver its aims and objectives more fully in all family proceedings.
      Clause 6 enables the Lord Chancellor to make directions about the allocation of family proceedings in county courts. They will fall into two parts. First, directions will be made allocating particular types of proceedings to a particular level of judge. That will enable the Lord Chancellor to give a comprehensive direction

      509
      covering all family business and to ensure that particularly sensitive proceedings, such as care cases, are heard by judiciary of sufficient standing.
      Secondly, directions will be made allocating a particular type of proceedings to a specific individual judge. The effect will be to create a nominated group of circuit and district judges who will specialise in specific types of family work in county courts. Their selection will be a matter for the Lord Chancellor on the advice, and with the concurrence, of the president of the family division.
      New clause 7 extends the rule-making provisions in section 93 of the Children Act 1989 to cover all family proceedings. That will ensure that children and other family proceedings brought in the magistrates court under the Children Act 1989 will be subject to the same rules of procedure. New clause 20 amends section 28(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 to enable rules to be made under section 144 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 to allow for the delegation of the duties and powers authorised to be done by a justices' clerk to somebody who is his deputy or assistant.
      Amendment No. 59 concerns section 97 of the Children Act 1989, which provides for rules to enable a magistrates court to sit in private in certain proceedings under that legislation, and restricts the publication of material that might identify the child in question. Those measures supplement other statutory provisions concerning privacy, and amendment No. 59 clarifies that point. Amendment No. 53 makes it clear that when a young person is brought before a court for variation or discharge of a supervision order, the court will have the power, should it be necessary, to remand him to local authority accommodation if he is under the age of 18 or, in the sad cases where this is necessary, to a remand centre or prison if he has attained the age of 18.
      Amendment No. 54 concerns regulations about staying access—that is, access to a member of the family with whom the child or young person is staying, which needs to be properly planned. Amendment No. 54 provides for that. Amendment No. 60 removes the 90-day time limit for complying with directions made under a supervision order, and amendment No. 61 will ensure that no child in care will remain a ward of court. Amendment No. 168 will ensure that the power to make rules of court contained in section 93 will be available also to the relevant rule-making authorities in Northern Ireland. The remaining amendments make the necessary consequential amendments, repeals and minor technical changes, and correct certain inconsistencies.
      I commend the amendments, which will enable changes to be made to the Children Act 1989 necessary to allow that very valuable legislation to deliver its aims in a full and proper way.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. John Morris: I welcome the Solicitor-General's explanation, but we are dealing with a host of new clauses and amendments which would have been better introduced in Committee, when there would have been an opportunity for organisations and individuals to consider and comment on a major initiative. That would have been the right course, rather than introducing these amendments on Report.
      510
      Having said that, I welcome the proposed changes, and hope that we may eventually see the emergence of a complete family court, bringing together all the jurisdictions. The Bill is an important step in that direction. I should like to know how many different tiers of courts will still be dealing with children's work and what changes are envisaged in substantive law. Judging from the new clauses and amendments, I suspect that no changes are anticipated.
      It is some years since I ventured into a juvenile court or into the family division, but I know from magistrates close to me that they look forward to the new challenges in family work. Shall we still have wardship dealt with in the High Court, custody in the equivalent of the divorce courts, care in the magistrates courts, and so on? Will the old divisions remain, or will a change emanate from the proposals that we have had only a short time to study?
      I welcome the proposals for specified judges and for "specified descriptions" of judges—whatever that expression may mean. I accept the need for specialisation. I am told that nothing is more impressive than the solicitors panel which appears in care cases before London juvenile courts. The expertise and the care that it exhibits is, I am told, impressive. It follows that the Lord Chancellor is right to propose a degree of specialisation, and the considerable training and familiarity gained from dealing with like cases on a regular basis will be of assistance.
      How are the new procedures to be monitored once they have been implemented? We all recognise and regard as important the independence of the judiciary, but we know also that some are better than others. Where people no longer wish to be specified or are quite frankly, not up to the task of being specified, it is important that they should be able without difficulty to be transferred to other tasks. There is plenty of demand in the realm of general Crown court work, so none of them would be unemployed.
      It is important not to specify or allocate responsibilities to someone who, over a period of time, finds that he is perhaps not attuned to the needs and changes. I hope that we can have an assurance that the president of the family division will keep a most watchful eye on those who have been chosen to ensure that standards are not only maintained, but improved.
      In a half sentence before he finished his opening remarks, the Solicitor-General referred to the reliance on local authorities with regard to care and accommodation facilities. My impression is that that is rather patchy in some areas and perhaps one or two local authorities are not so co-operative as they might be.
      That co-operation must exist in the provision of facilities and we must bear in mind that local authorities have very few financial resources these days. It must also exist in the provision of reports. I have heard complaints from magistrates that local authorities do not always produce the required reports and that they are not always particularly co-operative. We should be told about that because it is very important. If any persuasion is necessary, I am sure that in the face of argument, those who may not be so good as the others will do what they can to improve the necessary co-operation between the judiciary and local authorities.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I wish to raise one point about the Children Act 1989. It has been brought to my attention by the Justices' Clerks Society that there is a proposal that legal aid certificates for the

      511
      child and the parents should be granted by the Legal Aid Board. The board's delivery rate is in the region of up to 20 weeks for 100 per cent. delivery. In such cases it is absolutely essential that legal aid is granted immediately.
      The justices' clerks know the facts of the matter and can very often grant legal aid overnight or during the course of the night. They can assess the needs and representation in those delicate cases in which speed is often essential and in which the aid should be granted at the first available opportunity.
      To leave it to the Legal Aid Board with its cumbersome processing procedures—I do not say that unkindly—would, I believe, be a considerable mistake. I hope that the Solicitor-General will take on board that one small point, which could mean a terrific amount to the children and parents involved. Perhaps he can suggest to the Lord Chancellor that that proposal is not wise.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I echo the concern voiced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) about this procedure today. We now face complicated new clauses which have been introduced at the last minute and without adequate briefing for hon. Members. It would have been convenient and a courtesy if the Government had provided some notes on clauses to allow for a better informed debate.
      Not only hon. Members are being neglected in that way. The interest groups affected by the changes, in many cases, learned of them only at the last minute. Some of those groups learned about the changes only last Friday. That is far too late to allow a proper process of consultation. This procedure is a preparation for inadequate legislation. I am not sure whether Ministers want to give the House of Lords a useful job and something to do, but having considered the Bill initially, further changes will have to be made in the House of Lords to remedy the deficiencies caused by the last-minute rush of clauses before us today.
      There is such enormous legal power on the Government Front Bench that it is virtually an all-knight party. However, it is not good enough for the best legal brains to be vamping the Bill at the last minute in this fashion. The president of the National Union of Mineworkers was invited to go away and run a fish and chip shop. On the evidence of this Bill, the best legal brains could not run a fish and chip shop. Cobbling things together in this way is just not good enough. Indeed, my most devastating criticism is that I could have done it better myself. That should certainly bring them to their knees.
      I welcome the Government's proposals as a first step along a road which we need to take and along which we need to progress far more quickly than the measures propose. However, the road leads towards a separate self-contained structure of family courts to deal with those matters as a specialised area. That proposal is long overdue in this country and we delayed far too long in developing such a structure. The faster the progress we can make, the better. That structure will need a specially trained and selected hierachy of judges to deal with family matters. People with sensitivity and with experience and training in that area are required and any step along that road is welcome.
      I have long been an advocate of a Manpower Services Commission or Training Commission scheme for judges.
      512
      The training of judges in this country is totally inadequate in view of the weight of responsibility that falls on them. Training is to be provided in family matters. Such training is long overdue in many areas.
      I understand that, in France, judges who deal with family matters are required to undergo a course of psychotherapy so as to understand their own prejudices, what motivates them and their own feelings, hang-ups, inhibitions and problems about the family—in short, so that they can know themselves. I do not know what results would be produced if some of the judges that I have seen around this country were required to undergo psychotherapy in that way, but if they at least knew themselves and the prejudices that motivated them, that would be extremely useful.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: At the beginning of our proceedings, it is right that I should yet again declare my interest in the matter. When the proceedings on the Bill began, I was a solicitor. Since then, I have transferred to the Bar as a mere pupil, although I am not sure whether that has happened as a result of the standard of debate in Committee. However, I receive no income either from the solicitor's profession or from the Bar.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: That must be the first example of going back to the sinking ship.
      Mr. Vaz: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to sink with me.
      The history of the discussions and debates about family courts and related matters is not good. On Report on the Children Act 1989, when the Solicitor-General was present and we were discussing family courts, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) entered the Chamber and announced the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unfortunately, following that, discussions on the Children Bill were curtailed. I am not sure whether that will happen again with quite the same drama today.
      New clauses 6 and 7 raise important points, which were raised during the passage of the Children Act and in the Standing Committee on this Bill. The clauses proceed from a press release—not a statement—by the Lord Chancellor on 9 July this year in which he referred to the creation of family hearing centres.
      I share the disappointment voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Having started on the road to family courts in the Lord Chancellor's Second Reading speech in December 1988, having been promised a family court at some stage and having been told that the Children Bill was the family court in all but name as it dealt with the judicial matters, it is disappointing that the Solicitor-General has decided not to announce the formal establishment of a family court. There is great support by hon. Members on both sides of the House for the creation of a family court, for the reasons that have been outlined by hon. Members in debates on family matters during the proceedings on the Children Bill and on Second Reading and in the Standing Committee stage of this Bill.
      The case for a family court is unanswerable. How disappointing it is that the Solicitor-General, having promised in the Children Bill that he would set up a rolling programme to establish a family court, has given us something rather less than that—that is, family proceedings panels and family hearing centres. I hope that the Solicitor-General will confirm that next week he will

      513
      announce the venues for those family hearing centres. If that is the case, it would have been much more appropriate for him to make that announcement today, as it would have given us the opportunity to discuss those important matters.
      I agree with what has been said about consultation. What a different approach has been taken on the Bill from that taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), now the Minister for the Arts, during the passage of the Children Bill, which was heralded as a consensus Bill, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman adjourned the Committee and allowed discussions between Opposition Members and officials of his Department when any new or different proposal was put forward, especially one of such complexity.
      6.30 pm
      Despite the army of civil servants present today, no attempt has been made by the Lord Chancellor's office or his Department to contact members of the Committee to discuss an issue of deep concern to those of us involved in family rights and the Family Court Campaign. There have been ample opportunities to do that. Pledges have been made about the need to carry the Committee with the Government, but none of those pledges has been realised.
      On 11 July 1990, Baroness Faithfull, chairperson of the Family Court Campaign, issued a statement in which she commented quite favourably on the Lord Chancellor's press release, saying:
      "Now is the time to move that step forward to ensure that we have a family court."
      She ended her statement with the following words:
      "It is vital to maintain the momentum of the Lord Chancellor's rolling programme of family court reform by a firm public commitment to the next stages in the process. It is hoped that under the new arrangements there will be reasonable access for families to the courts."
      She went on to comment on the Children Act.
      I hesitate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has just entered the Chamber. I do not know whether he is bringing us news of a resignation as he did on a previous occasion, or whether he intends to take part in a debate on family courts. Today, I received a letter from the Solicitor-General about a new body called the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, which I know he will deal with when we discuss amendment No. 26, which talks about the need to provide almost £1 million of Government money for the new board. If he is prepared to provide £1 million for a board dealing with licensed conveyancers, surely he can provide the necessary resources for fully fledged, all-singing, all-dancing family courts—to use the words of the Solicitor-General when we discussed the matter on Report of the Children Bill. Money cannot be the problem, so it must be the Government's commitment to enable that to happen.
      In my constituency an overworked and understaffed juvenile court deals with family matters. Only one court in Leicester deals with such cases. The waiting room has to accommodate more than 140 people. No refreshments are available for the advocates, the parents or the children. People have to wait for a long time for their cases to be heard, as there is no fixed appointments system. The conditions are intolerable. On hot days such as today, people have to submit to the pressures of the weather. Their cases are dealt with in the same building that houses young people who may have been found guilty of criminal offences. It is not good enough for the Government to say
      514
      that there is no outside pressure. If they look at juvenile courts throughout the country, they will find that the service is inadequate.
      I should like to know which groups the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor has consulted about the proposals. What are the Solicitor-General's plans for monitoring the proposals? Are there any precedents for what he suggests in any other areas of law? Will he give me a straight answer to a straight question? When will we reach the end of the rolling programme? When will he or the Attorney-General come to the Dispatch Box and say, "We have tried out various experiments; we have made progress and time has moved on. We have had consultations with the Department of Health and now is the time for us to have fully fledged family courts with trained lawyers and judges." When will the Government make that commitment? Instead of having a rolling programme with no timetable and no end, the Solicitor-General should make a specific pledge that at a fixed time and date family courts will be introduced into our judicial system.
      The Solicitor-General: I am most grateful for the welcome of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for the legislative provisions. As he said, he did not take part in the discussions on the Children Act, but he and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will know that the major initiative which relates to the group of amendments was the Children Act 1989. The amendments use the Bill as a legislative vehicle to build upon that major initiative.
      Several hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Leicester, East, asked how the provisions fit into the framework of family courts, about the monitoring of the proposals and about training. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) asked a detailed and pertinent question about the granting of legal aid certificates. I shall seek to answer those points. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that this is not the first step; we are building upon an important major first initiative, the Children Act.
      The hon. Member for Leicester, East has just become a barrister, and he will be concentrating upon clarity of expression. As the Lord Chancellor has made clear, in order to have a successful family court, whether it deals with children or wider family law, it is necessary first to create and establish a proper body of law which applies to those matters. That is exactly what we have done in the Children Act, which has been widely recognised on all sides to be a major initiative. Having created a body of law, we can create the specialised courts structure to administer it. That is what we are in the process of doing, and the amendments assist us in that process.
      The proposals will be put into effect in accordance with the framework which the amendments help to construct. To that extent, they are a significant first step towards the creation of the family courts. The next step must be to establish a coherent body of family law, drawing together the different aspects, and then to create the court structure—I suspect in a way similar to what we are doing for children in relation to the wider body of family law. Then the programme to which I refer will have rolled on and we shall not simply have been making pledges for the future, with which we have been all too familiar in politics in the past. We have seen a certain amount of it from the Labour

      515
      party in the recent past. We shall be dealing not with pledges for the future, whether or not they have been costed, but with the constructive creation of a real system.
      Mr. Vaz: I accept that it is necessary to create a substantial body of law, but that is what we did in the Children Act 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who is present in the Chamber, served on the Committee on that Bill and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who is also present, served on it too. We repealed and consolidated much legislation about children. It is accepted that it was a landmark piece of legislation. Can I tease from the Solicitor-General when the process will end? He must have some sort of timetable in mind. Governments must work to some schedule and not just embark on a continuous rolling programme. When will the process end?
      The Solicitor-General: We have created a body of law. With these new clauses we are creating the administrative structure—the court framework—to operate that body of law. That will be the first major step in the creation of a family court. The next steps will come with the development of family law.
      Mr. Vaz: When?
      The Solicitor-General: I will not answer the hon. Gentleman. I have told him that it is a rolling programme, and it will roll forward. He should welcome the advance and recognise how important it is.
      The programme will be monitored and staffed at every level by a specially selected and trained judiciary. The monitoring will be undertaken by the Lord Chancellor and the president of the family division, who will have the benefit of a central advisory committee drawn from experts in the wide number of disciplines which come together in this aspect of children law. The committee will be judicially chaired and will assist in monitoring. There will be training at every level.
      The Legal Aid Board will set up a special structure to ensure that legal aid certificates can be dealt with swiftly. Meantime, I take note of the point made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. As in many areas, we are anxious to move from one practical system which works well only when we have in place another practical system which will work well.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General accept that experience is the best teacher and that experience has taught us that in these matters time is essential? I cannot foresee a stage when the board will be able to give the 24-hour cover which is necessary. Later, I shall give another example in which it is blatantly clear that the board cannot deal with legal aid applicants appropriately.
      The Solicitor-General: We have not immediately reached the stage where the board is pretending to do that. We are creating a framework in which it can do so. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, particularly if he has had an opportunity to read the board's recent annual report, that it has already made valuable progress in other areas.
      516
      We are using this part of the Bill to make major advances in an area in which we began even more fundamentally with the Children Act. I commend the new clauses to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 7

      FAMILY PROCEEDINGS IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS AND RELATED MATTERS
      To move the following Clause:—
      '.—(1) In this section "family proceedings" has the meaning given by section 65(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
      (2) For the purpose of giving effect to any enactment mentioned in that section, rules made under section 144 of that Act may make, in relation to any family proceedings, any provision which—

      (a) falls within subsection (2) of section 93 of the Children Act 1989 (rules of court); and

      (b) may be made in relation to relevant proceedings under section 93 of the Act of 1989.

      (3) In section 35 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (composition of committee of magistrates for inner London area), in subsection (3)—

      (a) in paragraph (b) for the words "three members of the juvenile court panel" there shall be substituted "one member of the juvenile court panel"; and

      (b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

      "(bb) two members chosen, in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made for the purposes of this subsection, from any family panel or combined family panel for the inner London area".
      (4) At the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(7) No rules shall be made under subsection (3)(bb) above except on the advice of, or after consultation with, the rule committee established under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980."
      (5) In section 37(1)(a) of that Act (justices' clerks) after the words "juvenile courts" there shall be inserted "and family proceedings courts".'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 8

      POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AND REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
      To move the following Clause:—
      ' .—(1) The Board may serve a notice on any—

      (a) authorised practitioner;

      (b) officer or employee of an authorised practitioner;

      (c) qualified person who is acting, or has acted, on behalf of an authorised practitioner; or

      (d) officer or employee of such a qualified person,

      requiring him to provide the Board (within such time and at such place as may be specified in the notice) with such document, or documents of such a description, or with such information, as may be so specified.
      (2) The Board shall not exercise its powers under subsection (1) except for the purpose of obtaining such information as it thinks reasonably necessary in connection with the discharge of any of its functions.
      (3) The Board's power under this section to require a person to produce any document includes power—

      (a) if the document is produced, to take copies of it or extracts from it and to require that person, or any other person who is or was a director or officer of, or

      517
      is or was at any time employed by or acting as an employee of, the practitioner concerned, to provide an explanation of the document;

      (b) if the document is not produced, to require the person who was required to produce it to state, to the best of his knowledge and belief, where it is.

      (4) The Board's power under this section may be exercised in relation to a person who falls within subsection (1)(c) or (d) only in relation to the provision of conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner concerned.
      (5) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.
      (6) Any person who, in response to any requirement imposed on him under this section, knowingly or recklessly provides any information or explanation or makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

      (7) Where any person from whom production of a document is required under this section claims a lien on the document, the production of it shall be without prejudice to the lien.
      (8) Nothing in this section shall compel—

      (a) the production of a document containing a communication which is privileged from disclosure in legal proceedings in England and Wales; or

      (b) the furnishing of information contained in such a communication.

      (9) In this section "document" includes any information recorded in any form and, in relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references to its production include references to producing a copy in legible form.'.—[The solicitor-General.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clauses 9 to 13 and Government amendments Nos. 44, 65, 66, 69 and 70.
      The Solicitor-General: These new clauses and amendments give the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board the powers it needs to exercise proper administration and control over authorised conveyancing practitioners, to preserve assets pending investigation and to provide for an appeal system against its decision, should an aggrieved party wish to appeal.
      New clause 8 allows the board to serve a notice on an authorised practitioner requiring him to provide the board with such documents or information as it thinks reasonably necessary in connection with the discharge of any of its functions. New clause 9 allows the board to appoint one of more competent persons to investigate the affairs of the authorised practitioner. New clause 10 creates a general prohibition against disclosure of information received by the board, its staff or an investigator appointed by it in the exercise of their functions under the Bill without the consent of the person from whom the information was obtained or, if they are different, the person to whom it relates. New clause 11 deals with exceptions from restriction on disclosure.
      518
      6.45 pm
      Amendments Nos. 65, 66, 69 and 70 to schedule 16 are consequential amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the Competition Act 1980 to allow other regulators to pass information to the board without committing offences under their disclosure regime.
      Taken together, the four new clauses and five amendments complement new clauses 12 and 13, which deal with the board's intervention powers. Together, they should provide the board with all the powers it needs to take action to protect the interests of clients and to obtain the evidence necessary to pursue disciplinary proceedings against authorised practitioners. They represent the result of the Lord Chancellor's undertaking during the Lords Report stage, which was conferred by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in our Committee stage, to consider further what powers of intervention and investigation the board might need. The Law Society sought to have similar amendments moved in the Lords Committee stage. Its amendments were modelled on its own papers.
      In presenting these results of the further consideration which the Committee stage afforded us, I commend the new clauses to the House.
      Mr. John Fraser: I confirm that we pressed for some, although not all, of the new clauses and amendments in Committee. They are welcome, and I hope that we can make speedy progress with them.
      Mr. John Greenway: I have no wish to detain the House, which is faced with a galaxy of amendments and new clauses, or to intrude too much into these proceedings. However, Report stage allows Back-Bench Members to raise concerns. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
      I welcome the new clauses, as do many organisations, such as the Law Society, which have been considering extending the availability of conveyancing by authorised practitioners. We all recognise that the Building Societies Act 1986 paved the way for this provision. We are anxious to ensure that there should not be any conflict of interests. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could confirm that there will be further consultation on clause 38, which allows the Lord Chancellor to make provision for regulations, after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
      One issue causes me great concern. It relates to the potential conflict, not just of interest, but within the role of authorised practitioners who are, in effect, acting as agents for large financial institutions and building societies. It is impossible to regard the issue separately from the general supervision of the financial services industry and the Financial Services Act 1986.
      Building societies, insurance companies and banks are generally tied agents of life assurance companies. Polarisation rules mean that, as tied agents, their duty and interest is to the life assurance company, but as conveyancers their interest and duty must be to the client. I must declare an interest as an insurance broker and representative of one of the insurance broking institutions. Independent financial advisers have a duty to the client, not just to the life office. Will my right hon. and learned Friend have particular regard to that? Over the next year

      519
      or so, we are likely to see further development of the financial services industry regulatory regime. Indeed, the first debate after the recess will be on precisely that subject.
      I am concerned that there should be a proper fiduciary relationship, so that each part of any arrangement can be properly costed. The public should have the maximum possible safeguards. The House and the country will have noted that a large insurance company recently bought up 500 estate agency practices and has now effectively withdrawn from that market. A similar event would be a disaster for rural solicitors' practices and for the public whom they serve. There is a risk of small practices closing down because of the loss of conveyancing business only for the institutions to decide that conveyancing is less profitable than they thought. These are important considerations, as these firms would be lost.
      I hope that my comments are helpful. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will say that those points have been taken on board.
      The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for his welcome and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his contribution. I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes on behalf of independent financial advisers, with whose position I have the greatest sympathy, who are rightly watching the regime that we are creating for authorised conveyancing practitioners to ensure that proper safeguards are provided for clients and for the public as a whole.
      The first point that my hon. Friend raised was on consultation. He will have noticed that in the Bill consultation is required statutorily on many points. My right hon. and noble Friend is anxious to consult. Indeed, I have had the opportunity of taking part in the consultation processes with interested parties, including independent financial advisers, to see that the structure that we create on the statutory framework is practical and achieves the objectives and the safeguards that we have set out to achieve, which we are debating today and which we debated in some depth in Committee in relation to this new clause and new clause 88.
      My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his predecessors have consulted on some interesting possible developments in the financial services framework. They should tie in with what we are discussing today. I hope that those assurances are of assistance to my hon. Friend. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 9

      INVESTIGATIONS ON BEHALF OF BOARD
      '.—(1) If it appears to the Board desirable to do so—

      (a) in connection with the discharge of any of its functions; and

      (b) in the interests of customers or potential customers of an authorised practitioner,

      it may appoint one or more competent persons ("the investigators") to investigate and report to it on the state and conduct of the affairs of that authorised practitioner.
      (2) The Board shall give written notice of any such appointment to the authorised practitioner concerned.
      (3) If the investigators think it necessary for the purposes of their investigation, they may also investigate the affairs of any qualified person who is acting, or has acted, on behalf of the authorised practitioner (so far as concerns the provision of conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner), after giving the qualified person written notice of their investigation.
      (4) Any investigation under this section of the affairs of—

      (a) any institution which is authorised by the Bank of England under Part I of the Banking Act 1987, to carry on a deposit taking business;

      (b) any building society which is authorised to raise money from its members by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986; or

      (c) any insurance company which is authorised under section 3 or 4 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982,

      shall be subject to such direction (if any) given by the Lord Chancellor with a view to limiting the scope of the investigation to matters concerned with the provision of conveyancing services.
      (5) Any such direction may be general or be given with respect to a particular investigation.
      (6) It shall be the duty of every person whose affairs are being investigated and of any officer or employee of his—

      (a) to produce to the investigators, within such time and at such place as they may reasonably require, all documents relating to the provision of conveyancing services by the practitioner which are in that person's custody or power;

      (b) to provide the investigators, within such time as they may require, with such information as they may reasonably require with respect to the provision of those services; and

      (c) to give the investigators such assistance in connection with the investigation as he is reasonably able to give.

      (7) The investigators may take copies of, or extracts from, any document produced to them under subsection (6).
      (8) This section applies in relation to a former authorised practitioner or former qualified person as it applies in relation to an authorised practitioner or qualified person.
      (9) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to produce any document, or provide any information, which it is his duty to produce under subsection (6) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.
      (10) Any person who, in response to any requirement imposed on him under this section, knowingly or recklessly provides any information or explanation or makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

      (11) Nothing in this section shall compel the production by an authorised practitioner or qualified person acting on his behalf of a document containing a privileged communication made by him or to him in that capacity.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 10

      RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      '.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure), restricted information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person shall not be disclosed—

      (a) by the Board or any member of its staff;

      521

      (b) by any person appointed as an investigator under section (Investigations on behalf of Board) or any officer or servant of his; or

      (c) by any person obtaining it directly or indirectly from a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b),

      without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained and, if they are different, the person to whom it relates.
      (2) Subject to subsection (3), information is restricted information for the purposes of this section if it was obtained (whether or not in response to any requirement that it be provided) for the purposes of, or in the discharge of functions under, any provision made by or under this Act.
      (3) Information shall not be treated as restricted information for the purposes of this section if it has been made available to the public by virtue of being disclosed in any circumstances in which, or for any purpose for which, disclosure is not prevented by this section.
      (4) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

      (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both;

      (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 11

      EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE
      '.—(1) Section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information—

      (a) with a view to the institution, or otherwise for the purposes, of any criminal proceedings;

      (b) with a view to the institution, or otherwise for the purposes, of any civil proceedings arising under or by virtue of this Act;

      (c) in a summary or collection of information framed in such a way as not to enable the identity of any person to whom the information relates to be ascertained; or

      (d) in pursuance of any Community obligation.

      (2) Section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information for the purpose of enabling or assisting—

      (a) the Lord Chancellor to discharge any of his functions under this Act with respect to the Board or authorised practitioners;

      (b) the Board to discharge any of its functions;

      (c) the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers or the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to discharge any of its functions;

      (d) the Building Societies Commission to discharge any of its functions;

      (e) the competent authority or a designated agency, recognised investment exchange, recognised clearing house, recognised self-regulating organisation or recognised professional body (all those expressions having the meaning given in the Financial Services Act 1986) to discharge any of its functions;

      (f) the Bank of England to discharge any of its functions;

      (g) the Secretary of State to discharge any of his functions under this Act, the Financial Services Act 1986 or any enactment relating to competition, companies, insurance or insolvency;

      (h) any inspector appointed by the Secretary of State under any of the enactments mentioned in paragraph (g) to discharge any of his functions;

      (i) an official receiver to discharge any of his functions under any enactment relating to insolvency;

      (j) a body which is a recognised professional body under section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to discharge any of its functions as such a body;

      (k) the Insurance Brokers Registration Council to discharge any of its functions under the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977;

      522

      (l) any person appointed or authorised to discharge any powers under section 94, 106 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to exercise any of those powers;

      (m) the Director to discharge any of his functions under—

      (i) this Act;

      (ii) the Fair Trading Act 1973 (other than Part II);

      (iii) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

      (iv) the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976;

      (v) the Estate Agents Act 1979;

      (vi) the Competition Act 1980;

      (vii) the Financial Services Act 1986;

      (viii) the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988;

      (n) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to discharge any of its functions under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980;

      (o) the Scottish Conveyancing and Executory Services Board to discharge any of its functions;

      (p) an authority in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom to discharge any functions corresponding to—

      (i) the functions of the Board, the Building Societies Commission or the Bank of England; or

      (ii) those functions of the Secretary of State mentioned in paragraph (g);

      (q) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal to discharge any of its functions under the Insolvency Act 1986;

      (r) the Financial Services Tribunal to discharge any of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.

      (3) Subject to subsection (4), section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information for the purpose of enabling or assisting any public or other authority for the time being designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Lord Chancellor to discharge any functions which are specified in the order.
      (4) An order under subsection (3) designating an authority for the purposes of this section may—

      (a) impose conditions subject to which the disclosure of information is permitted by subsection (3); and

      (b) otherwise restrict the circumstances in which disclosure is permitted.

      (5) Where information has been disclosed by one person ("the first person") to another, by virtue of subsection (2), section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent that other person from disclosing that information to any person to whom it could have been disclosed by the first person by virtue of subsection (2).
      (6) The Lord Chancellor may by order modify the application of any provision of this section so as—

      (a) to prevent the disclosure of information by virtue of that provision; or

      (b) to restrict the extent to which disclosure of information is permitted by virtue of that provision.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 12

      BOARD'S INTERVENTION POWERS
      '.—(1) The powers conferred on the Board by this section may be exercised if it appears to the Board to be desirable to do so for the purpose of protecting the interests of the clients, or prospective clients, of an authorised practitioner.
      (2) The Board may, in particular, exercise any such power where it appears to it—

      (a) that an authorised practitioner who is an individual is no longer fit to provide conveyancing services;

      (b) that any person carrying on the business of an authorised practitioner is not fit to provide such services; or

      523

      (c) that an authorised practitioner has failed, or is likely to fail, to comply with any regulation made under section 38.

      (3) The Board may direct the authorised practitioner not to dispose of, or otherwise deal with, except in accordance with the terms of the direction—

      (a) any assets belonging to any client of the authorised practitioner and held by or under the control of the authorised practitioner in connection with his business as an authorised practitioner; or

      (b) any assets of such a kind which are specified in the direction.

      (4) The Board may direct the authorised practitioner to transfer to the Board, or to such persons ("the trustees") as may be specified in the direction—

      (a) all assets belonging to any client of that practitioner and held by or under his control in connection with his business as an authorised practitioner; or

      (b) any assets of such a kind which are specified in the direction.

      (5) Any assets which have been transferred as a result of a direction given under subsection (4) shall be held by the Board, or by the trustees, on trust for the client concerned.
      (6) The trustees may deal with any assets which have been transferred to them only in accordance with directions given to them by the Board.
      (7) In this section—
      "assets" includes any sum of money held (in whatever form and whether or not in any bank, building society or other account) by the authorised practitioner or on behalf of the client concerned and any instrument or other document belonging to that client; and
      "authorised practitioner" includes a person whose authorisation has been suspended or revoked under section 37.
      (8) Any direction under this section—

      (a) must be given in writing;

      (b) must state the reason why it is being given;

      (c) shall take effect on such date as may be specified in the direction (which may be the date on which it is served on the authorised practitioner);

      (d) may be varied or revoked by a further direction given by the Board.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 13

      BOARD'S INTERVENTION POWERS: SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS
      '.—(1) In this section—
      "the intervention powers" means the powers given to the Board by section (Board's powers of intervention); and
      "a direction" means a direction given under that section.
      (2) An authorised practitioner to whom a direction is given may appeal against it to a Conveyancing Appeal Tribunal.
      (3) Any authorised practitioner to whom a direction is given shall comply with it as soon as it takes effect (and whether or not he proposes to appeal).
      (4) If, on an application made to the High Court by the Board, the court is satisfied—

      (a) that an authorised practitioner has failed, within a reasonable time, to comply with any direction given to it; or

      (b) that there is a reasonable likelihood that an authorised practitioner will so fail,

      it may make an order requiring the authorised practitioner, and any other person whom the court considers it appropriate to subject to its order, to take such steps as the court may direct with a view to securing compliance with the direction.
      (5) Where an authorised practitioner is—
      524

      (a) an authorised person under the Financial Services Act 1986; or

      (b) an appointed representative (as defined in section 44(2) of that Act) of such an authorised person,

      the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the body by reference to which the authorised person acquired its authorisation under that Act.
      (6) Where an authorised practitioner is—

      (a) an institution which is authorised by the Bank of England under Part I of the Banking Act 1987 to carry on a deposit-taking business; or

      (b) an appointed representative of such an institution,

      the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the Bank of England.
      (7) Where an authorised practitioner is—

      (a) a building society which is authorised to raise money from its members by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986; or

      (b) an appointed representative of such a building society,

      the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the Commission.
      (8) Where an authorised practitioner falls within more than one of subsections (5) to (7), the Board shall comply with each of the subsections in question.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 14

      THE COUNCIL FOR LICENSED CONVEYANCERS
      '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Council for Licensed Conveyancers shall have the powers necessary to enable it to become—

      (a) an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights of audience under section 25(2)(a);

      (b) an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights to conduct litigation under section 26(2)(a); and

      (c) an approved body for the purposes of granting, in accordance with section 46, exemption from the provisions of section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (preparation of probate papers).

      (2) The Council may exercise the powers given to it by this section only with respect to persons who are licensed conveyancers.
      (3) Where the Council—

      (a) becomes an authorised body for the purposes of section 25 and grants any right of audience;

      (b) becomes an authorised body for the purposes of section 26 and grants any right to conduct litigation; or

      (c) becomes an approved body for the purposes of section 46 and grants an exemption under that section,

      it shall do so by issuing a licence to the licensed conveyancer to whom the right or exemption is being granted.
      (4) Any such licence may be granted as a separate licence or as part of a composite licence comprising the licensed conveyancer's licence issued under Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and any other licence which the Council may grant to the licensed conveyancer concerned.
      (5) The Council's general duty shall include the duty to ensure that the standards of competence and professional conduct among licensed conveyancers who are granted rights of audience, rights to conduct litigation or an exemption under section 46 are sufficient to secure adequate protection for consumers, and that the advocacy, litigation or (as the case may be) probate services provided by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently.
      (6) Where the Council exercises any of its powers in connection with—

      525

      (a) an application under section 27 for authorisation or an application under Schedule 8 for approval; or

      (b) the granting of any right of audience or right to conduct litigation or of an exemption under section46,

      it shall do so subject to any requirements to which it is subject in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the grant of any such right or exemption.
      (7) Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) makes further provision in connection with the powers given to the Council by this section and the provision made by the Act of 1985 in relation to licensed conveyancers, including amendments of Part II of that Act.
      (8) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such—

      (a) amendments of, or modifications to, the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1985; or

      (b) transitional or consequential provision,

      as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the provision made by this section and Schedule (Licensed conveyancers).
      (9) Subject to any provision made by this section, Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) or any order made by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (8), the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1985 shall, with the necessary modifications, apply with respect to—

      (a) any application for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence;

      (b) any such licence;

      (c) the practice of any licensed conveyancer which is carried on by virtue of any such licence;

      (d) rules made by the Council under Schedule (Licensed conveyancers);

      (e) the management and control by licensed conveyancers (or by licensed conveyancers together with persons who are not licensed conveyancers) of bodies corporate carrying on businesses which include the provision of advocacy, litigation or probate services; and

      (f) any other matter dealt with by this section or Schedule (Licensed conveyancers),

      as they apply with respect to the corresponding matters dealt with by Part II of that Act.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.]
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 11, 72, 75, 80 and 81.
      The Solicitor-General: The amendments, although necessarily bulky—I apologise to the House that they are bulky, but they will be recognised by members of the Committee as following our previous discussions—are straightforward in their main purpose, which is to extend the powers of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers so that it will have the opportunity to apply, under the framework in part II of the Bill, for approval to license conveyancers to undertake probate work, and authorisation to grant them rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation.
      The council is a statutory body, established under the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to grant licences and regulate practitioners solely for the provision of conveyancing services. It therefore has no power to license its members to do other work.
      Under clause 27 of the Bill, however, professional or other bodies will be able to apply for authorisation to grant their members rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. Under clause 46, bodies may be approved by the Lord Chancellor to grant their members
      526
      exemptions from the provisions of section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974, thus enabling them to undertake probate work.
      The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has already shown its interest in seeking such authorisation and approval. Furthermore, in the Green and White Papers that preceded the Bill, the Government made it clear that they intended that licensed conveyancers should be able to offer probate services.
      It is therefore necessary to amend the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to enable the council to pursue applications for authorisation or approval under those provisions, and the new clause 14 and first part of the new schedule provide for that.
      The procedures required in the event of a successful application are set out in detail to be consistent with the framing of the original legislation. The amendments will not in themselves, however—this should be understood—give the council the power to grant any further rights or exemptions. They will simply place it on the same footing as other bodies able to seek authorisation in due course.
      Part II of the schedule extends the council's more detailed powers to enable it to operate and to regulate its members more efficiently and effectively, and to improve the position of the consumer client. They include increased powers to delegate functions to committees of the council, and to intervene in the practice of a licensed conveyancer; revised powers to deal with cases in which the professional services provided are inadequate, including a new power to award compensation of up to £1,000 in such cases and adopt for licensed conveyancers the powers in relation to solicitors that were added to the Bill in Committee in this House; and finally, additional powers to require licensed conveyancers to account for deposit interest on money held for clients, and powers to endorse or attach conditions to licences.
      Amendments Nos. 72, 78, 80 and 81 concern necessary minor consequential and transitional changes, and repeals.
      The amendments will enable the new profession of licensed conveyancers to seek to develop other new areas of business in the provision of legal services, to the benefit, we hope, of the profession and the consumer, and to make further changes to increase consumer protection.
      Mr. Fraser: I thank the Solicitor-General for his comments. Did the Council of Licensed Conveyancers ask for those powers to obtain rights of audience, did it ask solely in relation to probate work, or did it ask at all? Perhaps the Solicitor-General can confirm that only 200 licensed conveyancers are actually in private practice, At the end of 1993, the Government will have provided £466,000 in subsidy to the licensed conveyancers' body. Is that expenditure to continue? Is it consistent with the Government's rather market-orientated, vigorous financial approach to those matters?
      I welcome the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to the Government Front Bench. It is always good to see Lambeth councillors in the House. One is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is nice to see another on the Government Front Bench. It is only a pity that hon. Members cannot hear him talk.
      Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: One need not go through the rather enormous declarations of interest that all those who served on the Standing Committee went through in their traverses between one side of the legal

      527
      profession and the other. Although I do not intend to do that, it will shorten matters if I inform the House—most hon. Members are aware of this—that I shall be speaking on behalf of the Law Society, as I did in Committee. Although my personal thoughts may penetrate my arguments, it will be much easier if everyone presumes, unless I say otherwise, that the views that I am giving are those of the Law Society.
      The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has more or less made the points that I wanted to make. However, may I underline one of them, which I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with in his answer. The Law Society's solicitors' branch believes that this is an entirely proper new clause. The creation of licensed conveyancers to compete with solicitors is fair enough, but if they continued to receive public subsidy, that would not be totally satisfactory; indeed, it would be unsatisfactory.
      7 pm
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise only to sound a note of dissent from the tendency to praise with faint damns. I welcome the new clause and the expenditure. We shall achieve a social purpose by breaking the solicitors' monopoly over conveyancing. Therefore, the expenditure to achieve that end is justified. We are creating a new professional. Our creation needs the encouragement and support that he is getting. On that basis, I welcome the new clause.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: I do not know whether I am talking out of turn. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill and I saw the papers only about an hour ago. Therefore, the House will forgive me if I am somewhat confused about the matter.
      My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the use of authorised conveyancers in probate cases. This may therefore be an opportune moment to ask him a question about that. Little was said about probate practice when the Bill was discussed in Committee. If authorised conveyancers are to be allowed to do probate work, will provision be made to ensure that reasonable charges are set by them for the work that they undertake? Solicitors' costs are taxed. Solicitors charge far less than banks for their probate services. The general public will not be given the protection that they ought to have unless the Bill contains such a provision. I have been unable to spot one. Is a complaints procedure provided for in the Bill, to which the general public will have access, in respect of the probate services that the new profession will be allowed to provide?
      The Solicitor-General: This new profession will supplement the great solicitors' profession which has existed for hundreds of years. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has left the Chamber. To some extent, he can claim to be the midwife of the new profession, and to some extent the midwife's fees have been paid in the form of the £466,000 that was mentioned. I take the figure from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I do not have it in front of me. However, that will be pump-priming money to enable this professional body to get off the ground.
      528
      There are about 700 licensed conveyancers. The hon. Member for Norwood was right when he said that only about 200 of them are in independent private practice. Most of the others are employed by solicitors. A good many of them are legal executives, and some of them are quite distinguished. That is a sound basis for a new profession.
      I shall seek to find the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) about the taxation of costs. The Bill will create a framework within which the Council for Licensed Conveyancers will be able to provide protection to the public of the kind that the Law Society seeks to provide for the public in relation to solicitors. I do not suggest that that protection is as sophisticated and advanced as that which has been developed by the Law Society over a long period. That, however, is the objective, and that is why the Government have primed the pump.
      Mr. Vaz: Do the Government intend to continue to provide money for the council? Do they intend to get some of it back? Is the council to be self-financing in the way that the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board is to be self-financing?
      The Solicitor-General: There is both a similarity and a distinction. We do not intend to seek to get back the pump-priming money. That is where there is a distinction, compared with the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. The board figure is £900,000. That is the figure that the hon. Gentleman and I discussed in Committee. I intended to write to him, and I apologise for the fact that I did so only today, with more details of the make-up of that sum. It is intended that some of the start-up money for the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board should be recouped. The purpose of the money resolution is that the necessary financial structure should be capable of being put in place.
      Mr. Vaz: Is it right that the latest grant of £130,000 for the next three years will be the last grant that the Government intend to give to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers?
      The Solicitor-General: I do not know the answer to that question. However, several hon. Members have asked whether the council is to become self-supporting. That is most certainly the Government's intention. I shall seek to find out whether a decision has been reached on whether that is to be the last pump-priming figure.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 15

      LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE
      '.—(1) This section applies to any communication made to or by a person who is not a barrister or solicitor at any time when that person is—

      (a) providing advocacy or litigation services as an authorised advocate or authorised litigator;

      (b) providing conveyancing services as an authorised practitioner; or

      (c) providing probate services as a probate practitioner.

      (2) Any such communication shall in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the person in question had at all material times been acting as his client's solicitor.
      (3) In subsection (1), "probate practitioner" means a person to whom section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare probate papers etc.) does not apply.'.—[The Attorney-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This new clause extends the concept of legal professional privilege so as to apply to the new classes of legal practitioner established by the Bill—that is to say, authorised advocates, authorised litigators, authorised practitioners and probate practitioners.
      Legal professional privilege is based on the practice, developed in the Court of Chancery in the first instance, which ensures—this is a sensible and thoroughly up-to-date purpose—that communications made to and from a legal adviser for the purpose of obtaining and providing legal advice and assistance are protected from disclosure in the course of any subsequent legal proceedings. The reason is not undue love of secrecy; the protection exists to enable the client to confide fully in his adviser without fear of disclosure. That is valuable in the interests of the administration of justice.
      Clearly, a person seeking advice from one of the new classes of legal practitioner being created by the Bill should be in no worse position, as regards the confidentiality of his communications to and from the practitioner, than if he were seeking advice from an established legal practitioner.
      The new clause therefore ensures that communications to or from one of the new legal practitioners will enjoy legal professional privilege, just as if the practitioner acting for the client had been a solicitor.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 16
      DISCRIMINATION BY, OR IN RELATION TO, ADVOCATES
      '.—(1) The following shall be inserted in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 after section 35A (as inserted by this Act)—
      DISCRIMINATION BY, OR IN RELATION TO, ADVOCATES

        Advocates Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates.
        35B.—(1) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to taking any person as his pupil, to discriminate against a woman—

        (a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining whom he will take as his pupil;

        (b) in respect of any terms on which he offers to take her as his pupil; or

        (c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to take her as his pupil.

        (2) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to a woman who is a pupil, to discriminate against her—

        (a) in respect of any terms applicable to her as a pupil;

        (b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to her;

        (c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to her; or

        (d) by terminating the relationship or by subjecting her to any pressure to terminate the relationship or other detriment.

        (3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to an advocate, to discriminate against a woman.
        (4) In this section—
        530

        'advocate' means a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such; and

        'pupil' has the meaning commonly associated with its use in the context of a person training to be an advocate.

        (5) Section 3 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of any provision of Part II.
        (6) This section does not apply to England and Wales."
        (2) The following shall be inserted in the Race Relations Act 1976 after section 26A (as inserted by this Act)—

        Advocates Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates.
        26B.—(1) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to taking any person as his pupil, to discriminate against a person—

        (a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining whom he will take as his pupil;

        (b) in respect of any terms on which he offers to take any person as his pupil; or

        (c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to take a person as his pupil.

        (2) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to a person who is a pupil, to discriminate against him—

        (a) in respect of any terms applicable to him as a pupil;

        (b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to him;

        (c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to him; or

        (d) by terminating the relationship or by subjecting him to any pressure to terminate the relationship or other detriment.

        (3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to an advocate, to discriminate against any person.
        (4) In this section—

        'advocate' means a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such; and

        'pupil' has the meaning commonly associated with its use in the context of a person training to be an advocate.

        (5) This section does not apply to England and Wales.".'.—[The Attorney-General.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 107.
        The Attorney-General: In Committee, the Government introduced, and the Committee accepted, amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 to make it unlawful for a barrister or a barrister's clerk to discriminate against a pupil on grounds of sex or race and for any person giving, withholding or accepting instructions to a barrister to discriminate on grounds of sex or race. That is effected by clause 53 of the Bill.
        In Committee the Government gave an assurance that an amendment to cover Scotland would be tabled on Report. The new clause and the amendment fulfil that undertaking, which has the support of the Faculty of Advocates. I am much fortified by the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who marks the importance that we attach to the presence of a Scottish Minister when Scottish legislation passes through the House.
        A separate clause is required to cover Scotland, because there are differences between the ways in which barristers in England and Wales practise and the way in which advocates in Scotland practise. The most relevant

        531
        difference for these purposes is that advocates do not practise from chambers in the way that barristers do. Therefore, references to tenancies, which occur in clause 53, would not have any meaning. I have said enough about this thoroughly worthwhile provision.
        Mr. Fraser: As I am of Scottish ancestry, it is better that I speak to the new clause. Of course we welcome it, as we welcomed the extension of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 to barristers and solicitors. It is a pity—I say this with the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—that the new clause does not appear in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which finished its Committee stage at 3 o'clock this morning and is due to come back to the House. We say that for the practical reason that it would be much better if a Scottish clause were found in a Scottish Bill. It is almost the only Scottish provision in an English and Welsh Bill. It would sit better in Scottish legislation. Perhaps that could be considered at a later stage.
        The Attorney-General: It is a great pity that several things do not appear in the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We mark the peculiarity—I shall not go so far as to say anomaly—to which the hon. Gentleman referred by the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I should be delighted if he said something about it, although I doubt that there is much more to be said. My hon. Friend is here and he will say at once if he wishes to contribute. I think that he would. I shall postpone the remainder of my answer for a moment, if that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I had not anticipated that I would have to speak on the new clause. The Faculty of Advocates—I am an advocate—would regard discrimination of any kind as unthinkable. It is altogether appropriate that the new clause should be inserted in this Bill, but I shall consider the point that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) mentioned in case there is any possibility of putting the provision in the Scottish Bill. However, I believe that it is satisfactory in this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to leave it at that, I shall be most grateful.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 17

      ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS ETC. BY JUSTICES IN CERTAIN PROBATE BUSINESS
      '.—(1) Every justice shall have power to administer any oath or take any affidavit which is required for the purposes of an application for a grant of probate or letters of administration made in any non-contentious or common form probate business.
      (2) A justice before whom any oath or affidavit is taken or made under this section shall state in the jurat or attestation at what place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or made.
      (3) No justice shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in any proceedings in which he is interested.
      (4) A document purporting to be signed by a justice administering an oath or taking an affidavit shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the signature and without proof that he is a justice.
      (5) In this section—

      "affidavit" has the same meaning as in the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889;

      "justice" means a justice of the peace;

      "letters of administration" includes all letters of administration of the effects of deceased persons, whether with or without a will annexed, and whether granted for general, special or limited purposes; and

      "non-contentious or common form probate business" has the same meaning as in section 128 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 17 enables justices of the peace to administer oaths or take affidavits in non-contentious probate proceedings. It provides that the justices must state in the jurat when and where the oath or affidavit was taken or made.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 18

      POWER OF PARTIES IN CERTAIN CASES TO FILL VACANCY
      .—(1) In section 10 of the Arbitration Act 1950 (power of court in certain cases to appoint an arbitrator or umpire), the following shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
      "(3) In any case where—

      (a) an arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the two appointed by the parties or in some other manner specified in the agreement; and

      (b) one of the parties ("the party in default") refuses to appoint an arbitrator or does not do so within the time specified in the agreement or, if no time is specified, within a reasonable time,

      the other party to the agreement, having appointed his arbitrator, may serve the party in default with a written notice to appoint an arbitrator.
      (3A) A notice under subsection (3) must indicate whether it is served for the purposes of subsection (3B) or for the purposes of subsection (3C).
      (3B) Where a notice is served for the purposes of this subsection, then unless a contrary intention is expressed in the agreement, if the required appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice—

      (a) the party who gave the notice may appoint his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator in the reference; and

      (b) his award shall be binding on both parties as if he had been appointed by consent.

      (3C) Where a notice is served for the purposes of this subsection, then, if the required appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice the High Court or a judge thereof may, on the application of the party who gave the notice, appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the party in default who shall have the like powers to act in the reference and make an award (and, if the case so requires, the like duty in relation to the appointment of a third arbitrator) as if he had been appointed in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
      (3D) The High Court or a judge thereof may set aside any appointment made by virtue of subsection (3B)."
      (2) Section 10 of the Act of 1950 shall continue to apply in relation to any arbitration agreement entered into before the commencement of this section as if this section had not been enacted.
      (3) Subsection (2) does not apply if a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement, whether or not as the result of a variation made after the commencement of this section.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.

    New clause 19

      COSTS AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ETC. IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
      ' . The following section shall be inserted after section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985—
      "Costs against legal representatives etc.
      19A.—(1) In any criminal proceedings—

      (a) the Court of Appeal;

      (b) the Crown Court; or

      (c) a magistrates' court,

      may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with regulations.
      (2) Regulations shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by a magistrates' court under subsection (1) may appeal to the Crown Court.
      (3) In this section—

      "legal or other representative", in relation to any proceedings, means a person who is exercising a right of audience, or a right to conduct litigation, on behalf of any party to the proceedings;

      "regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor; and

      "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

      (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative or any employee of a representative; or

      (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay." '.—[The Attorney-General]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: As amendments to the proposed new clause, amendment (e), in line 13, at end insert
      'and that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by the Crown Court under Subsection (1) may appeal to the Court of Appeal.'.
      Amendment (g), in line 13, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where an appeal under subsection (2) is successful in whole or in part the Court hearing the appeal may make an order for payment of the legal or other representative's costs of the original hearing and the appeal to be made either out of central funds or, where the order under subsection (1) was made at the instance of any party to the proceedings, by that party".
      Amendment (b), in line 22, after 'representative', insert
      'in breach of that representative's duty to the court or to his client'.
      Amendment (c), in line 22, after 'representative', insert
      'or employee of the Crown Prosecution Service'.
      Amendment (d), in line 25, at end insert—
      '(4) Regulations made by virtue of this section—
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 18 amends section 1c(3) of the Arbitration Act 1950 to provide for the appointment of an arbitrator in a reference, which is to be to three arbitrators without the need for an application to the court to make such an appointment in circumstances where one party fails to make the appointment expected of him.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      (a) shall require a court which proposes to make a costs order against a legal or other representative to allow him a reasonable opportunity to appear before it and show cause why it should not do so; and

      (b) shall provide that no such order shall be made after the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the proceedings are disposed of by the court.'.

      Government amendment No. 13.
      Government amendment No. 14, in clause 4, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
      '(5A) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1), the court may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules of court.
      (5B) In subsection (5A), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

      (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or

      (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

      As amendments to the proposed amendment, amendment (a), in line 8, after 'representative', insert
      'in breach of that representative's duty to the court or to his client'.
      Amendment (b), in line 10, at end insert—
      '(5C) Rules of court—

      (a) shall provide that where the court proposes to make a costs order against a legal or other representative it shall allow him a reasonable opportunity to appear before it and show cause why it should not do so; and

      (b) shall provide that no such order shall be made after the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the proceedings are disposed of by the court.

      (5D) Where an appeal against an order under subsection
      '(1) In any civil proceedings, a magistrates' court may disallow or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules.
      (1A) In subsection (1), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

      (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or

      (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

      Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 8, after 'representative', insert
      'in breach of that representative's duty to the court or to his client'.
      Government amendments Nos. 38 to 41.
      Government amendment No. 42, in clause 93, page 74, line 31, at end insert 'and
      (d) shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken under the rules may appeal to the Crown Court".'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end insert,
      'and where such an appeal is successful in whole or in part the Crown Court may make an order for payment of the legal or other representative's costs of the original hearing and the appeal to be made either out of central funds or where the order under subsection (1) was made at the instance of any party to the proceedings, by that party'.
      Government amendment No. 183.
      7.15 pm
      The Attorney-General: The package of amendments of which new clause 19 forms part was foreshadowed in another place and in Committee. It establishes in primary legislation an identical power and identical test for its exercise in each court whereby legal and other representatives may be ordered to compensate others for costs that result from the representatives' own fault. In doing so, the amendments clear up a confusion in the law about the applicable test in such cases in the Supreme Court. After debates in another place, and with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, the Government are in no doubt that the applicable test should be the one of simple negligence and that the test needs to be clearly established in primary legislation. In plain terms, justice surely demands that all the courts have power to shift the loss from an innocent party on to the representative whose negligence has caused it.
      I hope that amendment No. 14 will be taken with the new clause or, if not, immediately afterwards. I trust that it is relevant for me to speak to it now.
      Amendment No. 14 establishes the simple negligence test for the High Court in the Court of Appeal civil
      (5A) is successful in whole or in part the court may make an order for payment of the legal or other representative's costs of the original hearing and the appeal to be made either out of central funds or where the order under subsection (5A) was made at the instance of any party to the proceedings, by that party.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
      Government amendments No. 37, in clause 93, page 73, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      division as a gloss on the general costs power in section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Amendment No. 16 achieves the same result for civil cases in the Crown court through section 52 of the same Act.
      Amendment No. 37 brings clause 93 into line for the magistrates civil jurisdiction. New clause 19 does the same for criminal proceedings in the Crown court and magistrates courts by means of a new section in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 38 and 40 apply the power to representatives who are not lawyers. Amendment No. 42 and new clause 19(2) provide the important new safeguard of an appeal from the magistrates to the Crown court. Amendments Nos. 39, 41 and 183 are purely consequential.
      I should make clear the relationship between the amendments and the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Whenever costs are incurred through the fault of a representative, the power which is the subject of the amendments will be available. It will not be affected in any way by the inherent disciplinary power of the Supreme Court. Conversely, the latter remains intact.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that, when one reads the new clause against the background of other clauses in other Bills on these matters, and when one reads them against one's experience of practice—the last time that we debated the matter I forgot to declare a slight interest as a practising barrister, and a pecuniary interest—one of the greatest problems not addressed by either the new clause or existing legislation is that faced by the representative? The representative, whether for the prosecution or the defence, must act in accordance with the instructions of the plaintiff or defendant. There comes a point when those instructions can create the problems that give rise to the impression of either negligence or incompetence. However, the representative is not in a position to tell the court the true reasons for his or her actions, simply because to do so would be a breach of privilege.
      The Attorney-General: One trusts that a course of action followed by an advocate is always at least consistent

      537
      with, if not the result of, instructions properly given. But negligence is a breach of the duty to take reasonable care. Therefore. all the circumstances must be taken into account. If the complaint is the result of the proper application of an advocate's discretion to instructions properly given to him, that will be a complete defence. The inherent jurisdiction of the court remains intact and the negligence test applicable under these proposals in no way affects any stricter test applying under the inherent jurisdiction.
      Mr. Fraser: I want to concentrate on the amendments. There is no disagreement about the principle in the new clause. However, practitioners are entitled to some protection against these provisions, particularly since it is not always as easy as the Attorney-General said for a representative to explain openly exactly what his client has said. For instance, if may be alleged against a representative that the time of the court has been negligently wasted because a case was fixed as a plea of guilty and, at the last moment, it was changed to a plea of not guilty. However, that may have been the result of instructions given by the client. It may be difficult to advance arguments about the relationship between a solicitor or barrister and his client in explaining why the costs have been thrown away. They may have to say to the court, "He told me for 12 months that he was guilty and at the last moment he said that he was not guilty." That may be embarrassing for the person involved and it would not be easy for the representative to put forward that argument.
      What is more, despite what the Attorney-General said, there is no suggestion that, if the Crown prosecution service is negligent, it should pay the costs of the other parties. What he is suggesting in those circumstances would not lead to equality between prosecution and defence. In those cases, the costs may be paid out of public funds and not personally by the Crown prosecution service.
      The amendments seek to ensure that costs will be awarded against a representative only if they have been negligent or seriously neglected their duty to the court. Also, before any order is made, a legal representative must be given the opportunity to make representations against it so that such matters will not be dealt with in their absence. We advocate that, if such an order is made, there should be a right of appeal against it and that if an appeal is successful, the costs of conducting it ought to be given to the advocate who was wrongly stigmatised by the order.
      There was a case last year which was written up in some detail this month in the London criminal practitioners magazine. It involved five cases of solicitors against whom costs were ordered under the existing inherent jurisdiction. When the matter went to the Court of Appeal, it was clear that the fault did not lie with those against whom the orders for costs were made. The appeal had to be financed by the Law Society and, as far as I know, the costs were not paid by the Crown prosecution service, out of public funds or, as might be argued under the circumstances, because he seems to be at the heart of the matter, by the judge.
      Such matters should not be undertaken lightly. If such orders can be made against them, legal representatives should be adequately protected in the way we have suggested in our amendments.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: I agree with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my name accompanies the illustrious names of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Norwood on the amendments. I ask the Government to consider the amendments sympathetically. Even if they are not prepared today to think again, they might bear in mind the fact that another place has yet to consider amendments from this House.
      As hon. Members know, the basic position of inherent jurisdiction now means that cost orders can be made in circumstances in which there is a serious dereliction of duty to the court. The duty to the court is paramount.
      I wish to echo the words of various hon. Members who have mentioned the amount, and often the complexity, of the new clauses and amendments that are still arriving at this late stage. The original intention of the Bill many moons ago was to extend the existing powers to the magistrates court. That was acceptable to the profession. Now, at this late stage, we have a considerable and sudden increase in powers.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that after consideration it was decided that the overall test should be straight negligence. However, orders can now be made against a legal representative for
      "any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission".
      The making of such orders virtually needs the adoption of completely new procedures. It is relatively simple to assess from the bench a serious dereliction of duty to the court, but when we are considering what constitutes
      "any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission",
      the trials within trials in criminal cases will be as nothing compared to trials that may feature legal representatives before minds are made up. There has been little consultation on this because of the late arrival of the new clause, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to think again.
      The hon. Member for Norwood referred to the specific amendments which bear my name. New clause 19 gives the right of appeal from a magistrates court to a Crown court, and amendment (e) gives the right of appeal from the Crown court upwards. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If there can be an appeal from the magistrates court, there should be an appeal from the Crown court. It is only fair. The justification is that we are dealing with an extremely serious matter for the lawyers involved and the higher the court, the more serious it is.
      Amendment (g) deals with the costs of an appeal. At present, under the new clause, an appeal can be made from the magistrates court to the Crown court, but there is no power to award costs to a successful appellant. I pray in aid the words of the Lord Chief Justice in November 1989 when he was considering five cases of Crown court cost orders against solicitors. He expressed concern at the lack of such a power and indicated a preference for a power to award costs from central funds. That is what amendment (g) seeks to do. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will consider it sympathetically. It was raised in another place and the Lord Chancellor was unclear as to what would be the outcome.
      Amendment (b) relates the new provision to the court and the client. Therefore, we retain the negligence test of
      "any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission"
      and we add

      539
      "in breach of that representative's duty to the court or to his client."
      That limits the provision and makes it easier for a court to make up its mind. Also, it may prevent the chaos that could occur as a result of the breadth of the original provision. Also, because of a duty to the court or to the client, it removes the other party to any particular proceeding from urging that such an order be made against his adversary. That is important in criminal cases where some heat may have been engendered. It is vital that the defence advocate remains free to defend his client fearlessly as well as to the best of his ability.
      Amendment (c) gives the right of appeal from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal.
      Amendment (d) is important. It gives legal representatives the right to appear before any cost order is made against them. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General knows, Supreme Court rules, order 62, rule 11(4), give such a right of appearance to the legal representative in civil cases. If we are to be rational, that should apply to any criminal proceedings.
      It is all very well to say that natural justice will prevail and any judge or judicial officer is bound to allow legal representatives to come before him before he makes such an order, but the very fact that it is mandatory under the Supreme Court rules, but is not mentioned in the Bill, is not right. The absence of that stipulation could encourage the odd, occasional abuse. No one in his wildest dreams suggests that there will be many cases of something so serious, where a legal representative is not given a chance to say what happened and why, but it could happen. That should not be allowed, so my right hon. and learned Friend should treat the new clause sympathetically.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: As a practitioner, and one who occasionally sits as a recorder, I agree entirely with the Government that there was a need for some definition and for consistent standards to be applied. I therefore welcome the general approach that has been taken. However, the common test of simple negligence, as it has already been described this evening, is broad. It lets in a degree of subjectivity, and possibly even capriciousness, which might affect practitioners unfairly.
      The test set out in new clause 19 includes a reference to "improper" and "unreasonable" behaviour. Those of us who make the criminal appeal reports part of our bedtime reading will know that every now and then, perhaps once or twice a year, a judge has been known to be unreasonable. Occasionally, a judge does something that, in terms of the quality of justice that he is dispensing, is slightly beyond the bounds of propriety. It would be wrong if the practitioner found himself the victim of a charge of judicial impropriety or unreasonableness against which he had no appeal.
      I invite the Government to take the view that there must be a balance of justice which enables the practitioner, who is affected by what could be an extremely damaging order against him, to try to obtain redress from a higher court. A substantial proportion of a practitioner's income in one year might be affected, possibly because the judge had taken an unfavourable view of the client. rather than the lawyer, and allowed that attitude to rub off on the lawyer.
      540
      There is a serious need for an appeal procedure to accompany the clear definition of the standards to be applied.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: I shall follow the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) by asking whether there have been any consultations with the Law Society and the Bar council on the wording of the new clause and whether both those organisations have expressed their satisfaction with the wording used.
      Having listened to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, one can envisage a scenario in which a tetchy judge considers a particular line of cross-examination to be wasting the court's time. Judges tend to he short with advocates who do that. I wonder whether the effect of the new clause might be to enable the judge to hold in terrorem over the advocate the possibility that he might lose a day's refresher fees for having taken up too much time on a particular line of cross-examination. That might even apply to the winding-up speech at the end of the trial, when the judge may decide that what is being put to the jury is entirely irrelevant to the jury's consideration, whereas the advocate may feel that he is doing the best that he can for his client. It would be wrong if in those circumstances the advocate could be told that, if he did not sit down and shut up, he would lose a day's fees.
      Mr. Bermingham: Earlier, I asked the Attorney-General a specific question—what happens if the advocate seeks to follow instructions and is then the subject of criticism? In my experience, in a long trial, often the question being asked of the witness at the beginning of the trial only assumes relevance in the judge's or jury's minds much later on. What will happen in those circumstances? Is the advocate to be criticised and made the subject of a cost order simply because he has foreseen an issue that may arise and become mature in three weeks time? The provisions as drawn do not protect against that.
      I also asked the Attorney-General why the Crown prosecution service was exempt. What is the difference between it and a defence advocate, at whatever level? What protection is there for the independent advocate, whether solicitor or barrister, employed by the Crown prosecution service who is given, as sometimes happens, instructions which cannot possibly be followed because of lack of evidence? Decisions have to be taken. Trials are sometimes dropped on the day. When instructions cannot be followed for those reasons, it is due to negligence not on the part of representatives, but on the part of those who instruct.
      It is wrong that a professional person—solicitor, barrister, prosecution or defence counsel—has to set out to clear his or her name, which may cost incredibly large sums of money, depending on where the matter ends up, when it may well have been the judge who was at fault. In a perfect world, all judges would be perfect, but we live in the real world where, as we all know, Monday morning blues can take over and what appears to be the most obscure point turns into a major row and temper s are lost. That happens to us all at some time. Are we then to be told that, although we may ultimately be proved to he in the right, we shall be penalised?
      The one thing that the press love is to see an advocate or a lawyer criticised. It makes raging headlines. The Government are saying that they will give a right of appeal in certain cases and allow the matter to be examined. The

      541
      appellant may be proved right, as in the case of the five London solicitors, who have suffered not just the cost of clearing themselves, but adverse publicity. The press never apologise.
      That has happened to me in my professional career as a solicitor. About 15 years ago, the Sheffield Star ran a story saying that I had been excluded from the cells. It made front page headlines on a Saturday night. A mistake had been made, but because it was said in court, it was covered by privilege and I could not sue. A lawyer had made a mistake—he was never briefed again, but that was another matter.
      The same thing happened to me at the Bar. Once again, the Sheffield Star—a paper which does not seem to like me very much, although I cannot understand why—stated that a lawyer had been criticised. The Bar council and the senate said that it was perfectly proper and that every step had been taken. They made absolutely no criticism. But a judge had got the wrong end of the stick. What compensation is granted? It may be thought that I have a personal gripe about this matter, and I have. Experience has taught me over the years that Monday morning is the worst day of the week, and not just because it is Monday morning and therefore everyone's worst day of the week.
      If the Attorney-General is going to he fair to those who have to perform a public duty standing up in a courtroom, he should be really fair and ensure that when judicial criticism is wrong, there is a right of reparation for the advocate, be he the prosecutor or the defender, in whatever court, at whatever level.
      Perhaps the Attorney-General would think along the lines of allowing a little favourable publicity when a lawyer is cleared—at least that would be fair. All of us who practise the law have suffered in this way at some stage. Parliament is supposed to be the protector of the people; perhaps it should also protect those who sometimes have to work in conditions which are unfair and in circumstances in which they are not always popular. Sometimes, what happens on Monday morning can be the result of an argument in another forum on Sunday night in which one did not take part.
      The Attorney-General: That was a moving plea from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). We are all familiar with Monday morning blues; some of us are familiar with the blues on Tuesday, Wednesday. Thursday and Friday as well. I am afraid that one has to have a broad back as an advocate—to say nothing of what is required of a Law Officer. If one is wrongly criticised, it is my experience that judges are usually fair enough to acknowledge the fact and to make amends.
      I wish to deal first with consultation. The amendments establish a simple point of principle—that lawyers are to be liable in costs for the consequences of their negligence. That is quite a popular and simple point. The issue of the appropriate tests for such powers was raised in Committee in another place, when the Law Society sponsored an amendment to what is now clause 93 which would have substituted
      "serious dereliction of duty to the court"
      for the test of the clause.
      Before Third Reading in another place, the Lord Chancellor's officials had discussed with the Law Society the Department's own view of the current law and the probability that it would need to be clarified in the Bill.
      542
      The Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls having agreed, the Lord Chancellor wrote to the president of the Law Society on 30 April, consulting him on the proposal to establish a simple negligence test in the Bill. The president replied on 6 June, apologising for his delay and expressing his preference for leaving the law alone, but making some specific points on the proposal.
      Since then, there has been further correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the president. The Government amendments reflect the view taken by the Lord Chancellor and his officials during those consultations, so it can be fairly said that there has been consultation with the president.
      I take seriously what has been said about the potential gravity for practitioners of the exercise by the court of this power. The power itself is difficult to criticise, but it is of course possible to criticise a hypothetical example of its exercise. The Bill does not provide for an appeal from the exercise by magistrates in a magistrates court of this power to the Crown court. Amendment (e) seeks to introduce that.
      We cannot contemplate costs being paid out of central funds if there were to be a successful appeal. It is a principle strongly adhered to that central funds should not be liable in the event of compensation being paid for the exercise of a judicial function. My right hon. and noble Friend and I have, however, given careful thought to whether there should be a right of appeal against the exercise of this power in the Crown court and, having heeded this Opposition amendment, I can tell the House that it will be accepted.
      I think that that will be seen as a fair response, but I cannot be so accommodating about central funds, for the reasons that I have given. This is a substantial concession, since amendment (e) lies at the heart of the anxieties that have been expressed.
      To answer the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, the position of the Crown prosecution service is as follows. Under section 9 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 there is provision for an order to be made against the service itself when the advocate is an employee of the service, and against the agent personally in the case of an agent. So there is noexemption—
      Mr. Bermingham rose—
      7.45 pm
      The Attorney-General: I think that I have dealt with that point, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
      Amendment (b) would make it a condition for the exercise of the cost power that there be a breach of the representative's duty to the court or his client. The same provision is made for other proceedings by amendments (a) to amendments Nos. 14 and 37. The Government's view is that, those amendments are not correctly conceived.
      While the concept of breach of duty to the court or client may well be the foundation for the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that formulation can add nothing to the perfectly clear statutory test laid clown in new clause 19 (3)(a) and in the Government's equivalent amendments to clause 4 and clause 93. Indeed, the concept of duty could only either repeat what is already there or reintroduce the danger that it is the Government's purpose to remove—of confusion with some more restricted test.

      543
      The effect of amendment (c) would be to apply the cost power against representatives in criminal proceedings to lawyers employed by the Crown prosecution service. I have already dealt with that subject, so I proceed gratefully to amendment (d), which would require regulations to make procedural provisions, first, for a reasonable opportunity for representatives to be heard and, secondly, for no order to be made more than six months after the procedures are disposed of. Originally, clause 93 (4) covered all proceedings in the magistrates court. That subsection requires the magistrates court rule committee to lay down certain procedural requirements for the exercise of the magistrates' new cost power.
      New clause 19 separates out criminal proceedings because they are best dealt with in the comprehensive code for costs in criminal proceedings contained in the Prosecution of Offences Act. One consequence is that there will be no requirement for rules or regulations to deal with such procedural matters in relation to criminal proceedings in the magistrates court. But the Government never intended to create any such requirement in relation to the Crown court or any court apart from the magistrates courts.
      In general, it is not desirable to require rule committees to make provision which it should be in their power to make. For example, the whole machinery of costs in the High Court as set out in order 62 depends on a general statutory power which it is the rule committee's duty to use to the best possible effect. Clause 93 makes an exception to that general position which is justified, on balance, by the novelty of the magistrates' power to order representatives to pay costs.
      The responsibility of the magistrates courts rules committee to regulate the new power is similarly new, but no such novelty applies to the Lord Chancellor's power under the Prosecution of Offences Act to make provision in relation to the costs of criminal proceedings. It is simply unnecessary, and therefore undesirable, to make equivalent provision for criminal proceedings.
      Moreover, certain procedural aspects of criminal proceedings have in the past been dealt with by practice direction and it does not seem sensible to require the Lord Chancellor to duplicate whatever might be best dealt with in that way.
      I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled. One at least of them has enabled me to make a substantial concession which I believe goes to the heart of hon. Members' anxieties and I hope that the House will consider that an appropriate way to respond. I must invite the House to reject the remaining amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      Amendment made to the clause: (e), in line 13, at end insert
      'and that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by the Crown Court under Subsection (1) may appeal to the Court of Appeal.'.—[Mr. Temple-Morris.]
      Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    New clause 20

      EXTENSION OF POWERS OF JUST1CLS' CLERKS
      '. In section 28 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (general powers and duties of justices' clerks) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) Such rules may also make provision enabling things authorised to be done by, to or before a justices' clerk (whether by virtue of subsection (1) above or otherwise) to be done instead by, to or before—

      (a) a person appointed by a magistrates' courts committee to assist him;

      (b) where he is a part-time justices' clerk, any member of his staff who has been appointed by the magistrates' courts committee to assist him in his duties as such;

      (c) any officer appointed by the committee of magistrates to be his deputy or to assist him.".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 21

      PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS ETC. BY REGISTERED PATENT AGENTS AND TRADE MARK AGENTS
      '.—(1) Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare certain instruments) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2) (persons exempt from subsection (1)), the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (a)

      "(aa) a registered trade mark agent drawing or preparing any instrument relating to any design, trade mark or service mark;

      (ab) a registered patent agent drawing or preparing any instrument relating to any invention, design, technical information, trade mark or service mark."

      (3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
      "(3A) In subsection (2)—

      "registered trade mark agent" has the same meaning as in section 282(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; and

      "registered patent agent" has the same meaning as in section 275(1) of that Act".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 116.
      The Attorney-General: The new clause and the amendment amend section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which makes it an offence for an unqualified person to prepare certain instruments so as to permit registered trade mark agents to draw or prepare any instrument relating to any design, trade mark or service mark, and to permit registered patent agents to draw or prepare any instrument relating to any invention, design, technical information, trade mark or service mark. The new clause also defines the meaning of those terms. Amendment No. 116 ensures that the provisions of new clause 21 will not be undermined by the provisions of section 102 and 102(a) of the Patents Act 1977.
      The present monopoly is not thought to serve any real purpose in consumer protection and unnecessarily adds to

      545
      the cost of the service that trade mark and patent agents provide to the public. As the monopoly relates neither to advocacy nor to the conduct of litigation and as these transfers are not conveyances in the sense in which that term is used in part II of the Bill, there is no way in which the monopoly can be altered under the machinery created by the Bill.
      The amendments have the support of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and the Institute of Trade Mark Agents. Looked at in the round, they are in the general public interest.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 22

      AGREEMENTS WITH SOLICITORS FOR PAYMENT BY HOURLY RATES
      '.—(1) Section 57 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (non-contentious business agreements) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
      (2) In subsection (2) (method of payment which may be agreed), after the words "gross sum" there shall be inserted "or by reference to an hourly rate".
      (3) In subsection (4), for the words "Subject to subsection (5)" there shall be substituted "Subject to subsections (5) and (7)".
      (4) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(6) Subsection (7) applies where the agreement provides for the remuneration of the solicitor to be by reference to an hourly rate.
      (7) If, on the taxation of any costs, the agreement is relied on by the solicitor and the client objects to the amount of the costs (but is not alleging that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable), the taxing officer may enquire into—

      (a) the number of hours worked by the solicitor; and

      (b) whether the number of hours worked by him was excessive."

      (5) In section 59(1) of the Act of 1974 (method of payment which may be agreed in contentious business agreement) after the words "gross sum" there shall be inserted "or by reference to an hourly rate".
      (6) In section 60(1) of the Act of 1974 (which among other things provides for section 69 of that Act not to apply to contentious business agreements), after the word "or" there shall be inserted "(except in the case of an agreement which provides for the solicitor to be remunerated by reference to an hourly rate)".
      (7) In section 61 of the Act of 1974 (enforcement of contentious business agreements), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
      "(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where a contentious business agreement provides for the remuneration of the solicitor to be by reference to an hourly rate.
      (4B) If on the taxation of any costs the agreement is relied on by the solicitor and the client objects to the amount of the costs (but is not alleging that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable), the taxing officer may enquire into—

      (a) the number of hours worked by the solicitor; and

      (b) whether the number of hours worked by him was excessive." '.—[The Attorney-General.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is a modest amendment that was made at the request of the Law Society. It provides that an agreement
      546
      between the solicitor and his client about the solicitor's hourly charging rate may constitute a contentious or non-contentious business agreement. Those to whom the clause matters will understand that language.
      Mr. Vaz: I support the new clause. My constituents sometimes complain that they do not know how much they are being charged by solicitors. They wait until the end of their cases and when they receive the bill, they inevitably feel that they are being charged too much. That applies not only to those who receive legal aid but lo those who do not. It is appropriate that, when the client goes initially to see a solicitor, he and the solicitor should agree an hourly rate. That is in the consumers' interest, and the rate should be supplied by the solicitor in writing so that it is clear from the start exactly how much the client is to be charged.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: We are proceeding so fast that one does not have time to say thanks. The Law Society has asked me to say that it is extremely grateful for the co-operation on new clause 22. In order to save time later, I should also like to say that there is general gratitude for the co-operation that has prevailed on many new clauses, not least the next groups with which we shall deal, beginning with Government new clauses 22, 23 and 27.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 23

      FOREIGN LAWYERS: RECOGNISED BODIES AND PARTNERSHIPS WITH SOLICITORS
      '.—(1) The Law Society shall maintain a register of foreign lawyers for the purposes of this section.
      (2) A foreign lawyer who wishes to be registered under this section must apply to the Society in accordance with the requirements of Part I of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies).
      (3) The power to make rules under—

      (a) the following provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974—

      (i) section 31 (professional practice, conduct and discipline);

      (ii) section 32 (accounts and trust accounts);

      (iii) section 34 (accountants' reports);

      (iv) section 36 (Compensation Fund); and

      (v) section 37 (professional indemnity); and

      (b) section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated practices),

      shall also be exercisable in relation to registered foreign lawyers.
      (4) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), any such power may be exercised so as—

      (a) to make different provision with respect to solicitors who enter into multi-national partnerships to the provision made with respect to other solicitors;

      (b) to make different provision with respect to the management and control of recognised bodies by solicitors and registered foreign lawyers to the provision made with respect to the management and control of recognised bodies by solicitors;

      (c) to make different provision with respect to registered foreign lawyers who are members of multi-national partnerships to the provision made with respect to solicitors; or

      (d) to make different provision with respect to officers of recognised bodies who are registered foreign lawyers to the provision made with respect to officers of recognised bodies who are solicitors.

      (5) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), the Lord Chancellor may by order provide that any enactment or instrument—

      (a) passed or made before the commencement of this section;

      (b) having effect in relation to solicitors; and

      (c) specified in the order,

      shall have effect with respect to registered foreign lawyers as it has effect with respect to solicitors.
      (6) An order under subsection (5) may provide for an enactment or instrument to have effect with respect to registered foreign lawyers subject to such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order.
      (7) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), the Lord Chancellor may by order provide that any enactment or instrument—

      (a) passed or made before the commencement of this section;

      (b) having effect in relation to recognised bodies; and

      (c) specified in the order,

      shall, in its application in relation to recognised bodies whose officers include one or more registered foreign lawyers, have effect with such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order.
      (8) Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies) shall have effect for the purposes of supplementing this section.
      (9) In this section and in Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies)—

      "foreign lawyer" means a person who is not a solicitor or barrister but who is a member, and entitled to practise as such, of a legal profession regulated within a jurisdiction outside England and Wales;

      "multi-national partnership" means a partnership whose members consist of one or more registered foreign lawyers and one or more solicitors;

      "recognised body" has the same meaning as in section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (management and control by solicitors of incorporated practices); and

      "registered foreign lawyer" means a foreign lawyer who is registered under this section.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendments: Nos. 158, 102, 103, 105, 129, 96, 123 and 128.
      The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) for welcoming this new clause and the amendments. They fulfil undertakings given by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on Second Reading.
      The purpose of the amendments is to provide a framework in which multinational partnerships consisting of English and Welsh solicitors and foreign lawyers can be subjected to the minimum regulation necessary to provide protection to the clients of such partnerships or incorporated bodies.
      The amendments have five main components. They require the Law Society to maintain a register of foreign lawyers who are entitled to enter into multinational partnerships or recognised bodies with solicitors. They amend the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to permit the creation of such recognised bodies, managed and controlled by solicitors and foreign lawyers. They give power to the Law Society to extend the rules that it makes
      548
      for solicitors in respect of professional practice, conduct and discipline, the keeping of clients' money and the compensation and indemnity funds to registered foreign lawyers who are members of such multinational partnerships.
      The overall effect is to provide a proper framework for this new type of multinational partnership for which the way was cleared by clause 54, which removes the statutory inhibition on the formation of multinational partnerships. I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 27

      REPRESENTATION UNDER THE LEGAL AID ACT 1988
      '.—(1) Nothing in this Part shall affect the right of a person who is represented in proceedings in the Supreme Court or the House of Lords under the Legal Aid Act 1988 to select his legal representative.
      (2) The power to make regulations with respect to representation under section 2(7) or 32(8) of that Act shall not be exercised so as to provide that representation in any such proceedings may only be by a single barrister, solicitor or other legal representative (but that is not to be taken as restricting the power to make regulations under section 34(2)(e) of that Act).'.—[The Attorney-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 25—Representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988 in Supreme Court and in care proceedings or proceedings for contempt in any court—
      '(1) Nothing in this Part shall affect the right of a person who is represented in the Supreme Court under Part IV of the Legal Aid Act (civil legal aid) or who is represented in any court under Part VI of that Act (legal aid in special cases) to select his legal representative.
      (2) The power to make regulations with respect to representation under section 2(7) of that Act shall not be exercised so as to provide that representation in civil proceedings in the Supreme Court or in care proceedings or proceedings for contempt in any court may only be by a single barrister, solicitor or other legal representative (but that is not to be taken as restricting the power to make regulations under section 34(2)(e) of that Act).'.
      New clause 28—Advice and assistance by way of representation for defendants in domestic possession proceeding—
      'The following section shall be inserted in the Legal Aid Act 1988, after section 9—
      "Advice and assistance by way of representation for defendants in domestic possession proceedings
      9A. (1) Regulations shall provide for advice and assistance by way of representation to be available at court to defendants in possession proceedings relating to domestic premises, without reference to their financial resources.
      (2) In this section, 'domestic premises' means any premises which are wholly or mainly used as a private dwelling.".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 154, 155 and 156.
      The Attorney-General: During consideration in another place there was some worry that, in opening the way for the extension of rights of audience in the Crown court, the Bill might also have made it possible for the Government

      549
      to limit the right of a defendant to select his legal representatives or effectively to limit the categories of legal representatives from whom he could choose by limiting the numbers of lawyers on a case. That is, of course, no part of the Government's plan, nor is it any part of our plans to impose or require fee sharing.
      A litigant's ability to choose his legal representatives—I use the plural advisedly—is an important part of the safeguards of access to justice in a general case. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor therefore accepted an amendment that was designed to make it clear that the defendant's choice was to be preserved. In doing so he also made it clear that, in defence of the legal aid fund and all those who pay for it, he must be able to secure value for money and there was a need to ensure that the amendment was drafted to allow for that.
      On reflection it became clear that some reworking was necessary. The amendments that resulted in the existing clause 49 were introduced after careful consideration and extensive discussion with both branches of the legal profession. Broadly, their effect is to make it impossible for the Government to prescribe for any proceedings in the Crown court the number of representatives or their category, but to leave unchanged both the Lord Chancellor's powers to decide how much their work is separately worth to the legal aid fund, and also the court's powers to decide that the circumstances of a particular case mean that one representative will do where two would be usual.
      The amendments, as far as they went, were broadly welcomed by the Standing Committee. Other amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) would have extended the provisions to legally aided proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Appeal. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether the principle of the Government's amendments might be extended to some or all of the higher courts.
      The amendments are the result of that consideration. They go further in that they extend the principles to the House of Lords as well. They are comparatively simple. The existing clause 49, which is restricted to representation in the Crown court under part V of the Legal Aid Act 1988, will be replaced by a new clause that extends to all the higher courts, including the House of Lords, and is identical in structure to the existing clause. The result is that the present rights of the legally aided client to select his representatives will be preserved in full. The present power, under the 1988 Act, to make regulations limiting the number of legal representatives to one will no longer apply to the Supreme Court and the House of Lords, but the Lord Chancellor's powers to make remuneration regulations reflecting the value to the legal aid fund of the work done will be preserved.
      I believe that that will be seen as a helpful response to the representations made in Committee and elsewhere.
      8 pm
      Mr. Fraser: The new clauses and amendments are helpful because, had they not been introduced, relations between the professions would have been soured with the extension of the rights of audience. The Opposition tabled new clause 25, which has been taken with this group. It enables two legal representatives to be appointed even in contempt and care proceedings. Is that new clause
      550
      necessary, or are its provisions similar to those of the Government new clause, in which case we need not press it any further?
      Mr. Alex Carlile: As one of those who pressed the Attorney-General on this in Committee, I am grateful for the new clause and in particular its extension to the whole of the Supreme Court, which includes the Crown court. The whole basis of legal practices in many parts of the country—in rural areas such as my constituency as well as in many of our large cities—is that the client comes to the solicitor, although the solicitor may not necessarily have the expertise to take the case to its conclusion, even if he has the right of audience to do so. Therefore, the client is best served by a specialist preparer and a specialist advocate. The new clause will continue those arrangements.
      The county court is not included in the new clause. We discussed the situation in the county court when we explored the various possibilities in Committee. The county court is, quite rightly, to have a much expanded jurisdiction, and it will deal with many of the serious civil cases, particularly those involving personal injury. It is to be hoped that the litigant in the county court will not be adversely affected by any requirements to be set by the Legal Aid Board. It is to be hoped that the civil litigant will still be able, in the wide range of cases in which he is entitled nowdays to have a specialist preparer and specialist advocate, to have those services into the future.
      Mr. Vaz: I too welcome the new clause. I should have been one of those who would have created a row, souring relations not just between the professions, but between the two Front Benches. The Attorney-General has accepted an important principle. I only wish that a statement about it could have been made earlier, as that would have meant that people would not have had to lobby so long and hard.
      The Attorney-General's acceptance of the principle was spoilt when he talked about value for money in legal aid. That goes back to a point made by the Solicitor-General in the Committee considering the Legal Aid Bill in 1988, when he said that the interest of justice had to be made cost-effective. We believe that legal aid is a right. It is the only means by which people can protect their rights in court. At a time when £1 million is being thrown away on the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board and £460,000 is being given away to the Council of Licensed Conveyancers, the Attorney-General could be a little more supportive of the legal aid scheme, rather than applying the pure Thatcherite principles that I am afraid have affected this important part of policy.
      The Attorney-General: The application of Thatcherite principles has been responsible for a vast increase in expenditure—by almost 10 times—over the past 10 years.
      The Government's new clause and provision is wider in scope than new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I hope that that deals with his anxiety.
      I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that substantial work will be dealt with in the county court under the provisions of part 1. The Government will take careful note, as I am sure will the Legal Aid Board, which is independent of the Government, of the points that he made. I am grateful for what has been said in this short debate.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 30

      TYING-IN ARRANGEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOANS
      '.—(1) In this section "residential property loan" means any loan which—

      (a) is secured on land in the United Kingdom; and

      (b) is made to an individual in respect of the acquisition of land which is for his residential use or the residential use of a dependant of his.

      (2) No person ("the lender") shall enter into an agreement with another ("the borrower") for the provision to the borrower by the lender of a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services, unless the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are complied with before the agreement is entered into.
      (3) The conditions are that the lender—

      (a) informs the borrower by notice that the residential property loan, and each controlled service to which the proposed agreement relates, are separate services;

      (b) informs the borrower by notice whether the terms and conditions of the proposed residential property loan will, if the loan is made in accordance with the proposed agreement, be capable of subsequently being varied by the lender;

      (c) provides the borrower with a statement of—

      (i) the price which will be payable by the borrower for each of the controlled services if they are all provided in accordance with the terms of the proposed agreement; and

      (ii) the extent to which (if at all) the terms and conditions of the proposed residential property loan would differ if it were to be provided by the lender without the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates being provided by the lender; and

      (d) informs the borrower by notice that, if the borrower declines to take from the lender any of the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates, the lender will not on that account refuse to provide the proposed loan.

      (4) Where a person advertises, or in any other manner promotes—

      (a) the provision of any controlled services which, in the course of his business, he offers to provide in conjunction with the making by him of residential property loans; or

      (b) the making by him, in the course of his business, of any arrangements for the provision of any controlled services in conjunction with the making by him or any other person of residential property loans,

      he shall comply with such requirements as to the information to be given, or which may not be given, in any such advertisement or promotion as the Secretary of State may by regulations impose.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: 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 take Government new clause 31—
      Tying-in arrangements: supplemental provisions.

      Government new clause 32—Tying-in: offences.

      Government new clause 33—Tying-in: enforcement.

      Government amendment No. 177.

      Amendment No. 186, in clause 88, page 70, line 16, leave out subsections (2) to (10) and insert—
      '(2) The Lord Chancellor may by regulation, and in the absence of any code or codes of practice acceptable to him dealing adequately with the matters specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) below, make such provision as he considers expedient with a view to securing that—

      (a) no borrower (which for the purposes of this section shall include a prospecitve borrower) shall be unfairly or unreasonably obliged to take, or agree to take, a residential property loan subject to a condition that any other services required by the borrower are to be provided by the lender or any other person, or any such other services subject to a condition that a residential property loan is to be made by a particular lender, and

      (b) if any such other services as aforesaid are proposed to be provided, the lender shall offer to provide to the borrower details in writing of any consideration payable.'.

      Amendment No. 187, in clause 100, page 79, line 2, after '50', insert '88(2)'.
      Government amendment No. 180.
      The Solicitor-General: These new clauses and amendments deal with the important topic, which we discussed in detail in Committee, of tying in and the perceived abuse, as it can be, of the mortgage lender using his potentially coercive power to the disadvantage of the borrower. I explained in our debates in Committee that, when dealing with this problem, our touchstone must be openness, so that a borrower can see clearly how much a loan will cost him or her, whether that loan is provided alone or in conjunction with other services.
      Clause 81 became clause 88 and new clauses 30 to 33, together with the amendments, create a slightly longer but a clear and coherent structure to deal with this potential abuse. I shall not outline them in great depth, but there are one or two points of principle to which I should draw attention.
      New clause 30 prohibits people who make residential property loans from doing so as part of a package with other services unless certain conditions are first complied with. The lender must inform the borrower, by notice, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, that the loan and other services are separate services. He must inform the borrower whether the terms and conditions of the loan are variable and, if the borrower declines to take other services in the package, as many borrowers will, that the lender will not refuse to provide the loan simply for that reason.
      The lender must provide the borrower with a statement of the price payable for each of the other services in the package, and the extent to which the terms and conditions of the loan would differ if it were made without the other services in the package. Differential pricing is to be permitted and may be justifiable and desirable, but it must be clear to the lender what he is buying and what he is paying for, whether he takes the package as a whole or just an individual service.
      New clause 31 provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe which of the services the inclusion of which in a package with a loan cause the previous clause to apply. They may include insurance and other financial services, valuation and surveying services, conveyancing services and removal services. The clause also provides for connected agreements.
      New clause 32 provides that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirements of new clause 30 or refuse to

      553
      grant a loan, having complied with the conditions of subsection (3) where the proposed borrower declines other services in the package.
      New clause 33 provides for enforcement powers, which are to be carried out by the local trading standards officers, technically described as local weights and measures authorities and by the Director General of Fair Trading, except in Scotland, where prosecuting will, as always, be in the hands of the procurator fiscal.
      There we have a full statutory framework to cover this important matter of tying in, which, as I said, we dealt with in considerable detail in Committee. I commend that new framework and the new clauses to the House.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I apologise for taking up just a few minutes on the important issue of tying in. In Committee, I said that I had had the assistance of the TSB Group plc on some issues arising in this context, and I should add that I have had the same assistance again for the purposes of this Report stage.
      I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for the rethink that has taken place. We are often criticised in the House for having rather political and unconstructive Committee stages, but, within the bounds of political practicability, the Committee stage of this Bill has been a credit to the House and many useful changes have been made.
      The principle which concerned those of us who spoke on the matter in Committee has been accepted and there is much thanks for that. The tying-in provision under clause 88 has been radically redrafted and now seems clearly to permit differential pricing of financial service packages.
      In a sense, the financial services sector is, like the legal profession, facing regulatory powers and uncertainty about what will happen when the regulations are made. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will give an assurance that the regulations will be subject to a proper consultation procedure with all interested parties.
      It is clear that the redrafted clauses have moved the previous clause 88 provision from being one under which tying in should be prohibited to one under which a mortgage lender may provide controlled services only after it has been through the bureaucratic hoop set out in new clause 30.
      The financial services sector is concerned that those hoops, as I have called them, might impose unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on firms which would be wholly unjustified by the nature and incidence of the perceived malpractice that the Government are seeking to outlaw. That could have a considerable impact on costs, and any significant impact on costs is not absorbed but passed on to the consumer. We are concerned here to achieve value for money for the consumer and a fair deal for the consumer and the financial services institution providing the service.
      I want to make some, I hope, constructive suggestions to reduce the administrative burdens associated with the proposals. It seems odd that, by reason of new clause 31(6)(a), another member of the same group of companies can be liable to be prosecuted for an offence committed by the lender under new clause 30, subsections (2) and (4), because the two companies are to be treated as one.
      For example, under the provisions as drafted, if a customer applied to a bank for a loan and said that he would make his own arrangements for other services, such as insurance, the bank would not apparently have to
      554
      satisfy the conditions under new clause 30(3). However, if the customer later told the bank that he had decided to take a controlled service from a sister company, the requirements would bite. That they should bite in those circumstances seems questionable, when the lender had had no part in arranging the supply of the controlled service to the customer, nor stood to receive a direct benefit from the service being purchased.
      It would therefore be helpful if the Government could look again at new clause 30 to see whether it could be amended so that the conditions in subsection (3) applied only in circumstances where the provision of controlled services had been arranged by the lender. After all, it would be self-evident to a borrower that the services he was buying were separate services.
      If it were possible to amend the law in that way, it would be feasible to dispense with the provision under new clause 31(6) while maintaining the object of the tying-in provision. That would remove the unfair liability for prosecution which might be faced by suppliers of controlled services because they happened to be related to a lending company.
      8.15 pm
      In addition, new clause 31(9) defines the words "notice" and "statement". It would be a great help to financial institutions if the Government could assure them that it would be possible to combine all the information requirements under new clause 30 in just one document—which could, if it suited the lender, be the agreement itself.
      It is not entirely clear why the requirement that the lender should inform the borrower whether the terms and conditions of the loan are capable of subsequently being varied is regarded as relevant in the context of tying in. Typically, some terms of the residential property loan, most obviously the interest rate applicable, will be variable, and that will apply whether or not the loan is part of the package. It is therefore an important issue upon which the institutions would welcome assistance.
      New clause 31 does not appear to recognise circumstances where the lender prices a package in terms of an aggregation of individual prices for the individual controlled services, but as one or more package prices. Presumably the Government are prepared to allow package pricing, as it may well achieve in most cases the aims of value for money and a fair deal for the consumer. It is therefore an important point.
      Finally, with regard to the regulations governing advertising and promotion, which it is envisaged that the Secretary of State may make, one hopes that it can be assumed that those regulations will be entirely consistent with other similar regulations. In particular, I have in mind those relating to the advertising of mortgage loans under the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 1989, which cover all personal loans to be secured on land, regardless of whether they are to be under regulated agreements, and with advertising rules for endowment. insurance under the Financial Services Act 1986.
      All that sounds, and is, a little complicated, but they are issues of importance which, if not sorted out properly, could well adversely affect consumers when they walk into the bank or building society full of nervousness and trepidation to try to obtain what may well be the most important financial transaction of their lives. Therefore, clarification and clarity are of the utmost importance.
      Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have had the benefit of advice from the Association of British Insurers, and I shall voice some of the points that it has made to me. As disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a director of Bowring Wales Ltd. and an insurance broker. Therefore, I am interested in the subject.
      The Association of British Insurers feels that the new clauses are a great improvement, in terms of clarity, on those that we considered in Committee. It is particularly pleased that many of the points that it made have been taken into account and are to be found in the new clauses. In particular, a question that I raised about section 16 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 seems to have been resolved by the new clauses.
      However, insurers remain concerned that they will be obliged to offer a loan without the other services where they had been seeking to offer that loan as part of a package. After all, insurance remains the main business of insurance companies, not the offering of loans. As the market develops, insurance companies may feel that they cannot continue to offer loans, and they may withdraw from the market. That would be a disadvantage because it would reduce the market available to consumers.
      The Secretary of State has wide powers to go beyond the new clauses by amplification in orders and regulations. I note that he is required to consult the Director General of Fair Trading and others. It is therefore appropriate to seek an assurance that, in such an event, the Secretary of State would consult fully with the insurance industry and think carefully before proceeding with any orders or regulations.
      The provisions of new clause 33 will be enforced by local weights and measures authorities and by the Director General of Fair Trading. That must mean, of necessity, that a range of local weights and measures authorities will be involved. Consequently, there must be the possibility of a variation in response. There could be a lack of uniform approach towards enforcement. I look for an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that he expects uniformity in the enforcement of the new provisions. It would be helpful if he could enlighten me on how he envisages that being achieved.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: The new clauses are a useful package of protection for the consumer, and should be welcomed. One matter that concerns me is how to bring the package to the attention of the consumer. He must understand that they are there for his protection and that they prevent people offering to lend money doing certain things. Will there be a publicity campaign—a house buyer's charter—to draw attention to the measures? They are there to protect the consumer when he is buying a house, taking on an enormous mortgage burden and dealing with people presenting a package.
      Another concern is that, although the conditions under new clause 30 apply to a lender, there is no reference to, for example, a mortgage broker, who can put together a package on the basis of commission. Is he also obliged to disclose his commission and to account to the buyer for that commission? A solicitor or a legal practitioner must do that when putting together a package for the client. Only when there is full disclosure can there be full protection. As I understand it, there is nothing in the new clauses to cover that.
      Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said almost everything that I wished to say, so I shall not repeat it. Perhaps the way to deal with brokers would be for the Solicitor-General to say that the Director General of Fair Trading, in exercising his jurisdiction as the supervisor of consumer credit, would perhaps show the yellow card to any broker who had a consumer credit licence and was encouraging people to enter into package arrangements that would be illegal if offered by a lender but not expressly illegal if put together by a broker.
      I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said about giving publicity to the right to choose, which a borrower should have so that he is not being given something that he wants tied in with something that he does not want and does not need.
      The Solicitor-General: Our debates on this matter have been highly constructive, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for his kind remarks. We are trying to deal with what I believe has been, and can be, a real abuse of power. I am sure that the way to deal with it is by complete openness by the lender, with the borrower knowing what every ingredient of the package costs—above all, what the loan will cost, and then what the other services in connection with the loan will cost.
      I shall deal first with the question of consultation. New clause 31(12) makes an express statutory requirement for consultation by the Lord Chancellor, first with the Director General of Fair Trading and then with all others with whom he sees fit to consult. That is a broad power, but I am confident that it is my right hon. and learned Friend's intention to consult widely. The way to achieve good legislation in this area is to put it to the industry and let it understand what we have in mind. It can then point out any inconsistencies and pitfalls, as it has done constuctively in the development of this new clause.
      I am grateful to the Trustee Savings bank and the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me an early sight of their constructive comments. I do not believe that they and other commentators need be worried about the provision becoming unnecessarily bureaucratic. I think that that also answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who wanted to know how the borrower would get to know about it.
      The structure of the new clauses means that the lender must notify the borrower by notice, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, of his rights and of the requirements in relation to the separate services and, of course, the separate pricing and the power to take some or all of the services on offer. That means that a borrower gets the forms in a way that immediately shows his rights and opportunities. There is no reason why that should not be backed up with publicity if that appears to be sensible. It is not something the statute provides, or needs to provide.
      On advertising, what is required must be consistent with the requirements of the new clauses as a whole. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) for his kind remarks on behalf of the Association of British Insurers. I participated in some of the consultations with that body, among others, and the probing and constructive way in which it sought to ensure that the system should work in practice and should meet its needs has helped us to frame the new clauses in a way that I believe need cause it no anxiety.

      557
      I can think of no reason why insurance companies should be put off providing loans under the new framework. After all, it must be recognised that the provision of property loans is a sensible long-term investment for insurance companies. All that we are seeking is to ensure that the borrower, whose financial strength is of great importance to the insurance company, knows exactly what he is buying and is not being forced to buy something that he does not want at a price that he would not choose to pay if he were free to choose.
      There are two answers to the question of enforcement. First, on the issue of uniformity, the whole matter will be supervised by the Director General of Fair Trading and he will keep an overview. Secondly, I know from personal professional experience a good deal about the work of the weights and measures and trading standards authorities. There was a time when I could claim some expertise in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Trading standards officers are served by journals, and it is amazing how quickly the result of any case or any problem particular to that area of enforcement is raised, discussed and commented upon in those journals. Consequently, one finds among those authorities a high degree of uniformity and a desire among enforcement officers to perform their duties in a sensible and uniform way.
      This helpful debate has teased out a number of useful points, and we shall try to learn constructively from them in putting into operation the framework that we now have in sensible statutory form. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 31

      TYING-IN ARRANGEMENTS: SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS
      '.—(1) In section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) "controlled services" means any services of a description prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.
      (2) The order may, in particular, prescribe any description of—

      (a) banking, insurance, investment, trusteeship, executorship or other financial services;

      (b) services relating to the acquisition, valuation, surveying or disposal of property;

      (c) conveyancing services; or

      (d) removal services.

      (3) Where a lender enters into—

      (a) an agreement for the provision to a borrower of a residential property loan; and

      (b) a separate agreement with the borrower for the provision to him of a controlled service,

      those agreements shall be treated, for the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans), as a single agreement.
      (4) Subsection (3) does not apply with respect to any agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection if the lender proves—

      (a) that it was not connected with the transaction in respect of which, or purpose for which, the borrower required the residential property loan; or

      (b) where it was so connected, that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to know, that it was.

      (5) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(1), the Secretary of State may by order specify—

      (a) the circumstances in which land is to be treated as being for a person's residential use; and

      (b) who are to be treated as a person's dependants.

      (6) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans), this section and section (Tying-in: offences)—

      (a) where the lender is a member of a group of companies, the lender and all the other members of the group shall be treated as one; and

      (b) where the lender derives any financial benefit from the provision of a controlled service by any other person the lender shall be treated as providing that service.

      (7) In subsection (6), "a group of companies" means a holding company and its subsidiaries within the meaning of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
      (8) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, for such purposes as may be prescribed by the order, paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (6) shall not have effect.
      (9) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)—

      "notice" means a notice in writing given in the form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

      "price" shall have the meaning given by order made by the Secretary of State; and

      "statement" means a statement in writing given in the form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

      (10) In relation to land in Scotland—

      (a) "conveyancing services" has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; and

      (b) the reference in section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(1) to a loan being secured on land shall be read as a reference to its being secured over land by a standard security.

      (11) Before making any order or regulations under section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Director and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 32

      TYING-IN: OFFENCES
      '.—(l) If any person contravenes section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(2) or (4) he shall be guilty of an offence.
      (2) Subsection (3) applies where—

      (a) a person ("the lender") has, in relation to a proposed agreement for the provision to any person ("the borrower") of a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services, complied with the conditions mentioned in section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(3); and

      (b) the borrower has declined to take from the lender one or more of the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates.

      (3) The lender shall be guilty of an offence if he refuses to provide the borrower with the proposed residential loan or refuses to provide it to him—

      (a) on the terms of the proposed agreement; or

      (b) where they differ, on terms which are compatible with the statement required by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(3)(c)(ii),

      unless he proves that his reason for so refusing was unconnected with the borrower's having declined as mentioned in subsection (2)(b).
      (4) Where a lender proposes to enter into—

      (a) an agreement for the provision to a borrower of a residential property loan; and

      559

      (b) a separate agreement with the borrower for the provision to him of a controlled service,

      those proposed agreements shall be treated, for the purposes of subsection (2), as a single proposed agreement.
      (5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

      (6) Subsection (7) applies where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate.
      (7) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

      (a) any director, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or

      (b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

      he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
      (8) The fact that a person has committed an offence under this section in connection with any agreement shall not make the agreement void, or unenforceable (whether as a whole or in part) or otherwise affect its validity or give rise to any cause of action for breach of statutory duty.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 33

      TYING-IN: ENFORCEMENT
      '.—(1) Every local weights and measures authority ("an authority") and the Director shall have the duty of enforcing Sections (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) to (Tying-in: offences) and any regulations made under them.
      (2) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be taken as authorising a local weights and measures authority in Scotland to institute proceedings for an offence.
      (3) Where an authority propose to institute proceedings for an offence under section (Tying-in: offences) they shall give the Director notice of the intended proceedings together with a summary of the facts on which the charges are to be founded.
      (4) Where an authority are under a duty to give such a notice and summary they shall not institute the proceedings until—

      (a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which they gave the required notice and summary; or

      (b) if earlier, the date on which the Director notifies them of receipt of the notice and summary.

      (5) Every authority shall, whenever the Director requires, report to him in such form and with such particulars as he requires on the exercise of their functions under this section.
      (6) A duly authorised officer of the Director or of an authority ("an authorised officer") who has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence may have been committed under section (Tying-in: offences) may, at any reasonable time—

      (a) enter any premises which are not used solely as a dwelling;

      (b) require any officer, agent or other competent person on the premises who is, or may be, in possession of information relevant to an investigation in connection with the provision made by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or (Tying-in arrangements: supplemental), to provide such information;

      (c) require the production of any document which may be relevant to such an investigation;

      560

      (d) take copies, or extracts, of any such documents;

      (e) seize and retain any document which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under section (Tying-in: offences).

      (7) Any authorised officer exercising any power given by subsection (6) shall, if asked to do so, produce evidence that he is such an officer.
      (8) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant under this section if satisfied, on information on oath given by an authorised officer, that there is reasonable cause to believe that an offence may have been committed under section (Tying-in: offences) and that—

      (a) entry to the premises concerned, or production of any documents which may be relevant to an investigation in connection with the provision made by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or (Tying-in arrangements: supplemental), has been or is likely to be refused to the authorised officer; or

      (b) there is reasonable cause to believe that, if production of any such document were to be required by the authorised officer without a warrant having been issued under this section, the document would not be produced but would be removed from the premises or hidden, tampered with or destroyed.

      (9) In the application of this section to Scotland, "justice of the peace" includes a sheriff and "information on oath" shall be read as "evidence on oath".
      (10) A warrant issued under this section shall authorise the authorised officer (accompanied, where he considers it appropriate, by a constable or any other person)—

      (a) to enter the premises specified in the information, using such force as is reasonably necessary; and

      (b) to exercise any of the powers given to the authorised officer by subsection (6).

      (11) If a person—

      (a) intentionally obstructs an authorised officer in the exercise of any power under this section;

      (b) intentionally fails to comply with any requirement properly imposed on him by an authorised officer in the exercise of any such power;

      (c) fails, without reasonable excuse, to give to an authorised officer any assistance or information which he may reasonably require of him for the purpose of exercising any such power; or

      (d) in giving to an authorised officer any information which he has been required to give to an authorised officer exercising any such power, makes any statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular,

      he shall be guilty of an offence.
      (12) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (11)(a), (b) or (c) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
      (13) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (11)(d) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
      (14) Nothing in this section shall be taken to require any person to answer any question put to him by an authorised officer, or to give any information to an authorised officer, if to do so might incriminate him.
      (15) In this section "document" includes information recorded in any form.
      (16) In relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references in this section to its production include references to producing a copy of the information in legible form.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 5

      INDEPENDENT REVIEW BODY
      '.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall establish an Independent Review Body to advise him on the annulment, cancellation or revocation of a conviction applicable to cases currently considered by the Secretary of State and by the Court of Appeal.
      (2) The Independent Review Body shall consist of a legally qualified Chairman and up to 12 additional persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
      (3) Membership will include a proportion of criminal lawyers but legal experience will not be regarded as the sole qualification.
      (4) Casework would be distributed to a panel of up to three persons but in all cases the conclusions would be endorsed by the Review Body as a whole.
      (5) The Review Body would be extra-judicial but would have the widest discretion as to the procedures to be adopted in any individual case.
      (6) The Independent Review Body would be supplied with the relevant facts and papers relating to a case by the Home Office and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State after either—

      (a) an informal inquiry or

      (b) a full hearing with legal representation on both sides with the ability to recommend the award of legal aid in respect of representation by Counsel.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 10, in title, line 6, after 'Board', insert
      'and an Independent Review Body'.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 5 seeks to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its 1982 report on miscarriages of justice. Had it been implemented then, there is little doubt that a number of the problems that have arisen since in our judicial system might not have done so. The new clause seeks to establish an independent review tribunal composed to a large extent but not exclusively of non-lawyers. A useful precedent has been set by the inquiry currently being conducted by Lord Justice May into the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire convictions, in which he is accompanied by lay assessors. New clause 5 would allow a tribunal wide discretion in regard to procedure, and I hope that it would also have powers to subpoena witnesses and documents. One of the problems confronting Sir John May was persuading some witnesses to give evidence and to produce relevant documents, and we should learn from that lesson.
      Sir John Wheeler: It is very good of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to have given me notice of his intention to raise that subject and to refer to the 1982 Select Committee on Home Affairs. I am sure that the lessons to be drawn from the 1982 report are just as appropriate today, and perhaps the House and the Select Committee itself would do well to return to that topic once Lord Justice May has reported, to see what additional lessons are to be learned. Perhaps
      562
      the hon. Member for Sunderland, South agrees also that it will be important to consider Sir John's conclusions with great care against the 1982 report and tonight's debate.
      Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who occupies a distinguished position as chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee now, and who was a member of it when it made the recommendations to which I refer in 1982. I look forward to the Committee returning to the subject under his guidance, because he appreciates, as do many right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions, that it is an issue that will not go away.
      New clause 5 would allow the tribunal to consider evidence deemed inadmissable by the courts. I hope that one other matter considered by the Committee in 1982 will also be resolved in the terms of reference of any independent review tribunal, I refer to the requirement that the burden of proof must remain with the Crown to secure a conviction and not, as is increasingly the case, with defendants, to prove their innocence.
      That relates to a fundamental principle of our judicial system, but regrettably, in a number of recent referrals to the Court of Appeal, it has appeared—I speak as someone who attended the Birmingham pub bombings appeal on several days in 1987 and early 1988—that defendants are required instead to prove their innocence. Our current law does not require them to do so. That point is one to which the Select Committee's 1982 report specifically drew attention, and I hope that that issue will be resolved once and for all.
      The recommendations of the 1982 report received unanimous approval. That Committee was chaired by Sir John Eden, and its other members included the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who is not regarded as being on the wet side of the Conservative party, and for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is also not regarded as a member of the soggy, bleeding-heart wing of the Conservative party. I take heart from the fact that they all subscribed in 1982 to the report's conclusions, and I regret that one or two of them cannot be present this evening, to say whether they have since changed their minds or still stand by the recommendations to which they put their signatures some time ago.
      The terms of new clause 5 were first embodied in an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and myself to the Criminal Justice Bill in June 1988. During my short time as a Member of Parliament, it has been a pleasure to be associated with the hon. Member for Harborough in respect of such issues. It will be apparent to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the political views of the hon. Member for Harborough and myself cover a wide spectrum. If that hon. Gentleman and I can agree on an issue, it should not be all that difficult for other right hon. and hon. Members to follow us. I pay tribute also to the consistency with which the hon. Member for Harborough was prepared to pursue the case of the six innocent men wrongly convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings long before it was a popular issue.
      New clause 5 represents an idea whose time has come. As long ago as 1982, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in the wake of a number of appalling miscarriages of justice, decided to investigate that topic, and reported that, with the exception of the Home Office witnesses, it

      563
      interviewed no one who was against the idea of an independent tribunal. As long ago as 1976, the distinguished Lord Devlin first mooted the idea, and I am pleased to note that in their evidence to Sir John May's committee, the Bar Council, the Law Society and a host of other witnesses have called for some form of independent review tribunal.
      I have received many letters on that and related issues, including one from a Law Lord giving the concept his support. I shall not embarrass him by naming him, as he would probably be blackballed from his club. When Sir John May reports, I hope that he will make such a recommendation, but we must be prepared for the possibility that he might not do so.
      Everything that has happened in the eight years since the Select Committee's report confirms that wisdom of its recommendations, which were rejected by the Government. Had an independent review tribunal been in place there is no doubt that the Guildford and Woolwich convictions would have been overturned many years ago and without the anguish caused to the individuals directly concerned and to many others. The Maguire family would have had their convictions quashed many years ago and the people wrongly convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings would also have had their cases resolved some years ago.
      The Birmingham case is particularly relevant because the case is deadlocked. The big problem is the Court of Appeal. The Birmingham case has already been to the Court of Appeal, where a mass of new evidence was presented. Instead of ordering a retrial, the Court of Appeal decided to adjudicate upon the new evidence itself in the absence of a jury. It threw out the appeal with contempt.
      The problem is that the case is destined to go back to the Court of Appeal. However, no one who is conversant with the case believes that the Lord Chief Justice who presided at the previous appeal will accept any degree of the new evidence which may be put before him. No-one conversant with the issue has much faith in the Court of Appeal. That is why we are looking for an alternative way, in particular cases, of breaking the deadlock.
      The purpose of the court of last resort, as it is sometimes called, or the independent review tribunal, is to correct mistakes. I do not complain about the fact that mistakes are made by our courts. Any legal system, however perfect, will make mistakes. I complain about the fact that we do not appear to have an adequate mechanism for owning up to mistakes and to a large extent that is due to the belief among senior members of the legal profession, that the system cannot make mistakes. One or two of those people have been frank enough to say that out loud and that does nothing to improve their credibility among those of us who mix in the real world.
      For example, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who subsequently became Home Secretary, said in the House on 14 April 1948:
      "As a realist I do not believe that the chances of error in a murder case, with these various instruments of the State present, constitute a factor which we must consider … There is no practical possibility. The hon. and learned Member asks me to say that there is no possibility. Of course, a jury might go wrong, the Court of Criminal Appeal might go wrong, as might the House of Lords and the Home Secretary: they
      564
      might all be stricken mad and go wrong. But that is not a possibility which anyone can consider lightly. The hon. and learned Member"—
      that is, whoever put that startling proposition to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe—
      "is moving into a realm of fantasy when he makes that suggestion."—[Official Report, 14 April 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1077.]
      That is how difficult it is to persuade senior lawyers of the possibility that the legal system is capable of making mistakes. In passing, I mention that Sir David Maxwell Fyfe went on to hang Derek Bentley, who is widely regarded as having been innocent.
      The next difficulty facing those of us who have attempted to raise serious miscarriages of justice is the belief among certain senior sections of the legal profession—I do not suggest that it is shared by all—that mistakes should not be admitted if they bring into question the credibility of the legal system. For that, we must be grateful to Lord Denning who, as so often, said out loud what others say only in the privacy of their clubs. In the spring of 1988, in a BBC2 programme entitled "Did you See?", he said in so many words that there were circumstances in which persons who were innocent should remain in gaol if the credibility of the legal system was threatened. I am grateful to him for saying that, because that describes fairly graphically, and brings home to many people, the problem that we face.
      The Attorney-General: Would it not be fair to record that Lord Denning, with customary grace, has said publicly that he regards the opinion that he expressed then as a serious mistake?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Mullin: I was not aware of that, but I will take the Attorney-General's word for it. The opinion on which I know Lord Denning has backtracked is the judgment that he gave in 1980 when the Birmingham pub bombing appeal was referred to him and he made that remarkable and much quoted statement about the appalling vista that would arise if he were to allow the appeal. He has said that he was mistaken about that. We always welcome, however late in the day, a conversion; it is not for me to pour scorn on that.
      All those who have campaigned over many years about the more celebrated cases of miscarriages of justice have had to face the problem of the extraordinary stubbornness of senior individuals in the legal system, due in part to their sheltered upbringings. Many of them tell us—having listened to some of their pronouncements, I am inclined to agree—that they have fine minds and are very intelligent. However, I am often struck by the fact that people who are so intelligent can also be very stupid at the same time, and that trait—I put it no higher than that—is to be found in some of the judicial responses to some of the more celebrated miscarriages of justice. That is why we need an independent review tribunal which is slightly more flexible than the Court of Appeal.
      I will cite a few examples to make my point. Timothy Evans was hanged by mistake in 1950. In 1953, the person who carried out the murder for which Evans was executed—John Reginald Halliday Christie—was arrested and it was obvious to everyone concerned that he was responsible for the murder—everyone concerned, that is, except some of those at the highest levels of the legal

      565
      profession. An inquiry was set up under Mr. Scott Henderson which found that there was nothing to worry about.
      A further inquiry under Mr. Justice or Lord Justice Brabin found, I believe—the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong—that while Evans might not have murdered his wife, he must have murdered the baby. That was complete nonsense, but it was not until 1966—after a campaign at least as great as that in relation to the Birmingham and Guildford cases—that the Home Secretary was finally prevailed upon to offer Timothy Evans a posthumous pardon. Even now, one or two hon. Members—lawyers, of course—have approached me saying that Evans was guilty all along.
      In the Confait case, an inquiry set up under Sir Henry Fisher concluded that the youths who had just been released were probably guilty. Sir Henry had to be repudiated when the person responsible came forward.
      In the Meehan case, Patrick Meehan was released from a life sentence and an inquiry was set up under Lord Hunter, a senior Scottish judge. That inquiry concluded that Meehan was probably guilty. Lord Hunter had to be repudiated when Meehan was compensated.
      Perhaps the most celebrated illustration in recent years of difficulties with the Court of Appeal is the case of Cooper and McMahon, who were convicted in 1970 of a post office murder in Luton. It swiftly became apparent to most sensible people that there was something seriously wrong with the case. Four successive Home Secretaries referred the Cooper and McMahon case back to the Court of Appeal on four successive occasions. On each occasion the judges sat stony faced and said that they had heard nothing new. In the end, the Home Secretary of the day, now Lord Whitelaw, became so exasperated because he could think of no way of persuading the Court of Appeal to face up to what had gone wrong, that he simply ordered the gates of the prison to be opened, gave the men railway tickets and sent them home. That is how difficult it is to persuade the Court of Appeal to face up to serious mistakes.
      Anyone who has read the judgment of Lord Roskill at the Guildford appeal in 1976 or 1977 will realise that that was an opportunity to end the Guildford case 13 years ago. It was obvious to everyone concerned that a mistake had been made. I commend to students of the subject the judgment of Lord Roskill explaining why those convictions were still satisfactory.
      A department exists within the Home Office—I believe that it is called C3—to advise the Home Secretary on cases where there is cause for concern. I have had some dealings with that department. I have always found the individuals who work there courteous and well meaning but, generally speaking, useless at resolving problems. That is not their fault, but the fault of the system of which they form a part. They do not appear to have the power to conduct the slightest independent research, even to the extent of lifting a telephone, and their job seems to consist merely of poking holes in evidence submitted by others. I recall that Sir David Napley, who was interviewed by the Select Committee in 1982, said that he could not think of one case in which the C3 department took the initiative in getting a conviction quashed.
      Anyone who doubts the difficulty with the C3 department should read the 22-page memorandum placed in the Library by the Home Secretary two years ago—no doubt it was drafted by the C3 department—explaining
      566
      why the Maguire convictions were safe and sound. There is even a page on why innocent contamination could not possibly be the cause of the difficulty, although the Home Secretary—no doubt prompted by the C3 department—now takes the view that innocent contamination is the latest fallback position. Anyone who wishes to celebrate the effectiveness of the present system should study that memorandum.
      In 1983, the Government replied to the Select Committee rejecting its principal recommendation on the independent review tribunal saying that convictions were primarily a matter for the courts to decide. However, the Government sought the advice of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, who promised some greater flexibility in terms of ordering retrials and accepting references back from the Home Secretary.
      If such a promise was made, it was reneged upon. In the Birmingham case, the judges immediately rejected with contempt an application for a retrial, although there was an enormous amount of new fact upon which a judgment would have to be made. At the end of the Birmingham judgment, which is fairly scandalous, the Lord Chief Justice went so far as to say, "As with so many cases referred to us by the Home Office, the longer it went on, the more convinced we became that the original convictions were safe." That was a message to the Home Secretary, because the Guildford and Woolwich cases were then in the pipeline. It meant, "Don't waste our time sending any more of these cases, because this is how they will end." That is how it was read by many at the time and we now know what happened.
      I should like to think that the Government, and indeed all of us, have learnt some lessons from the experience of events in the past two years, particularly from the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire cases, but I suspect that that may not be the case. I am delighted that the Labour party and my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) broadly support an independent review tribunal. I welcome the support that that proposal has received from hon. Members from all parties. If the judges are unhappy about the suggestion, they have only themselves to blame. There have been many opportunities over the past decade or so for something to be done about those great scandals and I regret that they have not faced up to them.
      An independent review tribunal is only one of the number of measures that will be necessary to restore the public credibility of the judicial system. We shall also have to stop convicting people on the basis of confessions obtained in police custody, which form the main part of the most celebrated wrongful convictions. We shall have to review the training and selection of judges and, in the light of what Sir John May recommends, we shall have to examine carefully the forensic service.
      Our judicial system is being brought into discredit around the world by its inability to face up to mistakes. That is why I commend new clause 5 to the House.
      Mr. John Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) have done the House a service by tabling new clause 5, which is perhaps one of the most important proposals that we are discussing tonight. I fear that there is increasing concern about appellate procedures in cases in which there is some tension and emotion and particularly in terrorist cases. The track record in recent

      567
      and not so recent trials of that nature and the limited view taken by the Court of Appeal are causes for concern. The existing machinery obviously needs to be improved.
      Against that background, the Labour party has published proposals for the need for an independent review body to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice. What eventually emerges may not necessarily be in the precise form as presently proposed. The proposals emphasise the need for a wide consultative procedure that must include the composition of the review body and the establishment of an effective, impartial and independent body to investigate miscarriages of justice. That certainly does not exist now to the satisfaction of the general public. As far back as 1982, the Home Affairs Select Committee report and Justice—an eminent and experienced body of which I am a humble member—reported in that vein. The problem simply will not go away and there is increasing disquiet about our existing procedures.
      I am not wedded to the exact form of words proposed by my hon. Friend, but he is right in principle. There is a need for a new body able to take a wider view and, where necessary, to take the case apart. If we had permanent machinery of that sort, there would be no need for ad hoc inquiries. Indeed, the establishment of ad hoc inquiries makes the case for some sort of body and the case for making it permanent is made out by the increasing concern about a whole spate of cases.
      As a practitioner who from time to time finds himself before the Court of Appeal, I want to make it clear that the Court of Appeal does an effective and satisfactory job for the run-of-the-mill case. I say that in no patronising way. One is not always pleased with the results. That is another matter and may involve a subjective rather than an objective view. It is not the independence of the Court of Appeal that is the cardinal point; it is the type of remit that custom, practice and legislation give it. After all, it is a creature of statute. That is the heart of the problem.
      9 pm
      The cases considered by the Secretary of State and the investigative machinery at his disposal frequently cause concern. My hon. Friend has gone to some lengths to describe that machinery. I accept that serious mistakes can and do happen. I fear that even in future, with the most ideal, new radical machinery, mistakes will happen. Our job is to limit the chances of mistakes happening and to have machinery to correct them as speedily as possible. The convention is that, short of a political earthquake coupled with some evidence, nothing is done. It is an indictment of the present system that it needs a sustained campaign by the great and the good for action to be taken.
      My hon. Friend is proposing an independent body which will be open in its inquisitions and will be the trigger for action by the Home Secretary. It is the sifting machinery, preliminary to a Sir John May inquiry, which is necessary. It is adumbrated here that there could well be a full hearing, presumably by the body itself. I am not sure whether that is necessarily the right way to proceed, but we are trying to find the best solution.
      One could go on at great length, but I shall not do so tonight. The problem will not go away. There is a need for new investigative machinery. Justice delayed is justice
      568
      denied. It is wrong that under present procedures decades must go by—a third or a half of a working life—before justice is done. That cannot be right.
      In this age of new technology, with new tests and machinery every day, there is a lack of balance between what is available to the Crown prosecuting a case and what is available to the defence. An individual, certainly one on legal aid, cannot have all the resources necessary for scientific tests that sometimes border on the frontiers of knowledge. Government agencies exist to serve the people as a whole, not merely the organs of Government. Therefore, where appropriate, they should be available to assist and advise individuals who appear before the Queen's courts.
      I certainly accept the principle, if not the words, of my hon. Friend's amendment. I am sure that we shall return to the matter again. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee suggested, once Sir John May has reported, it may be wise and prudent for the Select Committee to return to the subject again.
      Sir John Farr: I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the cogent remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I do not think that I am a rarity on this side of the House, but I am certainly one among perhaps not all that many in the Conservative ranks who consider that a succession of miscarriages of justice have come to the forefront, even since the Criminal Justice Bill of 1988, in respect of which I tabled a new clause, was considered in Committee. We did not even imagine the horrendous outcome that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South suggested in relation to the Maguire and Guildford cases. I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman dreamed that his worst fears would be realised.
      My interest, apart from that of any ordinary person, whether Conservative, Labour, Social Democrat or whatever, is to correct a miscarriage of justice. I firmly believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who was on the Select Committee, was right when he said that something had to be done. Unfortunately, his cogent remark was only an intervention. Had he been making a speech, I would probably have intervened and asked him why it had taken so long and eight years is a lifetime for people who have been wrongly imprisoned.
      The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to my interest in the Birmingham Six, which may or may not be well known. I happened to be concerned about them, which may or may not be well known, because one or two of them are in Gartree prison in my constituency. When they first went in, they asked me to do a bit of photocopying for them because the prison rules in respect of the photocopier are strict. While I was photocopying their petition to Justice and other organisations, I became interested in their story. I did some investigation. Of course, about five or six years ago, there was a story in the Sunday papers about forensic tests that were said to be bogus. The Gries test was shown by some Sunday papers to be bogus. The Gries test was the forensic test that sent down the Birmingham Six, and they are still inside.
      As an ordinary citizen, I am interested in miscarriages of justice. Anything must be better than the present arrangement. That is what I tried to say when I moved my new clause when the Criminal Justice Bill was considered in Committee a couple of years ago. That is why I am

      569
      pleased also to be associated with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South in the new clause. Let us hope that it will not be another few years before something is done.
      I cannot see any reason—I never shall—why the findings of a Select Committee that was set up to deal with miscarriages of justice should be totally ignored by the House. At that time, my new clause was considered at 1 o'clock in the morning—hardly a key time of the day. This debate is an improvement on that. There was a unanimous recommendation by a Select Committee, many members of which are still in the House. It is just not good enough to forget it. I charge my right hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have great admiration, as I have for all of my Government lawyer friends, at least to have another look at the Select Committee's recommendations. If their recommendations are put into effect and the kind of miscarriage of justice that occurred in the case of the Birmingham Six is not allowed to happen again, we shall have done some good.
      Many professional lawyers think that the layman is trying to bind their hands. We are trying to do nothing of the sort; we are leaving the legal system intact. In 1982, the Law Society was strongly in favour, as was the Criminal Bar Association, of an independent review body. Both said that it would be sensible to provide a little more expert advice to the Home Secretary, who has an impossible job. However brilliant one may be, it is impossible to be right all the time. An independent review body, based on the recommendations in the Select Committee's report, ought to be established soon. I have great pleasure in supporting the new clause.
      Mr. Bermingham: I support the concept of a court of final appeal, although for none of the reasons given so far. I do not believe that it is constructive to look at past examples; one has to consider generalities. In too many instances the arguments advanced in support of a court of final referees have related to a particular case. That is unwise. Anyone who believes that a particular system is right on every occasion is wrong. Everyone makes mistakes. Anyone who practises either as a solicitor or as a barrister—I have practised as both—knows that he has made mistakes in the past. A mistake may be made by failing to call a witness. The significance of a tiny piece of scientific evidence may not be apparent at the time; one fails to realise its significance. Only later does scientific knowledge highlight the fact that there was more significance to that tiny piece of evidence than was thought at that time.
      Judges, counsel, solicitors and witnesses are human and make mistakes. I do not intend to refer to the findings of the May inquiry, but it is so easy to look back 14, 15 or 20 years and be hypercritical of actions taken by human beings at that time. It is more productive to accept that people try to do their job, within the confines of the system, as well as they can but that they are constrained by the knowledge that exists at the time.
      The problem with forensic evidence over the years has been the imbalance between the facilities available to the defence and the prosecution. Scientific services are Government services and people's services. They should therefore be available to everyone. However, there comes a time within our system when a feeling of partisanship is suspected. All lawyers are well advised to be aware of that danger. If one feels partisan about a particular incident, one may or may not inadvertently fail to disclose evidence,
      570
      particularly scientific evidence. One may also Fail to disclose other extraneous factors that in turn become crucial to the testing of the evidence.
      If we are to have a court of final referral, which I hope one day we will, I hope that it will not be only for the great and the good. I have always worried about a simple case—a shop burglary 20 years ago. I was convinced at that time and I am to this day that the man convicted of it, on circumstantial, not confessional, evidence, was probably innocent. The problem is that he was given a six-month sentence which has long since been served. He had to serve that sentence and, more importantly, his career was ruined. He wanted to be a professional—it does not matter which profession—but it was no longer open to him.
      9.15 pm
      A court of final referral is as important to people like that as it is to those accused of major criminal offences or terrorist offences. We have to be equally wary of those cases.
      The present system has stood the test of time. We may not always agree with the results we obtain in court—we would not be human if we did—but that does not mean that the system is wrong. I disagree with the attacks made upon the Court of Appeal because experience has shown that in 99·99 per cent. of cases the system is fair and right. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, the system is right.
      I agree with our trial system. Mistakes will be made, but, by and large, it is right. We are not saying that the systems are wrong. Those of us who support a court of final referral merely accept the principle that mistakes can be made. Such a concept needs to be thought about carefully, even if it is not in the form suggested in the new clause. It needs to be established because the frontiers of knowledge are for ever extending and, in a just and good system, we have to be able to accept that we can make a mistake.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on his new clause and on having it selected. I tried to do that in Committee but was unsuccessful because I do not have his legal skills. It is important to discuss this general problem, as my hon. Friend did on Second Reading. I am speaking as a layman—a person passionately concerned about something that appears to be wrong, even rotten, in the state of justice. There is a general feeling that this is a major problem that we cannot deal with. Something has clearly gone wrong, but there seems to be no way out. We must find a way of dealing with it.
      It is clear from the Guildford, the Maguire and the Birmingham cases that something has gone drastically wrong with justice. In the atmosphere of that time, it was clear that it would be difficult to get justice and to obtain independent, conscientious police work that was not aimed simply at getting a conviction.
      The machinery of justice is not there to bend to such pressure; it is there to ensure that cases are treated fairly. That is the reason that there should be an adequate appeals procedure—so that, if a court has failed in the initial instance, for whatever reasons, the verdict can be looked at again objectively and proper redress provided. In the cases that I mentioned, it is clear that that opportunity did not exist.

      571
      We have to do something along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. I am alarmed at the way in which the Court of Appeal seems to feel it incumbent upon itself to back previous decisions, as if a challenge to such a decision and the methods by which it was taken is a challenge to justice itself and the rule of law. It believes that it is somehow defending the system against unjustified, unreasonable and unfair criticism. It does not examine the facts of the case, which is surely its responsibility. It is even more alarming to hear rumours that judges in the Court of Appeal continue to believe, despite all that has been said, that people are guilty. Such rumours are disconcerting.
      Mr. Mullin: It is clear, and the Attorney-General may have heard it said, that several senior judges have gone round, as they have done in other cases, saying that the people convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings and the Maguire family, whose convictions have been quashed, were guilty but got off on a technicality. That is outrageous. It is completely false.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a long-standing convention that we do not reflect adversely on the courts or the judiciary. The hon. Gentleman is breaking that convention.
      Mr. Mullin: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have made that point on several occasions without falling foul of the Chair.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just because the Chair has been prepared to be tolerant, the hon. Gentleman should not take the opportunity to push that tolerance further.
      Mr. Mullin: I accept that observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Mitchell: If such attitudes have been voiced, they are absolutely wrong and show that justice was not available through that channel. If that is the case, it should arouse the strongest possible concern, as should any implication that if cases are sent back to the Court of Appeal, they are thrown out as a testimony to the virility of the Court of Appeal.
      The second problem is the way in which the Court of Appeal seems to regard it as necessary to think itself into the mind of the jury at the original trial and say that, even if certain evidence had been presented at the trial, the jury would have come to its original conclusion. That is an impossible and wrong intellectual feat for the court to perform.
      The real threat to justice is the feeling that it has not been done, the feeling that there is no way out or the impression that something that is wrong cannot be dealt with. That is more of a threat to justice than anything that I can imagine.
      In its sixth report in 1981–82, the Home Affairs Select Committee, after a thorough inquiry, came to the firm conclusion that there should be a further means of redress along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. I quote with concern the evidence given to it by Sir David Napley, who told the Committee that he was unable to recall from his own experience
      "a single case where the Home Office has, as a result of its own investigations, felt able to recommend a pardon or any other recognition that a conviction was necessarily wrongful."
      572
      But he said that, on the other hand,
      "on a number of occasions (officials) have quite freely expressed to me their sense of disquiet about particular cases but have pointed out that since appellate courts either on appeal or on reference under Section 17 have refused to interfere with the verdict they felt unable themselves to intervene."
      It is a self-reinforced system. That is why we need to cut in with a provision such as that in the new clause. It is apparent that under existing powers, where the Secretary of State refers cases to the Court of Appeal because of doubt about a conviction, the machinery does not work well. It appears that on occasions the Court of Appeal positively resents the exercise of that power. Rather than dealing with the reference in an open-minded fashion, it expresses its resentment in its finding. Therefore, we need an independent review.
      I do not think that the Attorney-General will leap to the Box with a glad hosanna and say, "Yes, you are right, it has all been a terrible mistake, and we accept the new clause." I do not think that he will do as I want him to. He is concerned about the reputation and probity of British justice, and the respect for it, not only in this country but in Ireland, and the need to redress the obvious deficiencies that have occurred. If he recommends us to reject the new clause, he must say that the Government are concerned about the issue and that he is looking for a way of dealing with a problem that is detrimental to the interests of justice in this country.
      The Attorney-General: I make no complaint that we have spent considerable time on a topic that it would be idle to deny is, at present, a source of much anxiety.
      If I deal with the new clause in a way that applies more closely to our proceedings on Report than if we were discussing its content in a different context, I hope that I shall not be accused of wishing to dodge an important debate or playing into the long grass the considerations that have been properly and cogently expressed. I do not agree with all that has been said, as I shall summarily try to make clear. At this stage of the evening, when several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have given voice to their anxieties and their support for the thinking behind the new clause, it is appropriate for me, in reply, to deal with the matter quickly, and I propose to do so in the way that I have explained.
      The Bill does not set out to alter the criminal court structure. To introduce a new clause such as this into the Bill, particularly at this stage, when it has not even been debated in Standing Committee, would be inappropriate. I do not believe that, with hand on heart, hon. Members are seriously suggesting that it can be.
      The Home Secretary and I, following the investigation by the police into the Guildford Four's convictions and the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal in October 1989 to quash their convictions, appointed Sir John May to inquire into the circumstances leading to, and deriving from, those convictions. That inquiry had wide terms. It was also asked to examine the case of the Maguire family and their co-defendants.
      The first public hearing began on 21 May, and on 11 July the Home Secretary announced to the House that the Maguire case would be referred to the Court of Appeal. That inquiry's terms of reference were deliberately made wide and the Government confidently expect that Sir John May's report will range widely. He has said that, among the matters that he intends to consider, is whether any changes are needed to the existing arrangements for considering allegations that

      573
      there have been miscarriages of justice. His interim report was published on 12 July and his final report will receive the most careful consideration.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) rightly distinguished between the function of the Court of Appeal in dealing with a reference to it under the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and the Home Secretary's function in making such a reference, and considering whether or not to make it. That is an important distinction to bear in mind, and it was not very evident in the speech made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
      I do not want to be thought to be pre-empting the Government's consideration of whatever Sir John May will recommend. I repeat that I expect his report to range widely, but it would be quite wrong of me to say anything that showed any personal predilection for any recommendation that he may make—or against one.
      9.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to the judgment given by the Court of Appeal when dealing with the Birmingham Four's reference. He thought it right to call the judgment scandalous. That is unfortunate language. Any court can deal with the matter brought before it only on the basis of the evidence put before it. As the House knows, when the Home Secretary makes a reference, it must be treated under the legislation as a fresh appeal. There has been a tendency to criticise the Court of Appeal in this and other cases for not having dealt with the matter as it might have done had it been in possession of all the material that subsequently became available.
      If, when dealing with one of these references, the Court of Appeal took into account material that had not been put before it in evidence, that would indeed be grounds for complaint, and loud complaints would be heard in this House—
      Mr. Mullin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      The Attorney-General: I just want to complete this thought. When hon. Members speak, as many have tonight, about courts not owning up to mistakes, they must be clear in their mind what they are talking about. If they are speaking about what is subsequently revealed to have been an irregularity amounting to a miscarriage of justice, but one which has become apparent only by reason of the later disclosure of material that was not available to the court at the time, the court is not shown to have made a mistake.
      The court has no investigative powers. Much has been done, no doubt unwittingly, to undermine confidence in the judiciary by people saying that it has not been willing to own up to mistakes, who offer in support of that proposition illustrations of the type that I have described. That should not be done.
      Mr. Mullin: I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. My view—I think that it is shared widely—is that, from the moment the Balcombe street IRA unit was captured in 1976, everyone concerned in the prosecution knew that the wrong people had been convicted. That can easily be shown, and Sir John May may well come to that conclusion.
      574
      In the Birmingham case, what went wrong came to light only later, but that was five or six years ago, and by now it should be dawning on people in high places; it has certainly dawned on those of us who travel on buses.
      The Attorney-General: The House will know that I certainly cannot comment on the facts of those cases, but I ask the House to bear in mind the functions that the House has conferred on the Home Secretary and on the Court of Appeal. Under section 17 of the 1968 Act, the Home Secretary has power to refer to the Court of Appeal the case of any person who has been convicted on indictment. Alternatively, he may in certain circumstances decide to recommend to Her Majesty the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, or he may grant a free pardon. Of course, that is not nearly as satisfactory to those who believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice, because if there has been such a miscarriage, they rightly look to the judicial system to correct it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not normally consider it right to intervene unless there was new evidence or some other consideration of substance, which had not been before the courts and which appeared to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon said that we needed a tribunal that would take a wider view. He did not identify that wider view, and I find it difficult to see how a view wider than that which the Court of Appeal is required to take can exist. On a reference, the Court of Appeal is required to ask itself whether there is a lurking doubt and whether the conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory. If there is a doubt, the court must act accordingly. It is difficult to see how we could take a wider view, unless we ask a tribunal to act upon material that is not put before it in the form of evidence. On an appeal there are no holds barred on evidence and fresh evidence can be put before the court.
      Mr. John Morris: I sought to put forward as briefly as possible some of the sentiments expressed by Sir John May. On page 36 of his report he comments on the views of the Court of Appeal in that case and on the way in which, in Sir John's judgment, the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the judge's directions, to which I referred. The comments are contained in paragraph 10.1.19. Perhaps I unduly saved the House's time in not referring to them earlier.
      The Attorney-General: The House has heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment, and we must leave the matter there.
      The anxiety, the existence of which I have acknowledged, derives from cases that were heard about 15 years ago. Since that time, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been put in place and tape recording is almost universal. We also now have an independent prosecution service. Each of those innovations constitutes a significant safeguard against malpractice of the sort that can lead a court to be presented with inadequate or false evidence. We should bear those matters in mind when we think about the reliability of our criminal justice system.
      The debate has given rise to some extremely interesting and properly brought forward views. It is not appropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle for such a major constitutional reform and it would not be appropriate to accept the new clause. I hope that the House will agree that the new clause should be rejected.
      Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to hon. Members who have supported the new clause, and especially to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). The tone adopted by the Attorney-General in the debate was wholly different from that adopted by the Minister of State, Home Office when he replied to an identical clause two years ago. I propose to press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 96.

      Division No. 315]

      align="right">[9.39 pm

      AYES

      Barron, Kevin

      Leighton, Ron

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Livsey, Richard

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      McKelvey, William

      Buckley, George J.

      McWilliam, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dewar, Donald

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Dixon, Don

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Eastham, Ken

      Pike, Peter L.

      Farr, Sir John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fraser, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gordon, Mildred

      Vaz, Keith

      Haynes, Frank

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Mr. Chris Mullin and

      Janner, Greville

      Mr. Bob Cryer.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Bright, Graham

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Burt, Alistair

      576

      Butler, Chris

      Maclean, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Mans, Keith

      Chapman, Sydney

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Mills, Iain

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

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Day, Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Durant, Tony

      Neubert, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fallon, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Favell, Tony

      Patnick, Irvine

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Redwood, John

      Forth, Eric

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Franks, Cecil

      Riddick, Graham

      Freeman, Roger

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      French, Douglas

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Gill, Christopher

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Stern, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Sumberg, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Ground, Patrick

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Hague, William

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Thorne, Neil

      Harris, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Trippier, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Viggers, Peter

      Irvine, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Jack, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Wheeler, Sir John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Knapman, Roger

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Wood, Timothy

      Knowles, Michael

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Lang, Ian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Lightbown, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 24

      DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL ADMINISTRATION
      '(1) There shall be a department of state to be known as the Department of Legal Administration answerable through a Minister or Ministers to the House of Commons.
      (2) The department shall be responsible for

      (a) the administration and organisation of courts and tribunals in England and Wales;

      (b) the recruitment training and appointment of the magistracy and judiciary through a Judicial Appointments Commission;

      (c) the provision of legal aid, legal services advice and representation;

      (d) the supervision of the legal professions;

      (e) the Law Commission and law reform; and

      (f) such other matters as the House of Commons shall by resolution decide including such powers or duties hitherto conferred upon the Lord Chancellor other than duties of a judicial character.'.—[Mr. Fraser.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss new clause 26—Judicial Appointments Commission—
      '(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Judicial Appointments Commission (The Commission).
      (2) The Commission shall consist of a chair and not more than 20 other persons independent of politics and appointed by the Minister for Legal Administration.
      (3) The Commission shall have the duty of advising the Minister for Legal Administration on the recruitment, training and appointment in England and Wales of magistrates, the judiciary and members of statutory tribunals.
      (4) The Commission shall comply with the overriding principle that its work shall be directed to the fair, just and efficient administration of justice without partiality or prejudice.
      (5) Subject to the overriding principle the Commission shall have regard to the needs to ensure—

      (a) that appointees are equipped to interpret and apply the law fairly and efficiently;

      (b) equal access to the law, and

      (c) the appointees are representative of the community, socially aware and trained and equipped to perform the duties assigned to them.

      (6) The Commission shall consult the designated judges and may consult other persons and bodies about the discharge of its duties.'.
      Mr. Fraser: The two new clauses are different in substance, and I shall briefly describe their effect. New clause 24 would create a department of legal administration—what is called in many countries a Ministry of Justice. It would be answerable to the House of Commons, it would be amenable to the supervision and the investigation of a Select Committee, and it would answer to this House for what is the considerable current expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
      New clause 26 would create a judicial appointments commission, the exact terms of which it sets out. Essentially, it would be concerned with the selection, training and appointment of judges, chairs of tribunals
      578
      and other judicial figures, including magistrates. The commission would have as its overriding principle that its work would have to be directed
      "to the fair, just and efficient administration of justice without partiality or prejudice."
      The creation of a department of legal administration would bring the administration of the law—the spending on the administration of the courts—into the political arena to a much greater degree than at present. It would have a spending budget of £1 billion a year, including legal aid. By contrast, the setting up of a judicial appointments commission would take the appointment of the judiciary out of the political arena and, for the first time, make it entirely consistent with the constitutional principle that the appointment of the judiciary should be entirely free of political control.
      I wish to go into a little more detail about the proposed department of legal administration. First, its main function would be the spending of about £ 1 billion. The Lord Chancellor would cease to be the last of the big spenders in the House of Lords. It was perhaps justifiable to have a Minister in the other place at a time when the Lord Chancellor's Department spent little money and when there was no legal aid scheme. Now, with expenditure of £1 billion a year, the Minister should be accountable to the House of Commons.
      Secondly, a department of legal administration would allow criticism of the administration of the courts, but not the exercise of judicial judgment and discretion. The matter would be in the centre of the political arena rather than tucked away in a corner of the unelected Chamber. Such a department would also be responsible to this House for the operation of the legal aid scheme and its coverage. Eligibility for that scheme has slipped from 90 per cent. of cases to 70 per cent. and is still falling. That matter ought to be the subject of much greater scrutiny by this House, including by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
      The Attorney-General may say that the Government are spending more and more money on legal aid. Although that is true, the reason is the crime epidemic that has become evident since the present Government came to power. From the figures it is clear that a high proportion of that expense is accounted for by criminal defence costs. Claiming credit for an expansion of the legal aid service by quoting expenditure figures is like saying, in the event of a plague, that the national health service is doing better only because it is spending more on combating it.
      The legal aid scheme should be exposed to much more debate, criticism and accountability in this House. There should also be much public discussion and constructive criticism of the work of the Crown prosecution service. I have always made it clear that we are strong supporters of the concept of the CPS, but we want it to operate efficiently. Although we are concerned about the defence of liberty, civil rights, and the ability of the individual to receive a fair trial, the victims of crime have rights. If prosecutions are handled incompetently and are not given sufficient resources, and if those guilty of crimes escape because of the prosecution's inefficiency, that too is wrong. The quality and rewards of the CPS should also be debated more thoroughly in this House.
      A department of legal administration could concern itself with law reform. I would prefer to see many more people asking questions of this House about why we retain stupid, unfair or outdated laws and do not go about

      579
      reforming them more thoroughly and quickly. I can think of whole areas of law in urgent need of reform, which would occur if more pressure were exerted on this House.
      The Attorney-General: Such as in respect of the Shops Act 1950.
      Mr. Fraser: I shall refer in a moment to controversial issues and the part that a department of justice or a department of legal administration could play in them.
      I can think of a number of areas where law reform should proceed more quickly. One example is the liability of an original lessee. It is ridiculous that someone who signed a lease 50 years ago as the original lessee should still be liable. It is wrong also that those having leasehold flats have not been given a system of enfranchisement and of commonhold ownership consistent with present day ownership. When I was Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, it struck me as ridiculous that one had to use a private Member's Bill on a Friday to push through a reform such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which I, with my former hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, was able to put on the statute book. It seems silly that we should not have a more vigorous system of law reform run by a department of legal administration answerable to this House.
      The Attorney-General referred to the Shops Act 1950. There are a number of outdated items of legislation on the statute book, and many others proposed that are highly controversial. A department of legal administration should not shrink from making it possible for the House to reach decisions about them.
      The Attorney-General: But it does.
      Mr. Fraser: It was right for the Leader of the House recently to make it possible for the House to reach decisions about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on an issue about which the law clearly needed reform. The Leader of the House allowed the House to reach a conclusion. That should happen more often. I hope that it will be possible to expedite the passage of law reform legislation through the House by the combined use of a Select Committee and a Standing Committee as happens at the moment with consolidation legislation.
      I would like to see Ministers answerable in the House for the efficient administration of the courts as well as for the efficient and wide availability of legal aid. I want to see a department which will develop a comprehensive—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed. until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Mr. Fraser: I want to see a department which will develop a comprehensive coverage of advice and representation across the nation, not just including the legal professions, but encompassing advice agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux, which would assist a network of law centres supported by central and local government. It should be sufficient to meet the needs of the population and be assured of independence. I would like
      580
      to see a coverage of representation and assistance for tribunals no matter what their nature. We want to develop a system of advice and representation, both lay and professional, which ensures that no man or woman's rights are diminished or abrogated because of a lack of advice, help or representation.
      Those matters should be given more attention by the House. A department of legal administration could be examined critically and constructively. There is no reason why those matters should not be the subject of more political debate and controversy in the House. The administration of justice should not be remote or mysterious. We want to bring the large amount of spending and other important matters concerning the administration of justice into the House under a prime department for the first time.
      I want now in contrast to consider the establishment of a judicial appointments commission. That would remove political control and the exclusive nominal control of appointments from the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister, who are both Cabinet members. I do not want to criticise the way in which the present Lord Chancellor has conducted his duties as he is responsible for the appointment of the judiciary. I have great admiration for the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the way in which it assembles information and gathers intelligence to make judicial appointments.
      However, I am sure that it is wrong that such a duty should be undertaken by a political Minister. The number of appointments is now so much greater than when the system was traditionally under the control of the Lord Chancellor. For example, there are 920 judicial appointments, excluding appeal and High Court judges, and there are thousands of magistrates. The overriding principle would be the independent and efficient administration of justice. However, there are other targets and criteria which we could give to a judicial appointments commission which it could conduct in a way that was free from political control.
      We could ensure that judges were more representative of the communities that they served. Judges are not masters of the community; they are its servants. I know that the Lord Chancellor has taken seriously the importance of the appointment of women, who I am reminded from time to time are not a minority, but the majority in our society. I know that he also takes seriously the appointment of black people and other representatives of ethnic minorities in this country. However, if we had a judicial appointments commission it would be possible to be more expansive and imaginative and to invite more ideas about the way in which we could make the judiciary and the bench more representative of the population they serve.
      Despite the good faith and good intentions of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the judiciary simply does not reflect the composition of the country. There are 408 circuit judges presiding over Crown courts and county courts, but only 17 of them are women. There are 216 county court registrars, of whom only four are women. There are 49 stipendiary magistrates, of whom eight are women, a rather better figure. Industrial tribunals deal with employment cases and sexual and racial discrimination. Of 64 full-time chairs of industrial tribunals, only six are women. There is only one woman out of 16 social

      581
      security commissioners, and there is only one woman out of 14 chairs of social security appeal tribunals. Much though we may try, it is simply not good enough.
      We need a commission which is set targets and criteria so that appointments to the judiciary and chairs of tribunals reflect the community they serve, including women and other groups.
      We should encourage a career structure in the judiciary where it is not always possible for someone with 10 years' experience in the courts to go straight to being a judge. Some people may find it much more difficult to achieve a judicial post because of their career patterns and experience. There is no reason why someone should not be appointed chair of a tribunal and, if they prove themselves to be good after serving for a short time in that capacity, to move to a higher or different judicial appointment so that a career pattern would be created within the judiciary in addition to the traditional pattern of serving as an advocate and then being appointed, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently, as a judge.
      Such a commission would encourage our judges to be more accountable and discuss more constructively the nature of their work and the way in which they approach it. Having removed judicial appointments from political control, it might be easier to rebuke and, if necessary, dismiss judges. I know that we are not here to criticise individual judges, but there is much concern about judges who say that women are liable to be raped if they walk home alone on a dark night. There have been examples of judges who appear to be out of tune with the needs and views of the community that they serve. A commission removed from political control would be freer to deal with such matters.
      We want a judicial appointments commission which is transparent in its operations. I am not suggesting that confidential information that affects whether someone should be appointed should be entirely open and that people should have to disclose the sources of that information, but the way in which the system works has to be transparent. Those who seek an appointment need to know what has been said about them and to be given an opportunity to counter any unfavourable statements that might damage their possible career in the judiciary. We want a system that is transparent and imaginative.
      One of the proposals involves a more vigorous political debate about the administration of the law, the efficient conduct of our courts, the expenditure of money and the extent of legal aid. We want one vigorous political department dealing with the administration and reform of the law. In contrast, we want another body that is independent of politics, that is transparent and that perhaps will approach more imaginatively the task of recruiting, training and appointing judges. Both propositions are needed, and I hope that they will be supported.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: It is one of the ironies of a Report stage such as this when we come under pressure of time that a whole galaxy of worthy and interesting subjects comes up for discussion. It is tempting to let loose, particularly about a ministry of justice or a department of legal administration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be relieved to know that I shall resist that temptation and speak briefly, perhaps wearing my Law Society hat, to register a genuine anxiety about the new clause 26 which deals with a judicial appointments commission.
      582
      Our judicial appointments system is historic, thorough and experienced, but it is perhaps one of the most closed and charmed systems in the land. We touched on that in Committee. I do not criticise the system as such, but its nature does not exactly charm most solicitors. Indeed, they feel somewhat outside the system of selection at the very time when they are penetrating the higher courts. taking on judicial appointments and hoping to take over more of them. That is a serious concern.
      I have definite sympathy with new clause 26, as does the Law Society, and I hope for some suitably reassuring words from my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Bermingham: I wish to raise one matter on new clause 24. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) referred to the rights of the victim. I have some questions for the Attorney-General.
      Why will the Legal Aid Board not grant the cost of experts in many defence cases of serious crime? That is a serious matter. For example, in a car ringing case, the Crown had experts in engineering and motor sciences. The defence asked for an engineering expert because the Crown's evidence was to be challenged, but the request was refused. Is that justice?
      Why has a senior judge found it necessary to write to the Director General of Public Prosecutions with anxieties about the competence of counsel in certain prosecutions in the south-eastern circuit? Why has a certain criminal court judge written to a senior member of the Bar—I am prepared to supply his name to the Attorney-General—about exactly the same question? Why is there a general belief that grade 3 barristers are not being briefed and grade 3 work is being sent to grade 2 barristers? Could it be that the Crown prosecution service is being starved of funds and therefore cannot brief competently?
      Is that why briefs on rape cases, which must be tried in the central criminal courts, are being touted around the Temple in an attempt to find a prosecuting barrister? Will that bring justice to the rape victim who has a right for her case, which is the Crown's case, to be put properly in our courts? Could it just be that the Treasury purse strings are operating in such a way as to constrain and restrict the right of the Crown prosecution service to brief the most competent and best counsel? Is it right that a considerable number of the best and most competent senior juniors seem to be ceasing to do prosecution work? Is that in the interests of society?
      The Attorney-General will say that I should ask the Minister responsible, but who, bar the Attorney-General, is responsible and answerable to us? If we had a ministry of justice and a Select Committee to oversee those matters, the Select Committee could call witnesses and ask questions. I have been a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee for some years. We can touch upon certain little matters because our brief carries us that far, but we cannot touch on the Lord Chancellor's Department, and we cannot touch on other matters to do with legal aid.
      We can touch, however, as we did recently—although I declared an interest and did not take part in the inquiry—on the Crown prosecution service. Would it not be wiser if all the spending Departments were under one Ministry, with a Minister answerable at the Dispatch Box, fortnight in and fortnight out, not just for 15 minutes at Attorney-General's Question Time but for perhaps an hour, as many other Ministers are?

      583
      These matters are of considerable importance to men and women in the street. Whether we defend them properly or prosecute them properly is a matter of concern to society. The victim and the defendant have interests, and the Treasury's cold hand seems to be causing damage to both.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Vaz: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said that he was concerned that so many new and radical ideas that have been put forward not just by the Government but by the Opposition are being considered so late at night and in such a brief time. He was quite right. That is why, at the start of the proceedings, I raised a point of order about the allocated time preventing hon. Members from carefully considering the many amendments to the extent that we would like.
      This new clause places on record the cornerstone of the Labour party's policy on legal affairs. I am not particularly friendly towards the name "Department of Legal Administration". It sounds a bit Jim Hackerish. I have raised this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). What's in a name? I am sure that we could make progress in terms of what we call our ministry of justice because of the important role that it will play in the administration of policy when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon takes over as the Secretary of State for justice or legal administration and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) takes over as his deputy. It will mean a radical departure in legal administration.
      Hon. Members have heard much praise for the Lord Chancellor in respect of this and other Bills which have been initiated by him. I must admit that I have never seen the Lord Chancellor in the other place. Marvellous tablets of stone come down from the other place to be discussed in this place. They then go back amended—if one can amend tablets of stone—and we never get the chance to question the Lord Chancellor or ask him to tell the House his thinking behind certain aspects of policy.
      One of the most important aspects of the creation of a department of legal administration is the presence in the House of a Minister accountable to Parliament and responsible for a whole Government Department which is of major concern to ordinary citizens. There is no point in giving rights to people, either nationally or locally, if those rights cannot be enforced properly. With this new clause, we seek to ensure that a Minister will be responsible for those aspects of policy and can be questioned.
      I agree with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who said that 15 minutes of questioning every three weeks is not enough. We should like to see the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General much more often in the House. I am disappointed when I have to read about developments such as the initiation of the family hearing centres in newspapers and in press releases from the Lord Chancellor. I should much prefer the Attorney-General to come before the House and make such statements as a Minister with responsibility for a whole Department.
      My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South is the most senior member of the Select Committee on Home
      584
      Affairs, on which I serve. He is right when he says that that Committee does not have time to ensure that the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department is scrutinised. I know what the Attorney-General will say. He will say that a major inquiry has been held into the Crown prosecution service. I believe that that was the first major inquiry into the workings of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
      There are many other policy aspects that the Select Committee has not dealt with. I should like an inquiry to be held into the administration of the legal aid fund. We have been unable to hold such an inquiry. I should like an inquiry into the administration of justice in civil cases, but the Select Committee has not had time to do that. I should like an inquiry to be held into judicial appointments. It cannot be done, because the Select Committee does not have sufficient time in which to hold such an inquiry. Because of the number of inquiries that the Select Committee is to undertake in the next year, there will be insufficient time to inquire into even one part of the operation of the Lord Chancellor's Department. That is why a Department with a Minister responsible to the House of Commons is needed. A Select Committee which could carefully scrutinise the work of that Department is also needed.
      We should also like the Attorney-General to tell us more about the Crown prosecution service. When a Minister is made responsible to the House of Commons, we hope that detailed debates will be held into the operation of the Crown prosecution service. Despite the fact that a major inquiry has been held into the Crown prosecution service, it has been debated in this place only once. When I was fortunate enough to win first place in the ballot for Adjournment debates, I decided that we should debate the Crown prosecution service. That was the first occasion on which the Attorney-General came to the House and admitted that the operation of the Crown prosecution service was causing problems.
      I went to Nottingham a couple of weeks ago to address the annual general meeting of the Law Centres Federation. I hope that one of the first tasks of the new secretary of state for justice, or minister with responsibility for the department of legal administration will be to ensure that there is a network of law centres throughout the country. It has long been the Labour party's policy to establish a law centres network. Certain parts of the country—Croydon is one—have no ready access to law centres.
      I worked for three years in a law centre in Leicester. There is no better way for citizens to obtain quick, efficient and cheap advice than from law centres. We should consider the possibility of creating a network of law centres that makes use of the services of those who work in citizens advice bureaux. I hope that, when my right hon. and hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) starts his first day as Minister with responsibility for these matters, he will announce to the House the creation of a network that we have talked about for 11 years but that we have had no chance to initiate.
      I strongly support the new clause and I hope very much that the Attorney-General will support it too. If he does, he will have the privilege of being the first Minister in the history of Parliament to be totally responsible for a Government Department of legal administration. We shall be happy to give him that privilege, because the principle is so important.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak to the new clause which stands in my name. I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for taking the two principles that I tried to embody in amendments that I tabled in Committee and turning them into something much more effective than I was capable of doing. The two new clauses embody two important principles to which I am strongly attached.
      The first is a ministry of justice. I make no apology for discussing such principles this late at night. It is not our fault that we are forced to debate major issues such as this at the tail end—one might say the fag end—of the Session and late at night. It is the fault of the Government's casual DIY approach to the Bill. They have rushed in long, complicated clauses on Report after the Bill has passed through the House of Lords and Committee. They did so to pre-empt the time necessary to discuss the fundamental principles behind the new clause.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) I prefer to call the ministry of justice the department of justice, because the present title is somewhat cumbersome. A ministry of justice is a vital principle. 1 have always been an advocate of relieving the Lord Chancellor of certain functions. I yield to none in my admiration for the present Lord Chancellor. He is a breath of fresh air, vigour and reform, partly because he comes from the different and somewhat better legal tradition in Scotland. He has come to the job with clear, fresh eyes and a vigour of which the conservative profession in England was not capable.
      It has always seemed to me that the tripartite role could best be dealt with by removing the Lord Chancellor's function as a judge and employing a benign and avuncular actor to preside over the deliberations in another place. Robert Morley springs instantly to mind, or perhaps Lord Hailsham could make a comeback in his successful career of presiding over another place. I would transfer the functions specified in new clause 24 to a proper ministry of justice of the kind that every civilised country has and which we, too, should have.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East has made the case for the new clause eloquently and articulately. I shall not repeat it. It is important that the principles embodied in the new clause are discussed in the House. There is no doubt that, if we had had a ministry of justice, we could have achieved reforms in the judicial system, reforms in the appointment of judges and law reforms such as that which my hon. Friend mentioned, and which I too would like to see, to provide for a system of law shops. In such centres justice could be provided quickly and effectively to people who came in off the street. The awe, mystique and expense of justice would be removed. If we had had a ministry of justice, we as politicians accountable to the people would have seen the inadequacies of the system and pressed for change. Only that insulation from pressure has made the system of justice so inaccountable.
      The judicial system is at the end of the day a service industry that must serve the purposes of the people. For that, the voice of the people must be influential. It must be heard. The system must be accountable to the representatives of the people in those important functions and provisions. That is the basic principle. If the system was accountable to the House we would have a better and more adequate system.
      586
      New clause 26 would create a judicial appointment commission. It deals with the basic question of the nature of judges. I emphasise two points. First, we need proper and adequate training to create a genuinely trained professional body of judges such as exists in the rather different system in France. The judge is the last bastion of the English amateur tradition which has been inadequate in so many respects. If we had a proper system of training provided by the judicial appointments commission proposed in the new clause, and a staff college for judges, we would have a more effective system of justice. A more representative body of judges would be achieved by that method.
      It is interesting that the incoming president of the Law Society has made one of his aims for the year to secure a more representative body of judges—a wider range of appointments. He wants to see solicitors appointed. We have heard comments from many sources about the unrepresentative nature of the bench. Sir David Napley, a former president of the Law Society, said:
      "The appointment of judges has long been in need of radical overhaul. It's too tied up with the old boy network."
      He said that it is clear that the appointment of judges
      "should be subject to independent scrutiny."
      I echo those comments. We have an unrepresentative body of judges which needs to be made more representative. It needs to be made professional by a judicial appointments committee.
      10.30 pm
      The people who have the greatest control over the appointment of judges seem to be incumbent judges. Every new High Court appointment is preceded by a meeting between the Lord Chancellor and the heads of divisions. They exercise a negative veto. All sorts of reports and complaints can be brought to bear against people put forward. The system is controlled not by politicians but by the incumbents. That means that it is not responsive to social developments in our society. It is a self-reinforcing system. The judges, seeing themselves as the fount of wisdom, like to see new judges as chaps like themselves. That is one of the main road blocks on the way to reform.
      There can be no argument about the unrepresentative nature of judges. A report of research by Lord Gifford published in 1986 says:
      "judges are from a narrow social background, almost all white, male, upper middle-class, from an independent school and Oxbridge."
      The Labour research department did a study of 465 judges, which was published in January 1987. It said tha more than one in three of them is past the state retirement age of 65. Age does not necessarily bring wisdom, although in my own case it does. It has been said of others that they immature with age, but I do not think that that can be said of me. Age is no automatic guarantee of wisdom. It is open to question whether we are keeping judges on for too long in the present structure.
      Only 17 of the 465 judges were women and there was only one black judge, although there were four judges of white South African extraction. The report looked at all the categories of judges and proved that the exclusive nature exists at all levels of the system.
      I tabled some questions to the Attorney-General a couple of weeks ago. They yielded the information that there are 83 High Court judges, of whom 27·7 per cent. are aged between 60 and 69 and 10 to 12 per cent. between 70

      587
      and 75. They are obviously youthful and vigorous and full of new ideas, ready to respond to the challenges of change and adjust to the new society in which we live.
      The second question to the Attorney-General yielded the information that 77 per cent. of the 83 High Court judges went to schools listed in the Independent Schools Yearbook. That means that they went to private schools. Some 80 of them, 96 per cent., went to university, and 84 per cent. of them went to either Oxford or Cambridge. They were all chaps drawn from that narrow, class background and, in almost every case, from the Bar, which is unrepresentative and, given the pattern of entry to it, will remain so. It is almost essential to have either a working wife or private wealth to persevere through the system.
      Mr. Bermingham indicated dissent.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am not quite sure what help my hon. Friend had, but he certainly did not have a bursary while working part-time in another job. It is necessary to come from a fairly substantial background. That means that judges represent a class, a restrictive range—
      Mr. Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Mitchell: I was merely making a joke.
      That narrow range means that they are prejudiced because the judges are not representative of the wide range of views in a pluralistic society as they should be because they are dealing with that society's problems. It is partly that narrow, restrictive range and backgroud that gives judges their attitude and makes them see themselves not as protecters of the liberty of the subject or guarantors of the rights of people who want to be empowered in our society, but as the defenders of the Executive. They see themselves as lions under the throne, rather than defenders of rights.
      That is a tragedy to those of us who would like to see some definition of rights. I was one of three Labour Members who voted for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law. Now, 230 Labour Members believe in it because it has become party policy, but we three were a little advanced because we did so before that. But it is difficult to justify that incorporation given that we cannot trust the judges because they come from such a narrow range and have such a restricted set of attitudes.
      I was fascinated to read in a recent book by Professor Keith Ewing, "Freedom Under Thatcher", arguments that point to the conclusion that it is difficult to have a Bill of Rights in this country when we have such a narrow, unrepresentative range of judges with such prejudiced attitudes. It makes the point that, had Robert Bork been proposed for high judicial office in this country, as he was in the United States, he would have been appointed. There would have been no criticism, no review, no possible contest in the House of Commons. We have no accountability to reveal the weaknesses or attitudes of such people.
      The book goes on to argue that we have a narrow, unrepresentative range of people, adjudicating on issues such as a woman's right to abortion. Such wide social issues are determined by a group of men, appointed from the same background. Judges are given the power to disrupt decisions and adjustments made by the processes of politics, which are those of persuasion, compromise and agreement. From their restricted background the judges
      588
      blunder into difficult ethical, social and political matters which are then subject to the prejudices of that narrow range of people.
      It is interesting that so many of the legislative developments, the restrictions of freedom, which have gone on under this Government, were anticipated by judicial development before Parliament passed the legislation to consolidate them—for example, the police power to regulate public assemblies in the Public Order Act 1986. Many of the restrictions on political freedom that have taken place in the 1980s have not been the result of legislation, but judge-made initiatives, authorising the extension of Executive power. The judges anticipated and sanctified the restrictions on freedom of movement, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly because they come from such a narrow range of backgrounds.
      I should like to quote the remarks on social issues of one or two of this ancient, white, unrepresentative group of judges. Judge Raymond Dean told a rape trial jury:
      "When a woman says no. she doesn't always mean it."
      Judge Bertrand Richards, of Lancing college and Oxford, told a woman who had been raped that she was guilty—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying quite a long way from the new clauses, and his comments are not relevant to what we are debating. I should be glad if he would return to the points in the new clauses.
      Mr. Mitchell: I should have thought it perfectly legitimate to quote the judges to illustrate the unrepresentative composition of the bench of judges, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I shall move on.
      We propose a way of ensuring that the judges are more representative, that they are trained to do the job, and that they view themselves not as lions under the throne defending the Executive but as defenders of the rights of the people. The judicial appointments commission proposed in the new clause is rather like the sort of civil service commission which has given us such a high quality of civil servants. Why should not the judges be subjected to that sort of commission's search for excellence?
      I commend those points to the House as major advances.
      The Attorney-General: It is characteristic of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that, having indulged himself in a recitation of a well-known operatic style of denunciation of the judges, he should now go off to talk to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). Nevertheless, I invite him to deal with the facts.
      The hon. Gentleman regaled us with a long catalogue of supposed illustrations of the bias of the judiciary towards the Executive. I cannot quote him verbatim because he spoke at such length and with such rapidity, but in essence he said that the judges are on the side of the Executive and have never done anything to protect the liberty of the subject.
      I should like the hon. Gentleman to think about the emergence of judicial review, of which I do not doubt he has heard. Judicial review was not the creation of this House—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will not leave the Chamber now, because I want him, if he will be good enough to do so, to pay attention. Judicial review was not the creation, as I say, of Parliament; it has been the creation of the judges over the

      589
      past 25 years. It has been a proper curb on the exercise of power by the Executive. Is not it strange that this socially privileged, biased and protected judiciary should have set about finding a means with which to protect the individual against the Executive and excessive use of power? That is something of an anomaly, given the pattern with which the hon. Gentleman regaled us.
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby must think about this: judicial review is the one way, in the absence of a written constitution, in which the courts can acquire jurisdiction over the use of Executive power. That blows the whole of the hon. Gentleman's thesis out of the water—
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      The Attorney-General: I shall not. It is 10.45 pm, and we have already listened to the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Attorney-General has patronised my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He is making highly personal comments, yet refuses to give way.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order for me? I do not think that there is one.
      The Attorney-General: For about half an hour the hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke on a fairly familiar theme. The two new clauses contain much of obvious importance. For example, the importance of the selection of the judiciary is self-evident. We should approach the matter upon the basis of a sensible appreciation of what judges do and their record. Those of us who know the people who became judges in the time that we have been in the profession, know that is absurd to say that there is some sort of bias towards a social background of one kind or another. The same applies to those who are called to the Bar or who become solicitors.
      10.45 pm
      There is a disproportionate number of women judges, but one must remember that judges are appointed from the legal profession and the Bill seeks to broaden the pool from which the judiciary can in future be recruited. The Government are entitled to credit for that. Because of the demands imposed by practice at the Bar, it is harder for women than for men to make a go of the Bar. We hope that the position is improving. I think that I am right in saying that at present more than 50 per cent. of students admitted to the Inns of Court are women.
      It is extremely important for the judiciary to be representative, and the Lord Chancellor has taken substantial steps to see that numerically and in other ways the judiciary becomes more representative of the community.
      New clause 26 deals with the appointment of a judicial appointments commission. The Lord Chancellor's practice, which has been followed by all his recent predecessors, is to take full and careful advice. That means wide and continuing consultation with the judiciary and the leaders of the profession. Much work has been carried out by his Department to identify the best candidates. It is wrong to say that the Lord Chancellor is not responsible and not answerable. He is answerable to the House of
      590
      Lords and, by reason of our arrangements, I am answerable to the House of Commons for the Lord Chancellor's business.
      If there were a series of bad appointments, the Lord Chancellor would be called to answer for that, and so would I. It is a mistake to suggest that, per se, a commission is likely to be better at achieving the results that we all want than the Lord Chancellor, who uses the machinery at his disposal, and consultation. In the past 10 years, the system has been greatly improved. There is no secrecy about it, and the Lord Chancellor's predecessor published a book entitled "Judicial Appointments", which brought matters into the open. Consultation is now wider than it has ever been and thought is continually being given to the best methods of gaining information on possible black, women and solicitor candidates. A two-year experimental initiative has been set up in limited parts of the country to identify solicitor candidates for part-time judicial appointments. Much more is being done.
      It is satisfactory that an increasing number of black and women barristers are progressing successfully at the Bar. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke about judicial training, which is important. I do not go along with his comparison with the French judiciary. That would require much more research than the hon. Gentleman has been able to give it. The Judicial Studies Board is worthy of his attention, as is the work that is put in nowadays to training the judiciary at every level, rather than just after judges are appointed. Great progress has been made in that regard.
      New clause 24 would create a department of legal administration, answerable through a Minister or Ministers to the House of Commons. Although it is proper for hon. Members to put forward the arguments that they have made tonight, it is not a practical proposition to incorporate into the Bill, without even discussion in Committee, such a major constitutional change. The clause would make a Minister in the House of Commons responsible for administration of the courts, appointment of the judiciary, legal services and most of the other functions that at the moment fall to the Lord Chancellor and his Department. That is undesirable.
      I feel that there is great merit in having the Lord Chancellor sitting in the House of Lords, as he is thereby removed from the full force of party politics. That helps to protect and maintain more effectively the independence of the judiciary. The Lord Chancellor remains accountable to Parliament as a whole for the way in which he carries out his ministerial duties, in the same way as those Secretaries of State who have been Members of the other place have been. The Law Officers answer for the Lord Chancellor in the Commons. I do not know whether the House considers that satisfactory, but it gives the Treasury value for money.
      The new clause would also establish a statutory judicial appointments commission. That proposal was considered by the Government, and rejected as not offering the same advantages as the present system. It also suggests that the Lord Chancellor should be responsible for supervision of the legal profession. He has a general responsibility for the health of the legal and judicial systems, but it is no part of the Bill to give him the task of supervising the legal profession directly. That would provide the means for unacceptable interference by the Government in the affairs of the independent and self-governing professions. Those are major disadvantages.

      591
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, South asked four factual questions, of which the first was: why will not the Legal Aid Board grant the costs of experts in criminal cases? That is a good question to put to the board, which is independent. I am prepared to answer for anything in the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, provided that the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to write to me about it, and give me particulars.
      The hon. Gentleman's second question was: why has a senior judge had to write about the competence of prosecuting counsel? If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about that and to give me the particulars, he knows that I shall deal with it. The next two questions were: why is grade 2 work being given to grade 3 people, and is it because of shortage of funds in the CPS? Why are rape prosecutions being hawked around the Temple, and is it because the fees are not enough? Under our present arrangements, all those questions can be put to me, provided that the hon. Gentleman raises them, and I will answer them, as he knows. It does not need the paraphernalia of a department of legal administration to be set up to get somebody to answer such practical questions here in the House.
      I have enjoyed listening to the arguments. The horse has been trotted out, although not to a crowded grandstand. I understand that it represents the Labour party's policy in those matters, but I must invite the House to reject the new clause.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 2

      TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN COURTS
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 36, after 'any' insert 'judge, district judge or'.
      The amendment clarifies an unintended obscurity in the powers of judicial officers.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      COSTS
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 7, line 16, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.
      No. 14, in page 7, line 22, at end insert—
      '(5A) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1), the court may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules of court.
      (5B) In subsection (5A), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

      (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or

      (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

      No. 15, in page 8, line 4, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.
      No. 16, in page 8, line 7, at end insert—
      '(2) In section 52 of that Act (costs in Crown Court) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
      592
      "(2A) Subsection (5A) of section 51 applies in relation to any civil proceedings in the Crown Court as it applies in relation to any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) of that section".'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 5

      WITNESS STATEMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 8, line 12, eave out 'lead' and insert 'adduce'.
      No. 18, in page 8, line 17, leave out 'leading' and insert 'adducing'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 9

      REPRESENTATION IN CERTAIN COUNTY COURT CASES
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in page 9, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 10.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 104, 106, 109, 113 to 115, 117 to 122 and 124 to 127.
      The Attorney-General: These are drafting amendments consequential upon the introduction of the categories of authorised advocates and authorised litigators.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: My concern and my regret is the passing of the term "barrister" from a term of definition to merely one of art. For many centuries now there have been barristers in this country and the degree of barrister has been a qualification, when some years' experience have been added to it, for certain types of office, including judicial office. Many of us here, including myself and including the Law Officers, are proud to be barristers and to hold that degree.
      In amendments Nos. 114 and 118 we see two of the many examples—there will be many more to come in other legislation—of the disappearance of the term "barrister" from our statutory law.
      Amendment No. 114 goes further than merely the removal of a term or definition. It deals with the Crown prosecution service and substitutes for the words
      "who is a barrister or solicitor"
      the words
      "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)."
      That involves the potential dilution of standards; the sacrifice of useful experience and qualification for no apparently good purpose.
      Under the amendment, instead of the Crown prosecutor in question being a barrister or solicitor, that person could be anyone with full rights of audience in the magistrates court. So we are going down a standard, from someone with rights of audience in the Crown court to anyone with full rights of audience in the magistrates court. I wonder, first, why we have to do away with the definition of barrister and, secondly, why we have to put up with the potential dilution of standards in that way.
      Amendment No. 118 deals with the important Supreme Court rule committee. As the Attorney-General knows, by virtue of clause 7 the rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal can be curtailed by the Supreme Court rule committee. Up to now it has been necessary to have on that committee two barristers and two solicitors, ensuring that the committee always has upon it a reasonable

      593
      representation of people experienced in the use of the courts, the High Court in particular, both at the preparation stage and at the advocacy stage.
      Amendment No. 118 will substitute a provision which could mean that there would be no barristers on the Supreme Court rule committee. That raises the potential of a committee dealing with important matters which could lack those very people who have the greatest and most direct experience of the matters which will be considered by the committee. I cannot see how that will help the administration of justice and I invite the Government to address those issues once again.
      The Attorney-General: As always, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) makes a carefully prepared speech, and I shall naturally ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the Government take careful note of his points. I am sympathetic to what he said about the diminished use of the description of a barrister. The same could be said about the description of a solicitor. We are reluctant for that historic nomenclature to be less widely used and we have therefore considered the drafting of the amendments carefully and on a number of occasions. That consideration has made it clear that attempting to graft references to those who acquire new rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation on to the existing nomenclature would be less clear and considerably more cumbersome.
      11 pm
      The hon. and learned Gentleman noted and acknowledged that the nomenclature is employed, and that what matters is very much more the substance than the form. For example, clause 29 states:
      "On the coming into force of section 25—
      (a) barristers shall be deemed to have been granted by the General Council of the Bar the rights of audience exercisable by barristers (in their capacity as such)".
      Of course, the nomenclature is by no means abandoned.
      I have responded with sympathy to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and I shall ensure that what he has said is properly taken into account.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11

      ADMINISTRATION ORDERS
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 12, leave out line 28 and insert
      'relates to the non-payment of charges incurred by the debtor after the making of the order or is unconnected with non-payment by him of any charges.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendment No. 20.
      The Solicitor-General: These amendments arise from a matter that we debated in some detail in Committee. Amendment No. 19 simply provides that, in administration orders in bankruptcy, in so far as debts are incurred in relation to public utilities after the administration order has been made it will be possible for that public utility to withdraw supply. It is a matter wholly separate from the safeguards for consumers and relates to the sensible management of administration.
      Amendment No. 20 deals only with the renaming of British Gas plc.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I raised the matter in Committee. I have discussed it with Mr. David Linton, who is the chief legal adviser to MANWEB. I am grateful to the Government, as are MANWEB and similar undertakings, for the care that has been taken in bringing forward the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 20, in page 12, line 30, leave out 'the British Gas Corporation or'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 15

      THE STATUTORY OBJECTIVE AND THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 15, line 38, leave out 'those' and insert 'the'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 98 to 101.
      The Attorney-General: Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 100 are minor drafting amendments designed to remove an element of ambiguity that may have crept into clause 15 as a result of previous amendments.
      On amendments Nos. 99 and 101, after the explanation that I gave in Committee of the purpose and effect of what we called the cab-rank rule in clause 15, concerns were expressed about the exact interpretation of subsection (3)(c). They arose in particular to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) about rules permitting an individual advocate to refuse a case on grounds relating to the amount of remuneration offered.
      Having responded to the substance of the question, which I think correctly represented the Government's view, I later felt that I had compressed the necessary context of how the new provisions would affect the process by which decisions are taken under the Bill. The Government have reconsidered whether it is possible to express more clearly not only the obligations that subsection (3)(c)(iii) will require an authorised body to place on individual advocates, but the precise remit of the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges in approving or reviewing such rules. The amendments are designed to achieve that clarification.
      I will begin by putting beyond doubt the Government's position. We could not and would not wish to impose a statutory obligation on a professional body as a whole or on individual advocates to undertake legal aid cases no matter what the level of remuneration payable. To do so would interfere with the careful balance struck in the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 dealing with remuneration.
      The essence of those provisions is to empower the Lord Chancellor to set remuneration rates that are enough, but not more than enough, to attract lawyers to do the work. Clearly, compulsion is incompatible with that. Even more importantly, compulsion would imperil the freedom of the individual practitioner and also the legal profession itself.
      The Government are also concerned not to restrict the freedom of individual advocates in a number of other circumstances. It must not be possible, for example, for particular litigators to choose to send particular advocates so great a volume of legal aid work that those advocates are unable to structure their practices in the way that they

      595
      want or to undertake other work. It is important that the legislation is couched in such a way as to allow professional bodies and the new framework the maximum flexibility possible to deal with such situations, consistent with the efficient and proper administration of justice.
      There is no reason to accept the argument that different requirements imposed on advocates of different backgrounds automatically constitute an unlevel playing field. The differences may be justified, necessary and fair.
      That being the case, I am introducing the amendments to remove an ambiguity that some people believe exists in the current drafting of clause 15. Confusion has arisen mainly because of the phrase in subsection (3)(c)(iii):
      "the nature of the source of any financial support".
      The intention behind that phrase was to differentiate between the source of any financial support narrowly considered and certain of its other characteristics. The new machinery set up under the Bill would not be obliged to strike down every professional rule that allowed an exception to the principle of non-discrimination.
      The Government believe that if such a rule were framed in terms of accepting or refusing work simply on the basis of whether or not it was legally aided, it would not be acceptable. The legislation ought to require those comprising the machinery to strike it down. By contrast, the Government do not believe that the machinery ought to be able to strike down a rule that permitted an advocate to refuse a legally aided case where there are reasonable grounds for him considering that the fee is not a suitable one for him in all the circumstances, when his standing, seniority and standing will be relevant.
      The test of reasonableness is an objective one, and the advocate in a given instance would have to defend his application of it.
      Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for confirming that the reasonable grounds for objection will be objective and not subjective, but can he confirm that, for the purposes of subsection (5), "reasonable grounds" will be a matter for the new machinery to consider?
      The Attorney-General: Yes, I think that that is the case. What is claimed to be a reasonable ground can be the subject of an objective test, and it will fall to those who comprise the machinery to determine whether or not it is satisfied in a given case.
      Subsection (5) will provide a statutory clarification of the extent of the general principle of the nondiscrimination rule. It will now be provided that the rule shall not be taken as incompatible with the general principle if it allows the advocate or litigator to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider—having regard to the circumstances of the case, the nature of his practice, or his experience and standing—that he is not being offered a proper fee.
      As I have stated, the test of reasonableness is objective and the individual will have to defend it. Although the advisory committee will be free to consider the merits of rules which go beyond the statutory requirements of clause 15(3)(c)(iii), the committee and those comprising the rest of the machinery will be precluded from finding that the
      596
      interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice require a legal practitioner to act if he is not to be properly remunerated for his services.
      I have perhaps spent rather too long moving the amendment, but the matter has been of the greatest concern to the legal profession, and quite properly so. I believe that, as a consequence of the substantial consultations that have taken place, the amendment meets reasonably the concerns that have properly been expressed and I hope that it will receive the approval of the House.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The Attorney-General was right to state that there has been extensive consultation about the matter. I am sure that all sides of the profession, and certainly the Bar, are grateful for the extent of the consultation.
      As the Government are aware, the Bar has taken a strong line with its members in relation to legal aid. It has gone so far as to say that it should be a principle that, if a barrister is offered a brief in a field in which he is sufficiently expert, at a level appropriate for his practice, even if it is a legal aid case, he should take it. Indeed, the rule at the moment is that he must take it. I understand the difficulties that can arise from such a stringent rule, but I suggest that it is a very important principle for the litigant that there should be expert advocates to do all cases requiring such expertise, whether they are privately paid or the subject of legal aid.
      I am grateful to the Attorney-General for confirming that the phrase in amendment No. 101
      "if there are reasonable grounds for him"
      is an objective test and not subjective, and that reasonable grounds for the purposes of new subsection (5) are matters for the new machinery.
      How does amendment No. 101 impinge on legal aid work? Will an advocate be able to decline a legal aid case within his field of practice simply because legal aid rates are lower than his private rates? The way in which that is answered will be extremely important for litigants in future. It may have some little influence on the way in which the machinery approaches those issues.
      The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. The consultation has been worth while. It does not follow that, because legal aid rates may be lower than some private rates, legal aid fees are not to be regarded as proper fees. All the circumstances must be considered. I have identified some that will be of general application, but all the circumstances of a case would have to be looked at and the objective test of reasonableness would then have to be determined. That would be for the new machinery.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 98, in page 15, line 42, leave out 'its' and insert 'the'.
      No. 99, in page 16, line 4 leave out 'the nature of.
      No. 100, in page 16, line 9 leave out 'that body's' and insert 'the'.
      No. 101, in page 16, line 12 at end insert—
      '(5) Rules of conduct which allow a member of the body in question to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider that, having regard to—

      (a) the circumstances of the case;

      (b) the nature of his practice; or

      (c) his experience and standing,

      he is not being offered a proper fee, are not on that account to be taken as being incompatible with the general principle.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 20

      OMBUDSMAN'S FUNCTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 157, in page 18, line 21, after '(a)', insert 'a person who is or was'.
      No. 158, in page 18, line 22, after 'conveyancer', insert 'registered foreign lawyer'.
      No. 159, in page 18, line 23, leave out 'who is and' insert 'and'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 21

      RECOMMENDATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 160, in page 20, line 12, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
      No. 161, in page 20, line 12, after 'made', insert—
      '(bb) any other person with respect to whom the Ombudsman makes a recommendation under subsection (2);'.
      No. 162, in page 20, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 and insert—

      '(i) the person with respect to whom the complaint was made; or

      (ii) any person who, at the material time, was connected with him;

      (c) that—

      (i) the person with respect to whom the complaint was made; or

      (ii) any person who, at the material time, was connected with him,'.

      No. 21, in page 20, line 40, after 'section' insert
      'and any publicity given under subsection (9)'.
      No. 22, in page 21, line 8, at end insert—
      '(9) Where a person is required by subsection (8) to publicise any failure, the Ombudsman may take such steps as he considers reasonable to publicise that failure if—

      (a) the period mentioned in subsection (7) has expired and that person has not complied with subsection (8); or

      (b) the Ombudsman has reasonable cause for believing that that person will not comply with subsection (8) before the end of that period.

      (10) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the Ombudsman under subsection (9) may be recovered by him (as a civil debt) from the person whose failure he has publicised.'.
      No. 163, in page 21, line 8, at end insert—
      '( ) For the purposes of this section, the person with respect to whom a complaint is made ("the first person") and another person ("the second person") are connected if—

      (a) the second person—

      (i) employs the first person; and

      (ii) is an authorised advocate, authorised litigator, duly certificated notary public, licensed conveyancer or partnership;

      (b) they are both partners in the same partnership; or

      (c) the second person is a recognised body which employs the first person or of which the first person is an officer.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 25

      RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE
      11.15 pm
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 22, line 35, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
      '(e) where—

      (i) he is employed (whether wholly or in part), or is otherwise engaged, to assist in the conduct of
      598
      litigation and is doing so under instructions given (either generally or in relation to the proceedings) by a qualified litigator; and

      (ii) the proceedings are being heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court and are not reserved family proceedings.'.

      11.15 pm
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 3, in page 22, line 37, at end insert
      'or before a master of the Supreme Court in hearings for the assessment of damages.'.
      No. 4, in page 22, line 37, at end insert
      'or in chambers in any county court.'.
      No. 131, in page 22, line 37, at end insert
      'or in hearings for the assessment of damages'.
      and Government amendments Nos. 146 to 148.
      The Attorney-General: Amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 147 have been tabled following an undertaking that I gave in Committee to give sympathetic consideration to an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). The customary right of solicitors' clerks to be heard in chambers in county courts is to be recognised in statute. My amendments are a little more complicated than those tabled by the Opposition, so I shall take a short time to explain their effect.
      The Government amendments avoid using the term "solicitors' clerks", which is archaic and imprecise. We prefer the concept of an individual acting on the instructions of a qualified litigator—a description which covers three groups. First, it includes a practising solicitor as defined in clause 17(8)(b); secondly, it includes a corporate body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985; thirdly, it takes in any solicitor referred to in section 88(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974. In addition, although the class of persons being given these rights of audience will usually be employees of such qualified litigators, there will not always exist the legal relationship of master and servant between them.
      The amendments additionally provide a power for the Lord Chancellor to prescribe, with the concurrence of the president of the family division and after consultation with the president of the Law Society, certain categories of family proceedings in which these rights of audience will not subsist as rights, but will be exercisable only at the discretion of the court in individual cases. The reason is that nearly all family business is heard in chambers. That includes family business where representation by non-legal staff may sometimes be inappropriate. It may not be necessary for the power to be used but, especially in the light of the Government's overall strategy for developing family jurisdiction, it is sensible to provide for the possibility of its exercise in future. We have consulted the senior judiciary before tabling these amendments.
      Mr. William Cash: Since 1972, I have been involved in advising the Institute of Legal Executives, and I therefore declare an interest. The amendment in my name and that of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) deals with a question to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General referred.
      The question is whether it should be entirely within the discretion of the judiciary to determine whether people who are members of the institute or other solicitors' clerks should be heard in the proceedings covered by the amendment. Perhaps not from time immemorial, but

      599
      certainly over many generations, it has been accepted that solicitors' clerks and, in this case, fellows of the institute should have competence and, by way of some form of prescription, the right to be heard. The amendment would reserve their position and ensure that they could be heard before a master of the Supreme Court in hearings for the assessment of damages or in chambers in any country court.
      We discussed this subject in Committee. We were given to understand that the fellows of the institute and other solicitors' clerks who qualified would have the right to be heard. It appears from the Government amendment that the right is not given to them in the precise terms for which they hoped. It is of importance to the institute and to solicitors' clerks that they should be heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court. Why does a qualification appear to be imposed on their right to be heard, which has been understood for many generations?
      The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has represented those important members of the legal profession for many years. The amendments that the Government, having taken advice, have found it possible to bring forward, give to those whom my hon. Friend assiduously represents what they reasonably need. We have listened to the representations that have been made. I believe that they now have what they reasonably need, and they certainly have that which the senior judiciary are prepared to support.
      It is, of course, important for that branch of the legal profession, as it is for every other branch, to remember that they are the providers of services—services to clients and to the courts and, through each of those services, to the administration of justice.
      It has been necessary to consult the senior judiciary—it would have been remiss of us if we had not done so—and what is now brought forward in the amendments represents what has the support of the judiciary. I believe that it provides what is reasonably needed and what has been reasonably pressed for.
      Mr. Cash: In the light of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I shall not press my amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 146, in page 23, line 31, at end insert—
      ' "family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989;'.
      No. 147, in page 23, line 35, at end insert—
      ' "qualified litigator" means—

      (i) any practising solicitor ("practising" having the same meaning as in section I7(8)(b));

      (ii) any recognised body; and

      (iii) any person who is exempt from the requirement to hold a practising certificate by virtue of section 88 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (saving for solicitors to public departments and the City of London);'.

      No. 148, in page 23, line 37, at end insert—
      ' "reserved family proceedings" means such category of family proceedings as the Lord Chancellor may, after consulting the President of the Law Society and with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, by order prescribe;'.—[The Attorney-General.]
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 23, line 44, after 'solicitor)' insert
      'section 22 of that Act (unqualified person not to prepare certain documents etc)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 24 to 26, 32, 33 and 71.
      The Attorney-General: These amendments together provide that the holder of the office of official solicitor will automatically, by virtue of his office, be given all necessary powers to perform his functions as official solicitor. They also make technical disapplications of the Solicitors Act 1974 so as to permit persons to exercise advocacy, litigation and probate rights.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 24, in page 23, line 46, leave out from 'audience' to end of line 47.

    Clause 26

      RIGHTS TO CONDUCT LITIGATION
      Amendments made: No. 25 in page 25, line 2, after 'solicitor)' insert
      'section 22 of that Act (unqualified person not to prepare certain documents etc)'.
      No. 26, in page 25, line 4, leave out from 'litigation' to end of line 5.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 45

      PROBATE SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 32. in page 39, line 29, at end insert—
      '(cc) the Official Solicitor;'.
      No. 33, in page 40, line 24, at end insert—
      '(4) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person does any act which would constitute an offence under subsection (1) but for an exemption given to him by this section or by or under any other enactment, he shall not be guilty of an offence under section 22 by virtue of having done that act".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Schedule 16

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT'S
      Amendment made: No. 71, in page 144, line 9, at end insert—
      '. In section 90 of that Act (Official Solicitor) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
      "(3A) The holder for the time being of the office of Official Solicitor shall have the right to conduct litigation in relation to any proceedings.
      (3B) When acting as Official Solicitor a person who would otherwise have the right to conduct litigation by virtue of section 26(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 shall be treated as having acquired that right solely by virtue of subsection (3A)".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 30

      THE LAW SOCIETY: RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE
      Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 28, line 1, leave out 'and rules of conduct'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 141, in page 28, line 6, leave out 'or rules'.
      No. 142, in page 28, line 23, leave out 'or rules of conduct'.
      No. 143, in page 28, line 39, leave out 'and rules'.
      No. 144, in page 28, line 43, leave out 'or rules'.
      Mr. Vaz: The effect of the amendments is to ensure that the Law Society's existing rules of conduct are deemed to have been approved for the purposes of rights of audience in all courts.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Why should they?
      Mr. Vaz: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to speak, he is more than welcome to do so.
      Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Vaz: No. The hon. Gentleman may make his own speech.
      The effect is to ensure that the society's existing rules of conduct are deemed to have been approved not only for the rights of audience which solicitors already possess, but for the rights of audience in higher courts. The Law Society's training regulations, however, would continue to receive deemed approval only in respect of the rights of audience that solicitors already hold. Approval through the schedule 4 mechanism would be needed before solicitors could obtain extended rights of audience.
      Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Vaz: The amendment would remove the spectre of solicitors' rights of audience in the High Court being blocked by judges unreasonably requiring the society to adopt rules that ape the practices of the Bar—"ape" being an appropriate word—such as separating preparation from advocacy, and would thus help to ensure that the will of Parliament was carried out expeditiously.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: The amendment has been ably and succinctly moved by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). At the risk of further incurring the wrath of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. The Law Society's rules of conduct are deemed approved for courts to which solicitors already have access under the Bill, and that means magistrates courts and county courts.
      There can be many substantial actions at county court level. There are many good solicitor—advocates at county court level. The amendment provides a more logical and rational structure by extending this to the higher courts as well. There can be little difference in terms of rules of conduct between what is deemed to be approved for county courts and what at the moment happens in the higher courts under schedule 4.
      This is a logical amendment. The training regulations are new. Solicitors are propping up the rungs of advocacy. As something new, it would need to be dealt with under the schedule 4 procedure, as would any amendments to the existing solicitors' rules of conduct. That seems to me to be sufficient. As for the rules of conduct, deemed approval should apply to all courts.
      There are doubts about the schedule 4 procedure. They were voiced in Committee and have led to the tabling of
      602
      other amendments that relate to the powers of designated judges. If the Government were disposed to accept the amendment, it would resolve some of those doubts.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I assume from the use by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) of the word "ape" that this is some kind of guerrilla warfare by himself and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on behalf of the Law Society. I do not understand how the Law Society, through the hon. Member for Leicester, East, could say in Committee, "When we think about legal executives it is a matter for the new machinery," when it is prepared to say on Report, on a matter that affects the Law Society, that it wants to bypass the new machinery. We have not heard a word that would justify making the Law Society an exception to the rule that the new machinery should decide what are the appropriate rules.
      I regret having to say it, but according to the speeches we have just heard, the Law Society has fallen far below the standard that it generally sets for itself. I hope that we shall hear that the Government resist the amendments stoutly and that these matters will be dealt with by the new machinery.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) either does not understand the framework of the Bill or, regrettably, has misstated it. I must therefore urge the House to resist the amendments. Their effect would be to remove the restrictions as to the extent to which the rules of conduct of the Law Society are deemed to have been properly approved for the purposes of clause 25. The society's rules of conduct would thus be deemed to have been approved in their entirety for the purposes of granting rights of audience and would not require approval or be subject to review on any grounds, including whether or not they would have been approved had they been submitted for approval under the procedure laid down in part I of schedule 4.
      The amendments would therefore significantly undermine the provisions for bringing the Law Society in to the new framework for granting the rights of audience created by this part of the Bill. I was therefore somewhat astonished to hear the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who normally follows our proceedings with great care, say that his amendments would reflect the will of Parliament when the will of Parliament is to create a carefully constructed framework which his amendments would entirely undercut.
      All other bodies seeking to grant rights of audience to their members are to be subject to the requirement that they possess rules of conduct which are, in the view of the Lord Chancellor and of four senior judges, appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice in relation to the court or proceedings in question. By excluding the rules of conduct of the Law Society from the review mechanism established by clause 30, the amendment would set the Law Society outside that framework, in that it would become the only body whose rules of conduct were not open to scrutiny by the advisory committee, the Director General of Fair Trading, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges in respect of its members exercising rights of audience.
      It is hard to find any reason why the Law Society should want these amendments to be put forward on its behalf, or to be accorded this unique privilege. Therefore., I must advise the House to resist them.
      [The Solicitor-General]
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 33

      FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 149, in page 30, line 39, leave out
      'subject to the provisions of this Part'.—[The Solicitor-General]
      11.30 pm
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 31, line 33, at end insert
      '(including conditions as to repayment)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 28.
      The Solicitor-General: These are minor and technical amendments.
      Mr. Vaz: I am somewhat surprised at what the Solicitor-General said. I understood that the amendments dealt with the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. I was given to understand by the Government Whip, who asked me not to speak on the Ways and Means resolution, that the Solicitor-General would speak to the amendments. They are important. They relate directly to the Solicitor-General's letter to me and, I assume, other members of the Committee about the changes that were envisaged on the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board.
      The House may not be aware that this morning members of the Committee received a letter from the Solicitor-General dated 24 July 1990 about the amount of grant that is to be given to the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. It is to be a grant of some £900,000. He went into great detail about exactly what the grant is to be used for. The main emphasis of the letter is the cost per square metre of the premises of the board. He told us that the central charge per square metre is likely to be in the region of £375, with rates—I think that he means poll tax—of some £115 per square metre and maintenance and other charges at approximately £40 per square metre. On the basis of those charges, a quarter of a million pounds in respect of the grant of £900,000 of taxpayers' money is to be paid in rent and rates—or poll tax—for the board.
      The Solicitor-General went on to set out the conditions under which the grant is repayable. He said that the aim is that the board should become self-financing as soon as possible. That is precisely the point that I and other hon. Members raised in Committee. How much of the money will be repayable? Will it be pump-priming money—the phrase used by the Solicitor-General in describing the £460,000 given to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers? When will the board be self-financing? Is there a timetable? All that he said in his letter to me and other members of the Committee was that it would be as soon as possible.
      The Solicitor-General went on to say that any further money would be recouped through subsequent fees. He did not say how much the fees would be. I raise the matter because it is of concern to me. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill and on the Committee on the Legal Aid Bill. I heard the Solicitor-General go on about the need for value for money. The Government are giving
      604
      away almost £1 million of taxpayers' money on a scheme that has no timetable. Is it a bottomless pit? Will he come back at a later stage and say, "£900,000 is not enough because the rent has risen from £250,000 to another figure. We should like some more money, please."?
      It is important that, rather than telling us that the amendments are technical, the Solicitor-General should give us an explanation of them. He also promised on an earlier amendment that he would tell us the amount that he proposes to pay to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. He said earlier—I respected his honesty—that he did not know whether the latest grant of £130,000 would be the final grant paid to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. I saw the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) go to speak to those in the civil service Box, and presumably he was supplied with an answer to the question. When the Solicitor-General replies, I hope that he will convey the answer to the House. If the two figures are added together. we are talking of £1·5 million. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston has moved to the civil service Box once again, so I shall continue until the necessary information is conveyed to the Minister.
      About £1·5 million of taxpayers' money will be paid without any conditions being set. There is no timetable for when the money will come back. We do not know what the fees will be. There is no understanding of how long the enterprise will last. We have not been told how the expenditure will be monitored. We hear, however, that value for money is the prime criterion of the legal aid fund. We wait in hope for answers from the Solicitor-General. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston is about to return to his place. Let us be supplied with the figures. These important amendments should not be passed on the nod, as the Solicitor-General would wish.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is right to describe the amendments as technical. As I explained, the pump-priming funding of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board amounts to about £900,000 a year. I summarised the contents of my letter, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He rightly quoted from it.
      The board must provide itself with suitable accommodation, and it is the sort of board that one would expect to find accommodated in London. That is a major part of the cost. That and other matters are set out in my letter.
      It is not easy to say how quickly the authorised conveyancing practitioners will make application and become self-financing. As there is considerable enthusiasm on the part of several fairly large bodies to participate, I hope that the process will not be over long.
      I have received such advice as can be given on the pump-priming money for the council that will represent the licensed conveyancers. It is not possible to say when the money will cease to be necessary and when the council will become self-financing. That is not entirely surprising. The hon. Member for Leicester, East has had the benefit of being a solicitor, and he is now moving into his new profession. He will appreciate that to start a new profession—albeit a small one with about 700 members—costs money. I have in mind the licensed conveyancers and the expenditure of £430,000 so far. It is the will of Parliament that this should be done. The hon. Gentleman would rightly be the first to complain if Parliament willed the end but not the means.

      605
      The same can be said of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the board as if he were not in favour of it, but I do not think that that is his stance. I think that he accepts that it must be properly funded. We must look to the future to ascertain how quickly it becomes self-financing. I am sorry that I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman further, but I have done my best.
      Mr. Vaz: I am sorry, but I must speak again—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already spoken once. We are on Report. I must now put the Question.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 31, line 36, at end insert—
      '(13) Any sums repaid by the Board in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (11) shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 35

      AUTHORISATION OF PRACTITIONERS
      Amendment made: No. 150, in page 33, line 15, leave out from 'rules' to 'so' and insert
      made by the Board and any regulations made under section 38'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 36

      REFUSAL OF APPROVAL AND IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 34. line 29, at end insert—
      '(8A) Where the Board—

      (a) proposes to impose a condition under this section on an authorised practitioner; and

      (b) is satisfied that the circumstances of the case are exceptional and justify the condition taking effect immediately,

      it may disregard subsections (5) to (8) when imposing the condition.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 30.
      The Solicitor-General: This amendment enables the board, in a case of urgency, to impose a condition on authorisation immediately without having to wait for a period of 28 days to expire within which representations can be made under clause 36.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 151, in page 34, line 34, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 39'.
      No. 30, in page 34, line 34, at end insert—
      '(11) An authorised practitioner who fails to comply with a condition imposed on him under this section shall not thereby cease to be such a practitioner; but in such a case the Board may—

      (a) impose additional, or substituted, conditions on him, or

      (b) revoke or suspend his authorisation in accordance with rules made under section 37(1).'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 38

      REGULATIONS ABOUT COMPETENCE AND CONDUCT ETC. OF AUTHORISED PRACTITIONERS
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 35, line 33, leave out 'potential' and insert 'prospective'.
      This is a technical amendment to ensure consistency throughout the Bill in the nomenclature and use of the word "prospective".
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 35, line 38, at end add—
      '( ) requiring that any authorised practitioner who is proposing to provide conveyancing services to the public by appointing a qualified person (as defined in section 34(6)) in private practice to act on its behalf in connection with the provision of those services shall only appoint such a person;

      (a) where it selects those persons which it appoints to provide conveyancing services on the basis of objective criteria which relate to the quality of the services available from, and the qualifications held by, those persons and their officers, employees or members;

      (b) where such criteria are not applied in a discriminatory manner; and

      (c) where a statement of such criteria is available on request from the authorised practitioner w all qualified persons who may wish to provide conveyancing services on behalf of that authorised practitioner.'.

      The amendment seeks to address the circumstances in which an authorised conveyancing practitioner—that is, one of the banks or building societies which will be receiving almost £1 million per year towards their authorised board to help them out—decides to provide conveyancing services, not through the in-house department but by instructing solicitors or licensed conveyancers in private practice to provide the conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner—that is, the corporate conveyancer. The danger is that authorised practitioners may select only one or two solicitors in a particular area to provide conveyancing services, which could endanger the survival of other independent solicitors and licensed conveyancers.
      The amendment would enable regulations to be made ensuring that authorised practitioners had to select solicitors and licensed conveyancers to act on their behalf on the basis of objective, qualitative criteria and would have to instruct any firm that fulfilled those criteria.
      That reflects the present admirable practice of banks and building societies in not discriminating between one firm of solicitors and another. I hope that that practice, which is to the benefit of solicitors and the client, will be continued. Discriminatory selection by one of the new professions of one of the older professions—not the oldest profession—could be damaging.
      The Solicitor-General: When dealing with old professions, one should not be discriminatory but one should always be discriminating.
      When we discussed this amendment in Committee, I said that I would think about it further. As I said then, the Lord Chancellor's regulations will provide that authorised practitioners must maintain satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in providing services. The

      607
      regulations make provision to ensure the efficient transaction of business. In that context we have thought about the matter.
      Authorised practitioners must bear the requirements in mind when they select a qualified person to act as agent. The Lord Chancellor said recently, however, to the president of the Law Society that it would be a significant advantage to the client to know that solicitors employed as agents by authorised practitioners were fully competent to do the work under the special circumstances that will obtain. Therefore, the Government are prepared to consider whether the regulations—this is how we think that it should be dealt with—should contain criteria for the suitability of solicitor agents.
      The existence of the criteria would be a substantial advantage to solicitors who thought they met them and that they were being unfairly or unjustifiably excluded from the lists of those who authorised practitioners choose to work for them.
      I do not think that, realistically, we can look for the regulations to do more than that. Decisions on how many solicitors to use as possible agents and which ones must be matters for the commercial judgment of authorised practitioners, provided that all agents meet the standards of service that authorised practitioners will be required to uphold.
      As the House will be well aware, the Lord Chancellor has undertaken to consult widely on the regulations and has already asked the president of the Law Society for his views on what criteria should be considered in respect of this matter. I hope that that is a helpful answer which will achieve, as far as possible, in practice—
      Mr. Fraser: That is not a helpful answer because, under the provisions, all the solicitors might come up to standard, but will not be selected.
      The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if my answer was not helpful. We have done our best to think about the matter. It would not necessarily be in the interests of fair competition to attempt to regulate the way in which authorised practitioners, as private businesses, allocated their work. That is an entirely different matter from the allocation of contracts by public authorities. The Government are not likely to be better able than practitioners to guess at appropriate commercial practices. I believe that what the Lord Chancellor has offered to do in relation to the provisions will be of assistance. I am sorry that I cannot offer more than that at present.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 43

      ADVISORY AND SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING
      Amendments made: No. 152, in page 38, line 21, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 38'.
      No. 153, in page 38, line 30, leave out 'this part' and insert 'section 38'.
      No. 164 in page 38, line 45, leave out subsection (9).—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 45

      PREPARATION OF PAPERS FOR PROBATE ETC
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 39, line 29, at end insert—
      '(cc) the Official Solicitor,'.
      No. 33, in page 40, line 24, at end insert—
      '(4) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person does any act which would constitute an offence under subsection (1) but for an exemption given to him by this section or by or under any other enactment, he shall not be guilty of an offence under section 22 by virtue of having done that act".'.—[The Attorney-General.]
      Amendment made: No. 154, in page 44, line 31, leave out clause 49.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 51

      IMMUNITY OF ADVOCATES FROM ACTIONS IN NEGLIGENCE AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 45, line 32, leave out from 'described)' to end of line 33 and insert
      'which prohibit barristers from entering into contracts or restrict their right to do so.'.
      This is a clarifying amendment, which has no effect on the meaning of the clause, but merely clarifies the fact that subsection (1) does not alter the powers of the general council of the Bar to restrict or prohibit a barrister's right to enter into contract.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 56

      EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 165, in page 48, line 30, leave out
      'or by a designated judge' and insert a designated judge or the Director'.
      No. 166, in page 48, line 31, after 'by', insert 'or to'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 58

      QUALIFICATION FOR JUDICIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER APPOINTMENTS
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 50, line 1, leave out 'has a 10 year' and insert
      'is a solicitor or barrister of 10 years standing with a'.
      The purpose of the amendment—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the Government Whips for moving our amendments, and if they are prepared to carry on doing so, I shall sit down, but I expect that they will change their minds.
      The purpose of the amendment is to enable the period of qualification of a solicitor to count towards the total period of qualification for the purpose of receiving judicial office. I can give an example from my experience. I think that I have been a solicitor for about 30 years, almost to the day. If the Law Society were to obtain rights of audience in a higher court, and if I were to choose to be an advocate in a higher court—I am not sure that I would—with my considerable experience of 30 years as a solicitor, as the rules stand I would have to start all over again if I wanted to clock up 10 years to obtain judicial office. It is a personal example, but it is a good one. It

      609
      would seem a pity if I had to put in 40 years' experience in order to qualify for appointment for judicial office. That is why it would he right if rights of audience were given, and I could count the 30 years, as well as the time that I was qualified to be an advocate in the higher court.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: I agree with what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said. Many solicitors are already experienced advocates. I salute the hon. Gentleman's 30 years. Many have specialties that are useful for the bench, which is different from the Bar in terms of the attributes that sometimes make good and great judges. Many solicitors also have wide experience which is useful to the bench. Advocacy experience is not always needed for the bench.
      Last, but not least, one does not have to appoint Lords Justices. All that is required, under the amendment, is the largest pool of experience and, hopefully, wisdom for the main office that needs those qualities.
      The Solicitor-General: I think that there is some misunderstanding about the effect of the clause as amended. The personal example offered by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) illustrates the importance of stressing that the Government have made special provision for those currently qualified as solicitors and who in future obtain full High Court or Supreme Court rights of audience. The deeming provisions in paragraph 3 of schedule 17 will enable those solicitors—this will include the hon. Member for Norwood—to count their years' standing and years' possession of rights of audience in the lower courts as if they were years' possession of higher qualifications. Solicitors qualifying in future would have to hold the higher qualification for the full period required for any particular appointment.
      The amendment would have undesirable effects which I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not intend, and would put an undue burden on others who become freshly qualified, requiring them to last longer. I hope that my explanation has been satisfactory, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 61

      DISTRICT JUDGES
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 52, line 20, at end insert—
      '(2A) Any reference in any enactment, instrument or other document to an office which is, or includes, one to which this section applies shall be construed as a reference to, or (as the case may be) as including a reference to, that office by its new name.'.—[The Attorney-Genera.]

    Clause 78

      FUNCTIONS OF THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 62, line 43, leave out '£3000' and insert '£5000'.
      The effect of the amendment is to increase the maximum penalty of the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal from £3,000 to £5,000.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 177, in page 70, line 10, leave out clause 88.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 89

      LIABILITY OF MAGISTRATES FOR DAMAGES AND COSTS
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 71, line 42, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      '(6) The following sections shall cease to have effect—

      (a) 46 (warrant granted on conviction or order made by another justice);

      (b) 47 (exercise of discretionary powers);

      (c) 48 (compliance with, or confirmation on appeal to, superior court);

      (d) 49 (distress warrant for rates);

      (e) 51 (no action in county court if defendant justice objects);

      (f) 52 (limitation of damages against justice); and

      (g) 54 (provisions as to prerogative proceedings and membership of Crown Court).'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 174.
      The Attorney-General: These amendments tidy up the provisions relating to the liability of magistrates for damages and costs. If I attempted to explain how they do that, I should need tidying up myself.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 91

      JURISDICTION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 73, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1A) In section 5 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (matters subject to investigation), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
      "(7) For the purposes of this section, matters concerning listing in the courts (except directions by a judge in an individual case) shall, notwithstanding paragraph 6A of Schedule 3, be taken to be administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department or, in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Court Service.".'.
      The reason for the amendment is almost self-evident. It is that the Parliamentary Commissioner would have jurisdiction to look at the listing of court cases except when that was done under the direction of a judge; so that if a judge directed a case to be heard on a particular day, that would be a matter of judicial decision. But other listing decisions would be administrative decisions and subject to the jurisdiction of and investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. Since most of the complaints made by solicitors about the inefficiency of the courts relate to listing, this would be an effective remedy and provide an effective supervisory function to be exercised over the dispatch of justice. As the Government believe in efficiency and saving money, I hope that they will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: The reason for the amendment is indeed self-evident. This is a primary cause for complaint, and far from being a judical act, this is often a purely administrative one. As such, it should come within the purview of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has said. It is wrong that the privilege of the judges should be extended to cover a matter of this nature. If we had had a minister of justice who was accountable to the House, listing matters of this sort would never have been excluded from the purview of the Ombudsman in the first place.
      The Solicitor-General: I must resist these amendments. There is a misunderstanding. It is easy to say that listing is a purely administrative function, but it is not accurate to say so. The intention of the clause as a whole is to allow the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate the administrative acts of court staff—that is, actions necessary to carry on the administration of the courts—but to prevent him from investigating actions taken in support of the judiciary in the judicial process. The distinction is important, as is widely recognised, if the independence of the judiciary and the judicial process is to be preserved.
      I am surprised that the amendment is being pressed by the Opposition because, although it is perfectly true that listing is usually performed by court staff, it is a function carried out on behalf of the judges and under their authority. That is an important matter of principle. If listing were not accepted as a judicial function, it would theoretically be open to the Executive to influence the outcome of cases, including those to which public authorities were a party. The Executive could do that by, for example, ensuring that cases were listed before judges known to be sympathetic to a particular point of view, or simply by delaying or by bringing forward the hearing of a case. There is a much more important underlying point of principle involved than is recognised. I must resist the amendment.
      Mr. Fraser: If a solicitor is negligent, he pays the costs of the case. However, if a judge or his clerk are negligent, they do not pay the costs. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 92

      TIME WHEN ACTION BROUGHT FOR PURPOSES OF LIMITATION
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 73, line 17, leave out clause 92.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 184 and 185.
      The Solicitor-General: The amendment is a good example of consultation producing better legislation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who used his own deep practical experience as a solicitor to advance arguments in Committee to which I was instantly attracted. His arguments were about the disadvantages of a three-year flat period for limitation during which one had not only to issue but to serve one's process.
      One has three years, or it may be six years, in which to issue process and only four months rather than the previous 12 months in which to serve it. Those with detailed knowledge of obtaining leave to serve in difficult circumstances realise that if we had taken the route suggested by the civil justice review, many detailed
      612
      administrative provisions made under rules of court would have taken much time to understand. I am not talking here about the physical process of serving, although that can be relevant.
      The hon. Member for Norwood said that ordinary litigants would think that they had three years, which is the normal time for a personal injuries case, and might turn up to their solicitor in the last week or the last day or two and the solicitor would not have time to serve process. Insurance companies and others might also be less constructive and helpful than they are under the present rules, and the whole procedure would cause more trouble than it was worth. I said that we would think again.
      In the meantime, we had an extremely helpful paper on the matter from the Law Commission. We have carefully examined that and have decided that the civil justice review suggestion of a period of limitation in which not only service but issue had to be carried out was outweighed by the disadvantages. We have therefore tabled the amendment. I am grateful to the members of the civil justice review for the attention that they gave to this matter.
      Mr. Fraser: This is one of the few occasions in my time as a Member of Parliament when I have seen a victory for reason on an important point of principle. I shall not be ungenerous in victory. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for the way in which he has examined the matter. I rejoice at what has happened.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 93

      COSTS AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS
      Amendments made: No. 37, in page 73, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) In any civil proceedings, a magistrates' court may disallow or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules.
      (1A) In subsection (1), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

      (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or

      (b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

      No. 38, in page 74, line 9, after 'legal' insert 'or other".
      No. 39, in page 74, line 17, leave out
      'or out of central funds'
      No. 40, in page 74, line 20, at end insert 'or other'.
      No. 41, in page 74, line 27, leave out 'and'.
      No. 42, in page 74, line 31, at end insert
      'and
      (d) shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken under the rules may appeal to the Crown Court";.——[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 97

      PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
      Amendment made: No. 168, in page 76, line 14, at end insert—
      '(3) The general rule making power of any authority having power to make rules of court for Northern Ireland shall include power to make any provision which may be made under section 93 of the Act of 1989 (rules of court) subject to the modifications that in subsection (2)—

      (a) paragraphs (e) and (i) shall be omitted; and

      (b) in paragraphs (f) and (g) the references to England and Wales shall be read as references to Northern Ireland.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 99

      INTERPRETATION
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 179, in page 78, line 5, leave out from 'body' to end of line 7 and insert
      '(other than any body established by this Act), includes any person who is not a member of that body but who may be subject to disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with any of that body's rules;'.
      This is an important drafting amendment to the definition of clause 99, which I should be most unwise to describe.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 102, in page 78, line 7, at end insert—
      '''multi-national partnership" has the meaning given by section ( Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors)(9);'.
      No. 44, in page 78, line 19, at end insert—
      '''qualified person" has the meaning given in section 34(6);'.
      No. 103, in page 78, line 19, at end insert—
      "'registered foreign lawyer" has the meaning given by section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors)(9);'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 100

      REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
      Amendments made: No 104, in page 78, line 45, at end insert—
      '(2A) Any such regulations or order may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions or savings as the person making the regulations or order considers expedient.'.
      No. 105, in page 79, line 2, after '50' insert
      '(Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors)(5) or (7)'.
      No. 106, in page 79, line 2, after '50' insert '105(3A)'.
      No. 129, in page 79, line 2, after '8' insert
      'or paragraph 9(c) of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies)'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 103

      EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 107, in page 79, line 28, at end insert—
      '( ) section (Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates);'.—[The Attorney-General.]
      No. 108, in page 79, line 28, at end insert—
      '( ) section 58(2), so far as necessary;'.
      No. 180, in page 79, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '(b) sections (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) to (Tying-in: enforcement);'.
      No. 46, in page 79, line 31, at beginning insert 'section 97, this section and'.
      No. 47, in page 79, line 36, at end insert—
      '( ) paragraphs 3B, 20 to 21A, 24, 25 and 25A of Schedule 14;'.
      No. 48, in page 79, line 41, at end insert—
      '( ) section 58(2), so far as necessary;'.
      No. 49, in page 79, line 43, leave out 'and 101 to 11)5' and insert—
      '101, 102, this section and sections 104 and 105, so far as necessary'.
      No. 50, in page 80, line 6, leave out 'Schedules 14' and insert—
      'paragraphs 3B, 15B, 20, 21, 24 and 25 of Schedule 14; ( ) Schedules'.
      No. 181, in page 80, line 6, after 'amend' insert 'or relate to'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 104

      COMMENCEMENT
      12 midnight
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 80, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
      '(1) The following provisions come into force on the passing of this Act—

      (a) sections 1, 5, 99 to 103, this section and section 105(1); and

      (b) paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 15.

      (2) The following provisions come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed—

      (a) sections 6, 8, 9, 14, 53, (Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates), 59, 60, 72, 74 to 78, (Agreements with solicitors for payment by hourly rates), 80 to 83 and 89 to 91;

      (b) paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 16 and 20 of Schedule 15;

      (c) paragraphs 4, 5, 11 to 13, 38 and 40 of Schedule 16; and

      (d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 17.'.

      This amendment extends various provisions of the Bill that will come into force on the passing of the Act or two months after the Act is passed.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 105

      SHORT TITLE, MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, TRANSITIONALS AND REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 109, in page 80, line 23, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such amendments or repeals in relevant enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by Part II with respect to advocacy, litigation, conveyancing or probate services.
      (3B) In subsection (3A) "relevant enactments" means such enactments or instruments passed or made before or in the same Session as this Act as may be specified in the order.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    New Schedule
      LICENSED CONVEYANCERS
        PART I

          General
          1. In this Schedule—

          "the Act of 1985" means the Administration of Justice Act 1985;

          "advocacy licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of a right of audience;

          "the Council" means the Council for Licensed Conveyancers;

          "the Discipline and Appeals Committee" means the committee established under section 25 of the Act of 1985;

          "litigation licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of a right to conduct litigation;

          "probate licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of an exemption under section 46; and

          "relevant licence" means a licence under Part II of the Act of 1985 or an advocacy, litigation or probate licence.

          Qualification regulations and rules of conduct
          2.—(1) For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers), the Council may make such qualification regulations and rules of conduct as it considers appropriate in connection with the granting of the rights or exemption in question.
          (2) In making any such regulations or rules the Council may, in particular, do anything which it has power to do in making rules under section 13 of the Act of 1985 (training rules).

          Applications for licences
          3.—(1) An application for an advocacy licence, litigation licence or probate licence shall be made to the Council in such manner, and shall be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under this paragraph.
          (2) Any such rules—

          (a) may prescribe the forms to be used in connection with applications for any such licence; and

          (b) may provide for applications of any description specified in the rules to be exempt from any of the requirements of the rules.

          (3) Rules made under section 14 of the Act of 1985 and this paragraph may make provision with respect to applications for composite licences.

          Issue of licences
          4.—(1) If, on an application for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence, the Council is satisfied that—

          (a) the applicant has complied with such qualification regulations, rules of conduct or other requirements as are applicable in his case in relation to the licence applied for;

          (b) that he has made adequate arrangements for the purpose of complying with any provisions which are applicable in his case in relation to the licence applied for; and

          (c) that he is a fit and proper person to provide the advocacy, litigation or probate services in question,
          616
          the Council may issue the applicant either with a licence free of conditions or with a licence subject to such conditions as it sees fit to impose.

          (2) If the Council is for any reason not so satisfied, or for any other reason refuses the application, it shall notify the applicant of its refusal and of the grounds on which the application has been refused.
          (3) Subsections (3) to (6) of section 15 of the Act of 1985 (issue of licences under section 14 of that Act) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, with respect to any application under paragraph 3 and any licence in force under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) as they apply with respect to any application under section 14 of that Act and any licence under Part II of that Act.

          Conditional licences
          5.—(1) This paragraph has effect in any case where a person applies for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence—

          (a) for the first time;

          (b) when a licence of the kind applied for which has previously been held by him has been subject to conditions;

          (c) when, on the first day of the period to which the licence applied for would (if granted) relate, a period of twelve months or more will have elapsed since he held a licence of that kind;

          (d) after the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order in his case under section 26 of the Act of 1985.

          (2) This paragraph also has effect in any case where a person applies for such a licence and any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (e) to (j) of section 16 of the Act of 1985 (conditional licences) apply in his case.
          (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to subsection (4) of section 16 of the Act of 1985, as applied by sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph.
          (4) In any case where this paragraph has effect the Council may, on issuing an advocacy, litigation or probate licence to the applicant, issue it subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit.
          (5) The Council's decision in any such case to impose any particular conditions under this paragraph may be made by reference to such criteria of general application as may have been determined by the Council.
          (6) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (4), conditions may be imposed under that sub-paragraph—

          (a) for restricting the kinds of service that may be provided by the applicant by virtue of his having the advocacy, litigation or probate licence in question; or

          (b) for requiring the applicant to take any specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Council, be conducive to his carrying on an efficient practice as a licensed conveyancer who provides the additional services authorised by that licence,

          and conditions may be imposed under that sub-paragraph (whether for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) or otherwise) as they may be under Part II of the Act of 1985.
          (7) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 16 of the Act of 1985 shall have effect, with the necessary modifications, with respect to an advocacy, litigation or probate licence as they have effect with respect to a licence issued under Part II of that Act.

          Register of licensed conveyancers
          6.—(1) Where an advocacy, litigation or probate licence is in force with respect to a licensed conveyancer, the Council shall enter details of the licence in the appropriate place in the register of licensed conveyancers maintained by it under section 19 of the Act of 1985.
          (2) The Council shall accordingly cause the appropriate entries to be made on the issue of any advocacy, litigation or probate licence and deletions on any such licence ceasing to be in force.
          (3) Where any such licence is for the time being suspended, the Council shall cause that fact to be noted in the register against the name of the licensed conveyancer concerned.

          Code of conduct
          7.—(1) The rules made by the Council under section 20 of the Act of 1985 (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline) shall also be made in pursuance of the Council's general duty under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers)(5).
          (2) Those rules may also provide for regulating the association of licensed conveyancers with respect to whom advocacy, litigation or probate licences are in force, with other persons in connection with the provision of advocacy, litigation or (as the case may be) probate services to members of the public.

          Effect of suspension or disqualification under Part II of the Act of 1985
          8. Where a licence issued under Part II of the Act of 1985 ceases to be in force (whether because it is suspended or the licensed conveyancer concerned is disqualified from holding a such a licence or for any other reason), any advocacy, litigation or probate licence in force with respect to that licensed conveyancer at the time shall cease to have effect to the same extent as the licence under Part II of the Act of 1985.

          Removal of disqualification from holding a licence
          9.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order directing that a licensed conveyancer shall be disqualified (either permanently or during a specified period) from holding an advocacy licence, a litigation licence or a probate licence, he shall not, while his disqualification continues in force, be issued with a licence of a kind to which the disqualification relates unless the Committee, on an application made to them in that behalf, direct otherwise.
          (2) An application under this paragraph shall not be made to the Committee—

          (a) within ten months of the date of the Committee's order relating to the kind of licence in question; or

          (b) within ten months of a previous such application by the licensed conveyancer concerned with respect to that kind of licence.

          Revocation on grounds of error or fraud
          10.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee are satisfied that a relevant licence was issued to any person as a result of any error, or as a result of fraud on the part of that person, they may if they think fit by order revoke that licence and any other relevant licence issued to that person.
          (2) Where a person has had a relevant licence which was held by him revoked, he shall not be issued with any relevant licence except on the advice of the Committee given to the Council as the result of an application made by that person to the Committee.
          (3) On any such application the Committee may, if they think fit, direct that the applicant shall be disqualified from holding any relevant licence, or a relevant licence of a specified kind, until the expiry of such period as may be specified in the direction.
          (4) Paragraph 9 shall apply in relation to a direction under sub-paragraph (3) as it applies in relation to any direction of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.

          Recognised bodies
          11. Section 32 of the Act of 1985 (provision of conveyancing services by recognised bodies) shall have effect as if the references to conveyancing services included references to advocacy, litigation or probate services.
      PART II
        AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO POWERS OF COUNCIL ETC.

          Delegation of powers etc.
          12.—(1) Subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under any enactment, the Council may arrange for any of its functions (other than those of making rules, schemes or standing orders under Part II of the Act of 1985) to be discharged—

          (a) by a committee of the Council; or

          (b) by a member of the Council's staff.

          (2) The Council may make rules providing for functions conferred by Part II of the Act of 1985 on any committee established under that Part to be discharged by a committee established under this paragraph.
          (3) In exercising its powers under sub-paragraphs (1) or (2), the Council may impose restrictions or conditions on the committee by which the functions concerned are to be discharged.
          (4) The Council may make rules providing for any of its committees (including one established under Part II of the Act of 1985) to refer any matter of a kind specified in the rules, in such circumstances as may be so specified, to any other such committee, or to the Council.
          (5) Where any matter is referred under sub-paragraph (4) to a committee of the Council or to the Council, that committee or (as the case may be) the Council shall have the same power to deal with it as the committee referring it.
          (6) The number of members of a committee established under this paragraph, and the terms on which they are to hold and vacate office, shall be fixed by the Council.
          (7) A committee established under this paragraph may include persons who are not members of the Council (whether licensed conveyancers or not) but a majority of the members of any such committee (including the chairman) shall be members of the Council.
          (8) The validity of any proceedings of such a committee shall not be affected by any casual vacancy among its members.
          (9) Any rules made under this paragraph—

          (a) may make such incidental and supplemental provision as the Council considers appropriate; and

          (b) may make different provision for different circumstances.

          Council's intervention powers
          13.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985 (intervention in licensed conveyancer's practice) shall also be exercisable where—

          (a) the Council is satisfied that a sole licensed conveyancer has abandoned his practice; or

          (b) the Council is satisfied that a licensed conveyancer has been practising in breach of any condition imposed on him in connection with any relevant licence of his.

          (2) The powers—

          (a) conferred by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985; and

          (b) exercisable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b),

          shall only be exercised if the Council has given the licensed conveyancer notice in writing that it is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) and also (at the same or any later time) notice in writing that the powers conferred by Part II of that Schedule are accordingly exercisable in his case.

          Inadequate professional services
          14.—(1) The Council may take any of the steps mentioned in paragraph 15 ("the steps") with respect to a licensed conveyancer where it appears to it that the professional

          619
          services provided by him in connection with any matter in which he or his firm has been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of him as a licensed conveyancer.
          (2) The Council shall not take any of the steps unless it is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate to do so.
          (3) In determining in any case whether it is appropriate to take any of the steps, the Council may—

          (a) have regard to the existence of any remedy which it is reasonable to expect to be available to the client in civil proceedings; and

          (b) where proceedings seeking any such remedy have not been begun by him, have regard to whether it is reasonable to expect him to begin them.

          (4) The Council's powers under this paragraph are exercisable in relation to a person who was, at the material time, a licensed conveyancer even though he is no longer a licensed conveyancer and references to a licensed conveyancer in this paragraph and paragraphs 15 to 20, so far as they relate to the exercise of those powers, shall be construed accordingly.

          Inadequate professional services: steps that may be taken
          15.—(1) The steps are—

          (a) determining that the costs to which the licensed conveyancer is entitled in respect of his services ("the costs") are to be limited to such amount as may be specified in the determination and directing him to comply, or to secure compliance, with such one or more of the permitted requirements as appear to the Council to be necessary in order for effect to be given to its determination;

          (b) directing him to secure the rectification, at his expense or at that of his firm, of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the matter in question as it may specify;

          (c) directing him to pay such compensation to the client as the Council sees fit to specify in the direction;

          (d) directing him to take, at his expense or at that of his firm, such other action in the interests of the client as it may specify.

          (2) The "permitted requirements" are—

          (a) that the whole or part of any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the costs be refunded;

          (b) that the whole or part of the costs be remitted;

          (c) that the right to recover the costs be waived, whether wholly or to any specified extent.

          (3) The power of the Council to take any such steps is not confined to cases where the client may have a cause of action against the licensed conveyancer for negligence.

          Inadequate professional services: compensation
          16.—(1) The amount specified in a direction by virtue of paragraph 15(1)(c) shall not exceed £1,000.
          (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting for the sum of £1,000 such other sum as he considers appropriate.
          (3) Before making any such order the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Council.
          (4) Any statutory instrument made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

          Inadequate professional services: failure to comply with direction
          17.—(1) If a licensed conveyancer fails to comply with a direction given under this Part of this Schedule, any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the Discipline and Appeals Committee; but no other proceedings whatever shall be brought in respect of it.
          (2) On the hearing of such a complaint the Discipline and Appeals Committee may, if it thinks fit (and whether or not it makes any order under section 26(2) of the Act of 1985), direct that the direction be treated, for the purpose of enforcement, as if it were contained in an order made by the High Court.

          Inadequate professional services: fees
          18.—(1) The Council may, by regulations made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make provision for the payment, by any client with respect to whom the Council is asked to consider whether to take any of the steps, of such fee as may be prescribed.
          (2) The regulations may provide for the exemption of such classes of client as may be prescribed.
          (3) Where a client pays the prescribed fee it shall be repaid to him if the Council takes any of the steps in the matter with respect to which the fee was paid.
          (4) In this paragraph "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations.

          Inadequate professional services: costs
          19. Where the Council takes any of the steps with respect to a licensed conveyancer it may also direct him to pay to the Council—

          (a) the amount of the fee repayable by the Council to the client under paragraph 18(3); and

          (b) an amount which is calculated by the Council as the cost to it of dealing with the complaint, or which in its opinion represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost.

          Duty of Discipline and Appeals Committee
          20. Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee—

          (a) is considering, or has considered, an application or complaint with respect to a licensed conveyancer; and

          (b) is of the opinion that the Council should consider whether to take any of the steps with respect to that licensed conveyancer,

          it shall inform the Council.

          Power to examine files
          21.—(1) Where the Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating any complaint made to it—

          (a) alleging professional misconduct by a licensed conveyancer; or

          (b) relating to the quality of any professional services provided by a licensed conveyancer,

          the Council may give notice to the licensed conveyancer or his firm requiring the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Council, at a time and place to be fixed by the Council, of all documents in the possession of the licensed conveyancer or his firm in connection with the matters to which the complaint relates (whether or not they relate also to other matters).
          (2) The provisions of paragraphs 9(2) to (12), 11 and 12 of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985 shall apply in relation to the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) as they apply in relation to the powers conferred by paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule.

          Interest on clients' money
          22. Where a licensed conveyancer—

          (a) is required by rules made under section 23 of the Act of 1985 to place any sum of money in a separate deposit account; but

          (b) fails to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable,

          the Council may give a direction requiring him to account to the client in question for any interest which has not been earned but which would have been earned if that sum had been placed in a separate deposit account as soon as was reasonably practicable.

          Full and limited licences
          23. In section 15 of the Act of 1985 (issue of licences by Council), the following subsections shall be added at the end—
          "(7) A licence issued under this Part may be endorsed by the Council as—

          (a) a full licence, if the Council is satisfied that the person to whom it is issued has complied, or will comply, with the requirements made under this Part with respect to professional indemnity and compensation; or

          (b) as a limited licence, if the Council is not so satisfied.

          (8) Rules made under section 21 may make provision for the making, or removal, of endorsements while a licence is in force and for the recording of any such endorsement, or of its removal, in the register maintained under section 19."

          Cases in which conditions may be attached to licences
          24. In section 16(1) of the Act of 1985 (cases in which conditions may be attached to licences), the following shall be substituted for paragraph (i)—

          "(i) after having been committed to prison in civil proceedings;

          (ia) after having been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or deception or a serious arrestable offence (as defined by section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984); or".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New schedule
      FOREIGN LAWYERS: PARTNERSHIPS AND RECOGNISED BODIES
        PART I

          General
          1. In this Schedule—

          "the Act of 1974" means the Solicitors Act 1974;

          "controlled trust" means, in relation to a registered foreign lawyer who is a member of a multi-national partnership, a trust of which he is a sole trustee or co-trustee only with one or more of the employees or other partners of that partnership and of which he is a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

          "the Council" means the Council of the Law Society;

          "the register" means the register maintained by the Society under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors);

          "registration" means registration in that register;

          "the Society" means the Law Society; and

          "the Tribunal" means the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

          Application for registration
          2.—(1) An application for registration or for renewal of registration—

          (a) shall be made to the Society in such form as the Council may prescribe; and

          (b) shall be accompanied by such fee as the Council may, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, prescribe.

          (2) Where such an application is duly made by a foreign lawyer, the Law Society may register the applicant if it is satisfied that the legal profession of which the applicant is a member is one which is so regulated as to make it appropriate—

          (a) for solicitors to enter into multi-national partnerships with members of that profession; and

          (b) for members of that profession to be officers of recognised bodies.

          (3) Any registration may be made subject to such conditions as the Society sees fit to impose.
          (4) The Council may make regulations, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, with respect to—

          (a) the keeping of the register (including the manner in which entries are to be made, altered or removed); and

          (b) applications for registration or renewal of registration.

          (5) The register may be kept by means of a computer.

          Duration of registration
          3.—(1) Every registration shall have effect from the beginning of the day on which it is entered in the register.
          (2) The Council may make regulations—

          (a) prescribing the date ("the renewal date") by which each registered foreign lawyer must apply for his registration to be renewed; and

          (b) requiring every entry in the register to specify the renewal date applicable to that registration.

          (3) Any such regulations may—

          (a) provide different renewal dates for different categories of registered foreign lawyer or different circumstances;

          (b) provide for the Society to specify, in the case of individual registered foreign lawyers, different renewal dates to those prescribed by the regulations;

          (c) make such transitional, incidental and supplemental provision in connection with any provision for different renewal dates as the Council considers expedient.

          (4) Where a foreign lawyer is registered, the Society may cancel his registration if—

          (a) the renewal date for his registration has passed but he has not applied for it to be renewed; or

          (b) he has applied to the Society for it to be cancelled.

          Evidence as to registration
          4. Any certificate purporting to be signed by an officer of the Society and stating that a particular foreign lawyer—

          (a) is, or is not, registered; or

          (b) was registered during a period specified in the certificate,

          shall, unless the contrary is proved, be evidence of that fact and be taken to have been so signed.

      PART II
        REGISTERED FOREIGN LAWYERS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

          Intervention in practices
          5.—(1) In this paragraph "the intervention powers" means the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 (intervention in solicitors' practices) as modified by this Schedule or under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors).
          (2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the intervention powers shall be exercisable in relation to a person who is or has been a registered foreign lawyer and the practice of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member as they are exercisable in relation to a solicitor and his practice.
          (3) The intervention powers are only exercisable where—

          (a) the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of the registered foreign lawyer, or on the part of an employee of the multi-national partnership, in connection with—

          (i) the practice of that partnership; or

          (ii) any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

          (b) in the case of a registered foreign lawyer who has died, the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of his personal representative, in connection with—

          (i)the practice of the multi-national partnership; or

          623

          (ii) any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

          (c) the Council are satisfied that the registered foreign lawyer has failed to comply with rules made under section 32 or 37(2)(c) of the Act of 1974;

          (d) a bankruptcy order (as defined in paragraph 10(3)) has been made against him or he has made a composition or arrangement with his creditors;

          (e) he has been committed to prison in any civil or criminal proceedings;

          (f) the powers conferred by section 98 (emergency powers) or 99 (appointment of receiver) of the Mental Health Act 1983 have been exercised in respect of him;

          (g) his name has been struck off the register or his registration has been suspended or cancelled;

          (h) he has purported to act as a member of a multi-national partnership at a time when he was not registered;

          (i) the Council are satisfied that he has failed to comply with any condition, subject to which he is registered, to the effect that—

          (i) he may only be a member of a partnership which is approved by the Society; or

          (ii) he may only be an officer of a recognised body which is so approved; or

          (iii) he may only be such a member or such an officer.

          (4) The intervention powers shall only be exercisable under sub-paragraph (3)(c) if the Society has given the foreign lawyer notice—

          (a) that the Council are satisfied that he has failed to comply with rules specified in the notice; and

          (b) that the intervention powers are accordingly exercisable.

          (5) The intervention powers (other than those conferred by paragraphs 5 and 10 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974) shall also be exercisable where—

          (a) a complaint is made to the Society that there has been undue delay on the part of a registered foreign lawyer in connection with—

          (i) any matter in which he, or the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, was instructed on behalf of a client; or

          (ii) any controlled trust;

          (b) the Society by notice invites the registered foreign lawyer to give an explanation within a period (of not less than 8 days) specified in the notice;

          (c) the registered foreign lawyer fails within that period to give an explanation which the Council regard as satisfactory; and

          (d) the Society gives notice of the failure to the registered foreign lawyer and notice that the intervention powers are accordingly exercisable.

          (6) Where the intervention powers are exercisable in relation to a registered foreign lawyer, they shall continue to be exercisable—

          (a) at any time when his registration is suspended;

          (b) after his name has been struck off the register or his registration has been cancelled; or

          (c) after his death.

          (7) Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 shall have effect in relation to the intervention powers exercisable by virtue of this Schedule, subject to—

          (a) any express modifications made under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors); and

          (b) any modifications necessary in the light of this paragraph.

          (8) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 shall be read with paragraph 4(2) of Part I of that Schedule.
          (9) The notices required to be given by this paragraph must be in writing but need not be given at the same time.

          The Compensation Fund
          6.—(1) Where the Council are satisfied—

          (a) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of a registered foreign lawyer, or of an employee of a registered foreign lawyer, in connection with the practice of the multi-national partnership of which the foreign lawyer is or was a member or in connection with any trust of which that foreign lawyer is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership; or

          (b) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer hardship in consequence of failure on the part of a registered foreign lawyer to account for money which has come to his hands in connection with the practice of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, or in connection with any trust of which he is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership; or

          (c) that a registered foreign lawyer has suffered or is likely to suffer loss or hardship by reason of his liability to any client of his, or of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, in consequence of some act or default of any of his partners or employees in circumstances where but for the liability of that registered foreign lawyer a grant might have been made out of the Compensation Fund to some other person,

          the Society may make a grant out of the Compensation Fund for the purpose of relieving that loss or hardship.
          (2) Section 36 of the Act of 1974 (Compensation Fund) shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to grants under this paragraph as it applies in relation to grants under that section.

          Contributions to the Fund
          7.—(1) On an application for registration, a foreign lawyer shall pay to the Society a contribution to the Compensation Fund ("the initial contribution") of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine.
          (2) On each application for renewal of his registration, a registered foreign lawyer shall pay to the Society—

          (a) a contribution of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine ("the annual contribution"); and

          (b) where it appears from his application that—

          (i) he has, at any time during the period specified in the application, held or received clients' money in connection with a multi-national partnership of which he is, or was, a member; or

          (ii) he is, or was at any time during that period, an officer of a recognised body which has, at any time during that period, held or received clients' money,

          a further contribution ("the special levy") of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine.

          (3) The Council may make rules providing, in circumstances specified by the rules, for a foreign lawyer—

          (a) to pay a reduced initial or annual contribution or special levy; or

          (b) not to be required to pay such a contribution or levy.

          (4) Any rules under sub-paragraph (3) shall be made with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.

          Accountants' reports
          8.—(1) Unless the Council are satisfied that it is unnecessary for him to do so, every registered foreign lawyer shall, once in each period of twelve months ending with 31st October, deliver to the Society (whether by post or otherwise) a report signed by an accountant and containing such information as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under section 34 of the Act of 1974 (accountants' reports).
          (2) The provisions of that section shall apply in relation to accountants' reports required by this paragraph, and

          625
          registered foreign lawyers, as they apply in relation to accountants' reports required by subsection (1) of that section and solicitors.

          Certification for purposes of investment business
          9. For the purposes of enabling the Law Society to issue certificates under Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 (regulation of investment business) to any multi-national partnership or to any recognised body managed or controlled by solicitors and one or more registered foreign lawyers—

          (a) the Society shall be taken to be the appropriate professional body for that purpose;

          (b) the registered foreign lawyer concerned shall be treated—

          (i) as if he were a member of the Society; and

          (ii) as if he were a solicitor for the purposes of paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1986 (requirements for recognition of professional body); and

          (c) Part I of that Act shall have effect subject to any modifications which the Secretary of State sees fit to make by order under this paragraph with a view to enabling certificates to be issued to such partnerships or such recognised bodies.

          Effect of bankruptcy
          10.—(1) The registration of any foreign lawyer against whom a bankruptcy order is made shall be suspended on the making of that order.
          (2) The suspension of any registration by reason of a bankruptcy order shall terminate if the order is annulled and an office copy of the order annulling it is served on the Society.
          (3) In sub-paragraph (1), "bankruptcy order" includes any order which is not a bankruptcy order but which has the same, or a similar, effect under the law in force in any territory outside England and Wales.

          Effect of disciplinary action
          11.—(1) Where a registered foreign lawyer is struck off, or suspended from practice, his registration shall be suspended.
          (2) In sub-paragraph (1) "struck off" and "suspended from practice" mean—

          (a) any action taken within the jurisdiction by reference to which the registered foreign lawyer is qualified to be registered; or

          (b) where the registered foreign lawyer is qualified to be registered by reference to more than one jurisdiction, any action taken within any one of those jurisdictions,

          which is the equivalent, respectively, of a solicitor being struck off the roll or suspended from practice under the Act of 1974.

          Re-instatement of disciplined foreign lawyer
          12.—(1) Where a person's registration has been suspended by virtue of paragraph 11, it shall be revived—

          (a) if his right to practise in the jurisdiction in question is restored; and

          (b) a copy of the instrument restoring his right, certified to be a true copy by an officer of the appropriate court in the jurisdiction in question, or the professional body concerned, is served on the Society.

          (2) Where a person whose registration is suspended by virtue of paragraph 11 applies to the Society for the suspension to be terminated, the Society may terminate it subject to such conditions, if any, as it thinks fit to impose.

          Effective date of revived registration
          13. Where a foreign lawyer's registration is revived (whether as the result of the termination of its suspension, restoration by order of the Tribunal or for any other reason), that revival shall take effect on such date, and subject to such conditions, as the Society may direct.

          Appeal against conditions or refusals
          14.—(1) Any foreign lawyer may appeal to the Master of the Rolls against—

          (a) the refusal of the Society to register him or to renew his registration;

          (b) the refusal of the Society to terminate the suspension of his registration on an application made by him under paragraph 12;

          (c) the failure of the Society to deal with any application by him for registration, renewal of registration or the termination (under paragraph 12(2)) of a suspension within a reasonable time; or

          (d) any condition imposed by the Society under paragraph 2(3), 12(2) or 13.

          (2) An appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (d) must be brought within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the Society notifies the applicant of its decision on his application.
          (3) On an appeal to him under this paragraph, the Master of the Rolls may make such order as he thinks fit.

          Jurisdiction and powers of Disciplinary Tribunal
          15.—(1) Subject to paragraph 16, section 46 of the Act of 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in relation to applications and complaints made by virtue of any provision of this Schedule as it applies in relation to applications and complaints made by virtue of any provision of that Act.
          (2) Any application—

          (a) to strike the name of a foreign lawyer off the register;

          (b) to require a registered foreign lawyer to answer allegations in an affidavit;

          (c) to suspend the registration of a foreign lawyer for a specified or indefinite period;

          (d) by a foreign lawyer whose name has been struck off the register by order of the Tribunal to have his name restored to the register;

          (e) by a foreign lawyer whose registration has been suspended for an indefinite period by order of the Tribunal for the termination of that suspension,

          shall be made to the Tribunal.
          (3) Any person who alleges that a registered foreign lawyer has failed to comply with any rule made under section 31, 32, 34, or 37 of the Act of 1974 may make a complaint to the Tribunal.
          (4) On the hearing of any application or complaint made to the Tribunal with respect to a foreign lawyer, the Tribunal shall have power to make such order as it may think fit, and any such order may in particular include provision for any of the following matters—

          (a) the striking off the register of the name of the foreign lawyer to whom the application or complaint relates;

          (b) the suspension of that foreign lawyer's registration indefinitely or for a specified period;

          (c) the payment by that foreign lawyer of a penalty not exceeding £5,000, which shall be forfeit to Her Majesty;

          (d) the termination of that foreign lawyer's unspecified period of suspension from registration;

          (e) the restoration to the register of the name of a foreign lawyer which has been struck off the register;

          (f) the payment by any party of costs or a contribution towards costs of such amount as the Tribunal may consider reasonable.

          (5) Any order made under subsection (4) of section 47 of the Act of 1974 varying the maximum amount of the penalty which may be imposed under subsection (2)(c) of that section may make the same variation in the corresponding amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(c).

          Foreign lawyers assisting the Tribunal
          16.—(1) For the purposes of section 46 of the Act of 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal), the Tribunal may make rules providing for it to be assisted, in dealing with any application or complaint of a kind mentioned in paragraph

          627
          15, by a member of the legal profession in the jurisdiction by reference to which the foreign lawyer is or was qualified to be registered.
          (2) Rules under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be made without the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.
          (3) Subsection (12) of section 46 of the Act of 1974 (rules to be made by statutory instrument etc.) shall apply to rules made under this paragraph as it applies to rules made under subsection (9) of that section.

          Appeals from Tribunal
          17.—(1) An Appeal from the Tribunal shall lie—

          (a) in the case of an order on an application under paragraph 15(2)(d) or (e), or the refusal of any such application, to the Master of the Rolls;

          (b) in the case of any other order or refusal under paragraph 15, to the High Court.

          (2) The High Court and the Master of the Rolls shall have power to make such order on an appeal under this paragraph as they may think fit.
          (3) Any decision of the Master of the Rolls on an appeal under this paragraph shall be final.
          (4) The Master of the Rolls may make regulations about appeals to him under this paragraph.'.—[The Attorney-General.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
      Amendments made: No. 110, in page 81, line 19, leave out
      'he has been adjudged backrupt'
      and insert
      'a bankruptcy order has been made against him'.
      No. 51, in page 82, line 11, leave out 'specially' and insert 'specifically'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Schedule 2
      SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 86, line 40, at end insert—
      SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

        'Persons with special needs
        In discharging its functions under this Schedule, the Advisory Committee shall have regard to the need for the efficient provision of legal services for persons who face special difficulties in making use of those services, including in particular special difficulties in expressing themselves or in understanding.'.
        The effect of the amendment is to require the advisory committee to have regard to the needs of the disadvantaged, particularly the less articulate, when carrying out its functions under schedule 2. It has been tabled in response to amendments tabled in both another place and in Committee. I gave an undertaking that we would consider them with every sympathy. The amendment is the result that I am happy to bring forward.
        Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 4

      AUTHORISATION AND APPROVAL
      Amendments made: No. 170, in page 90, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
      No. 171, in page 92, line 46, leave out sub-paragraph (6).—[The Attorney-General.]

    Schedule 5

      THE AUTHORISED CONVEYANCING PRACTITIONERS BOARD
      Amendment made: No. 112, in page 96, line 7, leave out
      'he has been adjudged bankrupt'
      and insert
      'a bankruptcy order has been made against him'.[The Attorney-General.]
      Mr. Temple-Morris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 5 is grouped with amendment No. 139. Amendment No. 5 was not moved but I had hoped to speak to amendment No. 139.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I made it quite clear that amendment No. 5 was an Opposition amendment. I paused and asked if it was to be moved. No one moved it and I cannot go back to it.
      Mr. Vaz: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that you were referring to amendment No. 5, not to amendment No. 139.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. I made it quite clear what I was doing. Amendment No. 5 is an Opposition amendment. I asked if it was to be moved and no one did so. We have now moved on.

    Schedule 7

      THE CONVEYANCING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 99, line 43, after 'by' insert
      ',or inconvenience or distress has been caused to,'.
      The amendment extends the grounds on which the conveyancing ombudsman will be able to make compensation orders to include inconvenience and distress as well as loss. In Committee, I expressed the hope that we would be able to meet the representations that were made and the amendment is the result.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 9
      JUDICIAL AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 113, in page 114, line 39, at end insert—
      JUDICIAL AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS

        'Judge's legal secretary
        46A. In section 98(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (appointment by certain senior judges of a legally qualified secretary) for the words "barrister or solicitor" there shall be substituted "person who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".'.
        No. 114, in page 119, line 21, at end insert—

        'Crown Prosecutors
        .—(1) In section 1(3) of that Act (Crown Prosecutors) for the words "who is a barrister or solicitor" there shall be substituted "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".
        (2) In section 5(1) of that Act (conduct of prosecutions by barristers or solicitors) for the words from "who is" to "authority" there shall be substituted "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Schedule 14
      CHILDREN ACT 1989
      Amendments made: No. 53, in page 133, line 40, at end insert—
      CHILDREN ACT 1989

        'The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c.54)
        3A.—(1) Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (provisions supplementary to section 15) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (3)—

        (a) for the words "relevant infant" there shall be substituted "supervised person"; and

        (b) the words from "and the justice" to the end shall be omitted.

        (3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
        "(3A) Where a supervised person is brought before a justice under subsection (3) of this section, the justice may—

        (a) direct that he be released forthwith; or

        (b) subject to subsection (3C) of this section, remand him to local authority accommodation.

        (3B) A justice who remands a person to local authority accommodation shall designate, as the authority who are to receive him, the authority named in the supervision order in respect of which the application or reference is being made.
        (3C) Where the supervised person has attained the age of eighteen at the time when he is brought before the justice, he shall not be remanded to local authority accommodation but may instead be remanded—

        (a) to a remand centre, if the justice has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception of persons under this subsection; or

        (b) to a prison, if he has not been so notified."

        (4) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
        "(4) Where an application is made to a court under section 15(1) of this Act, the court may remand (or further remand) the supervised person to local authority accommodation if—

        (a) a warrant has been issued under subsection (2) of this section for the purpose of securing the attendance of the supervised person before the court; or

        (b) the court considers that remanding (or further remanding) him will enable information to be obtained which is likely to assist the court in deciding whether and, if so, how to exercise its powers under section 15(1)."

        (5) In subsections (5)(b) and (c) and (6)(a), after the word
        "l2A", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "12AA".
        3B.—(1) Section 32 of that Act (detention of absentees), as amended by paragraph 27 of Schedule 12 to the Act of 1989, shall be further amended as follows.
        (2) In the new subsection (1A), in paragraph (b)(ii), for the words "section 23(1)" there shall be substituted "section 16(3A) or 23(1)".
        (3) In the new subsection (1C), after the words "section 12AA" there shall be inserted ", 16(3B)".'.
        No. 54, in page 134, line 18, at end insert—

        'The Child Care Act 1980 (c.5)
        5A. After section 21(2) of the Child Care Act 1980 (power
        630
        of local authority to allow child in care to be under charge and control of parent, etc.) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above and section 22A below a child shall be regarded as being under the charge and control of a person if he stays with that person for a continuous period of more than 24 hours".'.
        No. 55, in page 134, line 34, at end insert—
        '7A. In section 21(2)(c)(i) of the 1989 Act (provision of accommodation for children on remand) after the word "section" there shall be inserted "16(3A) or".'.
        No. 56, in page 134, line 38, at end insert—
        '(2) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) a child shall he regarded as living with a person if he stays with that person for a continuous period of more than 24 hours".'.
        No. 57, in page 134, line 47, at end insert—
        '9A. In section 27 of the Act of 1989 (co-operation between authorities)—

        (a) in subsection (1) the words "or other person" and the words "or person" shall be omitted; and

        (b) in subsection (3) for the word "persons" there shall be substituted "authorities" and after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust".'.

        No. 58, in page 135, line 27, at end insert—
        '13A. For section 45(10) of the Act of 1989 (appeals against emergency protection orders) there shall be substituted—
        "(10) No appeal may be made against—

        (a) the making of, or refusal to make, an emergency protection order;

        (b) the extension of, or refusal to extend, the period during which such an order is to have effect;

        (c) the discharge of, or refusal to discharge, such an order; or

        (d) the giving of, or refusal to give, any direction in connection with such an order."

        13B. In section 47(11)(d) of the Act of 1989 (persons obliged to assist local authority investigations), after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust".'.
        No. 172, in page 135, line 31, at end insert—
        '14A. In section 93(2) of the Act of 1989 (rules of court)—

        (a) in paragraph (f) for the words "the United Kingdom" there shall be substituted "England and Wales"; and

        (b) in paragraph (g) after the word "is" there shall be inserted "or resides".'.

        No. 59, in page 135, line 34, at end insert—
        '15A. In section 97(8) of the Act of 1989 (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings) for the words "Section 71 of the Act of 1980 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings)" there shall be substituted "Sections 69 (sittings of magistrates' courts for family proceedings) and 71 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings) of the Act of 1980".
        15B. In section 108(12) of the Act of 1989 (provisions extending to Northern Ireland), in the entry relating to Schedule 14, the word "18" shall be omitted.'.
        No. 60, in page 135, line 38, at end insert—
        '16A. In Schedule 3 to the Act of 1989 (supervision orders) paragraph 7 shall be omitted.'.
        No. 61, in page 136, line 4, at end insert—
        '19A. In Schedule 12 to the Act of 1989 (minor amendments), paragraph 25 (which amended section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969) shall be omitted.
        19B. In Schedule 13 to the Act of 1989 (consequential amendments), paragraph 40 shall be omitted.

        631
        19C.—(1) Schedule 14 to the Act of 1989 (transitionals and savings) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In paragraph 15 (children in compulsory care) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added "; or—
        (h) in care by virtue of an order of the court made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,".
        (3) In paragraph 16 (modifications)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (4), for the word "(g)" there shall be substituted "(h)"; and

        (b) in sub-paragraph (5) for the words from "under" to "1973" there shall be substituted "—

        (a) under section 4(4)(a) of the Guardianship Act 1973;

        (b) under section 43(5)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; or

        (c) in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,".

        (4) After paragraph 16 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

        Cessation of wardship where ward in care
        16A. Where a child who is a ward of court is in care by virtue of—

        (a) an order under section 7(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969; or

        (b) an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,

        he shall, on the day on which Part IV commences, cease to be a ward of court."
        (5) In paragraph 22(a) for the word "(g)" there shall be substituted "(h)".
        (6) In paragraph 36(5)(b) for the words "subsection (4)" there shall be substituted "subsection (6)".'.
        No. 182, in page 136, line 12, after 'Act' insert—
        '(including that provision as applied in relation to Northern Ireland by section 97(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)'.
        No. 62, in page 136, line 18, at end insert—

        'The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49)
        21A. In section 94(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (interpretation), in the definition of "supervision order" for the words from first "has" to "1969" there shall be substituted "means a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or the Children Act 1989".'.
        No. 63, in page 136, line 44, at end insert—

        'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
        24A. In section 65(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (meaning of family proceedings), paragraph (k) shall be omitted.'.
        No. 64, in page 137, line 6, at end insert—

        'The Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)
        25A. In section 116(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (visiting of patients who are children) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
        "(a) a child or young person—

        (i) who is in the care of a local authority by virtue of a care order within the meaning of the Children Act 1989, or

        (ii) in respect of whom the rights and powers of a parent are vested in a local authority by virtue of section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;".'.—[The Attorney-General]

    Schedule 16
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 65, in page 140, line 35, at end insert—
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        'The Fair Trading Act 1973 (c.41)
        .In section 133(2) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

        (a) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"; and

        (b) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

        No. 115, in page 140, line 35, at end insert—

        'The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18)
        . In section 50(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (matrimonial causes rules), for the words from "one registrar of the divorce registry" to "local law society" there shall be substituted "one district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division, two Circuit judges, one district judge appointed under the County Courts Act 1984, two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), and two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.
        No. 66, in page 140, line 45, at end insert—
        'The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c.39)
        . In section 174(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

        (a) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"; and

        (b) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

        The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 142, line 17, leave out from '(1)' to end of line and insert
        'for the words "to committees conferred on the Council" there shall be substituted "conferred".'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 68 and 77.
        The Solicitor-General: Amendments Nos. 67 and 77 are consequential amendments concerning the power of the Law Society and its council to delegate their functions, and amendment No. 68 refers to reduced contributions to the Law Society compensation fund for certain of its members.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 68, in page 142, line 33, at endinsert—
        '(3B) Where it appears from his application for a practising certificate that a solicitor has not held or received clients' money at any time during the period specified in the application, the Council may require him—

        (a) to pay an annual contribution of a specified reduced amount on that application; or

        (b) to pay no annual contribution on that application.'.

        No. 69, in page 142, line 33, at end insert—

        'The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (c.34)
        . In section 41(1) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

        633

        (a) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"; and

        (b) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

        No. 70, in page 142, line 33, at end insert—

        'The Estate Agents Act 1979 (c.38)
        .—(1) In section 10(3) of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

        (a) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"; and

        (b) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".'.

        The Competition Act 1980 (c.21)
        . Section 19 of the Competition Act 1980 (restriction on disclosure of information) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (2), after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".
        (3) In subsection (3) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (1)—
        "(m) the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.
        No. 116, in page 142, line 33, at end insert—

        'The Patents Act 1977 (c.37)
        .—(1) In section 102 of the Patents Act 1977 (right of audience etc in proceedings before the comptroller), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
        "(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken to limit the right to draw or prepare deeds given to a registered patent agent by section (Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990."
        (2) In section 102A of that Act (right of audience etc in proceedings on appeal from the comptroller), the following subsection shall he added at the end—
        "(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to limit the right to draw or prepare deeds given to a registered patent agent by section (Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990." '.
        No. 173, in page 142, line 33, at end insert—

        'The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c.22)
        . In section 16 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (powers of court to make orders for the protection of a party to marriage or a child of the family), in subsection (6) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted "that the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as may be prescribed by rules".'.
        No. 117, in page 142, line 37, at end insert—

        'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
        .—(1) The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In section 150(1) (interpretation) after the definition of "impose imprisonment" there shall be inserted the following definition—
        "legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 99(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;".
        (3) For the words—

        (a) "counsel or a solicitor" in sections 4(4)(b), 6(2)(b), 23(1)(a) and 128(1B);

        (b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 122(1) and (3);
        634
        there shall be substituted "a legal representative".

        (4) For the words—

        (a) "solicitor" in sections 6(2)(a), 12(2), 128(1A)(ii) and (3B);

        (b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 72(3)(a) and (4);

        (c) "solicitor or barrister" in section 145(1)(d), there shall he substituted "legal representative".

        (5) For the words "counsel and solicitors" in section 8(4)(d) there shall be substituted "the legal representatives".
        (6) For the words—

        (a) "solicitors and counsel" in section 69(2)(b);

        (b) "solicitors or counsel" in section 69(4),

        there shall be substituted "legal representatives".
        (7) In section 144(3) (members of the rule committee) in subsection (3), for the words "one justices' clerk" to the end there shall be substituted—

        "(a) one justices' clerk;

        (b) one person who has a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

        (c) one person who has been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

        No. 118, in page 144, line 1, at end insert—
        '.—(l) In section 85 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (Supreme Court Rule Committee)—

        (a) for paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1), there shall be substituted—

        "(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

        (g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

        (b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

        "(4) Before appointing a person under paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult any authorised body with members who are eligible for appointment under that paragraph."
        (2) In section 86 of that Act (Crown Court Rule Committee)—

        (a) for paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1), there shall be substituted—

        "(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

        (g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

        (b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

        "(4) Before appointing a person under paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult any authorised body with members who are eligible for appointment under that paragraph.".'.
        .No. 71, in page 144, line 9, at end insert—
        '. In section 90 of that Act (Official Solicitor) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
        "(3A) The holder for the time being of the office of Official Solicitor shall have the right to conduct litigation in relation. to any proceedings.
        (3B) When acting as Official Solicitor a person who would otherwise have the right to conduct litigation by virtue of section 26(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 shall be treated as having acquired that right solely by virtue of subsection (3A)".'.
        No. 119, in page 144, line 43, leave out paragraph 32.
        No. 120, in page 145, line 21, at end insert—
        '. For section 75(7) of that Act (members of the rule committee) there shall be substituted—
        "(7) The rule committee shall consist of the following persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor—

        (a) five judges of county courts;

        (b) two district judges;

        (c) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

        (d) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

        . For section 143(1) of that Act (prohibition on persons other then solicitors receiving remuneration for work in county courts) there shall be substituted—
        "(1) No person other than—

        (a) a legal representative; or

        (b) a person exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation by virtue of an order made under section 9 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (representation in county courts),

        shall be entitled to have or recover any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party in proceedings in a county court."
        .—(1) In section 147(1) of that Act (interpretation) after the definition of "landlord" there shall be inserted—
        " "legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 99(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990."
        (2) For the word "solicitor" in sections 13(1) and (4), 61(2) and 126 of that Act there shall be substituted "legal representative".
        (3) For the word "solicitors" in sections 18, 24(1), 27(6), 75(3)(f) and 79 of that Act there shall be substituted "legal representatives".'.
        No. 121, in page 145, line 21, at end insert—

        'The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c. 42)
        . In section 40(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (family proceedings rules), for paragraphs (c) to (g) there shall be substituted—

        "(c) one district judge of the principal registry of that Division,

        (d) two Circuit judges,

        (e) one district judge appointed under the County Courts Act 1984,

        (f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), and

        (g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

        No. 122, in page 146, line 4, at end insert—
        '.—(1) In section 14(1)(a) of that Act (regulations in relation to fees of counsel) for the word "counsel" there shall be substituted "any legal representative".
        (2) The following definition shall be inserted in section 15(1) of that Act after the definition of "Director"—
        "legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 99(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.'.
        No. 183, in page 146, line 4, at end insert—
        '.In section 20(2) of that Act (regulations providing for the recovery of sums paid by the Legal Aid Board or out of central funds), in paragraph (a) for the words "party to proceedings" there shall be substituted "person".'
        No. 123, in page 146, line 5, at end insert—
        636
        '.—(1) Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (management and control by solicitors of incorporated practices) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1)(a)—

        (a) after the word "solicitors", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted "or solicitors and one or more registered foreign lawyers"; and

        (b) at then end there shall be inserted "or by multi-national partnerships".

        (3) In subsection (8), the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places—

        "multi-national partnership" means a partnership whose members consist of one or more registered foreign lawyers and one or more solicitors;

        "registered foreign lawyer" means a person who is registered under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

        No. 172, in page 146, line 25, at end insert—
        '40A. In Schedule 6 to that Act (incorporated licensed conveyancers) the following shall be substituted for paragraph 4(3)—
        "(3) Where it appears to the Council that the professional services provided by a recognised body in connection with any matter in which that body has been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of that body, the Council may take any step with respect to that recognised body as it could take under paragraphs 14 to 20 of Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 with respect to a licensed conveyancer in similar circumstances.
        (3A) Those paragraphs shall have effect (with the necessary modifications) with respect to any steps taken against the recognised body under this sub-paragraph as they have effect with respect to any steps taken with respect to a licensed conveyancer under paragraph 14 of that Schedule".'.
        No. 155, in page 146, line 39, leave out '49' and insert—
        '(Representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988)'.
        No. 156, in page 146, line 46, leave out subsection (7A) and insert—
        '(7A) If it is satisfied that the circumstances of a particular case in the Supreme Court or the House of Lords warrant a direction under this subsection, the Board or, in the case of criminal proceedings the competent authority, may direct that representation in that case shall be by one legal representative.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Schedule 17

      TRANSITIONALS AND SAVINGS
      Amendments made: No. 73, in page 149, line 15, leave out paragraphs 5 and 6.
      No. 74, in page 149, line 31, at end insert—

      TRANSITIONALS AND SAVINGS

        'Judicial oaths
        .—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to any person who, immediately after the coming into force of section 63, holds any of the offices listed in subsection (1) of that section.
        (2) The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall have effect as if in section 6 for the words "as soon as may be after his acceptance of office" there were substituted "not later than 6 months after the coming into force of section 63 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990'.
        No. 75, in page 151, line 27, at end insert—

        'The Council for Licensed Conveyancers
        .—(1) The following provisions—

        (a) section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers);

        (b) the repeal by Schedule 18 of section 26(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985; and

        (c) paragraph 40A of Schedule 16,

        637
        shall not affect any case in which the final bill of costs was delivered to the client concerned before the commencement of section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers).

        (2) Until such date as may be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor, the provisions of—

        (a) paragraphs 14 to 20 of Schedule (Licensed conveyancers); and

        (b) paragraph 4(3) and (3A) of Schedule 6 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as substituted by paragraph 40A of Schedule 16,

        shall have effect as if they conferred powers on the Discipline and Appeals Committee and not on the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.
        (3) Any order made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (2) may make such transitional, consequential or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer of jurisdiction under the provisions in question from the Discipline and Appeals Committee to the Council.'.
        No. 174, in page 151, line 27, at end insert—

        'Immunity of magistrates etc.
        .—(1) The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 89, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a justice of the peace, as if section 89 had not been enacted.
        (2) The Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 90, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a resident magistrate or justice of the peace, as if section 90 had not been enacted.
        (3) Section 63 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 90, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a person to whom this sub-paragraph applies, as if section 90 had not been enacted.
        (4) Sub-paragraph (3) applies to—

        (a) a resident magistrate, including a deputy resident magistrate;

        (b) a justice of the peace; and

        (c) a person specified in section 63(7) of the Act of 1985 (county court judges sitting in connection with certain appeals and members of juvenile court panels).'.

        No. 184, in page 151, leave out lines 28 to 31.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Schedule 18

      REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 76, in page 152, line 51, at end insert—

      '1969c. 54.

      The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

      In section 16(3), words from "and the justice" to the end.'.

      No. 77, in page 153, column 3, leave out lines 31 and 32.
      No. 175, in page 153, line 48, at beginning insert—

      '1978 c. 22.

      The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.

      Section 16(7).

      Section 17(2).

      Section 23(1).

      Section 24.

      Section 30(2) to (4).'.

      No. 79, in page 154, line 6, at end insert—

      '1980 c. 43.

      The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

      Section 65(l)(k).'.

      No. 124, in page 154, line 46, column 3, at end insert—

      'In section 60, subsection (1), and in subsection (2) the words "not being a person entitled to address the court by virtue of subsection (1)" and "as if he were a person so entitled.".'.

      No. 125, in page 154, line 51, column 3, leave out '"them"' and insert '"and prescribing'".
      No. 126, in page 154, line 55, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 143(2).'.

      No. 127, in page 155, line 8, column 3, at end insert—

      'In section 15(1), the definition of "solicitor", and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

      No. 80, in page 155, line 11, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 26(3).'.

      No. 128, in page 155, line 11, column 3, at end insert—

      'In section 9(8) the second "and".'.

      No. 81, in page 155, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

      'In Schedule 3, paragraph 8.'

      No. 82, in page 155, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert—

      'In section 27(1), the words "or other person" and the words "or person".'.

      No. 83, in page 156, line I, column 3, at beginning insert—

      'In section 108(12), in the entry relating to Schedule 14, the word 18

      In Schedule 3, paragraph 7.'.

      No. 84, in page 156, line 8, column 3, at beginning insert—

      'In Schedule 12, paragraph 25.'.

      No. 85, in page 156, line 9, column 3, leave out 'and 25' and insert—

      '25 and 40 In Schedule 14, in paragraph 15(l), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (g).'.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 185, in line 13, leave out
    'to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions;'.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    12.8 am
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I express my warm appreciation to all hon. Members, and in particular to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and all those from the Back Benches on both sides of the House who have contributed greatly to the success of the parliamentary handling of the Bill. The Bill takes an important place in the Government's strategy of encouraging competition and the widening of choice, particularly the widening of choice for those who are customers here for legal services. I believe that the parliamentary process has worked very well because of the assiduity of hon. Members. I hope that, in turn, they feel that the Government have listened and responded constructively in many instances, although not in as many as they would have wished, to suggestions to improve the Bill. I am grateful for all that has been done.
    I realise that the Bill has occasioned a great deal of approval in the country, but also a certain amount of anxiety. Each of those reactions has been well founded. I believe that much of the anxiety has been dispelled. The Bill will take its place as a constructive measure.
    12.10 am
    Mr. John Morris: If I am forgiven anything in this House, I am sure that I shall be forgiven my brevity on this occasion. I endorse the Attorney-General's thanks to the Committee for its consideration. I thank the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor for their courtesy and
    640
    explanations at all times. I am especially grateful for the work done by Lord Mischcon and his team in the other place.
    The improvement of the Bill was necessary because of the severe criticism levelled at it. We have not objected to extending rights of audience. I was anxious that the power should not be enshrined solely in the bosom of a political Minister, even though he be the Lord High Chancellor. Now that the judges have a new and important role, we are anxious that the aims of the Bill are carried out. I am confident that they will be. If there is any breakdown, we shall have to return to the matter later and consider it afresh, but I am sure that that will not be necessary.
    One of the sad omissions from the Bill is that it has no enhancement for legal aid. The professions are concerned about profitability in that area. I fear that one day we shall have to return to that.
    12.11 am
    Mr. Temple-Morris: This is broadly a good Bill which will result in a more balanced profession. Perhaps all those who have been closely associated with the Bill would agree that it is as important for that which has been discussed but is not in the Bill as for that which is in the Bill following our discussions.
    During its progress, the Bill has been improved in relation to consumer safeguards in conveyancing. However, the danger to the small solicitor—other than in Scotland where that has been overtly recognised—remains and must be monitored. We shall also have to monitor how the rights of audience work. There remains concern about the designated judges. Indeed, I had intended briefly to air that concern, had I spoken to the amendment which I did not succeed in moving a few moments ago.
    I am sure that many people will carefully watch what happens with the new authorised conveyancers and the consumer interests relating to them. They should be no obstruction—I do not suggest that they will be—to solicitors' rights of audience in the higher courts.
    I welcome the role of the ombudsman and hope that increasingly the administration of the courts will be considered by that gentleman.
    I thank the Front-Bench spokesmen for both the Government and the Opposition for the spirit of courtesy that has prevailed during the passage of the Bill.
    12.13 am
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I thank the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for their courtesy and co-operation. I also thank their officials, to whom all members of the Committee had access during the Committee stage, which was extremely helpful.
    I make no apology for saying that I still view the future of the legal profession with trepidation. It is essential for our constitutional safeguards and for the liberties of the citizen that there should be a strong and independent Bar in England and Wales. I hope that, through the process of consultation and reasonable argument, we have ensured that when the machinery set up by the Bill comes to consider the future of the profession it, too, will bear in mind the need for that strong, independent Bar as part of our legal establishment.
    With that in mind, I wish the Bill a fair wind, although I suspect that we shall argue some of the issues time and time again.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    PROCEDURE
    Motion made,
    That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).
    Hon. Members: Object.

    QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.
    Motion made
    That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members) and Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of Motions, amendments and questions) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made—

    QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.

      Time for taking Questions
      (1)—Questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of.
      (2) No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions which have not appeared on the paper but which are in Mr Speaker's opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.
      (3) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the Order Paper for that day.

      Notices of Questions, Motions and Amendments
      (l)—Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office.
      (2) A notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Order Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half-past ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House.
      (3) A Member shall indicate on the notice of any question whether it is for oral, written or priority written answer.
      (4) Where a Member has indicated that a question is for priority written answer the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given, provided that the requirement of notice shall be the same for such questions as that prescribed in this order for questions for oral answer.
      (5) Notice of a question for oral answer may not be given on a day earlier than ten sitting days before the day For answer, provided that, where that earliest day would otherwise fall on a Friday, the earliest day on which such notice may be given will instead be the previous sitting day.
      (6) Notice of any question for oral answer must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before that on which an answer is desired.
      (7) When it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of less than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purpose of calculating the period in paragraph (5) of this order.
      (8) When notice shall have been given of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days Mr. Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6) of this order and instead setting out the earliest day on which notice of questions for oral answer may be given for each of the first ten sitting days after that adjournment, provided that each such day shall as far as practicable fall on the same day of the week as that on which the question is to be answered and shall not be fewer than fourteen days before the day for answer; and also setting out the latest day for notice of questions for oral answer on each of the first two sitting days following that adjournment provided that each such day shall not be fewer than two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before the day for answer.
      Hon. Members: Object.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Motion made,
    That Mr. Peter Lilley be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Francis Maude be added to the Committee.
    Hon. Members: Object.

  Humberside (Boundary Commission Investigation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  12.14 am
  Mr. Michael Brown: It is a pleasure and a privilege to address the House on the day of the appointment to Government of my hon. Friends the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), all of whom I am delighted to see in their rightful places on the Treasury Bench. I wish them all a long and distinguished career, and I wish them well in their new, arduous and onerous responsibilities.
  I remind the House that the reason for this debate was the excellent decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who in 1989, as Secretary of State for the Environment, was so concerned about the strong feeling against the existence of Humberside county council that, exceptionally, he ordered the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to consider the case for that county's abolition.
  My right hon. Friend was moved to take that decision because he had received about 7,000 representations from the people of the ill-loved county of Humberside expressing their opposition. He took the view that it was right and proper for the Boundary Commission to consider whether the people concerned should revert to residing in their rightful counties of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
  The commission's interim report did not, sadly, accord with the wishes of my constituents. Just three weeks ago, on 5 July, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) initiated an Adjournment debate on the same issue. He drew attention to the guidelines given to the Boundary Commission, whose interim review published on 7 March states in paragraph 47, on page 13, that there are three strands to any consideration of boundaries. As the commission approaches the task of drafting its final report, I take this opportunity to remind it of its terms of reference, and that the three strands that it is obliged to take into account are:
  "whether the boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants;

  (ii) whether it reflects the pattern of community life; and

  (iii) whether it is conducive to the effective operation of local government or any associated services."

  On the first test, there is no doubt that the majority of my constituents—and, I suspect, those of Glanford and Scunthorpe and of Great Grimsby—wish to return to the county of Lincolnshire, as that most likely to reflect
  "the pattern of commmunity life".
  Lincolnshire has a natural boundary in the form of the river Humber estuary. The old country of the east riding of Yorkshire was the other county which had the river Humber as a natural boundary. The residents of south Humberside look to Lincoln and to the county of Lincolnshire as the county with which they identify.
  Our experience of living under the dreaded county of Humberside over the past 15 years with regard to whether it is
  "conducive to the effective operation of local government"
  is that the county of Humberside fails that test. The community charge in the county of Humberside is about
  644
  £100 higher than it is in the county of Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire can deliver its local government services—eduacation, social services, roads and all the ancillary services—at a cost to the charge payer that is £100 less than the charge in the county of Humberside. That test proves conclusively that Lincolnshire is the county which is most conducive to the effective operation of local government for my constituents.
  I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who was kind enough to reply to the debate three weeks ago that the hatred of my constituents for the county of Humberside is virtually total. The unhappiness about the concept of Humberside which persists among many of its residents 15 years after its creation shows that now is the time to urge the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to consider the strength of local feeling. I fully accept that it is probably unlikely that my hon. Friend the Minister can add much more to what he said three weeks ago, but I hope that he will assure me and my constituents today that he will draw the attention of the Boundary Commission to the strength of feeling that I am expressing on behalf of my constituents.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw to the commission's attention the fact that I was elected by the people and speak for them. My voice on their behalf must be considered when the commission produces its final report. This is the appropriate time to urge the Boundary Commission to accept the challenge thrown down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. At this point in the sad history of the county of Humberside, people's confidence in the county has been sapped. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to pass on my views.
  I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), a Yorkshire Member, is present in the Chamber. He has told me that he would like to support my comments and I will now allow him to substantiate some of my points.
  12.22 am
  Mr. Gary Waller: I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on initiating this debate and I agree with everything that he has said.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) initiated a debate on this subject on 5 July. He spoke in similar terms and argued for the abolition of Humberside, for the creation of a new county of East Yorkshire and for the return of South Humberside to Lincolnshire. The fact that we have had a second debate so soon after the first, shows the strength of feeling about this.
  Both debates have been initiated by hon. Members representing constituencies south of the river Humber. Lest it be thought that the strength of feeling is greater in the areas that were formerly unashamedly in Lincolnshire, I remind the House that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England found that the strength of feeling—or outrage as I would describe it—about their incorporation in Humberside is even greater among those who live to the north of the estuary.
  Although I represent a constituency in West Yorkshire which is quite a long way from Humberside, I speak as a native Yorkshireman and a member of the Yorkshire Society. I have no trouble in understanding why the

  645
  changes that came about in 1974 have never been accepted. Those who drew purely artificial lines on the map to create this concoction cannot easily be forgiven.
  Some think that the problem of assuaging traditional loyalties could be resolved either if Humberside changed its name, although it is difficult to think of an alternative, or if postal addresses were altered. That argument is similar to that put by those who argued for the new administrative counties at the time of the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. They claimed that there was no problem because people would still be able to retain their traditional counties. Most of those on the north side of the estuary still feel themselves to be Yorkshire people, but know that something significant has been taken from them by the creation and continuation of a new administrative county for which they feel no affection and little, if any, loyalty.
  The Boundary Commission considered issues under the two heads of convenience of administration and traditional loyalties as well as patterns of community life. On the first, it concluded that a reversion to more traditional boundaries would be
  "no better able to provide effective and convenient local government than the present Humberside County Council."
  At no point did the commission suggest that local government would be any worse. Not surprisingly, it found that there were too many imponderables to make a judgment as to whether there would be an improvement or a deterioration. The main issue, therefore, related to the transitional inconvenience of a further disruption in local government.
  When it comes to the preferences of the people as a whole rather than those of people with a stake in the status quo, there is no doubt about how they feel. When asked for their opinion, 62 per cent. of all residents wanted a change from the present county. On the north bank, 64 per cent. stated a wish to see some sort of Yorkshire solution. Many, like me, felt that the answer could be the creation of a new East Yorkshire county, including Selby, although that issue has not exercised most people's minds at this stage. Curiously, a reason why the Boundary Commission seemed to come down against that option was that the present boundary between York and Selby is unsatisfactory. Surely, more urgent attention could be given to that matter if necessary, rather than leaving it until the Humberside issue has been resolved.
  The Boundary Commission rather airily dismissed the deep feelings of people for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, stating:
  "Such loyalties should be able to co-exist with support for Humberside as an administrative unit."
  Unfortunately, that statement is out of touch with reality. After many years, the survey carried out on behalf of the Boundary Commission shows that only just over a third of the people of Humberside would support the retention of the county. That being so, I find an element of perversity in the Commission's conclusion, especially bearing in mind the strong lead given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the former Secretary of State for the Environment. I accept that it is difficult for any group of people to reach one decision and then to come to a contrary one.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot say anything substantive today. I realise that the law does not allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
  646
  State to reach a conclusion off his own bat. Rather, he must endorse or refuse one presented to him by the Boundary Commission. I can only say, with a great deal of support from those who still think of themselves as Yorkshire or Lincolnshire people, that I hope even now that there will be a recognition that a decision to go back to something like the ancient Yorkshire and Lincolnshire which existed before 1974 would be enthusiastically applauded not only in the present Humberside but far outside the existing boundaries of that unloved teenager.
  11.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): It was no surprise to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) chose this subject. I have been aware of his strong feelings on the issue. He has never been one to be shy about making his views known, particularly when his constituents are concerned. He set out his case against the present county structure with his usual skill and exuberance, and he was supported in that by some additional points by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who gave his views from a slightly different perspective—from West Yorkshire. On 5 July I answered a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes intervened on that occasion as well.
  It might be appropriate if I set out a little of the background, because the present boundary review takes place in a more general framework. I shall then comment more specifically on the Humberside review.
  Until 1972, the review of local government boundaries was somewhat haphazard and intermittent. There were periods of great change interspersed with periods when little happened. In 1972, it was thought that a new system would be appropriate. There was general agreement that it should not be possible for the Government of the day to make changes as they saw fit, because that would introduce the temptation to change electoral boundaries for political convenience.
  I believe that Governor Gerry of Massachussetts was the first politician who fell victim to the temptation to alter boundaries to suit his political ends. I understand that he designed a constituency which looked rather like a salamander. Someone thought that it should be called a gerrymander, so he gave his name to a political system and it passed into our language.
  In 1972, the then right hon. Member for Crosby, the late Graham Page, wisely wished to protect his successors as Ministers for Local Government from the temptation to follow in Governor Gerry's steps. He designed a system which ensures that changes can be made when they are desirable for
  "effective and convenient local government."
  Those words appear in the Local Government Act 1972, which also imposes constraints upon the Secretary of State of the time in initiating such changes.
  Effective and convenient local government has three components, to which reference has been made—first, whether the proposed boundaries reflect the wishes of the majority of the local residents; secondly, whether the alterations would provide more efficient services at county or district level; thirdly, whether they would better reflect the pattern of community life.

  647
  Under the Local Government Act 1972, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was set up. It is a small, expert body of people who review local government boundaries throughout the country and form a view of what will make for effective and convenient local government. The legislation provides for the commission to take the Government's views into account. That is done by way of Department of the Environment circulars. The legislation also provides for local people to be given every opportunity to have their say, both before the proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State and afterwards.
  A very important feature of the system is that the Secretary of State can only work within the framework of the commission's recommendations. He can either accept its recommendations or reject them. He can accept them with some modifications, but what he cannot do, and has no power to do, is to devise changes of his own and come up with something quite different from the commission's recommendations.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on Humberside. The guidelines for the first Humberside review laid down that the abolition of the county council or any principal authority should not be recommended. However, after the Commission recommended that there should not be a major change on Humberside, a large number of people took issue with the report. Over 7,000 representations were received. My hon. Friend mentioned that figure.
  In the light of that response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury decided that the commission should have a further look at the question, without the previous constraints. He therefore directed the comission to carry out a further review and to take a
  648
  completely fresh look at the question. It was able to consider the abolition of Humberside county council and the division of the county in whatever way seemed appropriate, and that remains the position. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey earlier this month, we now await the commission's report on its further review.
  We know that the commission is carrying out careful and thorough studies of all aspects of the question. It has told me that its consideration of all the questions involved is proving somewhat more difficult than expected. Nevertheless, I should prefer the commission to take a careful, considered and painstaking look at every aspect of these possible boundary changes rather than trying to meet an artificial deadline.
  My hon. Friends know that the Government cannot express an opinion at this stage. I have listened carefully to what they have said today and I shall draw the Boundary Commission's attention to the debate. It is right that it should be made aware of expressions of opinion in the House.
  Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that when a debate on this issue took place recently in the other place all who spoke in it expressed very much the same sort of view as has been expressed in this House?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I have read the report of that debate, and Lord Hesketh sent the report of the debate to the Boundary Commission, so the chairman and the members of the commission are also aware of it.
  At this time I can express no views on the merits of the case, but I await the commission's report with interest. In conclusion, I repeat that I will ensure that the commission is made aware of the views that have been expressed today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her oral reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen),Official Report, 12 June, column 146, what is the acceptable ratio between the number of Soviet nuclear weapons and the number of the United Kingdom nuclear weapons necessary to provide a minimum nuclear deterrent.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent is not based on any specific numerical correlation with Soviet nuclear weapons. Rather, it has long been United Kingdom policy to maintain only the minimum number of weapons necessary to deter aggression. In this respect the need to ensure that our nuclear deterrent remains effective against improving Soviet defences is of overriding importance when considering the size of our force.

  Diego Garcia
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell),Official Report, 9 July, column 36, if she will make a statement on the nature of the security contribution made to the United Kingdom by the British Indian Ocean territory defence facilities on Diego Garcia.

  The Prime Minister
  The joint United Kingdom-United States defence facilities on Diego Garcia make a vital contribution to the maintenance of peace and stability and to the protection of western interests in the area.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those occasions since 1 January on which she personally raised the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with foreign Governments or Heads of State.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not personally had occasion to raise the subject of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty although we have frequent contacts with other interested parties at official level, and the matter was part of the final conclusion of the economic summit at Houston. Nevertheless, I have spoken in general terms about the future of proliferation to several people.

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the planned use for the northern area of the British library site at St. Pancras.
  228
  Mr. Mellor
  Any land at the British library site at St. Pancras which may ultimately be surplus to requirements will be sold. The area of land which will be surplus and the optimum timing and method of its disposal are still being examined.

TRANSPORT

  Roll on/Roll off Ferries
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the meeting of officials from several European countries in London on 24 July to discuss the application and timing of a higher standard of residual stability to existing roll on/roll off passenger ferries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Officials from the Department's marine directorate had a successful meeting with officials from Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.

  The application and timing of a higher standard of residual stability to existing roll on/roll off passenger vessels was discussed. Officials are considering the very constructive and substantial comments made with the view to submitting further information to the next International Maritime Organisation meeting.

  Stockport Council (Land Conveyance)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 264, if he will make a statement on the progress made on conveying land near the M63 from Stockport borough council to his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  The Treasury Solicitor is waiting to hear further from Stockport borough council in response to his requisitions on title.

  M62
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the M62 has been subject to roadworks in each of the past two years, to date; what distance of the M62 has been subject to lane restrictions as a consequence; what roadworks are scheduled over each of the next two years; what distance will be subject to lane restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  During the last two financial years 24 km of the 180 km of the M62 have been subject to major roadworks—13 km in 1988–89 and 11 km in 1989–90.

  Lane closures have been necessary over a distance of 15 km and 14 km in both directions in each of the last two years. Next year (1991–92) 14·5 km of major roadworks are planned and this will involve lane closures over about 18 km in each direction. Works of this nature are essential if the network is to be kept in good condition.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about persistent congestion and delays to traffic using the M62 over the past year to date; what action he proposes to alleviate such congestion and delays; and if he will make a statement.
  229
  Mr. Chope
  Several complaints have been received about congestion and delays on the M62.

  To reduce delays and congestion, routine work is carried out during off-peak periods during the day, at weekends or overnight. Considerable effort goes into the pre-planning of traffic management measures for major roadworks and once the work is under way we give every encouragement for the contractor to complete it as quickly as possible by offering substantial bonuses for early completion or charging for over-running.

  When delays caused by major works are unavoidable every effort is made to give advance warning to the public.

  Thames Craft (Safety)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to review the regulations governing look-outs on(a) pleasure boats and (b) non-pleasure boats using the Thames.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The rules covering look-outs contained in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 are not under review at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). The Port of London Authority general directions for navigation that apply to all craft plying on the Thames were amended on 18 September 1989. Those amendments included a revision of the requirements for a look-out.

  Fuel Trains, Port Talbot
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions during the last 12 and 24 months, respectively, loaded fuel trains have been stabled at Port Talbot station for more than two minutes.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Railways tell me that loaded fuel trains are not stabled, which implies being left for long periods, at Port Talbot station. They normally stop for about two minutes, the time taken to change crews, although there have been occasional instances of trains being delayed because the relief crew were not immediately available, or because a leak has been suspected in a fuel tanker.

  Trains were delayed for suspected leaks on three occasions in the last 12 months and six occasions in the 12 months before that. The details of trains which may have been. delayed for more than two minutes for other operational reasons are not readily available.

  Airport Runways
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members of his working group to examine the Civil Aviation Authority's additional runway options for the south-east; and when they are expected to report.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The membership of the working group, and possible time scales for its advice, are being considered. My right hon. Friend has said that he intends the group to include representatives of local and environmental interests, airport and airline operators, the tourism and travel industry, consumer interests and Government Departments.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Irish Government concerning the upgrading of(a) passenger and (b) freight services on the railway line between the port of Holyhead and the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received representations from the Minister for Tourism and Transport for the Republic of Ireland, Mr. Seamus Brennan, expressing his support for the electrification of the Crewe-Holyhead line as a means to improve Ireland's passenger and freight links with Europe via the channel tunnel.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has been given on the returns available from electrifying the British Rail line from Crewe to Holyhead.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that work done for Gwynedd, Clwyd and Cheshire councils shows that electrification of this line would not meet British Rail's normal investment criterion of an 8 per cent. financial return. The councils have commissioned further work to establish whether the inclusion of external benefits would secure the required return.

  Transport Infrastructure (South-east Essex)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plan to visit south-east Essex to review the transport infrastructure in that part of the county.

  Mr. Chope
  No visit is planned at present.

  North-western Railway Line
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the investment programme to speed up services on the main northwestern railway line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 9 July at column 82.

  Merchant Ships
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British-owned merchant ships are currently operating under foreign flags.

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

  United Kingdom owned trading vessels of 100 gross tons and above at 31 March 1990

  Registry

  Number

  Gross tons ('000)

  Deadweight tonnes ('000)

  United Kingdom

  507

  4,044

  4,490

  Crown Dependencies1

  79

  1,613

  2,933

  ODTs (excluding Hong Kong)2

  48

  2,119

  4,016

  231

  Registry

  Number

  Gross tons ('000)

  Deadweight tonnes ('000)

  Hong Kong

  42

  981

  1,512

  Foreign

  125

  1,271

  2,104

  Total

  801

  10,029

  15,504

  1 The Crown Dependencies are the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

  2 'ODTs' are the Overseas Dependent Territories of Aguilla, British Antarctic Territory, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks & Caicos.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department intends to review the guidelines for the transport of low-level radioactive waste from(a) commercial sources, (b) nuclear industry sources and (c) military sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The transport of all radioactive materials must be made in compliance with regulations based on internationally agreed safety standards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These standards are subject to continual review.

  The Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials (ACTRAM) recently carried out a study on the transport of this material. The results were published in 1988 entitled "The Transport of Low Level Waste in the UK". A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total volume of radioactive waste transported by(a) road, (b) rail and (c) air in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not available.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving the transport of low-level radioactive waste have occurred in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chope
  There have been three accidents to vehicles carrying low-level radioactive waste since 1964.

  Stockport Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish compulsory purchase orders in respect of the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend about this.

  Rail Fares (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to by how much rail fares in south Yorkshire are due to be increased, from what date, and the reason for the increase.

  Mr. Freeman
  Fare levels on local rail services in south Yorkshire are a matter for the passenger transport authority and executive. I understand that an increase is planned but that the details have yet to be finalised.

  Property Sales
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many homes have been sold by his Department since the beginning of 1989 and in the last three months; and what criteria are used in deciding to whom the properties will be disposed.

  Mr. Chope
  Since the beginning of 1989 159 residential properties have been sold, including 23 in the last three months. Where appropriate, a property is offered first to the tenant if the terms of the tenancy so require, then to the former owner depending on the circumstances under which it was acquired.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to make available properties disposed of by his Department to housing associations or local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities and housing associations are able to bid for the properties when they are offered for sale on the open market.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report his answer to the letter from Mr. Arthur Doe of Brockhurst, Maurys lane, West Wellow, Romsey, dated 29 April, which was sent to him on 4 May and again on 26 June under Department of Transport reference number A/P50/15174/89.

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

  Speed Humps
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those London boroughs and metropolitan areas where speed humps have been introduced so far as the information is available to him; and what is the density of distribution of such humps in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  The decision whether to install speed humps lies with local highway authorities. Information on installations is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has in regard to the numbers of accidents attributable directly to the introduction of speed humps in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Freeman
  None, nor am I aware of any such relationship. Our liaison arrangements with local authorities will alert us should any problem arise in future.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the information he has on the effect on road safety of the introduction of speed bumps in urban areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Speed Hump Regulations 1990, making it easier for local highway authorities to instal speed humps, came into effect only three months ago. The prescribed designs are based on extensive research in the United Kingdom and overseas with safety as a key factor. We shall be monitoring their effects.

  Slowing traffic down to safe speeds in residential areas will undoubtedly save many lives.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Earnings
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women earn (i) over £25,000, (ii) over £30,000, (iii) over £35,000, (iv) over £40,000, (v) £45,000 and (vi) over £50,000 per year.

  Mr. Ryder
  Available information for 1990–91 is in the table. It is not possible to provide accurate estimates for the analysis by men and women for the categories of earnings over £35,000.

  Earned income (£ pa)

  Men (thousands)

  Women (thousands)

  More than £25,000

  1,400

  150

  More than £30,000

  830

  80

  More than £35,000

  620

  More than £40,000

  400

  More than £45,000

  300

  More than £50,000

  220

  Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people who pay tax are below the upper earnings limit.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is estimated that, in 1990–91, there will be about 19¼ million taxpayers in employment and self-employment aged under 65 with earned income below £18,200, the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions purposes.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was, for each year that personal equity plans have been in operation(a) the number and proportion of people with personal equity plans who are on the higher rate of tax and (b) the cost to his Department in total of personal equity plans and per person with a personal equity plan.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest available information is shown in the reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 19 February, column 515.

  Income Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated average and median(a) original, (b) gross and (c) post-tax income in 1990–91.

  Mr. Ryder
  Estimates of original, gross and post-tax income are derived from the family expenditure survey. Latest figures are for 1987 and were published in the May 1990 edition of Economic Trends. Estimates for 1990 will be available in due course when the 1990 family expenditure survey is completed and processed.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the full report of the latest 234
  survey of personal incomes; and if he will make it his policy that the sample size in future surveys be sufficiently large to provide county-level estimates of the number of taxpayers, the number of higher-rate taxpayers, and of taxable income which are statistically reliable.

  Mr. Ryder
  A range of tables compiled from the latest survey of personal incomes will, as is now the practice, be published in the next edition of "Inland Revenue Statistics" before the end of the year. Other information has been extracted from the survey as needs arose, some of which has already been published.

  All sample surveys are subject to some degree of statistical variation. The size of the sample of surveys of personal incomes must continue to be set with a view to meeting efficiently its primary purpose of providing information relevant to the costing of income tax proposals affecting the United Kingdom as a whole. As explained in the reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 12 June, column 152, investigation is continuing into the reliability of information at the county level. Publication of county data will be resumed as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates of(a) original, (b) gross and (c) post-tax income, by decile.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information for 1987, the latest available year, is given in the table:

  Average household income per year1

  Decile groups of equivalised disposable income

  Original income £ a year

  Gross income £ a year

  2 Post-tax income £ a year

  Bottom

  958

  3,975

  2,367

  2nd

  1,489

  4,819

  3,187

  3rd

  2,573

  5,503

  3,630

  4th

  5,131

  7,752

  4,896

  5th

  7,944

  10,082

  6,236

  6th

  11,002

  12,604

  7,725

  7th

  12,865

  14,088

  8,649

  8th

  16,145

  17,065

  10,459

  9th

  19,975

  20,694

  12,764

  Top

  30,955

  31,571

  20,345

  All households

  10,904

  12,816

  8,026

  Source:

  Central Statistics Office.

  1 Equivalisation is used only for ranking the households. The figures shown above refer to unequivalised income.

  2 Post-tax income is after the deduction of direct taxes (eg income tax) and indirect taxes (eg VAT, petrol duty).

  Note:

  The figures are extracted from an article "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 1987" published in the May 1990 edition of Economic Trends.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average, and distribution of, household income of households which contain at least one person earning above the upper earnings limit who is on the basic rate of tax.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and would be disproportionately expensive to provide.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gross domestic product of the member states of the European Community in the latest convenient year.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following is the information requested.

  GDP at purchasing power parities 1989

  United States dollars (billions)

  United Kingdom

  818·4

  Germany

  941·7

  France

  817·4

  Italy

  801·9

  Belgium

  135·2

  Denmark

  73·8

  Greece

  72·7

  Ireland

  31·2

  Luxembourg

  6·3

  Netherlands

  205·0

  Portugal

  72·9

  Spain

  396·9

  Source: OECD.

  Foreign Exchange Transactions
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total cost of transactions between European Community member states in foreign exchange in the latest convenient year.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government have not made such an estimate.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1960 consumption of goods other than food and fuel as a percentage of gross domestic product together with the balance of trade in manufactures.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information can be derived from data on the CSO's database, which may be accessed through the Library. The database indentifiers are:

  Consumers' expenditure other than food and energy products

  Sum of:

  Durable goods (AIIL)

  Alcohol and tobacco (CDFH)

  Clothing and footwear (CDDE)

  Other goods (CCED)

  GDP at market prices (CAOB)

  Balance of trade in manufactures (BPJF)
  (available only from 1970).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing in May

  Entitlements for 1990–91 cash limits resulting from the carryforward of capital underspends

  Class

  Vote

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£ thousands)

  I

  2

  Ministry of Defence 1

  Defence procurement

  188,188

  II

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Overseas representation

  3,971

  II

  3

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  External broadcasting and monitoring

  2,765

  II

  4

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  British council

  1,500

  III

  2

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Administration

  304

  III

  4

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Other agricultural and food services and support for the fishing industry

  2,000

  236
  1990 prices the balance of trade in manufactures, less erratics on a balance of payments basis, in 1977, 1978, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information from which the balance of trade in manufactures less erratics at May 1990 prices may be derived can be found in the monthly review of external trade statistics and its mid-year supplement, and also through the Central Statistical Office database, which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to alter the Laspeyres-based formula for the retail prices index.

  Mr. Ryder
  No. The Laspeyres formula, which gives each item a relative importance or "weight" in accordance with the consumption pattern in a specified base period, is recognised throughout the world as the most satisfactory method of constructing a regular consumer price index. The particular variant used for the United Kingdom retail prices index, known as the "chain Laspeyres" formula, minimises the disadvantages of using historical consumption patterns by updating the weights at the beginning of each year.

  EC Budget
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Community's budget.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community's budget in 1990 is £2,175 million. This appeared in the "Statement on the 1990 Community Budget" (Cm 1059).

  Capital and Running Costs
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the entitlements for 1990–91 resulting from the carry forward of capital and running costs underspend allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A list of entitlements totalling £410,935,000 for capital expenditure and £19,230,000 for running costs is shown in the following table.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, individual cash limits and running costs limits will be increased when entitlement is taken up.

  The total increase in cash limits resulting from the take-up of end-year flexibility will be charged to the Reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  237

  Class

  Vote

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£ thousands)

  IV

  2

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Support for industry, administration, etc

  4,686

  IV

  7

  Office of Fair Trading

  Office of Fair Trading

  51

  VI

  1

  Department of Employment

  Training Programmes

  2,000

  VI

  2 and 3

  Department of Employment

  Employment programmes and central services

  4,762

  VII

  1

  Department of Transport

  National roads, England

  52,971

  VII

  2

  Department of Transport

  Administration and transport services

  2,000

  VII

  4

  Department of Transport

  Driver and vehicle licensing

  2,000

  VIII

  5

  Department of the Environment

  Central environmental services, etc.

  2,000

  VIII

  6

  Department of the Environment

  Royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage

  1,319

  VIII

  7

  Property Holdings, etc.2

  Civil accommodation, administration and miscellaneous services

  1

  VIII

  11

  Office of Water Services

  Office of Water Services

  196

  VIII

  12

  Ordnance Survey

  Ordnance Survey

  1,607

  IX

  2

  Home Office

  Prisons, England and Wales

  16,583

  IX

  3

  Home Office

  Administration, miscellaneous and community service and civil defence England and Wales

  720

  X

  1

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Administration of Justice, England and Wales

  950

  X

  11

  Her Majesty's Land Registry3

  Her Majesty's Land Registry

  1

  X

  12

  Public Record Office

  Public Record Office

  280

  X

  13

  Crown Office

  Administration

  1,178

  XI

  1

  Department of Education and Science

  Schools, research and miscellaneous services

  4,534

  XI

  2

  Department of Education and Science

  Universities, etc

  2,236

  XI

  4

  Department of Education and Science

  Administration

  2,000

  XII

  3

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  Libraries

  2,167

  XIII

  1

  Department of Health

  Hospital and community health and other services, England

  23,284

  XV

  2

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Agricultural services and fisheries for Scotland

  2,000

  XV

  6

  Scottish Development Department

  Roads, transport and environmental services, Scotland

  359

  XV

  11

  Scottish Courts Administration

  Administration of Justice, Scotland

  1,685

  XV

  15

  Scottish Education Department

  Education, arts, libraries and social work, Scotland

  2,000

  XV

  18

  Scottish Record Office

  Scottish Record Office

  66

  XV

  19

  General Register Office

  General Register Office, Scotland

  637

  XV

  21

  Scottish Office

  Administration

  103

  XV

  27

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  Hospital and community health services, Scotland

  8,409

  XVI

  2

  Welsh Office

  Agricultural services, support for the fishing industry, regional and industrial development, Wales

  1,515

  XVI

  5

  Welsh Office

  Tourism, roads and transport, housing other environmental services, education and science, arts and libraries and centrally funded health and personal social services, Wales

  7,651

  XVI

  8

  Welsh Office

  Hospital and community health services, etc., Wales

  896

  XVIII

  1

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Administration

  2,509

  XVIII

  6

  Customs and Excise

  Administration

  2,412

  XVIII

  7

  Inland Revenue

  Administration

  3,985

  XVIII

  14

  Central Office of Information

  Central Office of Information

  58

  Total voted

  360,539

  1 The five cash limited Defence votes are each separate cash limits but, by agreement with the Treasury, are managed as a cash block. Most of the expenditure eligible for the scheme in these cash limits is on class I, vote 2.

  2 This is a token Vote. Carryforward will be taken in the form of increased appropriations in aid of £9,147,000.

  3 This is a token Vote. Carryforward will be taken in the form of increased appropriations in aid of £1,961,000.

  Entitlements for 1990–91 Cash Limits resulting from the Carryforwards of Capital Underspends

  Non Voted cash limits

  Cash block

  Department

  Description

  Amount £ 000's

  DOE/HC

  Department of the Environment

  Grants and capital expenditure financed by the Housing Corporation in England

  4,240

  DOE/NT

  Department of the Environment

  Capital expenditure in England by new towns for housing, roads, commercial and industrial investment and certain water services

  16,228

  238 239

  Cash block

  Department

  Description

  Amount £ 000's

  DOE/UA

  Department of the Environment

  External financing requirement of Urban Development Corporations in England, grants to local authorities and other bodies under the urban programme, the derelict land reclamation and city grant programmes (inc. associated local authority credit approvals) and other expenditure for inner cities initiatives.

  4,129

  SO/LA1

  Scottish Office

  Net Capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland on roads and transport, water and sewerage, general services, urban programme, police and social work, schools, further education, teacher training, and arts and libraries.

  6,000

  SO/LA2

  Scottish Office

  Net capital allocations and capital grants to local authorities in Scotland for housing. Capital expenditure by New Towns in Scotland for housing and other environmental services.

  17,007

  WO/UA

  Welsh Office

  Supplementary credit approvals and grants to local authorities in Wales for the Urban programme, etc and Cardiff Bay Development Corporation initiatives in Wales.

  2,792

  Total non voted

  50,396

  Total carry forward of capital underspends

  410,935

  Entitlements for 1990–91 running costs limits resulting from the carry forward of running costs underspends

  Department

  Amount £ 000's

  Trade and Industry

  1,524

  Office of Gas Supply

  50

  Department of Employment

  4,370

  Department of Transport

  1,183

  Department of Education and Science

  371

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  180

  Scottish Office

  580

  Scottish Courts Administration

  125

  General Register Office, Scotland

  50

  Welsh Office

  207

  Northern Ireland Office

  2,697

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Customs and Excise

  2,529

  Inland Revenue

  4,987

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  377

  Total carry forward of running costs underspends

  19,230

  Commemorative Coins
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government plan to issue any new commemorative coins.

  Mr. Major
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that a 50p coin be issued featuring a special commemorative design to celebrate Britain's presidency of the Council of Ministers in 1992 and the single European market. In addition to circulating versions of the coin, collectors' version will be issued in base metal, silver and gold.

  "Next Steps"
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the application of "next steps" to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Major
  In February 1988 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the "next steps" initiative. In addition to their policy responsibilities, both Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have significant executive functions, and they are therefore entirely suitable
  240
  for applying the principles of "next steps." I have now conducted a review with the chairmen of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise of the best way to do so.

  Each department already operates within an individual statutory framework, which defines the tasks of the department and the relationship between the chairman and the board on the one hand and Treasury Ministers on the other. These arrangements will remain, but I have decided that it would be in the interests of the taxpayer, the public and the staff of the departments to introduce changes which will enable them to operate fully on "next steps" lines. In particular I want to give greater impetus to enhancing internal accountability and delegation, consistent with the management of a tax system which needs to offer all taxpayers equality of treatment.

  Following a review by Inland Revenue officials I have concluded that the valuation offices for England and Wales and for Scotland should be launched as a single executive agency under a chief executive who will be appointed by open competition. The aim is to set up the agency in the summer of 1991. The valuation offices already operate as discrete management units and are responsible for negotiating the valuation of land and buildings for a variety of purposes for central and local government; the valuation office for England and Wales also undertakes the valuation of business property for rating purposes. The offices employ over 5,000 staff. Agency status for this work will increase the offices' ability to focus on the work to be done and give their managers more responsibility and flexibility to carry out their task. These benefits should enable them to achieve continuing improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and accountability, and increase the commitment of staff to providing a high-quality valuation service for their customers.

  In its other work also the Inland Revenue has well-defined lines of management responsibility and internal accountability through its network of regions and local offices, and its specialist units. It operates a comprehensive system of performance targets which are published annually in its management plans with departmental performance reviewed in the board's annual report, and there is an extensive training and management development programme for staff. It is also tackling major changes flowing from recent reforms in the tax system and

  241
  in the way it does its work. The Department will need great flexibility to cope with these changes. To this end it will be further extending internal delegation and accountability, and examining ways of reshaping the structure and organisation of its work, all on "next steps" lines, so as to ensure that the Department continues to be responsive to the needs of taxpayers and provide a high level of service. I have asked the chairman of the Inland Revenue to draw up and submit to me an action programme for this work.

  The Inland Revenue is also reviewing the organisation of information technology in the Department, to determine what arrangements will best meet the needs of the Department throughout the 1990s. An announcement will be made in due course.

  To the same ends Customs and Excise will reorganise the bulk of its activity into executive units encompassing some 95 per cent. of its staff. The head of each unit will be appointed by the chairman and enjoy increased managerial and operational freedoms within a clearly defined framework of targets, responsibilities and accountabilities. Key features are:

  (i) there will be a published framework document for the Department, and a separate framework document for each unit. The head of each unit will be appointed by the chairman and will be accountable to the board;

  (ii) the Customs and Excise management plan and the board's annual report will contain progressively improved information about financial and other targets and outturns for the board and for each unit;

  (iii) a radical change in the management of staff and their methods of conducting the Department's business, giving managers the maximum possible freedom to operate controls according to assessments of risk and local circumstances and to exercise local authority and discretion both in financial controls and operational systems;

  (iv) new emphasis on the individual initiative and expertise of staff with an ambitious programme of management training and development; and

  £ million

  Amounts invested

  Cost of tax relief

  Total

  1Of which invested in private rented housing

  Total

  1Of which in respect of investment in private rented housing

  1983–84

  105

  —

  50

  —

  1984–85

  148

  —

  75

  —

  1985–86

  157

  —

  85

  —

  1986–87

  168

  —

  95

  —

  1987–882

  191

  —

  110

  —

  1988–892

  425

  375

  150

  130

  1989–902

  175

  150

  60

  50

  1 The scheme was extended to include investment in private rented housing from 1988–89.

  2 Provisional estimates.

  Married Couples' Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the increase in personal allowances would have to be if the married couples' allowance were frozen in cash terms at the level it is at the present time, so that post-tax real income remained constant for the average married couple; and what would be the cost of each of these changes and the combined cost.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: This would depend on the rates of growth in the various categories of income subject to income tax between the current year and the future year for which the comparison is required as well as the inflation rate.
  242
  (v) further improvements in service, aimed at minimising burdens on business and the travelling public, and making significant improvements in the information and services the Department provides.

  I have asked the chairman of Customs and Excise to draw up an action programme for making these changes, with the objective of having the executive unit structure in place by April 1991. The first step will be to publish the departmental framework document in the autumn. At the same time, the Department will publish the first individual framework documents in a series which will set out the objectives and responsibilities of each executive unit. The programme will be kept under review, and this will include consideration whether certain of the units should become candidates for conversion into freestanding agencies.

  Each Department has already made considerable progress in improving its management. But these are important changes. I am confident that operating fully on "next steps" lines the two Departments will deliver further significant improvements in the way they are managed and, in turn, greater efficiency, better service to the public and enhanced commitment and enthusiasm from their staff.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each of the years of the existence of the business expansion scheme what was(a) the total amount invested in the business expansion scheme, (b) the total cost to the Exchequer, (c) the percentage and amount of business expansion scheme money invested, and (d) the associated cost to the Exchequer, in residential and assured tenancy schemes.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The latest estimates are shown in the table:

  Income Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much revenue would be raised if tax was levied at 50 per cent. for those earning £50,000 and above, 45 per cent. for those earning £40,000 to £50,000, the 40 per cent. band remained as at present and the upper earnings limit was removed;

  (2) how much revenue would be raised if tax was levied at 50 per cent. for those earning £50,000 and above, 45 per cent. for those earning £40,000 to £50,000 and the 40 per cent. band remained as at present.
  243
  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The yield in a full year at 1990–91 levels of income of introducing the rates of income tax shown in the table is estimated to be about £500 million.

  Taxable income £

  Rate Per cent.

  1–20,700

  25

  20,701–40,000

  40

  40,001–50,000

  45

  50,001 and over

  50

  Taxable income is income subject to tax from all sources after deducting allowances and reliefs.

  The estimate does not take account of the consequential effect on capital gains tax, nor does it allow for any behavioural effects that might result from such an increase.

  The additional yield from abolishing the upper earnings limit for employees' class 1 national insurance contributions is estimated to be £2½ billion.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer in each year of the profit-related pay scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The latest available information is shown in the reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 13 February, column 121.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of tax relief on pensions, savings/ investment for and payment of, to(a) individuals, and (b) employers for the latest available year given the figures broken down by (i) occupational and (ii) private provision, if available.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The latest estimates in respect of 1989–90 of the reductions in tax liabilities arising from the individual tax reliefs related to pensions schemes are shown in the table:

  £ million

  Relief for:

  Employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes2

  1,800

  Employers' contributions to occupational pension schemes2 3

  13,100

  Investment income of occupational pension schemes2 4

  4,100

  Lump sum payments to pensioners2 4

  1,000

  Contributions to personal pensions (including retirement annuity premia and FSAVCs)3 5

  800

  1 This figure is particularly tentative and subject to a wide margin of error.

  2 The total cost of tax reliefs for pension schemes cannot be calculated by adding together the costs of individual reliefs as this would imply a considerable degree of multiple taxation.

  3 On the basis that under present arrangements employers' contributions are not taxable as a benefit in kind of the employee.

  4 Assuming relief at the basic rate of income tax.

  5 It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the cost of exemption for investment income and lump sum payments related to retirement annuity contracts.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: The Government's economic policies are designed to maintain a vigorous economy in which business and enterprise can flourish. The Treasury therefore places a high priority on helping small business, and among the specific measures taken over the last 12 months have been:
  an increase in the profits limit for small companies' rate of corporation tax by a third to £200,000, and the limit for marginal relief from the main rate also increased by a third to £1 million;
  introduction of simplified VAT registration requirements which will help keep new small businesses out of the VAT net for longer;
  introduction of a comprehensive bad debt relief scheme for VAT;
  highest permissible increase under EC law in the VAT threshold;
  increase in the annual investment limit under the business expansion scheme to £750,000;
  introduction of a simplified VAT return with five boxes for completion in place of nine;
  introduction of the option of three-line statements instead of full accounts for businesses with turnover of less than £10,000;
  improvements to the VAT cash accounting scheme for businesses with turnovers not exceeding £250,000;
  relaxations to the record-keeping requirements under the VAT second-hand schemes;
  the introduction of fast-lane procedures to reduce the time taken to clear certain EC imports;
  the introduction of a simplified ATA carnet.
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise officials also continuously review forms, explanatory notices and leaflets with the aim of providing guidance which is easily understood.

  The success of the Government's policies is demonstrated by the latest statistics on VAT registrations, which show a record increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT, around 1,700 a week on average, during 1989.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the reasons for including accountancy firms criticised by his Department's inspectors on the joint disciplinary scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  The joint disciplinary scheme is operated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, and the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. I understand that, in selecting individuals to sit on any committee of inquiry set up under the scheme, account is taken of all relevant factors including whether having on that team someone from an accountancy firm criticised by the Department's inspectors is in any way material to the case.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to the application of United Kingdom competition legislation in relation to the arrangements for the restructuring of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have today laid before the House an order made under section 100(2) of the Electricity Act 1989, exempting certain electricity agreements from the ambit of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. Two previous orders were made on 27 March and 28 June respectively.

  The various orders, which were made following consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) and the Director General of Electricity Supply (DGES), apply in relation to the following categories of agreements entered into by the electricity supply industry (ESI) in England and Wales, and in Scotland, prior to vesting day on 31 March 1990 or as a consequence of the new industry structure:

  Pooling and Settlement Arrangements

  Initial Settlement Arrangements

  Contracts for Differences

  Connection and Use of System Agreements

  Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) Qualifying Arrangements

  Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency (NFPA) Arrangements

  French Interconnection Arrangements

  Scottish Interconnection Arrangements

  British Grid Systems Agreement

  Dounreay Supply Agreement

  Cable Maintenance Agreements.

  These agreements are an essential part of the process of ensuring an orderly transition to new competitive arrangements within the ESI. By exempting them from the application of United Kingdom restrictive trade practices legislation, the orders will help to ensure a stable framework within which effective competition may develop. The actions of the various companies remain subject in the normal way to the anti-competitive practices provisions of the Competition Act 1980 and to the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  The exemptions provided by these orders are intended to remain in force for the duration of the individual agreements, provided that there is no material change in the relevant circumstances. However, where agreements last for more than five years from vesting day (or eight years in the case of the NFFO arrangements), it may be appropriate to review the continuing need for the exemptions at some stage following the expiry of those periods, taking account of the competitive environment then prevailing.

  Such a review is not expected to result in wide-ranging changes in the basic arrangements now in place in the industry. In particular, the pooling and settlement arrangements, which lie at the core of the new market structure for the buying and selling of electricity, are expected to remain in place indefinitely on the basis that the relevant agreements will be subject to close and regular scrutiny by the Director General of Electricity Supply as part of his general responsibilities under the Electricity Act.

  The Government are committed to the introduction of new legislation on restrictive trade practices, in implementation of the proposals outlined in the White Paper "Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices" (Cm. 727) published in July 1989. It is
  246
  our intention that any exemptions still in force at the commencement of the new legislation should be carried forward in transitional arrangements. The introduction of such legislation is subject to the availability of parliamentary time.

  Leather Industry
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support Her Majesty's Government are providing to the United Kingdom leather industry to enable it to meet the advancing technological requirements of the sector.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am pleased to announce that my Department is to provide assistance to a research programme of five projects on improvements to the control of leather production and the quality of leather. The DTI contribution will be £1,642,694 towards total costs of £4,199,271.

  The work sponsored by DTI will be carried out on behalf of the industry by the British Leather Confederation in Northampton over the next five years.

  Single Market
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to extend the scope of his single market campaign to help business to prepare for the single European market.

  Mr. Lilley
  As part of the single market campaign my Department has in recent months emphasised the natural role of business support organisations, such as chambers of commerce and trade associations, in providing the detailed information and advice needed by the business community. I am encouraged by the growing role such organisations are playing in complementing my Department's continuing single market information service. But I have concluded that there is a need to help them further develop their single market services in the run-up to 1992.

  I am therefore making available to business support organisations a package of measures to help them develop and improve their services on single market matters. The package includes financial assistance towards acquiring single market expertise, improving their delivery of single market services and access to my Department's single market database, Spearhead.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he proposes to make for licensing under the Telecommunications Act 1984 existing cable television relay systems which do not at present require to be licensed under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, should the proposals in the Broadcasting Bill receive parliamentary approval.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to the reply, 7 June 1990, col. 670–71]: Details of the licensing regime for SMATV systems under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the provisions in the Broadcasting Bill should it receive Royal Assent were given in an answer by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on 2 March 1990, col. 351–52, and in the earlier answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North.
  247
  SMATV systems in new housing developments in the process of being built on the date that the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting Bill enter into force, the transfer date, will be regarded for licensing purposes as having carried all four terrestrial channels and all five United Kingdom DBS channels immediately before the transfer date provided that:

  (a) the contract with the prospective licensee to build such a system was signed and any necessary planning permission granted on or before today's date; and

  (b) at least 50 per cent. of the homes on the system were capable of receiving all four terrestrial channels and all five United Kingdom DBS channels immediately before the transfer date.

  Those running such systems will thus qualify for an individual Telecommunications Act licence authorising the system to carry, after the transfer date, any television or radio services other than those proscribed under provisions contained in clause 165 of the Broadcasting Bill. Systems covering 1,000 homes or more will also qualify for a five-year diffusion service licence (if the system lies within a cable franchise area) or a five-year local delivery service licence (if it lies outside). Applications for these licences will have to be made in advance of the transfer date.

  Any other system partially built at the transfer date will be regarded for licensing purpose as having been built after the transfer date.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Bereavement Damages
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper on bereavement damages will be published.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper on bereavement damages in March this year. Copies of the paper were placed in the Library on publication.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Uganda
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a breakdown of European Community aid to Uganda for each of the last five years; what the United Kingdom contribution was for each year; whether the aid was provided for emergency relief, project aid or programme aid; and to which regions of Uganda the aid was targeted.

  Mrs. Chalker
  European Community aid commitments to Uganda since 1985 have been as follows:

  Project

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Ockenden Venture—Community development, Es Showak, Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  35,475

  51,975

  ACORD—Qala en Nahal settlement programme, Sudan

  200,000

  300,000

  300,000

  200,000

  300,000

  80,000

  248

  Year

  1Project Aid

  1Programme Aid

  1Emergency Aid

  1Food Aid

  1985

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  1986

  6·0

  —

  1·5

  1·2

  1987

  77·7

  15·0

  4·4

  0·7

  1988

  10·7

  15·0

  0·8

  1·5

  1989

  30·4

  —

  —

  7·9

  1990

  54·5

  —

  0·7

  —

  1 All figures in millions of ecu. 1 ecu is approximately £0·7.

  The United Kingdom contribution to the current (sixth) European development fund (1985–90) is 16·58 per cent. of the total.

  The majority of the emergency and food aid for Uganda has been allocated to the north. A number of different regions have benefited from the project and programme aid, including Kampala, the north-east, the east, Karamoja, Masaka, Mbarara, Kabale amd Mpigi.

  Details of the separate bilateral aid programme administered by ODA were given in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman of 7 June.

  ODA Refugees Section
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to taking the Overseas Development Administration's refugees section out of the emergency relief section of Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. The present arrangements work extremely well.

  Emergency Budget
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the procedure for monitoring and evaluating projects funded under the Overseas Development Administration's emergency budget differs from procedures for projects under the regular aid budget.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There is no single procedure for either monitoring or evaluating emergency aid operations. Monitoring is usually continuous since the emergency actions are generally of relatively short duration. Procedures for evaluating emergency aid are the same as those for projects funded from the regular aid programme, but the methodology chosen for each study reflects the nature of the project under evaluation.

  African Refugees
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all grants from the Overseas Development Administration to projects of the International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa and to the reserve fund of ICARA.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since 1984 ODA has made the following grants to projects under the International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa:
  249

  Project

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  ACORD—Community centre integrated rural & craft education, Rwanda

  —

  37,205

  10,000

  —

  —

  50,000

  ACORD—Market gardening, fruit trees and forestry, Guinea Conakry

  —

  30,000

  20,000

  47,000

  150,000

  100,000

  ACORD—Women's co-operative market gardening, Guinea Conakry

  —

  40,000

  25,000

  53,000

  ACORD—Integrated development, Bokoro, Chad

  —

  —

  97,525

  50,000

  77,991

  60,000

  Quaker Peace and Service—Refugee and community project, Sudan

  —

  —

  35,000

  54,600

  112,000

  —

  Oxfam—Water supply, Zimbabwe

  18,020

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  World University Service—Library project, Juba, Sudan

  —

  6,720

  33,923

  7,508

  —

  —

  World University Service—Library and women's project, Gedaref, Sudan

  —

  —

  15,000

  76,879

  81,883

  76,000

  International Extension College—Sudan extension unit project

  —

  90,000

  33,978

  52,800

  98,200

  175,000

  International Extension College—Non-formal education, Somalia

  —

  —

  100,000

  25,000

  100,000

  74,796

  Oxfam—Support for IEC non-formal education project, Somalia

  —

  —

  45,000

  29,730

  71,400

  64,321

  World University Service—Teacher training, Mozambique

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24,775

  Oxfam—Support for vocational training programme for handicapped youths, Somalia

  —

  —

  —

  22,637

  —

  —

  Ockenden Venture—Primary education programme, Port Sudan

  20,000

  15,000

  85,000

  87,822

  100,322

  75,810

  Ockenden Venture—Community Development Kilo 26, Sudan

  —

  15,000

  23,670

  51,425

  48,179

  58,386

  ACORD—Small Enterprise Programme, Port Sudan

  85,000

  86,095

  40,000

  60,000

  100,000

  100,000

  Quaker Peace and Service—Refugee Centre, Botswana

  —

  —

  11,300

  —

  —

  —

  Action Aid, Handicapped Refugees Project, Somalia

  —

  —

  98,058

  40,000

  —

  —

  Ryder Cheshire Mission Handicapped Refugees, Katumba, Tanzania

  —

  —

  25,929

  23,679

  28,000

  30,000

  Oxfam—Eastern Sudan Water Supply

  —

  —

  65,865

  —

  —

  —

  You and Me—Medical Project, Eastern Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  27,550

  21,000

  Christian Outreach—Health—Reception Centre, Shagarab, Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60,000

  Christian Outreach Health—Kashmir Girba, Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40,000

  Christian Outreach Community Development, Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  91,000

  120,000

  Help the Aged—Eye Care, Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70,000

  114,000

  TOTAL

  323,020

  620,020

  1,065,248

  922,080

  1,492,000

  1,376,063

  250

  Red Cross
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing in the current year for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have just announced a further contribution to ICRC of £2·6 million, £1·6 million for its Africa programmes and £1 million towards its major programme for Afghan refugees in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on representations received following the recent lobby of Parliament on animal welfare, organised by Compassion in World Farming.

  Mr. Maclean
  I welcome the widest possible debate on the vitally important issue of animal welfare.

  The Government are pressing for improved welfare standards to be adopted throughout the European Community. We are currently seeking in the Council important new welfare safeguards for pigs and calves. Among our objectives in these negotiations are to secure the phasing out of unacceptable husbandry systems, as recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and to extend throughout the Community our ban on the close confinement of veal calves in crates.

  The parliamentary lobby highlighted the concern about transport conditions for farm livestock. The Government fully share this concern.

  We cannot, as has been suggested, ban exports of live animals under article 36 of the treaty of Rome, as there is already Community law on the protection of animals during international transport. It is most important, however, to ensure that all animal transport is carried out with proper regard to welfare and the Government will be negotiating to this end in discussions on the Commission's proposals for new Community measures on protection of animals in transport, whether to, from or between member states.

  Special rules are proposed for animals going for slaughter. The Government will be pressing particularly here for agreement to maintain our controls on trade in horses for slaughter.

  The Government welcome any support from those concerned with animal welfare for their efforts to achieve practicable and enforceable welfare safeguards in the Community.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for organisational developments within the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have reviewed the options for the future organisation of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS). As I announced in a reply to 252
  my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 26 February, the central veterinary laboratory and the veterinary medicines directorate became executive agencies from 2 April 1990. The state veterinary service will transfer from ADAS to the Ministry's food safety directorate on 1 August 1990.

  The central science laboratory of the research and development service (RDS) is largely engaged on work directly supporting Government policies, particularly on plant health, environmental and wildlife issues. I have concluded that this laboratory is not a candidate for privatisation, but that it should be established as a separate executive agency.

  The farm and countryside service (FCS) is engaged to a substantial degree on providing consultancy and other services to farmers and others. The aim is that these commercial services should achieve full cost recovery in due course. The FCS also provides important services to support various areas of the Government's policy work. It is important that a commercial framework and incentives should be established for this work undertaken for Government.

  I have therefore concluded that the FCS, together with the experimental husbandry farms and other units in the field R and D division of the research and development service, should be established as a separate agency with the intention that it will as soon as possible become a trading fund. The Government believe that privatisation could, in the longer run, be the logical development for such an organisation.

  I am arranging for detailed studies to be put in hand to define precisely the functions to be undertaken in each of the two new agencies and the arrangements for ensuring that full collaboration is maintained between them. It is my intention that both the CSL and the FCS/RDS field R and D division should achieve agency status by 1 April 1992. The drafting of the agency framework agreements will also be carried forward.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will consider what arrangements for the FCS might apply in Wales.

  These changes will have important implications for the organisation of the Ministry, including particularly the regional and divisional organisation. I am therefore commissioning an internal review of the organisation needed to undertake the other functions of the regions and divisions.

  Agricultural Training Board
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he and his ministerial colleagues have concluded their consideration of the outstanding recommendations of the report on the agricultural training board presented by Mr. John E. Smith, November 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. We have concluded that it would be appropriate to extend the remit of the agricultural training board to permit it to offer its training services, at full economic cost, to a wider range of rural businesses, having regard to the existing provision for training and subject to ministerial direction. This will require primary legislation for which an early opportunity will be sought, so as to enable the board to continue its policy of raising more of its finance from the market. The level of Exchequer funding for future years will be determined, as usual, in the
  253
  context of the Government's overall decisions on public expenditure. We shall bear in mind the longer-term recommendation on the composition of the board, but we have no immediate plans to alter it or to seek fresh legislation in this respect.

  Veterinary Costs
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions he has made about the continuation of the subsidy for veterinary costs in export-approved meat plants, in view of the European Community rules on meat inspection charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Community rules on charges for meat inspection were adopted by the Council of Ministers in June 1988 in decision 88/408/EEC and directive 88/409/EEC. They must be brought into effect not later than 1 January 1991 and, inter alia, they prohibit the subsidisation of meat inspection costs except where the actual costs of inspection exceed specified standard charges.

  In these circumstances, the scheme introduced in 1983 under which the Government meet the costs of veterinary supervision and certification in plants producing red meat, poultry meat, game meat and meat products to export standard, and also the cost of testing for trichinosis and residues when required by importing countries, will end on 31 December 1990. We shall be consulting interested parties on the new arrangements for meat inspection charges shortly.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animal health officers are now in post within the state veterinary service; and what qualifications were required for recruitment.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently one hundred and forty-six and a half animal health officers in post in the state veterinary service. The qualifications for entry require candidates to be at least 20 years of age, physically fit, hold a current driving licence and have 4 GCE O-levels or CSE grade 1 passes including English and a scientific subject. Equivalent qualifications are also considered.

  East Coast Salmon Fisheries
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the review of east coast salmon fisheries under the Salmon Act 1986 to be laid before Parliament; and whether the review will be published as it was presented to him by the advisory body, without alteration.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 29 June,Official Report, column 388. As that reply made clear, scientists from both Fisheries Departments have been collecting a range of scientific information on which the review required under section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986 is to be based. We will be reporting to Parliament on the review as soon as the review is complete.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for changes in the constitution of the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has for some time been urging the dairy industry to come forward with proposals for change to the milk marketing arrangements. I will consider sympathetically any proposals it makes which would lead to a more competitive industry better able to respond positively to the challenges and opportunities of the single market.

  Wild Rabbits
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the annual cost to(a) farming and (b) forestry of damage caused by wild rabbits; and what is his estimate of their current numbers.

  Mr. Maclean
  Damage from wild rabbits to agriculture and horticulture in the United Kingdom is estimated to cost £100 million to £150 million annually. I do not have any information on the costs to forestry.

  National surveys between 1980 and 1986 showed a steady increase in the population of rabbits particularly in eastern and south-eastern areas. They are now estimated to number 30 million, about one third the level which existed before the arrival of myxomatosis.

  Pet Food
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take action to make the voluntary ban on the inclusion of specified offals in pet food statutory.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 20 July,Official Report, column 761.

  1990 Harvest
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the 1990 harvest.

  Mr. Maclean
  Much of the winter barley crop has now been harvested in good conditions. Latest reports indicate that quality is around average and yields variable, with lower yields being obtained from barley grown on light land which has been most affected by lack of water. Harvesting of spring barley has only just started and harvesting of the wheat crop is expected to begin shortly. It is too early to say what the overall quality and size of the 1990 United Kingdom cereals harvest is likely to be.

  North Sea Conference
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his implementation of the agreements from the last North sea conference.

  Mr. Maclean
  The targets and timetables set by Her Majesty's Government for implementation of the agreements reached at the third North sea conference in March this year were published in the United Kingdom
  255
  guidance note on the ministerial declaration on 6 July 1990. This publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Set-aside scheme
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to introduce grazed fallow as an option for agricultural land entered into the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  A limited form of grazed fallow is one of a number of options for the better management of set-aside land which we have been considering. We shall announce any changes to the management conditions in time for the start of the third year of the scheme.

  Dredging and Extraction
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has made representations calling for a moratorium on further licences for marine sand and gravel extraction pending research on its effect on the sea-bed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has worked consistently to ensure that fishing interests are safeguarded when licences for marine sand and gravel extraction are considered. The planned research into the speed with which dredged areas recolonise will improve our understanding of the factors involved. We could not justify blocking any new licences until this research has been completed, but we will continue to work with the fishing industry through the established consultation procedures to ensure that fisheries are properly protected.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to introduce a requirement to fit positioning devices on dredgers to ensure that they do not stray out of their licensed areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Crown Estate, which issues licences for dredging sand and gravel from the sea bed, is planning to carry out trials this year with position recorders on three vessels. Provided that these trials are successful, any licences issued after 1991 will require dredging vessels to carry a position recorder and it is expected that most dredging vessels will be carrying position recorders by the end of 1992.

  Fire-raising
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells),Official Report, 17 May, column 1003, what best endeavours he has displayed to draw the problem of fires, deliberately started by teenagers, to the attention of authorities in relation to the protection of wildlife.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have written to my colleagues at the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, drawing this matter to their attention.

  Sewage Slick (East Anglia)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received with regard to the sewage slick off the coast of East Anglia.
  256
  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take to protect the onshore fishing industry of East Anglia from the effects of the sewage slick in the Yarmouth area.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following consultation with the Department's marine scientists Anglian Water installed a long sea outfall which, following the completion of sewerage work in the Yarmouth catchment area, will remove the remaining sewage after fine screening to a sea area where it will safely disperse and degrade.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss BSE.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ministers in this Department are in regular discussion with the National Farmers Union on a wide range of issues, including BSE.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish by means of a press release each month until November 1990, the reported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy by county in England and Wales and by region in Scotland.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes; I will issue a press release showing the numbers of suspect cases placed under restrictions each month by county and region. The information will be published one month in arrears to ensure its accuracy.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy there have been in each county in England and Wales and each region in Scotland in the last month; and what are the cumulative totals by county.

  Mr. Gummer
  The table sets out the number of BSE suspects placed under restriction in June 1990, the most recent complete month, and the cumulative number of such suspects reported since 21 June 1988, when the disease became notifiable, up to 30 June 1990.

  Region and County

  Suspects Reported June 1990

  Cumulative Total

  Northern

  Cleveland

  2

  28

  Cumbria

  24

  333

  Durham

  3

  80

  Humberside

  7

  96

  Northumberland

  7

  84

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  2

  Yorkshire North

  52

  686

  Yorkshire South

  6

  52

  Yorkshire West

  12

  86

  Midlands and West

  Cheshire

  35

  433

  Derbyshire

  20

  257

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  15

  382

  Lancashire

  42

  421

  Leicestershire

  33

  430

  Manchester

  1

  16

  Merseyside

  1

  9

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  120

  Salop

  28

  486

  257

  Region and County

  Suspects Reported June 1990

  Cumulative Total

  Staffordshire

  21

  373

  West Midlands

  —

  13

  Warwickshire

  11

  212

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  3

  44

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  71

  Essex

  8

  87

  Hertfordshire

  4

  91

  Lincolnshire

  6

  152

  Norfolk

  23

  262

  Northamptonshire

  11

  150

  Suffolk

  22

  213

  South East

  Berkshire

  7

  118

  Buckinghamshire

  20

  161

  Hampshire

  35

  772

  Isle of Wight

  11

  118

  Kent

  26

  413

  London

  —

  7

  Oxfordshire

  27

  328

  Surrey

  11

  201

  Sussex East

  13

  255

  Sussex West

  31

  480

  South West

  Avon

  37

  371

  Cornwall

  79

  1,440

  Devon

  116

  2,059

  Dorset

  90

  1,607

  Gloucestershire

  46

  667

  Somerset

  92

  1,482

  Wiltshire

  64

  1,168

  Wales

  Clwyd

  13

  191

  Dyfed

  49

  692

  Glamorgan Mid

  5

  43

  Glamorgan South

  3

  55

  Glamorgan West

  1

  14

  Gwent

  6

  146

  Gwynedd

  5

  70

  Powys

  13

  210

  Scotland

  Borders

  1

  21

  Central

  1

  29

  Dumfries

  7

  142

  Fife

  2

  45

  Grampian

  16

  187

  Highland

  4

  41

  Lothian

  1

  25

  Orkney

  —

  12

  Shetland

  —

  2

  Strathclyde

  9

  201

  Tayside

  4

  67

  Total

  1,258

  19,509

  Cattle Records
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends his new breeding and movement records scheme for cattle to be compulsory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes.

  Fishing Grants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to release fishing grants(a) United Kingdom 0–144–89, (b) United Kingdom 0–122–89, (c) United Kingdom 0–117–89 and (d) United Kingdom 0–113–89.

  Mr. Curry
  The beneficiaries concerned can expect to receive payment within the next seven days.

  Intervention Stores
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts in weight of(a) butter, (b) beef and (c) wheat which have been in intervention in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is available from the monthly notes deposited in the Library of the House.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 24 July.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  Discussion concentrated on the GATT negotiations. The Council noted that it had been agreed that the text produced by the chairman of the GATT agriculture negotiating group would be used as a means of intensifying the negotiations. The Council agreed that it was important that CAP mechanisms should be protected during these negotiations, subject to the agreement already reached that support should be reduced substantially, and progressively and taking account also of the need to secure a satisfactory outcome. I made clear the United Kingdom's support for the Community's demand that agricultural subsidies should be assessed fairly and diminished on an equitable basis. I also supported strongly the Commission's insistence that all agricultural products were subject to the negotiations and that there could be no question of excluding products of particular regions of Europe. Discussion is likely to be resumed in the Council in the autumn.

  I emphasised the need for the Commission to ensure orderly marketing of soft fruit imported from eastern Europe into the Community. Very low prices do nothing to help eastern European producers while hitting our own.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made in implementing the recommendations made by Lord Justice Taylor in respect of the safety of sports grounds.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our initial response to Lord Justice Taylor's final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster
  259
  was summarised in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 29 January at columns 19–22, and our detailed interim responses to its 76 specific recommendations were set out more fully in the schedule placed in the Vote Office on that date.

  A large number of the safety recommendations contained in the final report were originally included in Lord Justice Taylor's interim report. Our information is that they and many of the non-urgent safety recommendations were largely and quickly implemented by the responsible authorities. Of the main recommendations of the final report still outstanding, we have made it clear that the primary responsibility for the reduction of standing accommodation at football league clubs in accordance with the timetable proposed by Lord Justice Taylor rests with the clubs themselves. The Football Licensing Authority, whose chairman has now been named and which will become fully operational as quickly as possible, will provide in England and Wales the national inspectorate and review body recommended in the report. It will also examine the plans which league clubs have made and advise us, in due course, whether progress towards all-seated accommodation is satisfactory. Powers are available under section 11 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 to enforce that progress, if they are needed. We are still considering the application of these particular recommendations to sports other than football.

  The Football Association and the Football League have agreed, as recommended in the report, to set up an advisory design council. The report's recommendations on offences and penalties are still under active consideration by the Home Office. The "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds" is currently being revised, by the Home Departments with the assistance of a working group of experts, with a view to publication in the autumn.

  Recommendations addressed to the police and the co-ordination of emergency services have, so far as practicable, been complied with. New guidance on the charges to be made by police authorities to clubs for the cost of policing inside grounds has been drafted and will be issued after the current round of consultation has been completed.

  Prisons (Planning Applications)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many planning applications in respect of prisons have been approved since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Since 1979, 23 prisons have received planning clearance either from the local planning authority or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They are as follows:

  ALREADY OPEN

  Wayland, Norfolk

  Stocken, Leicestershire

  Thorn Cross, Cheshire

  Full Sutton, York

  Littlehey, Cambridgeshire

  Mount, Hertfordshire

  Swaleside, Sheppey

  Garth, Lancashire

  UNDER CONSTRUCTION

  Brinsford, Staffordshire

  Bullingdon, Oxfordshire

  Whitemoor, Cambridgeshire

  Belmarsh, Woolwich

  Moorland, Doncaster

  260

  Lancaster Farms, Lancashire

  Woodhill, Buckinghamshire

  Elmley, Sheppey

  Blakenhurst, Worcestershire

  Holme House, Tees-side

  High Down, Banstead

  Everthorpe, Humberside

  Ashford, Middlesex

  Doncaster, South Yorkshire

  Marchington, Staffordshire

  Police (Traffic Activities)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the percentage of police strength deployed on traffic activities; and what is the estimated cost of the policing resources which are absorbed by traffic-related tasks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1989 approximately 8 per cent. of the total police strength in England and Wales was deployed on specialist traffic duties. The proportion of non-specialist officer's time spent on traffic matters is not recorded. The cost of police resources devoted to traffic-related tasks could not therefore be reliably estimated.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Football Association and the Football League about implementation without delay of the recommendations contained in Lord Justice Taylor's report into the Hillsborough stadium disaster.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has had such a discussion on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend was unable to attend because of an urgent commitment in the House. My right hon. and noble Friend has also written to both organisations making clear the Government's view that it is for the football clubs in the first instance to respond to the recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's report which are addressed to them. We shall be looking to the Football Licensing Authority in due course to keep us informed about progress. In the meantime arrangements have been made for regular meetings between officials of the Football Association, the Football League and the Government Departments most closely concerned, at which such matters can be discussed.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will impose strict annual targets on British football clubs for introducing seating for spectators.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to do so. The primary responsibility for responding to Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations for the progressive removal of standing accommodation rests with the football clubs themselves. Provided that satisfactory progress is being made towards the final target dates of 1994 for first and second division clubs, and 1999 for third and fourth division clubs, we will not expect clubs to comply with a rigid programme for the reduction of standing accommodation or for the introduction of additional seating.

  Forensic Pathology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 21, what is the result of his study of recommendation 3·32 of the Wasserman report on forensic pathology.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 19 July, we have accepted the proposals of the working party on forensic pathology including the recommendation contained in paragraph 3·32 that the Home Office, on the advice of the proposed policy advisory board for forensic pathology, should fund a number of senior lectureships in departments of forensic pathology/forensic medicine. We now await the advice of the board on this matter.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the recommendations of his working group on the private security industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I am considering, in the light of the working group's report, a range of options for improving the regulation of the private security industry. When consideration of the issues has been completed, I will decide what circulation to give to the report and its recommendations.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1989; and when he intends to lay copies of the report before Parliament.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have laid before Parliament copies of the third annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee which will be published today by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as HC581.

  I welcome this report, which reveals the care which the committee has taken in tackling a number of difficult issues. The control of scientific procedures on living animals is always a matter of great sensitivity and it is reassuring to see that we have a statutory but independent body which safeguards the balance between the welfare of animals and the pursuit of scientific work of real value.

  I am grateful to the members of the committee for the time and skill which they devote to these matters.

  Somali Nationals
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to require Somali nationals who wish to transit the United Kingdom to obtain visas.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the immigration rules, Somali nationals are already required to obtain visas to enter the United Kingdom. However, like most nationalities subject to a visa requirement, Somali nationals at present benefit from a concession whereby passengers who are booked on an onward flight leaving the United Kingdom within 24 262
  hours of their arrival do not need visas. Because of the misuse of the concession by some Somali nationals who are not genuine transit passengers, we have decided to withdraw it with effect from 15 August. From that date, all Somali nationals intending to pass through immigration control, including transit passengers, will need to obtain a visa before setting out.

  Police and Fire Services (Communications)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to review radio communications in the police and fire services: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  It is essential that the radio communications systems used by all the emergency services enable them to provide a prompt and effective response to incidents. There is also a need to ensure that those parts of the radio spectrum allocated to the emergency services are used efficiently and that the best value of money is achieved by investing in the most effective technology. Each service determines its own radio communications requirements and there is inevitably some risk of duplication of resources and incompatibility in the systems they adopt. I have therefore put in hand a review aimed at developing a coherent strategy for the police and fire services which takes advantage of the latest developments in radio communications to provide maximum flexibility of response and interoperability within and between the services. It will take account of radio communication arrangements in the national health service including the ambulance service.

  Magistrates Courts (Computers)
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to make available to prospective suppliers information about the standard specification for magistrates courts computer systems.

  Mr. John Patten
  Work on the standard specification is due to be completed by next autumn. We are willing to make working drafts available on request to any prospective suppliers in the interests of reducing the time needed to complete the development of computer systems meeting the specification. This must, however, be on the understanding that the drafts are subject to amendment as the project proceeds, that the Home Office cannot take any responsibility for the use made of this material in advance of invitations to tender and that it is not possible to undertake to enter into correspondence about the content of the drafts.

  Asylum
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on persons seeking asylum who have not come to this country directly from the country in which they fear persecution.

  Mr. Waddington
  The United Kingdom is committed to its obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. In accordance with this convention, no refugee will be moved by the United Kingdom to a territory in which his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
  263
  It is an internationally accepted concept that a person fleeing persecution, who cannot avail himself of the protection of the authorities of a country of which he is a national, should normally seek refuge in the first safe country reached. I agree entirely with the concept. The convention's primary function is to give refugees who cannot turn to their own authorities the protection of the international community. It is an instrument of last resort—not a licence for refugees to travel the world in search of an ideal place of residence. Where protection issues do not arise, an application should therefore be dealt with in accordance with normal immigration criteria.

  Accordingly, an application for asylum from a passenger who has arrived in the United Kingdom from a country other than the country in which he fears persecution, will not normally be considered substantively. The passenger will be returned to the country from which he embarked, or to another country in which he has been since he left the country of feared persecution or, if appropriate, to his country of nationality, unless I am satisfied that the country is one in which his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or that it would return him to such a country. However, in considering any individual case I shall take into account any evidence of substantial links with the United Kingdom which in my view would make it reasonable for the claim for asylum exceptionally to be considered here.

  All western European countries which are signatories to the United Nations convention operate safe third-country procedures and the approach is consistent with the convention determining the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the member states of the European Communities signed in Dublin on 15 June 1990, but not as yet in force.

  Firearms
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the annual report of the firearms consultative committee.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee which is published today by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Drugs
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the seventh report from the Home Affairs Committee 1989–90 Session and the sixth (interim) report from the Home Affairs Committee, 1989–90 Session, on drugs.

  Mr Waddington
  The Government response is published today to the seventh report from the Home Affairs Committee on drug trafficking and related serious crime (HC 370) and to the sixth (interim) report "Crack: the threat of hard drugs in the next decade" (HC 356). Copies of the response (Cm 1164) have been placed in the Library.

  As the response makes clear, we are very grateful to the Committee for the helpful and constructive nature of its reports and for the recommendations it has made. We have already acted on many of the recommendations.
  264
  We take a very serious view of the threat from cocaine in the form of crack, highlighted by the Committee in its interim report. We have reviewed our drugs strategy to ensure that it addresses the threat as fully and effectively as possible and measures have already been announced—notably the Home Office drugs prevention initiative—to help tackle it. We have also commissioned a major three-year research study on cocaine and "crack" prevalence looking at the extent and patterns of misuse and trends in misuse over time.

  We share the Committee's view that strong action should be taken to combat money laundering and to deprive drug traffickers of their ill-gotten gains. A working group has been set up, as proposed by the Committee, to examine the potential for improving the operation of the confiscation and money laundering provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

  We also share the Committee's view that international co-operation is vital in combating illicit trafficking in drugs and bringing those involved to justice. Enactment of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 will enable the United Kingdom to ratify both the 1988 United Nations convention against the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the 1957 European convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters, as recommended by the Committee. The Act also provides powers, proposed by the Committee, for Customs officers to detain cash which may represent the proceeds of drug trafficking.

  The Government share the Committee's total opposition to the "legalisation" of drugs, together with its view that, while law enforcement must remain a vital part of the strategy for tackling drug misuse, this must be accompanied by effective measures to reduce the demand for drugs.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes,Official Report, column 323, on 12 July, what information on drug shipments or drug seizures from illegal trafficking from European countries or from other countries is shared with the United Kingdom's European partners and with international organisations; and what limitations are applied to such information transferred.

  Mr. Waddington
  There are extensive and increasing exchanges of intelligence and operational information between United Kingdom Customs and police services and those of our European partners, and of other countries with which we have co-operation arrangements, about illicit drugs shipments. Where possible, the information is channelled through drug liaison officers or via Interpol, but in cases of urgency there may be direct contact between operational commanders in the countries concerned. Drug seizures are reported by the United Kingdom Customs and police to Interpol, which publishes annual statistics. In addition, Customs seizures are reported to the Customs Co-operation Council which, as well as producing annual statistics, issues bi-monthly bulletins notifying member states of major seizures, smuggling concealments and drug trends.

  The provision of such information is governed by the United Nations conventions of 1961 and 1971 relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; the Naples convention of 1967 for the provision of mutual assistance between states; the Nairobi convention of 1977 for the

  265
  provision of mutual international administration assistance for the prevention, investigation and repression of Customs offences; and bilateral memoranda of understanding. The sharing of such information is limited by considerations of public policy, data protection and the interests of justice.

  Arrests
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested by the police in England and Wales in 1986, 1988, and 1989.

  Mr. Waddington
  The available information relates to arrests for all types of offence, but excludes the Metropolitan police disrict. There were 1,207,000 such arrests in 1986, 1,337,000 in 1988 and 1,464,000 in 1989.

  Romanian Orphans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many adoptions of Romanian children have been authorised in the past 12 months; how many families are known to have expressed an interest in the adoption of Romanian children; and what progress is being made with measures to enable British families more easily to adopt Romanian orphans.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information relates to entry clearance applications made at the British embassy in Bucharest for Romanian children to come for adoption in the United Kingdom. Thirteen such applications have been approved since March 1990 when the first such

  Self-injuries

  Attempted suicides

  Deaths at the prisoner's own hand

  1 April 1987—30 March 19881

  12

  5

  —

  1 April 1988—30 March 19891

  34

  16

  —

  1 April 1989—30 March 19901

  182

  25

  22

  1 April 1990—18 July 1990

  15

  16

  22

  1 Hindley changed its role in summer 1988 from being a youth custody centre for sentenced young offenders serving terms of 4 months or over to a centre for unconvicted males under 21.

  2 Inquests have not yet been held on an inmate who died in February 1990 and on two inmates who died in June 1990. A verdict of suicide was returned on an inmate who died in October 1989.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining his policy on the future of Greater London Radio.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to encourage the British Broadcasting Corporation to develop still further its commitment to local public service radio.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the remarks made by the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), about Greater London Radio in a speech of 16 May to a conference on independent radio represent the policy of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: As explained in the Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities" published in 1987, the Government believe that there continues to be a case for BBC local radio, providing a distinctive service alongside a growing
  266
  application was made. Thirty-four further applications have been referred to the Immigration Department of the Home Office and are being considered; 26 of these have been made since the beginning of July. We are reviewing the procedures for dealing with overseas adoptions together with the Department of Health and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether they can be streamlined further while continuing to provide proper protection for the children involved.

  Hindley Remand Centre
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have inflicted serious injuries on themselves, but have not been classified as attempted suicide, at Hindley remand centre in(a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c) 1990 to date;

  (2) how many people have attempted suicide at Hindley remand centre, but have been saved, during (a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c) 1990 to date;

  (3) how many people have committed suicide at Hindley remand centre during (a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c) 1990 to date.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: The numbers of inmates who have (i) inflicted injuries on themselves that were not regarded as suicide attempts (ii) been recorded as having attempted suicide, or (iii) died at their own hand at HM prison Hindley since 1 April 1987 are shown in the table. Incidents of self-injury are not classified according to their seriousness.

  independent radio sector. It is, however, for the BBC to determine the extent of its commitment to local radio within the financial and other resources available to it. Bearing in mind increasing demand for frequencies, it is also important that those currently occupied by BBC stations should be used effectively. I will be interested to see the outcome of the BBC's forthcoming review of the operation of Greater London Radio, Greater Manchester Radio and Radio WM. More generally, the BBC's role in radio will be considered during the review leading to the renewal of the BBC's charter in 1996.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Petitions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many petitions were presented in each of the last five years; and how many received replies from the relevant Department.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested is as follows:
  267

  Session

  Number of public petitions presented

  Number of petitions on which Government observations have been made

  1984–85

  1,059

  45

  1985–86

  516

  28

  1986–87

  108

  8

  1987–88

  356

  156

  1988–89

  227

  52

  1989–901

  1,002

  149

  1 To 20 July 1990.

  Members' Facilities
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate on 23 July, if he will list the minor services and facilities which are not available during the recess stating, in each case, what the practical or economic reason is and in the latter case the savings expected.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

ENERGY

  Shell Petroleum (Pipeline)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations he has received concerning Shell Petroleum's proposal to build an ethylene pipeline from Grangemouth in Scotland to Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A total of 263 representations were received concerning this proposal. A public inquiry was held in Haydock, Grangemouth and Carlisle between 5 and 29 June 1990. The inspector's report is expected in the autumn and I will give my decision in due course.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to respond to the report of the Select Committee on Energy on the cost of nuclear power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have today placed copies in the Library of the House and the Vote Office of the Government's observations on the Select Committee's reports on the cost of nuclear power and the flue gas desulphurisation programme.

  Electricity Distribution
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the 12 chairmen of the electricity distribution companies regarding their gearing ratio in the private sector.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on Monday 23 July to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam).

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the convention for the physical protection of nuclear materials; and if he will list those states that have ratified it.
  268
  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom hopes to ratify the convention, along with other European Community member states, in the autumn. In the meantime, we follow the guidance of the convention on practical measures for the physical protection of nuclear material and for movements between states.

  Those countries which have ratified or acceded to the convention are:

  Australia

  Austria

  Argentina

  Brazil

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  China

  Czechoslovakia

  Finland

  German Democratic Republic

  Guatemala

  Hungary

  Indonesia

  Japan

  Korea (Republic of)

  Liechtenstein

  Mexico

  Mongolia

  Norway

  Paraguay

  Philippines

  Poland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Turkey

  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

  United States of America

  Yugoslavia

  Sellafield THORP
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the safeguards regime developed for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield will be able to verify a complete separation of civil and military reprocessing.

  Mr. Baldry
  The thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield will be used for the reprocessing of civil nuclear material only.

  Britoil
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he considered selling the golden share in Britoil to BP; and if he will estimate what this would have raised for the Exchequer.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. The special rights preference share in Britoil could be held only by a Minister of the Crown or the Treasury Solicitor.

  Gas Sales
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the results of the Government's monitoring of gas sold to the market by suppliers other than British Gas for the period 1 June 1989 to 31 May 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Thirty per cent. of the new gas contracted during the period 1 June 1989 to 31 May 1990 was sold to purchasers other than British Gas. Of this 30 per cent., 98 per cent. was sold to the power generation market. The remaining 2 per cent., or about half of 1 per cent. of the total gas contracted in the monitoring period,
  269
  was contracted for sale to the general industrial and commercial gas market. Actual deliveries of new gas to industrial and commercial customers by suppliers other than British Gas were very small during the monitoring period.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the hospitals in Northern Ireland which had consultant obstetric and/or 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 in each year.

  Mr. Needham
  The information for 1980 is not available in the form requested. The information for 1981 and 1988–89 is as follows:

  Average available maternity beds in Northern Ireland

  Hospital

  Consultant obstetric

  GP maternity

  1981

  1988–89

  1981

  1988–89

  Ulster

  44·2

  44·2

  —

  —

  Mater

  24·2

  24·0

  —

  —

  Royal Maternity

  110·0

  93·6

  —

  —

  Belfast City

  79·0

  64·7

  —

  —

  Samaritan

  2·7

  —

  —

  —

  Quoile

  25·5

  —

  —

  —

  Lagan Valley

  42·8

  43·0

  —

  —

  Ards

  29·0

  25·0

  —

  —

  Malone Place

  —

  —

  9·0

  —

  Bangor

  —

  —

  16·0

  —

  Downe

  —

  24·0

  —

  —

  Route

  19·0

  19·0

  —

  —

  Moyle

  28·0

  23·1

  —

  —

  Carrickfergus

  14·0

  6·4

  —

  —

  Mid Ulster

  31·0

  31·0

  —

  —

  Massereene

  —

  —

  16·0

  —

  Waveney

  24·3

  25·0

  —

  —

  Mary Rankin

  —

  —

  16·0

  —

  Robinson Memorial

  —

  —

  12·0

  14·0

  Dalriada

  —

  —

  6·0

  3·5

  Cushendall

  —

  —

  4·0

  2·3

  Ballymena Cottage

  —

  10·0

  26·0

  16·0

  South Tyrone

  31·9

  31·6

  —

  —

  Craigavon Area

  61·9

  63·2

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  12·0

  4·7

  Daisy Hill

  43·0

  52·0

  —

  —

  Newry General

  3·0

  —

  —

  —

  Mourne

  —

  —

  6·0

  —

  Tower Hill Maternity

  —

  —

  8·0

  4·0

  St. John of God

  —

  —

  7·7

  —

  Altnagelvin

  63·0

  49·8

  —

  20·9

  Omagh General

  3·7

  —

  2·2

  —

  Tyrone County

  21·6

  34·6

  —

  —

  Erne

  39·0

  37·5

  —

  —

  Anderson House

  —

  —

  23·0

  —

  Roe Valley

  —

  —

  13·0

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  13·0

  —

  Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance is being given to school governors in respect of the making of economies by(a) employing fewer teachers, (b) employing younger teachers or teachers of a lower level on the incremental scale, (c) refusing to allocate the full complement of promotional allowances, (d) not appointing teachers to provide substitute cover for absent teachers, (e) delaying the
  270
  appointment procedure to replace a teacher who has retired or resigned and (f) excluding from appointment consideration teachers of child-bearing age.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Information on the operation of local management of schools, which will apply from 1 April 1991, has been sent to all boards of governors.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners from England, Wales, Scotland and the Irish Republic are currently serving a prison sentence in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  According to records held centrally 87 sentenced prisoners are recorded as born in Great Britain (records do not differentiate between those born in England, Scotland or Wales) and 20 as born in the Republic of Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the balance sheet for the New York office of the Northern Ireland tourist board for the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  No separate balance sheet is drawn up for the New York office of the Northern Ireland tourist board. Expenditure by the board on its north American activities is shown in the statement of account published as part of the board's annual reports, copies of which are placed in the Library.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the alleged embezzlement of public money in the operation of the Northern Ireland tourist board in the United States of America.

  Mr. Needham
  In March 1990 a member of staff of the Northern Ireland tourist board employed in the New York office was dismissed on grounds of misconduct arising from the misuse of public funds. The amount in question was fully recovered.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been dismissed from the New York office of the Northern Ireland tourist board in each of the last two years; and if he will give the reasons in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  Two members of the staff of the Northern Ireland tourist board employed in the New York office have been dismissed within the past two years. One was on grounds of inefficiency and the other was on grounds of gross misconduct involving misuse of public funds.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for the Londonderry, East constituency the number of unemployed (a) men, (b) women and (c) total unemployed, in each electoral ward in the constituency and for the wards of Ballymaquigan, Draperstown and Lecumpher in the Mid-Ulster constituency or as much of such information as is available to him.
  271
  Mr. Needham
  The information requested for the Londonderry, East parliamentary constituency and the three named wards in the Mid-Ulster constituency form the district council areas Coleraine, Limavady and Magherafelt. The numbers unemployed in each of these wards at 14 June 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, are as follows:

  Number of unemployed claimants in each ward on 14 June 1990 Limavady

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1. Magilligan

  98

  21

  119

  2. Aghanloo

  88

  21

  109

  3. Forest

  77

  22

  99

  4. Upper Glenshane

  104

  28

  132

  5. Feeny

  92

  10

  102

  6. Dungiven

  158

  26

  184

  7. The Highlands

  97

  17

  114

  8. Glack

  117

  33

  150

  9. Gresteele

  151

  63

  214

  10. Ballykelly

  114

  75

  189

  11. Roeside

  61

  21

  82

  12. Rathbrady

  58

  32

  90

  13. Enagh

  110

  33

  143

  14. Coolessan

  145

  20

  165

  15. Binevenagh

  130

  40

  170

  Total

  1,600

  482

  2,062

  Number of unemployed claimants in each ward on 14 June 1990 Coleraine

  Males

  Female

  Total

  1. Kilrea

  97

  16

  113

  2. Agivey

  67

  20

  87

  3. Knockantern

  103

  23

  126

  4. Dunluce

  58

  22

  80

  5. Royal Portrush

  134

  53

  187

  6. Hopefield

  99

  53

  182

  7. Atlantic

  111

  54

  165

  8. Portstewart

  126

  55

  181

  9. Strand

  75

  30

  105

  10. University

  77

  34

  111

  11. Ballysally

  144

  34

  178

  12. Central

  173

  42

  215

  13. Cross Glebe

  99

  15

  114

  14. Mount Sandel

  82

  50

  132

  15. The Cuts

  97

  49

  146

  16. Churchland

  109

  30

  139

  17. Waterside

  81

  42

  123

  18. Castlerock

  114

  27

  141

  19. Maccosquin

  147

  47

  194

  20. Ringsend

  167

  51

  218

  21. Garvagh

  131

  41

  172

  Total

  2,291

  788

  3,079

  Number of unemployed claimants in each ward on 14 June 1990 Magherafelt

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1. Swatragh

  133

  33

  166

  2. Upperlands

  74

  25

  99

  3. Valley

  91

  28

  119

  4. Lower Glenshane

  103

  44

  147

  5. Maghera

  166

  43

  209

  6. Gulladuff

  103

  35

  138

  7. Tobermore

  82

  28

  110

  8. Knockcloughrim

  60

  39

  99

  9. Bellaghy

  143

  39

  182

  10. Castledawson

  108

  47

  155

  11. Draperstown

  144

  57

  201

  12. Lecumpher

  81

  40

  121

  13. Ballymaguigan

  98

  36

  134

  14. Town Parks West

  102

  47

  149

  15. Town Parks East

  141

  54

  195

  272

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Total

  1,629

  595

  2,224

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what information he has available to indicate how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) juveniles charged in the last three years and in this year to date with (ii) possession of firearms, (i) possession of ammunition, (iii) possession of explosives, (iv) attempted murder and (v) murder were also charged with membership of an illegal organisation, showing for each category the numbers associated with each illegal organisation;

  (2) how many (a) adult male and (b) adult female prisoners there were in prison in Northern Ireland at 30 June in each year from 1985 to 1990 found guilty of (i) membership of an illegal organisation (ii) possession of explosives, (iii) possion of ammunition, (iv) possession of firearms, (v) attempted murder and (vi) murder or as much information as is available to him;

  (3) how many (a) men, (b) women and (c) juveniles charged with (i) murder, (ii) attempted murder, (iii) possession of firearms, (iv) possession of ammunition, (v) possession of explosives and (vi) membership of an illegal organisation, in each of the last five years and in this year to date have actually stood trial on those charges; and how many in each of those categories were (1) convicted (2) found not guilty and (3) convicted of a lesser charge.

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that in the time available it has not been possible to provide the information requested. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to him as to in how many cases bail has been granted to(a) men and (b) women charged with (i) possession of firearms, (ii) attempted murder, (iii) possession of ammunition, (iv) possession of explosives, (v) membership of an illegal organisation ad (vi) murder in each of the last three years and in the current year to date.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Complaints Commission
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for copies of the annual report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland to be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The report has been laid today. This second report from the commission describes the work of the commission in the first calendar year of its existence. It clearly demonstrates the extent and importance of the work of a civilian body in overseeing the investigation of complaints against the police. It shows also that the commission has set for itself high standards of objectivity and fairness. That is entirely as it should be. I share with members of the commission the belief that arrangements to ensure that complaints are thoroughly and impartially investigated are essential if a police force is to have the trust and confidence of the community which it serves. I
  273
  have no doubt that the commission, which is wholly independent of both Government and the RUC, will continue to make a significant contribution to the strengthening of relationships between police and public. In all its efforts to this end, it can be assured of my full support.

  Autopsies
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many autopsies were carried out in Northern Ireland for the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: The latest available information is as follows:

  Year ended

  Number

  State Pathology Service autopsies

  31 December 1989

  1,371

  Hospital autopsies

  31 December 1988

  566

  Needle Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many needle exchange schemes are currently operating in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: None.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 18 July, he will seek an assurance from the Fair Employment Commission that it will publish information on the community composition from individual monitoring returns from employers before 15 October.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: The Fair Employment Commission has announced that it will make available monitoring information in respect of individual concerns following receipt of the 1991 monitoring returns.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the information on the Fair Employment Commission sought by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East in written questions answered on 18 July is held on a computer which may be used to extract such information by reference to geographical area or by post code.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: The Fair Employment Commission is in the process of developing its information systems. Information on registered concerns, including their geographical location, is currently held on a temporary computer system and is being validated for transfer to a permanent computer system in the autumn. It was therefore not possible readily to provide the information requested by the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will request the Fair Employment commission to carry out an investigation into the community composition of the work force employed by the Inner City Trust, Londonderry.
  274
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: No. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 10 July, vol. 176, column 156.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his office and the Northern Ireland Departments in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: The Government have continued to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and other measures, and through specific programmes of support and assistance. The success of their policies is demonstrated by the latest statistics which show a record increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT in the United Kingdom, of 1,700 a week during 1989. Over the decade the overall increase has been 373,000. These figures include 1,100 net registrations for Northern Ireland in 1989 compared with 600 for 1988.

  Government policy in relation to small businesses in Northern Ireland is administered through the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) which is funded by the Department of Economic Development. The table sets out a number of indicators comparing the results of LEDU's performance between 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Jobs promoted

  5,004

  5,944

  Cost per job

  £4,804

  £4,344

  LEDU percentage contribution to project costs

  32

  31

  Number of offers made

  943

  1,122

  Grant commitments £ million

  22·112

  24·412

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the level of unemployment in the Amber Valley parliamentary constituency or the closest corresponding area, each year since 1975 up until the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  Unemployment figures by parliamentary constituency are available only from June 1983. The following information is available in the Library. The table shows the annual average number of unemployed claimants in the Amber Valley parliamentary constituency for the years 1983 to 1989.

  The annual average number of unemployed claimants in the Amber Valley parliamentary constituency

  Year

  Number

  11983

  3,475

  1984

  3,757

  1985

  4,167

  1986

  4,242

  1987

  3,841

  1988

  3,202

  1989

  2,333

  1 Average of the seven months June to December 1983

  275
  The comparison is affected by the changes in the coverage of the count that have occurred over the period. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available on the same geographical basis.

  Women Workers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer on 9 July,Official Report, columns 97–98, what comparable information he has on the attitudes of women without dependent children and men.

  Mr. Forth
  The 1984 British social attitudes survey asked all those in paid work (of at least 10 hours per week) to give their main reason for working.

  The results for women without dependent children were as follows:

  Per cent.

  Need for basic essentials

  47

  Enjoy working

  12

  To earn money of my own

  12

  To follow my career

  10

  To earn money to buy extras

  9

  Working is the normal thing to do

  4

  For the company of other people

  3

  For a change from my children or housework

  1

  Other reasons

  2

  The results for all men were:

  Need money for basic essentials

  71

  Working is the normal thing to do

  9

  Enjoy working

  7

  To follow my career

  5

  To earn money of my own

  4

  To earn money to buy extras

  2

  For the company of other people

  0

  For a change from my children or housework

  0

  Other reasons

  1

  (Percentages total less than 100 per cent. due to rounding)

  Sunday Trading Laws
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he estimates would be the effect on employment of relaxing the present Sunday trading laws.

  Mr. Forth
  No such estimates are available.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the increase in average weekly earnings of full-time adult male(a) manual workers in manufacturing and (b) non-manuals in the private sector, less manufacturing, together with his estimate of the increase in unit labour costs in manufacturing and non-manufacturing, respectively, since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him in the last Session(Official Report, 1 November column 240) for the increase in earnings of manual workers in manufacturing. Figures are not readily available for non-manuals in the private sector less manufacturing and would involve disproportionate cost to compile.

  Figures for unit labour costs in manufacturing are given in table 5·7 of Employment Gazette. Unit labour costs in non-manufacturing would involve disproportionate cost to compile.

  Training Expenditure
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the contribution which an increase in expenditure on training would make to reducing the trade deficit in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Jackson
  I am replying as training is a matter for my Department.

  The existing substantial investment by employers and Government in training makes an important contribution to Britain's competitiveness, but the crucial factor in creating a world-class work force is the effectiveness of that investment.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps have been taken by his Department to maximise the investment in the technical and vocational educational initiative spent on capital products.

  Mr. Jackson
  The aim of the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI) is to prepare young people aged 24 to 18 for the demands of working life. Funds are used to provide additional teaching and other posts, INSET training, curriculum development, work experience, flexible learning methods etc, not simply capital equipment.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the planned expenditure on technical and vocational education initiative in St. Helens in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The planned expenditure on TVEI in St. Helens in the financial year 1990–91 is £238,000. Future years' expenditure will depend upon resources available, although the Government are committed to spending £900 million over the period of TVEI extension and each authority will receive its full share over the life of its project.

  Careers and Occupational Information Centre
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement about the future of the careers and occupational information centre.

  Mr. Howard
  I want to ensure that COIC continues to provide its existing or a better level of service to its customers, including young people in schools and people with special needs, in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.

  I have therefore decided to commission a feasibility study to consider the options for the future of COIC, including the options for transferring the centre to the private sector, to assess their financial and other implications and to make recommendations.

  I shall consider the results of the feasibility study in the light of the results of my Department's internal review of careers guidance, which was announced on 10 May.

  Efficiency Scrutiny
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to publish the report of the efficiency scrutiny of take-up of his Department's programmes.
  277
  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed copies of the report on the scrutiny of take-up of Employment Department programmes in the Libraries of this House and of another place. Copies of the report have also been sent to members of the Select Committee on Employment. Further copies are available on request from my Department.

  My predecessor set up the scrutiny because of his concern—which was shared by the Select Committee on Employment and other hon. Members—about the failure of a significant number of long-term unemployed people to take up places on our progammes after they had expressed an interest in doing so and the tendency of others to leave programmes prematurely after very brief participation. The scrutiny team was asked to recommend cost-effective methods of substantially increasing both levels of take-up and length of participation on the programmes most affected.

  We welcome the scrutiny team's report, which we believe contains some practical suggestions to deal with the problem. Overall, we have accepted the great majority of the scrutiny report's 22 main recommendations in full or in part. Most people who enter our programmes for the long-term unemployed are referred by the employment service, in particular as a result of restart interviews. The majority of the recommendations in the scrutiny report are therefore addressed to the employment service. Since receiving the report, we have already taken a number of important steps to implement the main recommendations.

  First, we announced a package of measure to improve the employment service's claimant advice functions. These include particularly the introduction of "back to work" plans recording specific agreed action at the end of advisory interviews which can be followed up on a regular basis; the adoption of a caseload approach to claimant advice, so that unemployed people are, where possible, seen and followed up by the same person; and systematic follow-up of everyone who agrees at a restart interview to go to a place on one of the Department's programmes but fails to attend.

  Secondly, we have introduced an intensive programme of guidance and advice over a six-week period for the minority of unemployed people who are still unemployed after two years, designed to put them back on the road to a job.

  Thirdly, we have announced that we plan to require attendance at a restart course for those who have been unemployed for two years or more and who at subsequent restart interviews refuse to participate in any of my Department's employment and training programmes. Our experience suggests that many people who are initially reluctant to go on these courses find that in fact the courses give them positive support and help in getting back into work. We shall continue to keep the situation in this area under review.

  Other recommendations in the report are directed to the Training Agency and TECs or more generally at the way the Department organises its programmes. We are taking steps to implement these, including the following action:
  in response to the report's recommendation that we should reorganise the way in which we deliver assessment services for long-term unemployed people, we have decided that TECs should be encouraged to develop the services that they are offering, in close co-operation with the employment service.
  278
  We shall be asking them to explore ways of improving and making more widely available the kind of assessment and action planning which now takes place within ET;
  encouraging TECs and the employment service to use the new programme flexibilities which are available to TECs and other programme development funds to adjust our programmes to meet the needs of as wide a range of long-term unemployed people as possible. This is in response to the report's recommendation that Ministers should consider whether the present range of programmes is adequate to meet the needs of all long-term unemployed people;
  drawing to the attention of TECs those recommendations which are aimed at them, and encouraging the closest possible co-operation between TECs and the employment service to ensure that we maximise the contribution that each can make to helping long-term unemployed people.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be taking similar action in Scotland in respect of local enterprise companies.

  This series of measures should have a significant impact on improving take-up of our programmes and reducing drop-out. We shall monitor this closely. But it is important to keep the problem in perspective. Existing levels of take up on employment training, for example, are already an improvement on previous programmes and, on the scrutiny's own findings, well ahead of performance in those other countries on which the scrutiny could obtain information. The measures that we are now putting in place will enable us to do even better.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  I am pleased to announce that I have recently invited a small number of operational TECs to pilot measures aimed at helping EAS participants to become better prepared for running their own businesses. Pilots will include a variety of elements such as preparation of business plans, business assessment and additional business training and counselling.

  Employment Rehabilitation Service
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is now able to make a statement on plans to transfer the employment rehabilitation service to the employment service.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the employment rehabilitation service will transfer from the Training Agency to the employment service on 1 August 1990 where it will be located alongside the other specialist disability services. Longer-term issues about the organisation of employment assessment and rehabilitation are discussed in the consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", which was published on 29 June and on which comments are invited by 31 December.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Parental Encouragement
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he gives to local education authorities regarding the acceptance of parental
  279
  encouragement and assistance regarding pupils' school work; and what representations he has received on this subject.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend gives no general guidance to local education authorities on these matters. As far as assistance with pupils' course work for GCSE examinations is concerned, teachers are required in submitting course work to certify that the work is that of the candidate. My right hon. Friend from time to time receives correspondence on this issue.

  School Holidays
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in table form the information available to him on the dates and lengths of the school holidays taken in each of the G7 countries including the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department does not collect information on the dates of school holidays in England. Powers to determine the dates of school terms and holidays rest with the LEA in the case of county and controlled schools and with the governors of aided, special agreement and grant-maintained schools. The Department does not collect information about the dates of school terms and length of holidays in other countries.

  Bogus Degrees
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of each occasion when Her Majesty's inspectors have investigated claims made under the bogus degree legislation involving the names of the institutions, the circumstances in which the investigations came to be made, the results of the investigations, the cost of each; and by whom these costs were borne.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I assume the hon. Member's interest is in the investigation of potentially fraudulent claims caught within the remit of the bogus degree legislation. It is not Her Majesty's inspectors' responsibility to investigate such claims. Under section 215(1) it is the duty of every local weights and measures authority to enforce the provisions of section 214 of the Act within their area.

  University Students
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list for each university(a) the total fee support grant allocated by the Universities Funding Council, (b) the number of part-time students and (c) the number of self-financing students, for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The shift in public funding of universities from the block grant to the fee paid as part of the mandatory awards arrangements relates to home and EC award holders on designated courses. The following table shows the element in the Universities Funding Council block grants to universities for academic year 1990–91 based on the number of self-financing full-time and part-time students on designated and other courses. It is for the universities themselves to set fee levels, and to 280
  dispose of their block grant and fee income as they judge best. The table also shows total numbers of university part-time home and overseas students in 1988–89.

  Universities fees support grants and part-time students

  UFC fees support grant1 1990–91 £ million

  Part-time students2 1988–89

  Aston

  —

  473

  Bath

  0·072

  506

  Birmingham

  0·360

  1,253

  Bradford

  0·106

  690

  Bristol

  0·274

  545

  Brunel

  0·058

  1,076

  Cambridge

  0·197

  1,144

  City

  0·081

  1,268

  Durham

  0·193

  469

  East Anglia

  0·206

  542

  Essex

  0·111

  180

  Exeter

  0·116

  689

  Hull

  0·175

  732

  Keele

  —

  356

  Kent

  0·346

  568

  Lancaster

  0·044

  662

  Leeds

  0·247

  1,023

  Leicester

  0·119

  489

  Liverpool

  0·173

  1,053

  London Business School

  —

  237

  London

  3·978

  9,884

  Loughborough

  0·099

  601

  Manchester Business School

  —

  98

  Manchester

  0·427

  1,707

  UMIST

  0·072

  226

  Newcastle

  0·177

  698

  Nottingham

  0·196

  1,043

  Oxford

  0·288

  1,897

  Reading

  0·154

  581

  Salford

  0·200

  918

  Sheffield

  0·217

  690

  Southampton

  0·210

  803

  Surrey

  0·087

  802

  Sussex

  0·226

  395

  Warwick

  0·285

  1,226

  York

  0·019

  382

  Aberystwyth

  0·051

  238

  Bangor

  0·100

  354

  Cardiff

  0·348

  1,196

  St. David's

  0·001

  37

  Swansea

  0·094

  351

  College of Medicine

  0·021

  149

  Aberdeen

  0·325

  570

  Dundee

  0·161

  213

  Edinburgh

  0·495

  922

  Glasgow

  0·612

  2,097

  Heriot-Watt

  0·124

  512

  St. Andrews

  0·103

  121

  Stirling

  0·248

  525

  Strathclyde

  0·018

  1,355

  Total (Great Britain universities)

  12·214

  44,546

  Note:

  Numbers of self-financing students within each institution are not published or held by the Department. The Universities Statistical Record shows that, for academic year 1988–89, there were some 61,000 full-time and part-time, home and overseas students in Great Britain universities recorded as supported only by private funds.

  1 Universities Funding Council Circular Letter 12/90.

  2 Universities Statistical Record Volume 1 "Students and Staff" 1988–89.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the table given in his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report,
  281
  February, columns 749–52, giving the latest available information in respect of each city technology college or proposed and planned city technology college.

  Name, site and LEA

  Planned number of pupils

  1Total Capital cost

  Exchequer contribution

  Sponsors' contribution 2Committed Confirmed

  Principal sponsors

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  School closure involved

  Has a ballot of parents been held and with what result

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Kingshurst

  1,000

  9·65

  7·55

  2·1

  2·735

  Hanson Trust

  None

  No

  No

  Kingshurst School site

  Solihull

  Tyneside

  900

  8·609

  6·887

  1·722

  1·600

  Peter Vardy

  Building Contract-Laings Northern

  No

  No

  St. John Fisher School site

  Gateshead

  Bradford

  980

  8·615

  6·892

  1·723

  3·252

  Dixons plc, Mr. Hakim Wong

  None

  No

  No

  Newby Square, Bradford

  Bradford

  Dartford

  1,250

  8·560

  6·848

  1·712

  1·3

  Mr. G. Leigh

  None

  No

  3No

  Downs School site

  Kent

  Britschool

  720

  7·001

  4·201

  2·800

  1·127

  The British Record Industry Trust

  None

  No

  No

  Site of Selhurst Tertiary

  Centre

  Croydon

  Djanogly

  990

  9·95

  8·384

  1·884

  1·566

  Mr. Harry Djanoglyy

  None

  No

  No

  Sherwood Rise,

  Nottingham

  Nottinghamshire

  Macmillan College

  1,050

  7·702

  6·162

  1·54

  1·485

  BAT Industries

  None

  No

  No

  St. Michael RC School,

  Middlesbrough

  Cleveland

  Harris

  1,100

  8·50

  6·80

  1·70

  1·662

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust

  None

  Yes

  Yes majority against

  Sylvan School site

  Croydon

  Croydon

  Bacon's

  1,100

  14·279

  11·423

  2·856

  42·50

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust

  None

  Yes

  No

  Bacon's School site,

  Southwark

  Southwark

  Haberdashers'

  approx. 1,000

  To be determined

  To be determined

  To be determined

  54·10

  Robert Aske Charity

  None

  Yes

  Yes majority in favour

  Haberdashers' Aske's

  Hatcham School site

  Lewisham

  Corby

  1,075

  9·95

  To be determined

  1·99

  1·60

  Mr. Hugh de Capell Brooke

  None

  No

  No

  Great Oakley, Corby

  Northants

  Derby1

  900

  To be determined

  To be determined

  To be determined

  1·15

  The Landau Foundation

  None

  No

  No

  Wood Street, Derby

  Derbyshire

  Telford1

  1,000

  10·233

  8·186

  2·047

  2·000

  The Mercers Tarmac plc

  None

  No

  No

  New build

  Shropshire

  Wandsworth1

  approx. 950

  To be determined

  To be determined

  To be determined

  ADT

  None

  No

  No

  Mayfield School

  Wandsworth

  Notes:

  1 In addition the Exchequer bears revenue costs on a basis comparable to those of maintained schools in similar areas.

  2 Sponsors' contributions based on their agreed percentage.
  282
  Mr. MacGregor
  The table covers agreed, announced and formally proposed CTCs in England.
  283
  3 Public consultations were held by Kent on its proposals to close the Downs School. One statutory objection containing 62 signatures was made to the section 12 proposal subsequently published.

  4 This figure includes the sale of the present site, which has been valued at £1·5 million.

  5 This figure includes the donation of the present site, which has been valued at £3·1 million.

  6 Decisions on proposals await outcome of consultation with LEA and others.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what amount of earmarked annual grant or related payments he has agreed to pay for the school year beginning in September for each city technology college or city college for technology and the arts; and for what purposes each element of earmarked annual grant has been approved.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The figures relating to earmarked annual grant for the academic year beginning September 1990 have not yet been agreed. Earmarked grants are the subject of specific bids for the colleges and relate to specific expenditure on:

  (a) consumables—the purchase, during the start-up period only, of a basic stock of library and text books, courseware, stationery and other consumable materials;

  (b) school meals—the provision of free meals for pupils who qualify, a subsidy in respect of those pupils who do not, and supervision costs;

  (c) pupil support—to cover the costs of school uniforms and school transport for disadvantaged pupils;

  (d) IT development—software and courseware for the incorporation and exploitation of IT throughout the curriculum and in the administration of the College; and

  (e) staff development—to provide for in-service training and curriculum development needs arising from the curriculum in CTCs.

  Because these grants are the subject of bids from the colleges themselves, I am unable to provide figures for the academic year 1990–91.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what costs, within the terms of paragraph 7 of the model city technology college funding agreement, the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust will incur in acquiring a leasehold on the sites and premises of the present Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Deptford for the purposes of establishing a city technology college.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Within the terms of paragraph 7 of the model funding agreement that I placed in the House of Commons Library last summer, the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust will contribute to total capital expenditure of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, the capitalised value of the leasehold of the sites and premises for the college. It is the intention of the Haberdashers' Company that this asset will be transferred to the trust for this purpose at no cost.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what amount of annual per capita grant or related revenue costs he has agreed to pay for the school year beginning in September for each city technology college or city college for technology and the arts; what unit of cost per pupil has been used in calculating the amount of such payments; and what enhancement of annual per capita grant has been allowed under the terms of paragraph 11 of the model funding agreement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The annual per capita grant (APG) for the school year beginning September 1990 for the two 284
  CTCs in or near London—Dartford and Croydon—this September has not yet been determined. The APGs for the five CTCs that will be operating outside London are as follows:

  £

  Kingshurst

  1,820,602

  Djanogly, Nottingham

  1,397,707

  Macmillan College, Teesside

  1,234,019

  Bradford

  1934,689

  Gateshead

  1862,550

  1 Denotes those colleges opening this September.

  The APG of CTCs outside London is determined by reference to the unit costs (£2,075 for pupils aged 11 to 16, £3,320 for those over 16 in 1990–91) in a group of 24 LEAs which maintain schools in similar areas to CTCs. In addition, provision is made for the college's administration costs and for diseconomies of scale during the start-up period, reflecting good practice in respect of new LEA-maintained schools.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what payments have been made by his Department to date to the Haberdashers' Company; what other costs have been incurred by his Department in connection with preparations for the establishment of a Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college; and what have been the specific purposes for which these costs have been incurred.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The following payments have been made to the Haberdashers' Company in connection with preparations for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college.

  £

  Project Director's salary

  24,824

  Educational adviser's fees

  6,000

  Building feasibility studies

  19,341

  Publications

  15,645

  In addition, the Department's staffing costs to support this project are estimated to be £22,958.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply of 11 July,Official Report, column 232, whether any scheme of government for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college approved by him, under the terms of the model funding agreement paragraph 21, will also constitute the college as a single school with two single-sex departments.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I will need to assure myself that the terms of the scheme of government of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college are compatible with the establishment of a single city technology college with two single-sex departments.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the names of the persons proposed by him and the Haberdashers' Company to serve as primary members of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust; and when that trust will be established.
  285
  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect that the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust will be formed this summer. I have yet to agree the necessary articles and memorandum of association, including the names of the Haberdashers' Company nominees. I have nominated Miss Sheila Needham to serve on the trust when this is established.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what amount of earmarked annual grant or related payments he has agreed to pay for the school year beginning in September for each city technology college or city college for technology and the arts; and for what purposes each element of earmarked annual grant has been approved.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The figures relating to earmarked annual grant for the academic year beginning September 1990 have not yet been agreed. Earmarked grants are the subject of specific bids for the colleges and relate to specific expenditure on:

  (a) consumables—the purchase, during the start-up period only, of a basic stock of library and text books, courseware, stationery and other consumable materials;

  (b) school meals—the provision of free meals for pupils who qualify, a subsidy in respect of those pupils who do not, and supervision costs;

  (c) pupil support—to cover the costs of school uniforms and school transport for disadvantaged pupils;

  (d) IT development—software and courseware for the incorporation and exploitation of IT throughout the curriculum and in the administration of the College; and

  (e) staff development—to provide for in-service training and curriculum development needs arising from the curriculum in CTCs.

  Because these grants are the subject of bids from the colleges themselves, I am unable to provide figures for the academic year 1990–91.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what costs, within the terms of paragraph 7 of the model city technology college funding agreement, the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust will incur in acquiring a leasehold on the sites and premises of the present Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Deptford for the purposes of establishing a city technology college.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Within the terms of paragraph 7 of the model funding agreement that I placed in the House of Commons Library last summer, the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust will contribute to total capital expenditure of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, the capitalised value of the leasehold of the sites and premises for the college. It is the intention of the Haberdashers' Company that this asset will be transferred to the trust for this purpose at no cost.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what amount of annual per capita grant or related revenue costs he has agreed to pay for the school year beginning in September for each city technology college or city college for technology and the arts; what unit of cost per pupil has been used in calculating the amount of such payments; and what enhancement of annual per capita grant has been allowed under the terms of paragraph 11 of the model funding agreement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The annual per capita grant (APG) for the school year beginning September 1990 for the two CTCs in or near London—Dartford and Croydon—this 286
  September has not yet been determined. The APGs for the five CTCs that will be operating outside London are as follows:

  £

  Kingshurst

  1,820,602

  Djanogly, Nottingham

  1,397,707

  Macmillan College, Teesside

  1,234,019

  Bradford

  1934,689

  Gateshead

  1862,550

  1Denotes those colleges opening this September.

  The APG of CTCs outside London is determined by reference to the unit costs (£2,075 for pupils aged 11 to 16, £3,320 for those over 16 in 1990–91) in a group of 24 LEAs which maintain schools in similar areas to CTCs. In addition, provision is made for the college's administration costs and for diseconomies of scale during the start-up period, reflecting good practice in respect of new LEA-maintained schools.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what payments have been made by his Department to date to the Haberdashers' Company; what other costs have been incurred by his Department in connection with preparations for the establishment of a Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college; and what have been the specific purposes for which these costs have been incurred.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The following payments have been made to the Haberdashers' Company in connection with preparations for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college.

  £

  Project Director's salary

  24,824

  Educational adviser's fees

  6,000

  Building feasibility studies

  19,341

  Publications

  15,645

  In addition, the Department's staffing costs to support this project are estimated to be £22,958.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply of 11 July,Official Report, column 232, whether any scheme of government for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college approved by him, under the terms of the model funding agreement paragraph 21, will also constitute the college as a single school with two single-sex departments.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I will need to assure myself that the terms of the scheme of government of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college are compatible with the establishment of a single city technology college with two single-sex departments.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the names of the persons proposed by him and the Haberdashers' Company to serve as primary members of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust; and when that trust will be established.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect that the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust will be formed this summer. I
  287
  have yet to agree the necessary articles and memorandum of association, including the names of the Haberdashers' Company nominees. I have nominated Miss Sheila Needham to serve on the trust when this is established.

  Pay Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list figures comparing the average pay for graduate employees and the average pay for polytechnic lecturers(a) upon recruitment, (b) at age 25 years, (c) at age 30 years, (d) at age 35 years and (e) at age 40 years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Estimates of annual graduate1 gross earnings for 19902 are shown in the table:

  Age band

  Men (£)

  Men and women (£)

  20 to 24

  12,320

  11,440

  25 to 29

  15,849

  14,802

  30 to 39

  23,419

  21,017

  40 to 49

  28,319

  24,055

  All (20 to 69)

  23,263

  20,070

  1 Coverage of graduates excludes unemployed personnel. It is restricted to those with first degrees and excludes those with higher degrees.

  2 Based on the OPCS general household survey (1987) and updated to 1990 using the annual growth in the average earnings index. This source yields data for age bands rather than age points. For 1990, a growth of 9·5 per cent. has been assumed.

  Note: Information about the average pay of polytechnic lecturers at age points is not available in the form requested. Polytechnic lecturers are paid on a 14-point scale from £9,117 to £16,521; senior lecturers on a 9-point scale from £15,954 to £20,511; Principal lecturers/readers on 9-point scale from £19,941 to £24,501. The pay of heads of Department ranges from £24,000 to £28,263 according to grade. But pay scales are not strictly comparable with data for gross earnings.

  Students (Financial Management)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice on financial maintenance his Department gives to students applying for courses leading to qualifications registered under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Students on designated courses leading to certain of these qualifications may be eligible for an award under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations in force at the time of their application, provided that they are not in receipt of a bursary or award made under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. My Department publishes annually a brief guide entitled "Grants to Students" which gives general information on eligibility for and calculation of grants under the regulations.

  Students on certain courses may also be eligible for a loan under the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990 recently approved by Parliament. My Department has issued a leaflet entitled "The Student Top-up Loan Scheme" which gives advice to students on eligibility for loans and their terms and we will shortly publish more detailed guidance in a booklet "Loans to Students".

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies of(a) "Grant Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask", and (b) "School
  288
  Governors, How to Become a Grant Maintained School," have been printed; what was the cost; to whom they have been sent; and what was the cost of distribution.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There have been two editions of "School Governors: How to Become a Grant-Maintained School": 100,000 copies of the first edition were printed at a cost of £22,750; 50,000 copies of the second edition were printed at a cost of £12,690. Copies of the first edition were sent to all maintained schools: it was not the practice at that time to keep detailed postage costs for each publication separately. It cost £870 to post an initial distribution of the second edition to all maintained secondary schools.

  A total of 240,000 copies of "Grant-Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask" have been printed at a cost of £28,600. It cost £3,675 to post an initial distribution to all schools which are eligible for grant-maintained status.

  As is generally the case with DES publications, initial copies of "Questions Parents Ask" and of both editions of "How to become a Grant-Maintained School" were sent for information to major organisations with an interest in the subject, including the local authority associations, every chief education officer in England and the teacher unions.

  European Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what grant mechanisms exist for students who wish to attend further education colleges in the European Community after 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mandatory awards are available to eligible students from England and Wales attending first degree and designated comparable courses provided by United Kingdom institutions which include a period of study abroad. Loans are to be available on the same basis. Certain postgraduate awards are tenable at institutions abroad, including the College of Europe and the European University Institute. Local education authorities may make discretionary awards to students following other further and higher education courses abroad.

  European Community programmes—ERASMUS, LINGUA, COMMETT—also assist United Kingdom students who wish to follow part of their higher education courses in other member states.

  In accordance with the treaty of Rome, United Kingdom students taking up places in further and higher education institutions in other member states can have their tuition costs met in full or in part by the relevant authorities, on the same basis as nationals of the state concerned.

  Reading Standards
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken to establish facts about reading standards among seven-year-olds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  At my request the Department has sought evidence from a number of local education authorities mentioned in connection with recent reports of falling reading standards among seven-year-olds. Those inquiries have revealed that LEAs do not at present have consistent policies of testing reading skills, nor employ
  289
  comparable tests. The information made available to my officials in the course of their inquiries is accordingly inadequate either to substantiate or to disprove the claim of a fall in national standards. I will continue to endeavour to get full responses from the LEAs concerned.

  The national curriculum will remedy the current lack of national information about reading skills. Under the assessment arrangements of the national curriculum, the reading skills of all pupils will be assessed against clearly defined statutory criteria at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. The first national assessment of seven-year-olds will be in 1991 and take place annually thereafter. These assessments will provide solid and comprehensive national data about pupils' reading standards for the first time in our history.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations set out in the final document of the third nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference (NPT/Conf. III/64/I, annex 1) in regard to(a) active involvement of treaty nuclear weapons states in nuclear disarmament negotiations, (b) resumption of negotiations in trilateral and multilateral form towards a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and (c) support for an international plutonium storage regime under international safeguards.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  (a) We have fully supported both the 1987 INF agreement, and the current United States/Soviet START negotiations. We and our NATO allies confirmed at the London summit that negotiations for reductions in United States and Soviet short-range nuclear forces (SNF) in Europe should begin once a CFE agreement is signed. NATO is also prepared to eliminate all its nuclear artillery shells from Europe, on the basis of reciprocal action by the Soviet Union.

  (b) For the foreseeable future, there will be a continuing requirement to test our nuclear weapons to ensure that they remain effective and up-to-date. A comprehensive test ban treaty is therefore a long-term goal, progress to which can be made only on a step-by-step basis.

  (c) When the form that such a regime might take was discussed internationally several years ago, it was not possible to reach a consensus. We are prepared to contribute fully to any further discussion.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has concerning free trade in nuclear materials between any country that is a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Under article IV of the NPT, all parties"undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful purposes of nuclear energy".

  We fully observe our obligations under the treaty.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent of Her Majesty's Government's obligations and duties as a depository power under the nuclear 290
  non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to articles VIII, IX and XI of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of the information briefing note on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, produced in June, have been printed; to what parties it has been distributed; and at what cost.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A total of 4,083 copies of the background brief were produced. They were distributed to a wide range of academic and other organisations abroad and in the United Kingdom. The document was prepared by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as part of their normal duties, and it is not possible to allocate an individual cost to its production.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the dates on which the European political co-operation committee's working group on nuclear non-proliferation has met this year and the scheduled dates for any further meetings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The non-proliferation working group met on 31 January to 1 February, 3 to 4 April, and 6 July. One further meeting will take place later this year.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the dates of those occasions on which his Department has consulted the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on nuclear non-proliferation since October 1985.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have consulted the other depository powers of the non-proliferation treaty on numerous occasions.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state(a) the membership and (b) the remit, of the three committees that will be formed at the non-proliferation treaty fourth review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Under the draft rules of procedure for the review conference, agreed at the third session of the preparatory committee, each state party to the treaty participating in the conference may be represented by one representative on each main committee. It may assign to these committees such alternate representatives and advisers as may be required. The remit of the committees will be to consider certain items of relevance to the operation of the NPT over the past five years; other items will be considered in the plenary.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the implications for (i) the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (ii) the necessary level of a British minimum nuclear deterrent, of(a) the strategic defence initiative and (b) any British involvement in it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The strategic defence initiative is a research programme designed to investigate the feasibility
  291
  of strategic defences. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan agreed in 1984, the overall aim of SDI is to enhance, and not to undermine deterrence. We consider it could contribute to world security and stability.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the three depository powers under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are willing to accept on-site inspection to verify a ban on all nuclear testing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  For the foreseeable future, our security will depend on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons. That will mean a continuing requirement to test our nuclear weapons in order to ensure that they remain effective and up to date. A comprehensive test ban therefore remains a long-term goal, progress to which will be made only on a step-by-step basis. We cannot comment on the views of the other depositories on this subject.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to discuss with Commonwealth countries the issues to be raised in the fourth review conference of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to breaches of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty recorded by monitoring organisations regarding the supply of nuclear material to other states without the required notification in each of the last five years and as to the states involved and the materials in each case.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have received any notification from any party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty under article VIII of the treaty to amend it; and what information he has as to whether any such notification of amendments has been submitted to the other two depository states to the treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are not aware of any notification of proposed amendments.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn),Official Report, 13 June, column 262, if he will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom foreign policy of the transfer of nuclear submarines to India from the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  One nuclear-powered submarine has been leased to the Indian navy by the Soviet Union. We understand that the special fissionable material involved has remained under Soviet control. This seems to present no specific issues in relation to United Kingdom foreign policy.

  EC Legislation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if European Community legislation applies to(a) the Azores, (b) Ceuta, (c) Melilla and (d) Diego Garcia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Community legislation applies in the Azores and in Ceuta and Melilla, subject to derogations pursuant to the Act of Spanish and Portuguese Accession. Community legislation does not apply in Diego Garcia, though the British Indian Ocean Territory is associated with the Community under the provisions of part IV of the EEC treaty and Council decision 86/283/EEC.

  Iraq and Libya (Nuclear Arms)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral reply to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans),Official Report, 13 June, column 272, if he will publish the evidence on which he based his assessment that Iraq and Libya are heading towards having a nuclear arsenal.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This was the assessment of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs agreed with his second point—that we should be encouraging world opinion to bring about peace in the middle east.

  United Nations Declarations
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of United Nations declarations 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and 2625 (XX) of 24 October 1970.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom abstained with other western countries on the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples of 1960, largely because it envisaged independence as the only possible outcome of self-determination. The United Kingdom joined in supporting the declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relations with co-operation among states in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, of 1970, and continues to support it.

  Visas (Poland)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding Government policy on requiring visa applications from Polish citizens visiting the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In accordance with the provisions of the immigration rules (HC 251) any Polish citizen wishing to visit the United Kingdom must first make an application for a visa at a British embassy, high commission or consulate.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the length of time to process a visa application by the British embassy in Warsaw.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Private applications for visit visas, once lodged with the embassy, are processed the same day.
  293
  We aim to process other types of applications normally within seven working days (short-term official) and one month (long-term and multiple-entry).

  Dalai Lama
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Dalai Lama; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no such meeting.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the British Government's policy towards Cambodia, following the latest meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

  Mr. Hurd
  We welcome the American decision to open a dialogue with Vietnam on Cambodia. We share the United States Government's determination to do all that we can to prevent the Khmer Rouge from returning to power by force of arms. Our common objective is to create the conditions to enable the Cambodian people to elect a Government, free from the fear of foreign invasion, civil war or Khmer Rouge atrocities. We and our EC partners were already reviewing our policy towards Cambodia's representation at the United Nations. Indeed, six months ago at the EC-ASEAN ministerial meeting at Kuching we and our EC partners warned the ASEAN Foreign Ministers that we would be re-examining this particular question very closely before the 1990 UNGA. My noble Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made clear in another place on 5 February this year that the occupation of the seat would be a key factor in the peace process. On 30 April, replying to a question by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House that we would have to look closely at the question of Cambodia's seat at the United Nations in the context of current diplomatic activity aimed at achieving a peaceful settlement. I can now state that we do not want the coalition of which the Khmer Rouge is a member to continue to occupy Cambodia's United Nations seat. Consultations with EC partners and other interested countries on the handling of this question will continue.

  With the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, we continue to work hard to achieve a comprehensive political settlement. At their latest meeting on 16–17 July, the Permanent Five made significant progress on two key elements of a solution based on an enhanced UN role: transitional arrangements regarding the administration of Cambodia during the pre-election period: and military arrangements. They agreed to accelerate their work in the remaining three areas (free and fair elections, safeguarding of human rights and international guarantees) which were identified in their earlier meeting in New York on 25–26 May as essential aspects of a comprehensive political settlement. The Five are due to hold their next meeting in New York on 27–28 August.
  294
  I have placed a copy of the summary of conclusions of the 16–17 July meeting in the House of Commons Library.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 24 July]: In 1989–90 both wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continued to place a part of their requirements for goods and services with small businesses. In the Diplomatic Wing the value of this business over the last two years was:

  £ million

  Percentage of expenditure

  1988–89

  16·38

  15·9

  1989–90

  32·80

  22·5

  The DW director of purchasing disseminates to purchasing departments information and guidance on procurement from small firms. He ensures that, whenever possible, such firms are included in invitations to tender and that they are awarded contracts if their offer is the best on a value-for-money basis.

  The ODA uses procurement agencies to undertake purchasing and supply on behalf of recipient governments in developing countries. Its register of agents includes several small businesses. ODA also encourages small firms to compete for aid-financed consultancy contracts overseas.

  In line with the BOTB forward plan, diplomatic service posts put a particular emphasis on supporting small and medium-sized businesses through a wide range of export promotion services. Performance indicators for these activities do not distinguish company size.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 5 June,Official Report, column 472, if he will give details of licences issued for the export of ivory since 18 May.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 10 July 1990]: Between 18 May 1990 and 7 July 1990 the Hong Kong authorities issued 15 export licences as follows:

  Licence(s)

  Quantity (KG)

  Description

  Destination

  8

  5,222·1

  Ivory scrap

  China

  1

  156·5

  Worked ivory

  Mexico

  3

  112·6

  Worked ivory

  Andorra

  Worked ivory

  1

  14

  (personal effect)

  Taiwan

  Worked ivory

  1

  8

  (pre-convention)

  Australia

  14

  In addition, one export licence was issued for 6·1 kg of worked ivory personal effects destined for United

  295
  Kingdom. This licence was issued on 5 July 1990, but expired on 16 July 1990 without being collected by the applicant.

DEFENCE

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the number of service men counted as resident in the United Kingdom for poll tax purposes;

  (2) where the service men are counted as resident in the United Kingdom for poll tax purposes located by base, county, and parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No record is held of this information, which could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place between local authorities and his Department on future poll tax payments by service men.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ministry of Defence officials have met local authority representatives on a number of occasions to discuss various matters relating to the community charge. At a local level, every service unit has appointed an officer responsible for liaison with community charge registration officers.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his oral reply to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot),Official Report, 3 April, column 1020, which are the signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty who appear to have embarked on an attempt to achieve nuclear technology, to which he referred;

  (2) pursuant to the answers to the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), Official Report, 15 May, columns 730 and 733, if he will list the nations to which the hon. Member refers as trying to develop nuclear capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 8 June 1990 at column 738.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the increases of radioactivity measured (i) above ground on the test site and (ii) off the test site, following each of the nuclear weapons tests listed in his reply to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes),Official Report, 15 June, column 380.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 5 April 1990 at column 834, there was a minor release of radioactivity from the Barnwell test conducted on 8 December 1989, but no radioactivity was detected beyond the boundaries of the test site; no radiological hazard was presented to members of the public nor to operatives on the test site. None of the other tests released any radioactivity.

  Nuclear-armed Vessels
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone),Official Report, 11 June, column 41, if he will set out the restrictions placed on the deployment of United Kingdom nuclear-armed vessels when (a) in the territorial sea, and (b) in internal waters of (i) the Falkland Islands, (ii) South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, (iii) the Cayman Islands, (iv) the Turks and Caicos Islands, (v) the British Virgin Islands and (vi) Anguilla and Montserrat.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom at all times complies with its obligation under the treaty of Tlatelolco not to deploy nuclear weapons in territories, including territorial and internal waters, which lie within the treaty's zone of application. It remains, however, our invariable practice to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board particular ships at particular times.

  Trident Computer
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Logica computer system for Trident to be fully operational.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The material control system in new facilities at AWE Aldermaston, for which Logica is developing software, is expected to become fully operational next year.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the consequences to the Trident programme of the failure of the Logica computer system to meet his Department's full software specification.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The material control system in the new facilities at AWE Aldermaston, for which Logica is developing software, is expected to become fully operational next year. Production of components for Trident warheads is not due to begin in the new facilities until 1992.

  RAF Leuchars
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any intention of restarting night flying for search and rescue operations from RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Civilian Staff
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, columns 142–43, whether he has any plans to provide other forms of training for civilian staff to assist them in the event that their services are no longer required.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Pre-retirement training is available to civilian staff of the Department. During their careers, MoD civil servants receive training in a wide variety of skills many of which are applicable to outside employment. Our plans for civilian training are kept under continuous review.

  Childhood Leukaemia
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to commission any studies into the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the Fareham and Gosport area.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence does not intend to commission a special study into the incidence of leukaemia in the Fareham and Gosport area.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out into the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the Fareham and Gosport area.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence has not commissioned any studies into the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the Fareham and Gosport area.

  Running Costs
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the average annual running costs of(a) each vessel listed on pages 53, 54 and 55 according to class, (b) each of the commando units and headquarters listed on page 55 according to type of unit, (c) each of the squadrons according to the type of equipment with which they are issued listed on pages 56, 59 and 60 and (d) each of the units and headquarters according to type of unit listed on page 57 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", Cm. 1022-1; and what methodology has been used to assess the average annual running costs of units.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the average annual running costs of(a) the Royal Aerospace Establishment, (b) the Admiralty Research Establishment, (c) the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment, (d) the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, (e) the Procurement Executive, (f) the Proof and Experimental Establishment, (g) the Sea Systems Controllerate, (h) the Air Systems Controllerate and(i) the Land Systems Controllerate.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In 1989–90, the running costs of these organisations were as follows:

  £ million

  Royal aerospace establishment

  100

  Admiralty research establishment

  50

  Royal armament research and development establishment

  45

  Royal signals and radar establishment

  30

  Sea systems controllerate

  75

  Land systems controllerate:

  Proof and experimental establishments

  15

  Other land systems controllerate

  30

  Air systems controllerate

  45

  Other procurement executive

  255

  Total procurement executive

  645

  Running costs cover civilian pay, civilian and service travel and subsistence, utilities, services and general administrative expenses.

  Equipment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the approximate average annual cost of providing new equipment measured over the last 20 years 298
  to (a) each of the commando units and headquarters according to type of unit, listed on page 55, (b) each of the squadrons according to the type of equipment with which they are issued listed on pages 56, 59 and 60 and (c) each of the units and headquarters according to type of unit listed on page 57 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", Cm. 1022-1.

  Mr. Carlisle
  The information is not available without disproportionate effort.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to maintaining a defence industrial base that is capable of meeting the future requirements of the armed services in the course of his study of the options for change.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence today on "Options for Change" in which he indicated that we would now be consulting the defence industries about our broad proposals.

  Pre-release Training
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average amount of pre-release training that is provided to those service personnel who are eligible to receive it; and what is the average amount of expenditure on pre-release training for each service man or woman.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Service men and women are entitled to 28 days pre-release voluntary training; 31 per cent. of this training is conducted at Ministry of Defence resettlement centres, 12 per cent. on Ministry of Defence-sponsored courses at other centres and 57 per cent. during civilian attachments with outside organisations. The cost of this training currently averages £974 per person including in-house briefings.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount of expenditure on pre-release training in each year for the last 10 years; and whether he has any plans to extend the provision of pre-release training to civil staff.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Expenditure on pre-release training across the three services was not identified and aggregated prior to formation of the tri-service resettlement organisation on 2 January 1990. However, a study conducted in 1987 identified 1985–86 expenditure as being £11 million, and current year expenditure is anticipated to be £11·2 million. Expenditure on pre-release training has remained reasonably steady over the last 10 years.

  Our plans for civilian training are kept under continuous review.

  Expenditure Freeze
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what commitments were affected by the temporary bar he referred to on 18 June,Official Report, column 688; what was the planned expenditure of each of these; which commitments were not affected; on what date the bar came into force and what is its current status; and what effect it has had on (a) planned expenditure for the 1990–91

  299
  financial year, (b) recruitment of personnel, (c) retention of personnel, (d) the study of options for change, (e) future procurement plans, and (f) the size and structure of the defence industries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A temporary bar on the placing of new defence contracts and entering into new commitments was introduced on 11 May 1990 and lifted on 2 July 1990. The bar was accompanied by a general ban on civilian recruitment. This ban was removed on 9 July.

  The temporary bar has not altered the planned total of defence expenditure of 1990–91. Its purpose was to provide time for deciding on a number of short-term changes at the margin of the defence programme in order to remove forecast overspending on the planned budget.

  Certain exceptions to the temporary bar and recruitment ban were permitted including commitments of high operational urgency, security measures and civilian recruitment in grades and geographical areas already experiencing recruiting difficulties. Armed forces recruiting was not restricted. It is estimated that the number of civilian vacancies left unfilled during the period of the general ban amounted to about 700. The number of contracts and purchases held back while the temporary bar was in force is large. Disproportionate effort would be required to provide a complete list.

  "Options for Change" work continued in parallel with the temporary bar. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 18 June the selection of short-term measures to reduce expenditure sought to have regard to the picture emerging from "Options for Change".

  In itself the temporary bar on new commitments, in force for only seven weeks, will not have had significant effects for personnel retention, future procurement plans or the size and structure of the defence industries. As regards decisions on savings to reduce expenditure in the current year an announcement has already been made—by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 18 June—that further work on the eighth

  Civilians

  Servicemen

  Number

  Pay £ million

  Numbers

  Pay £ million

  Royal aerospace establishment

  4,878

  66

  83

  2

  Admiralty research establishment

  2,898

  41

  100

  2

  Royal armament research and development establishment

  2,365

  35

  208

  4

  Royal signals and radar establishment

  1,593

  24

  29

  1

  Sea systems controllerate

  3,784

  64

  533

  10

  Land systems controllerate:

  Proof and experimental establishments

  265

  4

  57

  1

  Other land systems controllerate

  1,399

  24

  125

  2

  Air systems controllerate

  1,743

  35

  127

  2

  Other procurement executive

  12,764

  200

  245

  5

  Total procurement executive

  31,689

  493

  1,507

  29

  A breakdown of staff numbers and pay by grade or service rank is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Tristar
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has placed a contract for the maintenance of the Royal Air Force Tristar fleet.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am pleased to say that, following intense competition, a contract has been awarded to Marshall of Cambridge (Engineering) Limited. The 300
  batch of Tornado aircraft will not be authorised, and further announcements will be made shortly regarding additional savings identified during the temporary bar which are now judged to be necessary.

  The temporary bar and the civilian recruitment ban have now been replaced by arrangements whereby all new commitments are scrutinised particularly closely to ensure that the defence cash limit for the current year is not breached.

  Commercially Sensitive Information
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 6 July,Official Report, column 762, whether it is his policy to consult and reach agreement with defence companies on the nature and type of information that may be of commercial value to their competitors.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Any information relating to commercial undertakings, processes or affairs given to the Ministry of Defence by companies is regarded as being in confidence unless the company concerned and the Ministry of Defence agree that it can be released.

  Staff Establishments
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number, Civil Service grade or service rank, and salary of the staff establishments at(a) the Royal Aerospace Establishment, (b) the Admiralty Research Establishment, (c) the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment, (d) the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, (e) the Procurement Executive, (f) the Proof and Experimental Establishment, (g) the Sea Systems Controllerate, (h) the Air Systems Controllerate and (i) the Land Systems Controllerate.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The number of staff as at 1 April 1990 and pay bills for 1989–90 for these organisations were as follows:

  contract, which is valued in excess of £30 million, covers scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of the aircraft, including repair and overhaul of components, over the next four years.

  RAF St. Mawgan
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further development is planned at RAF St. Mawgan.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF St. Mawgan in Cornwall is a main operating base for Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. There are no current plans for changes to that role.

  The Ministry of Defence is additionally planning to develop at St. Mawgan a joint maritime communications centre (JMCC) in co-operation with the United States navy. This unit will provide an important link between United Kingdom and United States maritime forces and headquarters.

  The JMCC will comprise a buried, hardened communications building approximately 70 metres square within the existing perimeter of RAF St. Mawgan. It will be integrated with the existing RAF fixed communications system, and will include two additional satellite ground terminals each approximately 3 metres in diameter, also sited within the station boundary. It has been agreed with the United States that the United Kingdom will finance and construct the JMCC building and the United States provides the operational equipment. Once fully operational, some 400 personnel will be associated with the JMCC, including both operational and support staff. Approximately half the operational staff will be provided by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and the remainder will be from the United States navy. Subject to consultation with the local planning authority, it is planned that major construction work on the JMCC will start in the middle of 1991, with the JMCC becoming operational in 1995.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations governing the practice of air-to-air refuelling in the United Kingdom low flying system; and what distinctions there are in the application of these regulations.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: There is no requirement to carry out air-to-air refuelling within the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action he is taking to put on-stream, low-flying flight simulators; how many the RAF currently have operational; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list by NATO air force, the number of low-flying flight simulators they have operational.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are currently no low-flying simulators in service with the RAF or, so far as we know, with other NATO air forces. With the introduction of more sophisticated types of simulators, such as the Harrier GR7 simulator in 1991, there will be a significant improvement in synthetic low-level training capability. However, even though advanced, this type of simulator will still be unable to replicate with sufficient fidelity the complex environment of a fast jet aircraft at low level. "Live" flying will continue to be necessary. Developments in simulator technology may eventually result in simulators with the requisite capacity, and we shall continue to keep abreast of developments in this area.
  302
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings would be made to his Department's budget from a 60 per cent. reduction in low-level military jet flights and their replacement by flight simulators.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The flight simulators currently in service with the Royal Air Force do not provide a realistic alternative to low-level training sorties.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the approved targets for toss and dive manoeuvres carried out by military jet aircraft.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The point raised is the subject of recommendations by the House of Commons Defence Committee whose report on low flying (HC 120) is currently being considered by the Government and to which a response will be made in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Charge Rebates
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement regarding community charge rebates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department of Social Security is responsible for community charge benefit. Community charge benefit replaced rate rebates in April 1990 and will help about 10 million charge payers in Great Britain in 1990–91 at an estimated cost of around £2·5 billion. Community charge benefit is more generous than the rate rebate scheme it replaced. The lower benefit taper—15 per cent. in community charge benefit as opposed to 20 per cent. in the rate rebate scheme—will bring an estimated extra 800,000 claimants on to benefit at a cost of over £200 million. The doubled upper capital limit of £16,000 is estimated to increase the number of community charge benefit cases by 130,000 at a cost of £35 million.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of people in Scotland and the Borders currently receiving community charge rebates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information supplied by Borders regional council shows that just over 11,700 community charge rebates were in payment on 31 August 1989. Rebates to couples are counted as one rebate. The comparable figure for Scotland is about 900,000.

  Leaflets
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the criteria by which it was decided to contract out the distribution of leaflet No. SFL 10 rather than using his Department; and how much this has cost.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The distribution of leaflet SFL1O to the Department's local and regional offices was arranged by the Central Office of Information to ensure rapid delivery of the publication, because the information it contained had a limited lifespan. A total of 467,000 leaflets were distributed in this way at a cost of £5,130. Half these leaflets were then distributed locally to other advice agencies by the Department at no further identifiable cost. In addition a quantity was held at ISCO 5, a sheltered warehouse, permanently contracted to the
  303
  Department for general print distribution, to service further demands from other organisations and individual members of the public. The cost of these individual requests cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cause of the insufficient supplies of leaflet SFL 10 being available for community advice organisations for distribution to their clients.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are not aware that insufficient supplies of SFL10 were available. The Department produced 600,000 copies to meet the likely demand for this short-life leaflet. A total of 450,000 were distributed to DSS local offices. They were either retained at local offices for direct distribution or were issued by them to local agencies and advice organisations.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those receiving state retirement pensions also receive other incomes; and what were the average earnings of pensioners in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The last available information shows that in 1987 more than 86 per cent. of pensioners had income from sources other than their retirement pension. The most recent figures of the average earnings of pensioners are set out in the table:

  Earnings1 £

  1979

  63·00

  1980

  62·70

  1981

  67·30

  Net income at 1987 prices Single pensioner units

  cash change:

  percentage change:

  1979

  1983

  1987

  1979–87

  1983–87

  1979–87

  1983–87

  Lowest

  35·49

  40·98

  41·02

  5·52

  0·04

  15·6

  0·1

  2

  39·79

  46·06

  47·12

  7·32

  1·06

  18·4

  2·3

  3

  43·36

  50·69

  51·90

  8·54

  1·22

  19·7

  2·4

  4

  46·87

  54·78

  57·19

  10·33

  2·41

  22·0

  4·4

  5

  49·73

  59·10

  61·29

  11·56

  2·19

  23·2

  3·7

  6

  52·55

  61·87

  65·25

  12·70

  3·38

  24·2

  5·5

  7

  55·97

  66·01

  69·97

  13·99

  3·96

  25·0

  6·0

  8

  61·40

  72·53

  76·55

  15·14

  4·02

  24·7

  5·5

  9

  72·59

  87·42

  93·32

  20·73

  5·90

  28·6

  6·8

  Highest

  103·24

  127·72

  143·90

  40·66

  16·18

  39·4

  12·7

  Overall mean

  57·74

  69·22

  75·10

  17·36

  5·87

  30·1

  8·5

  Note: Medians have been used to calculate the incomes by deciles to minimise statistical distortion at either end of the income distribution. Means have been used to calculate overall average incomes.

  Net Income at 1987 Prices Married Pensioner Units

  cash change:

  per cent change:

  Decile

  1979

  1983

  1987

  1979–87

  1983–87

  1979–87

  1983–87

  Lowest

  62·67

  70·60

  71·58

  8·91

  0·98

  14·2

  1·4

  2

  70·10

  79·59

  83·08

  12·98

  3·49

  18·5

  4·4

  3

  74·31

  85·76

  90·15

  15·84

  4·39

  21·3

  5·1

  4

  79·12

  90·51

  97·50

  18·39

  7·00

  23·2

  7·7

  5

  85·63

  95·98

  106·41

  20·78

  10·43

  24·3

  10·9

  6

  93·87

  105·04

  116·98

  23·11

  11·94

  24·6

  11·4

  7

  103·25

  115·61

  132·17

  28·92

  16·56

  28·0

  14·3

  8

  122·83

  131·99

  153·09

  30·26

  21·10

  24·6

  16·0

  9

  145·76

  166·31

  190·06

  44·30

  23·75

  30·4

  14·3

  Highest

  208·42

  252·61

  312·62

  104·20

  60·01

  50·0

  23·8

  304

  Earnings1 £

  1982

  60·40

  1983

  76·10

  1984

  72·50

  1985

  69·10

  1986

  68·70

  1987

  84·26

  1 Average is for those individuals actually receiving earnings income.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the latest trend in pensioners' real incomes since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The average total net income of pensioners increased by over 31 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987. This compares very favourably with the 3 per cent. real terms increase between 1974 and 1979.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the cash and percentage changes in real income between(a) 1979 and 1987 and (b) 1983 and 1987 for all pensioners units, single pensioners and pensioner couples, in each case breaking down the figures by decile group;

  (2) if he will list (a) the percentage and (b) the cash changes in pensioners' incomes by decile group for the period 1983 to 1987.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: The information requested is in the tables.
  305

  cash change:

  per cent change:

  Decile

  1979

  1983

  1987

  1979–87

  1983–87

  1979–87

  1983–87

  Overall Mean

  107·32

  121·57

  140·67

  33·35

  19·10

  31·1

  15·7

  * Medians have been used to calculate the incomes by deciles to minimise statistical distortion at either end of the income distribution. Means have been used to calculate overall average incomes.

  Net Income at 1987 Prices All Pensioner Units

  cash change:

  per cent change:

  Decile

  1979

  1983

  1987

  1979–87

  1983–87

  1979–87

  1983–87

  Lowest

  36·39

  42·57

  42·67

  6·28

  0·10

  17·3

  0·2

  2

  42·93

  50·44

  51·36

  8·43

  0·92

  19·6

  1·8

  3

  48·15

  57·26

  59·20

  11·05

  1·94

  23·0

  3·4

  4

  52·64

  62·40

  65·40

  12·76

  3·00

  24·2

  4·8

  5

  58·66

  68·69

  72·27

  13·61

  3·58

  23·2

  5·2

  6

  66·60

  78·47

  83·02

  16·43

  4·55

  24·7

  5·8

  7

  75·58

  88·37

  94·65

  19·07

  6·28

  25·2

  7·1

  8

  87·23

  99·95

  110·84

  23·60

  10·89

  27·1

  10·9

  9

  107·33

  121·23

  139·71

  32·38

  18·48

  30·2

  15·2

  Highest

  159·93

  186·66

  219·77

  59·84

  33·11

  37·4

  17·7

  Overall Mean

  75·92

  88·96

  99·88

  23·96

  10·92

  31·6

  12·3

  * Medians have been used to calculate the incomes by deciles to minimise statistical distortion at either end of the income distribution. Means have been used to calculate overall average incomes.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1), pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) of 20 February,Official Report, columns 675–77, on pensioners' incomes, if he will give the same analysis for each decile or quintile of pensioners' incomes, and if he will include income from the state earnings-related pension scheme as a separate item;

  (2) if he will indicate the breakdown of the 17 per cent. real increase in the net income of the lowest quintile of pensioners since 1979; if he will indicate what percentage is due to the (a) basic state retirement pension, (b)

  Table 1 Pensioners' Incomes

  1974

  1979

  1987

  Real terms increase 1974–79 Per cent.

  Real terms increase 1979–87 Per cent.

  Lowest quintile

  Total social security benefits

  32·50

  37·50

  42·80

  15

  14

  Occupational pensions

  0·50

  0·40

  1·66

  -11

  295

  Savings income

  1·30

  1·30

  2·70

  -1

  112

  Earnings

  0·60

  0·50

  0·20

  -27

  -47

  Total gross income

  34·90

  39·60

  47·50

  14

  20

  Total net income

  34·80

  39·30

  46·70

  13

  19

  2nd quintile

  Total social security benefits

  41·30

  45·90

  55·10

  11

  20

  Occupational pensions

  1·80

  2·50

  4·30

  38

  74

  Savings income

  2·70

  2·30

  3·80

  -16

  67

  Earnings

  1·00

  0·30

  0·50

  -71

  71

  Total gross income

  46·80

  51·00

  63·70

  9

  25

  Total net income

  46·40

  50·50

  62·30

  9

  24

  3rd quintile

  Total social security benefits

  48·30

  51·70

  62·60

  7

  21

  Occupational pensions

  5·40

  5·80

  10·40

  7

  81

  Savings income

  4·40

  4·50

  6·10

  1

  36

  Earnings

  3·50

  2·50

  1·40

  -28

  -43

  Total gross income

  61·60

  64·50

  80·50

  5

  25

  Total net income

  59·90

  62·70

  77·70

  5

  24

  4th quintile

  Total social security benefits

  54·80

  61·10

  71·10

  12

  16

  Occupational pensions

  12·20

  11·70

  21·70

  -4

  86

  Savings income

  7·30

  5·50

  13·10

  -25

  137

  Earnings

  8·40

  6·70

  3·90

  -17

  -44

  Total gross income

  82·70

  85·30

  109·80

  3

  29

  306
  SERPS, (c) occupational pensions, (d) savings and interest, (e) increased take-up of disability benefits and (f) other sources of income; and if he will give a similar breakdown for each of the four quintiles.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 8 March 1990]:The information requested is set out in the tables. The source of the data is the family expenditure survey. It is not possible from this source to identify payments of additional pension from the state earnings-related pension scheme.
  307

  1974

  1979

  1987

  Real terms increase 1974–79 Per cent.

  Real terms increase 1979–87 Per cent.

  Total net income

  78·70

  81·70

  103·30

  4

  27

  Highest quintile

  Total social security benefits

  47·90

  56·60

  64·50

  18

  14

  Occupational pensions

  39·00

  45·90

  78·40

  18

  71

  Savings income

  38·00

  31·70

  78·60

  -17

  148

  Earnings

  54·50

  39·50

  33·30

  -28

  -16

  Total gross income

  179·50

  173·60

  254·80

  -3

  47

  Total net income

  150·00

  145·60

  209·60

  -2

  44

  Table 2: Pensioners' income from savings and occupational pensions, 1974, 1979 and 1987 Pensioners with savings income

  Percentage with savings income

  Average amount received (£s per week at 1988 prices)

  1974

  1979

  1987

  1974

  1979

  1987

  Quintile:

  Lowest

  38

  45

  65

  3·4

  2·8

  4·2

  2

  45

  51

  61

  6·0

  4·5

  6·3

  3

  50

  63

  66

  8·9

  7·1

  9·2

  4

  53

  68

  80

  13·8

  8·1

  16·4

  Highest

  76

  83

  95

  49·9

  38·3

  82·9

  All

  53

  62

  73

  20·5

  14·6

  28·4

  Pensioners with occupational pension

  Percentage with occupational pension

  Average amount received (£s per week at 1989 prices)

  1974

  1979

  1987

  1974

  1979

  1987

  Quintile:

  Lowest

  7

  8

  23

  6·4

  5·2

  7·1

  2

  20

  27

  34

  9·2

  9·2

  12·6

  3

  36

  41

  53

  14·8

  14·1

  19·6

  4

  53

  60

  68

  22·9

  19·6

  32·0

  Highest

  58

  70

  81

  67·0

  65·5

  96·8

  All

  35

  41

  52

  33·7

  32·1

  44·8

  Table 3: Pensioners' Incomes by Quintile 1987 prices

  RP, Supp. benefit and housing benefit

  Occupational pension

  Investment income

  Other sources

  Total gross

  Total net

  1st Quintile 1979

  36·50

  0·40

  1·30

  1·40

  39·60

  39·30

  1987

  41·90

  1·70

  2·70

  1·20

  47·50

  46·70

  Real increase 1979–87 (per cent.)

  15

  295

  112

  -15

  20

  19

  Proportion of total net increase (per cent.)

  72

  17

  20

  -3

  105

  100

  2nd Quintile 1979

  44·40

  2·50

  2·30

  1·80

  50·90

  50·50

  1987

  54·00

  4·30

  3·80

  1·60

  63·70

  62·30

  Real increase 1979–87 (per cent.)

  22

  74

  67

  -13

  25

  24

  Proportion of total net increase (per cent.)

  81

  16

  13

  -2

  108

  100

  3rd Quintile 1979

  49·20

  5·80

  4·50

  5·00

  64·50

  62·70

  1987

  58·60

  10·40

  6·10

  5·40

  80·50

  77·70

  Real increase 1979–87 (per cent.)

  19

  81

  36

  8

  25

  24

  Proportion of total net increase (per cent.)

  63

  31

  11

  3

  107

  100

  4th Quintile 1979

  57·10

  11·70

  5·50

  11·00

  85·30

  81·70

  1987

  63·10

  21·70

  13·10

  11·90

  109·80

  103·30

  Real increase 1979–87 (per cent.)

  11

  85

  137

  8

  29

  26

  Proportion of total net increase (per cent.)

  28

  46

  35

  4

  113

  100

  5th Quintile 1979

  52·70

  45·90

  31·70

  43·40

  173·60

  145·60

  1987

  57·80

  78·40

  78·60

  40·00

  254·80

  209·60

  Real increase 1979–87 (per cent.)

  10

  71

  148

  -8

  47

  44

  Proportion of total net increase (per cent.)

  8

  51

  73

  5

  127

  100

  Overall 1979

  48·00

  13·20

  9·00

  12·50

  82·80

  75·90

  1987

  55·10

  23·30

  20·90

  12·00

  111·20

  99·90

  Real increase 1979–87 (per cent.)

  15

  76

  131

  -4

  34

  32

  Proportion of total net increase (per cent.)

  30

  42

  49

  -2

  119

  100

  308 309
  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  All cash figures are £s per week at 1987 prices.

  In common with all other surveys, the family expenditure survey draws information from a random sample of the population. This means that the FES will occasionally include some individuals whose weekly incomes are considerably higher or lower than those of the remainder of their quintile. The unrepresentative income of such individuals may cause wide swings in the figures particularly in year-to-year comparisons and when disaggregated into quintiles. In general, when viewed over the long term, the data provide a reliable indication of the movement in average weekly income.

  Pensioners' Charter
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet representatives of retirement pensioners' organisations to discuss the pensioners' charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Ministers have met pensioners' groups twice during the last two months to discuss a range of issues of concern to them and to listen to their views.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the reply to the hon. Member for Preston of 7 March,Official Report, column 682, on recipients of invalid care allowance who also receive income support, if he will publish the corrected figures provided in a letter to the hon. Member by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The corrected figure of the number of recipients of invalid care allowance who also received income support in May 1988, which I provided in a letter to the hon. Member, is 14,000.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the reply of 7 March,Official Report, column 682, on recipients of invalid care allowance who also receive income support, what are the corresponding figures for May 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figures requested have been published in "Income Support Statistics Annual Inquiry May 1989", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time an individual claimant has to wait for a decision on their claim for benefit from an adjudication officer or tribunal hearing from the time that individual becomes unemployed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The average time taken to clear benefit claims is calculated by reference to the date a claim is received rather than from the date of unemployment and the date a decision is made by the adjudication officer. The two main benefits concerned are unemployment benefit and income support. The latest available information from 31 May 1990 is as follows:

  Benefit

  Average clearance time

  Income support

  4·6 days

  Information is not available in the form requested for claims to unemployment benefit or for decisions made by social security appeals tribunals and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensioners
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) male and (b) female pensioners there are in the United Kingdom.
  310
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that in March 1989 there were 3·49 million male pensioners and 6·55 million female pensioners receiving retirement pension in the United Kingdom.

  (Source: retirement pension statistics March 1989.)

  Earnings
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women in each region earn below the national insurance threshold; and how many are between the upper and lower earnings limits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The average number of employees earning between the lower and upper earnings limits in any week in 1990–91 is approximately

  Men 8·6 million

  Women 8·0 million

  Detailed information on the numbers earning below the lower earnings limit is not available. It is estimated, however, that in any week about 2·75 million employees earn less than the lower earnings limit, of whom about one quarter are men. Up to 0·5 million of these people would be only temporarily below the lower earnings limit by virtue of a reduction in their normal earnings—for example, due to sickness.

  The figures are for employees in Great Britain. Information on a regional basis is not available.

  McKiernon Judgment
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people suffering from occupational deafness and asthma, whose cases were affected by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mr. Frank McKiernon, have benefited or will benefit from the decision; how many such people will have lost their entitlement in consequence of the action he took retrospectively to change the law; and what is the estimated total saving to his Department from the action he took.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on those who have benefited from the Court of Appeal decision is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The intention of the legislation in schedule 6 paragraph 4 of the Social Security Act 1990 is that any entitlements conditional upon the court's judgment should be discontinued once the Act is in force. Were it not for this legislation, it is estimated that a trawl of past cases might have increased benefit expenditure by up to £100 million.

  Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, columns 353–56, on the value of benefits, if he will publish the corrected figures for the benefits in relation to earnings, including the period November 1979 to April 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret the error in the earlier reply. This arose from the use of the incorrect category of
  311
  workers for the gross earnings figures. The corrected figures are in the table. It is not possible to provide the ratio of benefits to gross earnings for April 1990 because the 1990 new earnings survey is not yet available. The corrections also apply to the answer given to the hon. Member on 20 December 1989 at columns 300–02.

  Ratio of benefit to gross earnings

  November 1978 Per cent.

  November 1979 Per cent.

  April 1989 Per cent.

  Retirement pension

  Single person

  23·4

  23·3

  18·2

  Married couple

  37·4

  37·3

  29·1

  Unemployment benefit

  Single person

  18·9

  18·5

  14·5

  Married couple

  30·6

  29·9

  23·4

  Sickness benefit

  Single person

  18·9

  18·5

  13·9

  Married couple

  30·6

  29·9

  22·4

  Industrial disablement

  benefit

  38·3

  38·0

  29·7

  Industrial death benefit

  24·1

  23·8

  18·2

  Maternity allowance

  Single person

  18·9

  18·5

  13·9

  Married couple

  30·6

  29·9

  22·4

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  Single person

  14·0

  14·0

  10·9

  Married couple

  22·5

  22·4

  17·5

  War disablement pension

  38·3

  38·0

  29·7

  War widows pension

  30·7

  30·4

  23·7

  Attendance allowance

  Higher rate

  18·7

  18·6

  14·6

  Lower rate

  12·5

  12·4

  9·7

  Invalid care allowance

  Single person

  14·0

  14·0

  10·9

  Married couple

  22·5

  22·4

  17·5

  Severe disablement allowance

  Single person

  14·0

  14·0

  10·9

  Married couple

  22·5

  22·4

  17·5

  Mobility allowance

  12·0

  12·0

  10·2

  Child benefit

  3·6

  4·0

  3·0

  One-parent benefit

  2·4

  2·5

  2·2

  Note: Gross earnings means average gross weekly earnings, all full-time workers on adult rates in all industries and services excluding those whose pay was affected by absence (source: new earnings survey). Figures for November use an estimate of average earnings interpolated by the seasonally adjusted monthly index of average earnings, all employees in industries and services published in the Employment Gazette.

  Fylde Local Office
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of claims for each of the last 12 months made to the Department of Social Security, Fylde.
  312
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of claims for family credit received by the family credit unit at North Fyide central office is in the table:

  Claims

  1989

  July

  66,075

  August

  62,397

  September

  80,792

  October

  80,670

  November

  85,530

  December

  70,996

  1990

  January

  78,122

  February

  76,049

  March

  89,088

  April

  77,080

  May

  93,310

  June

  70,101

  Notes:

  1. The figures are for the 4 or 5 weeks ending on the last Friday of the month.

  2. The figures for claims received include those made to renew existing awards and those made more than 4 weeks before the expiry of an existing award (and therefore invalid.)

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current staffing establishment at Fylde, Blackpool, to deal with family credit claims.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The current staffing complement at North Fylde central office to deal with family credit claims is 779. An additional 33 staff years are available to assist in handling claims in periods of high activity.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of(a) filled posts, and (b) unfilled posts, for each of the last 12 months, dealing with family credit at Fylde, Blackpool; and if he will make a statement on staffing requirements to deal with family credit applications by the Fylde office at Blackpool.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about filled and unfilled posts is not available in the form requested. The allocation of staff years and expenditure against allocation in the last 12 months is in the table:

  Budget (staff years)

  Expenditure (staff years)

  1989

  July

  69·50

  74·17

  August

  69·25

  72·60

  September

  67·83

  68·84

  October

  67·58

  67·32

  November

  67·58

  67·32

  December

  67·00

  71·80

  1990

  January

  66·50

  70·51

  February

  66·50

  66·89

  March

  66·50

  66·83

  April

  64·92

  63·56

  May

  64·92

  64·02

  June

  64·92

  65·69

  Months where expenditure exceeded budget reflect the injection of additional resources in the light of the work load situation at the time.

  The present complement of 779 was set for 1990–91 following a staff inspection to ascertain correct staffing levels against anticipated work load. An additional 33 staff years were allocated for use during periods of high activity.

  Resettlement Unit
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has agreed business targets for the resettlement unit's executive agency for the current financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Yes. They form part of the Resettlement Agency's business plan, a copy of which will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Social Security Acts
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received the report by the Government Actuary on the operation of the Social Security Acts since 1980.

  Mr. Newton
  I have today laid before the House the report that the Government Actuary has made on the operation of the Social Security Acts between April 1980 and April 1985 in accordance with section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975. The report provides a detailed forward look into the next century on the possible future costs of benefits paid out on the national insurance fund and on the contributions likely to be needed to pay for them. The Government will take this report into account in the normal processes for reviewing contributions and benefit expenditure.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much public expenditure has been reduced as a result of policy changes to housing benefit each year since 1987, both at current prices and at 1990 prices; and what has been the cumulative total of savings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: Direct comparisons over this period are difficult both because the definition of what constitutes public expenditure has changed and because the replacement of domestic rates by the community charge has involved a fundamental change to the structure of the benefit. It is also not feasible to isolate the effects of individual policy changes in such a way as to judge their cumulative effect over time because they cannot readily be disaggregated from other factors affecting benefit expenditure such as benefit upratings, movements in housing costs and income levels, the level of the domestic rates or community charge set by local authorities, and changes in the numbers and compositions of the caseload.

  However, in very broad terms, the overall effect of policy changes over this period has been to increase public expenditure on housing benefit and community charge benefit and also to increase the overall spending on housing benefit and on other social security support to assist with payments of rates and community charges. The main changes on a year-on-year basis are as follows. The 1988 reforms were estimated at the time to save £150 million in public expenditure on housing benefit, compared with continuing the old scheme unchanged. In addition, they were estimated to save some £480 million in expenditure not classified at the time as public expenditure, of which £350 million arose from the requirement for all claimants to meet at least 20 per cent. of domestic rates from their own resources. Against this must be set an increase of £400 million in public
  314
  expenditure from the adjustment to the benefit rates to provide help with this contribution to those receiving income-related benefits.

  In the year of the reforms there were certain improvements to the scheme which increased overall expenditure. These were the higher capital limit (£35 million) and the transitional protection scheme for vulnerable groups (£65 million).

  Since then there have been further improvements including a package of measures for poorer pensioners (£32 million) and the further increase in the capital limit (£90 million). The transfer of support for the accommodation costs of boarders from income support increased housing benefit expenditure by £190 million. The more generous taper used for community charge benefit in 1990–91 is estimated to cost a further £210 million.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: Departmental personnel records show that 346 officers in grades 1 to 7 (and professional equivalents) in the Department of Social Security have degrees: 52 are graduates of Oxford or Cambridge and 294 graduated from other universities.

SCOTLAND

  Afforestation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether Her Majesty's Government are considering suggestions by scientists that adequate and extensive afforestation schemes in Britain and Europe could play an important part in the efforts to solve the problems of air pollution and global warming.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are fully aware that growing trees absorb significant quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thus helping to counter the problem of global warming. We provide substantial grants to encourage afforestation in the United Kingdom, and we supported the forestry action programme initiative launched by the European Community just over a year ago.

  River Tweed Fisheries
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what involvement his Department had in the alterations to the cauld in the River Tweed at Melrose and of work being carried out on the river bed in the vicinity of Horncliffe; and whether he has made any assessment of the likely effect of these works, and of steps which may be taken to reinstate the river bed at these points, on salmon and sea trout fisheries.

  Mr. Lang
  I am not aware of any involvement or request for advice or assessment on the part of the Department in relation to these matters.

  For salmon and sea trout fisheries, the River Tweed commissioners have powers under section 57 of the Tweed

  315
  Fisheries Act 1857, to compel removal of obstructions to the free run of salmon and sea trout. It would be for the commissioners themselves, in the first instance, to decide whether or not the use of these powers might be appropriate in particular instances.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to cease using accountancy firms found to be unprofessional by the joint disciplinary scheme.

  Mr. Rifkind
  On reaching an adverse finding against an accountancy firm, the committee of inquiry appointed under the joint disciplinary scheme may make an order censuring, reprimanding or admonishing such a firm and an order as to costs. My Department would not draw any automatic conclusion from the fact of an adverse finding; careful note would be taken of the terms of the finding in considering whether work should be commissioned from the firm.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to cease using accountancy firms sued by the Government for negligence.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The existence of current or previous litigation is one of many aspects taken into account in deciding whether accountancy firms should be invited to tender for assignments. The objective must be to ensure that the service required is obtained from the most appropriate source.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the levels of investment in industry in Scotland, the south of Scotland and the Borders for every year since 1979, with 1979 = 100.

  Mr. Lang
  Industrial investment figures are available only for Scotland as a whole.

  The table below gives estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation for industry in Scotland at current prices for each year since 1979 to 1987, the latest year for which figures are available.

  These figures have not been indexed with 1979 = 100 as this is appropriate only when comparing data through time at constant prices. Constant price figures are not available as separate price deflators are not available for Scotland.

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation Total industry Scotland

  Year

  £ millions

  1979

  2,350

  1980

  2,650

  1981

  2,569

  1982

  2,603

  1983

  2,632

  1984

  2,865

  1985

  3,133

  1986

  3,099

  1987

  3,043

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of residential care provision for people with a mental handicap in Scotland; and what level of such residential care is recommended in the "Scottish Health Authorities' Review of Priorities for the Eighties and Nineties" document.

  Mr. Lang
  Provisional figures for 31 March 1989, the latest date for which information is available centrally, show that 2,200 places were available for persons with mental handicap in local authority homes and homes registered by them. In addition, 727 persons resident in homes for the elderly were described as mentally handicapped.

  Registered homes and those provided by local authorities themselves constitute only one part of the range of housing and other accommodation which may be provided for persons in this category. The SHARPEN report recommends that priority be given to care in the community services for persons with a mental handicap but does not indicate a specific level of residential care for such people.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list any organisations in Scotland from which he has received representations about planning blight in the development of new services for people who have a mental handicap and other priority care groups; and what was the nature of the representations.

  Mr. Lang
  Representations have been received from three registered housing associations (Ark, Key arid Margaret Blackwood) in respect of special needs housing developments which they were seeking to promote. The concern was that the financial viability of these schemes would be affected by the level of payments they could expect to receive from local authorities in respect of care costs for residents following the transfer of financial responsibility and resources from the Department of Social Security.

  It was pointed out in reply that it will be for local authorities to decide on the allocation of the resources to be transferred to them from the Department of Social Security for expenditure on care in the community; and that this discretion applies fully to the level of support to be provided for meeting residential care and other costs in individual cases.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Department of Social Security payment of income support to people with a mental handicap living in residential care in Scotland was considered to be spent inappropriately because the person was not in fact in need of such care.

  Mr. Lang
  The award of income support does not incorporate a test of care needs. A Government-financed study of persons living in private and voluntary residential care homes for the elderly and receiving income support payments was carried out in 1987; one of the four local authority areas studied was in Scotland. No similar study has been carried out in relation to persons with a mental handicap.

  Manufacturing Expenditure
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the capital expenditure on manufacturing, including and excluding leasing, in Scotland for the year 1974 and for every year since 1979 at 1985 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  There are no separate price deflators for Scotland and the use of United Kingdom price deflators is no longer considered to give sufficiently reliable constant price estimates. Figures are therefore given at current prices.

  The figures given are for net capital expenditure for manufacturing industries in Scotland. These figures include operating leasing but not financial leasing. It is not possible to give figures for capital expenditure including or excluding leasing.

  The table below gives estimates of net capital expenditure in manufacturing industries in Scotland at current prices for the years in question. The figures relate to financial years.

  Year

  Net capital expenditure Manufacturing industry Scotland £ millions

  1974

  309·9

  1979

  592·5

  1980

  653·3

  1981

  619·8

  1982

  544·0

  1983

  490·6

  1984

  622·9

  1985

  866·3

  1986

  777·7

  1987

  735·5

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland was first aware of the extent of landings into Peterhead emanating from area VIIa.

  Mr. Lang
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland first became aware of an increase in the level of landings into Scotland of non-sector cod from area VIIa at the beginning of June. At that point, the monthly allocation for individual non-sector vessels was significantly reduced by fisheries departments. Continued high levels of landings during June resulted in the catch restrictions on each vessel being tightened further from 1 July and eventually to the closure of the fishery to the non-sector from 10 July.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which vessels were physically checked for catch details passing from areas 4 to 6 or areas 6 to 4 in each month separately since 1 January.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 June 1990]: The table lists by month the 32 vessels called into Scrabster and inspected following receipt of radio reports.
  318

  Month and Vessel

  Registered Number

  1990

  January

  Ajax

  INS 168

  Forelock

  BCK 127

  Unity

  BCK 35

  February

  —

  March

  Shearwater

  BF 86

  Ulysses

  PD 76

  Seaspray

  PD 245

  Treasury

  INS 293

  Starlight

  PD 150

  Constant Friend

  PD 83

  Sparkling Star

  PD 137

  Sharona

  INS 274

  Diligent

  PD 314

  Orion

  BF 432

  Sharona

  PD 185

  Brighter Dawn

  PD 62

  Prosperity

  LH 445

  Rose Bay

  PD 65

  Lorena

  BF 227

  Sea Spray III

  PD 245

  Girl Maureen

  K 100

  April

  Sonia Jane

  BF 31

  Prosperity

  LH 445

  Ulysses

  PD 76

  Solan

  INS 112

  Serenga

  PD 95

  Evening Star

  LK 87

  River Dee

  K 51

  Brighter Dawn

  PD 76

  Ulysses

  ID 62

  St. Kilda

  INS 47

  Eleanda

  BCK 60

  May

  Fear Not

  INS 197

  June

  —

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what catches were recorded by Scottish vessels from ICES areas VIId, VIIb and VIIc in June.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 24 July.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland has instigated a review of(a) log book recordings, (b) area of activity and (c) distinguishing characteristics of fish being landed in respect of concerns over misdeclarations of landings.

  Mr. Lang
  Log books are examined each time a fishing vessel lands a catch or when it is boarded at sea. The log book entries are checked to ensure that they are consistent with the quantities and species of fish landed or on board the vessel. Confirmation of the areas of fishing activity are sought by comparing the log book entries with surveillance data provided by fishery protection vessels and aircraft.

  The ability to determine area of catch from the physical characteristics of the fish varies from species to species. In the case of cod there is at present no ready and reliable means of distinguishing whether the fish came from the

  319
  North sea or the Irish sea. It is also possible that a catch landed by a fishing vessel could contain fish from both areas.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vessels have been contained in Scottish ports for misdeclaring catches from sea areas other than area VII.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not the policy to detain fishing vessels in port in anticipation of charges being brought for breach of fisheries legislation. A vessel would be detained only where it seemed likely that a court might order forfeiture of the vessel or where it was felt that this would help to ensure that the accused would appear in court to answer the charges.

  Borders Region
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all grants given by the Scottish Development Agency to businesses and projects in the Borders region.

  Employees in empoyment by industrial group in the Borders region

  Thousands

  1980 standard industrial classification

  1978 1June

  1981 1September

  1981 2September

  1984 2September

  1987 2September

  All industries and services

  38·3

  36·1

  36·1

  35·2

  36·7

  0 Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  4·2

  3·7

  3·7

  3·0

  2·4

  1 Energy and water supply

  0·5

  0·5

  0·3

  0·4

  0·3

  2 Extraction of minerals and ores, manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals

  14·3

  12·2

  0·7

  0·6

  0·5

  3 Metal goods, engineering and vehicles

  2·4

  2·8

  2·5

  4 Other manufacturing industries

  9·5

  9·2

  9·3

  5 Construction

  2·6

  2·1

  2·1

  2·1

  2·4

  6 Distribution, hotels, catering and repairs

  16·8

  17·4

  6·7

  6·3

  6·9

  7 Transport and communication

  1·0

  1·0

  1·5

  8 Banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing

  1·5

  1·8

  1·6

  9 Other services

  8·0

  8·0

  9·4

  1 These figures for 1978 and 1981 were collected using the 1968 standard industrial classification (SIC). The analysis by 1980 standard industrial classification broad industry group has been derived by combining the 1968 SIC categories that give the best approximation to 1980 SIC categories.

  2 These figures have been collected and presented on the basis of the 1980 standard industrial classification.

  Income-based estimate of gross domestic product1—Borders region

  1979

  1981

  1984

  1987

  Gross domestic product (£ million)

  271

  323

  412

  551

  Gross domestic product per head (£)

  2,678

  3,186

  4,066

  5,393

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  1 Gross domestic product at factor cost in current prices.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies remained unfilled at jobcentres and at career offices, not seasonally adjusted and seasonally adjusted, in the Borders region for every year since 1979.
  320
  Mr. Lang
  The amount of Scottish Development Agency grants given to individual businesses or projects is a commercial matter between the agency and the companies or individuals concerned and I am therefore unable to provide the hon. Member with this information. However, I can say that in 1989–90, the Scottish Development Agency made four awards of grant totalling £20,000 under the PRIDE scheme in respect of projects in the Borders region.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of people employed by industrial group, and the average income of each industrial group, in the Borders for every year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The available information is given in the tables below. Information on employment for the Borders is available only for the years for which there was a census of employment. Information on the income-based estimate of gross domestic product is not available by industry group for the Borders. The table shows the income based estimate of total gross domestic product at factor cost in current prices for each year since 1979 for which an estimate is available.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no comprehensive statistics on unfilled vacancies. Latest estimates suggest that nationally only about one third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres. A seasonally adjusted vacancy series is not available below Scotland level. Information on the number
  321
  of unfilled vacancies, not seasonally adjusted, at jobcentres and careers offices in the Borders region in June of each year since 1979 is set out in the table:

  Year (June of each year)

  Vacancies at jobcentres

  Vacancies at careers offices

  1979

  464

  45

  1980

  336

  10

  1981

  247

  5

  1982

  246

  4

  1983

  345

  9

  1984

  405

  10

  1985

  530

  7

  1986

  454

  9

  1987

  555

  18

  1988

  941

  23

  1989

  519

  24

  1990

  619

  29

  1Vacancies for the years 1983 to 1988 inclusive, include Community Programme vacancies on the day of the count.

  2Because of possible duplication (i.e. when a vacancy is notified to both services by an employer) and timing differences the second series should not be added together.

  Community Care
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has sought from Scottish local authorities as to their degree of preparedness to take on the new community care responsibilities in April 1991; on what date he last sought this information; and what replies he has received on this issue.

  Mr. Lang
  I met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 15 May to discuss the implementation of the Government's community care proposals. At the meeting the representatives of the convention said that local authorities had made considerable efforts to be ready for implementation on 1 April 1991. Subsequently, in a letter of 29 June to the Secretary of State, the convener of the convention's social work committee indicated that authorities' plans for implementation were at an advanced stage in preparation for 1 April 1991. I believe, however, that the phasing we have now proposed will allow more effective implementation of the changes.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the effect of the new community care responsibilities on the personal community charge levels in 1991 in each region of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for individual local authorities to determine, but, in the light of the revised implementation plan for community care which my right hon. and learned Friend announced last week and the aggregate external finance settlement which he announced earlier today, the effect on community charge levels in 1991–92 should be small.

  Investment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gross value added per person in civilian employment in Scotland for every year since 1979, with 1979 = 100.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the form requested.
  322
  There are no separate price deflators for Scotland and the use of United Kingdom price deflators is no longer considered to give sufficiently reliable constant price estimates. Figures are therefore given at current prices.

  Gross value added figures are available only for manufacturing industries in Scotland and are taken from the annual census of production.

  The table below gives estimates of gross value added, employment and gross value added per employee at current prices for the years in question. The figures relate to financial years. It is not appropriate to index these current price figures to 1979 = 100.

  Year

  Manufacturing industry Scotland

  Gross value added £ millions

  Employment '000

  Gross value added per employee £

  1979

  4,573

  577

  7,925

  1980

  4,756

  533

  8,921

  1981

  5,100

  477

  10,700

  1982

  5,414

  448

  12,087

  1983

  5,772

  420

  13,743

  1984

  5,830

  397

  14,693

  1985

  6,399

  392

  16,316

  1986

  6,192

  381

  16,235

  1987

  7,086

  370

  19,150

  Source: Annual census of production

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

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 22 February 1990 at col 865–66. Updated information is not yet available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the 1988–89 issue of "Scottish Local Government Financial Statistics"; and whether he will include in that document tables showing the reconciliation between the local authority expenditure figures on a local authority accounting basis and local authority expenditure as defined on a public expenditure White Paper basis in Cm 1015 and Cm 1021.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The 1988–89 issue of "Scottish Local Government Financial Statistics" is expected to be published in early autumn. The format will be similar to previous issues, and it is not intended to include tables reconciling local authority expenditure figures on the two bases.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of vocational qualifications awarded in 1974 and for every year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The full information requested is not available centrally. The relevant information available covers first degrees and advanced level diplomas awarded to students following full-time or sandwich courses at Scottish universities and colleges. The figures are given below.
  323

  Year

  Number

  1981

  14,658

  1982

  15,102

  1983

  16,493

  1984

  17,099

  1985

  17,246

  1986

  17,408

  1987

  17,447

  1988

  18,025

  1989

  18,316

  Scottish Development Agency Analysis of grant-in-aid Development funding and grants expenditure 1981–82 to 1989–90

  District

  1981–82 £'000

  1982–83 £'000

  1983–84 £'000

  1984–85 £'000

  1985–86 £'000

  1986–87 £'000

  1987–88 £'000

  1988–89 £'000

  11989–90 £'000

  Strathclyde

  —

  306

  3,677

  6,555

  3,467

  10,571

  9,076

  17,884

  9,436

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  38

  Dumbarton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51

  43

  25

  43

  207

  Clydebank

  —

  —

  —

  8

  153

  554

  149

  2

  61

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathkelvin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  45

  31

  70

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  —

  —

  30

  1

  15

  25

  49

  13

  306

  Monklands

  —

  —

  —

  17

  108

  89

  117

  50

  79

  Glasgow City

  —

  281

  3,299

  6,060

  2,053

  7,511

  6,748

  16,082

  5,934

  Renfrew

  —

  —

  70

  90

  —

  536

  30

  181

  749

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  28

  42

  24

  250

  476

  446

  469

  Cunninghame

  —

  25

  201

  85

  563

  422

  548

  182

  277

  Kilmarnock and Louden

  —

  —

  25

  25

  —

  25

  29

  25

  37

  Eastwood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  EastKilbride

  —

  —

  —

  20

  5

  30

  22

  19

  63

  Hamilton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  91

  133

  Motherwell

  —

  —

  12

  68

  294

  398

  482

  303

  472

  Clydesdale

  —

  —

  —

  113

  128

  15

  17

  45

  130

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  —

  —

  7

  —

  13

  25

  33

  23

  32

  Kyle and Carrick

  —

  —

  5

  26

  13

  517

  16

  16

  72

  Strathclyde Composite

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  110

  251

  325

  307

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  62

  370

  141

  52

  110

  196

  146

  Wigtown

  —

  —

  62

  365

  130

  22

  30

  95

  72

  Stewartry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  28

  9

  Nithsdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  25

  55

  39

  37

  Annandale and Eskdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1

  7

  Dumfries and Galloway Composite

  —

  —

  —

  5

  10

  5

  10

  33

  21

  Borders

  —

  —

  59

  —

  —

  121

  261

  64

  52

  Tweeddale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  115

  142

  53

  36

  Berwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  119

  9

  4

  Roxburgh

  —

  —

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Borders Composite

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Lothian

  —

  —

  460

  325

  703

  572

  1,729

  682

  2,023

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  45

  45

  481

  319

  182

  77

  218

  Edinburgh City

  —

  —

  365

  280

  205

  191

  1,357

  466

  1,463

  Midlothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  32

  14

  83

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  —

  118

  24

  58

  Lothian Composite

  —

  —

  50

  —

  —

  31

  40

  101

  201

  Central

  —

  —

  79

  393

  162

  101

  451

  241

  851

  Stirling

  —

  —

  50

  350

  15

  48

  127

  35

  334

  Clackmannan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  147

  53

  276

  24

  327

  Falkirk

  —

  —

  29

  43

  —

  —

  45

  121

  145

  Central Composite

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  61

  45

  Fife

  —

  —

  25

  82

  14

  237

  561

  235

  226

  North East Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  27

  21

  57

  Kirkcaldy

  —

  —

  25

  22

  —

  40

  478

  115

  98

  Dunfermline

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  130

  30

  70

  11

  Fife Composite

  —

  —

  —

  60

  14

  12

  26

  29

  60

  Tayside

  —

  —

  481

  782

  478

  1,537

  1,029

  337

  1,049

  Angus

  —

  —

  452

  566

  19

  103

  83

  23

  40

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51

  59

  182

  4

  98

  Dundee City

  —

  —

  29

  216

  408

  1,375

  764

  308

  852

  Tayside Composite

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  59

  SDA Grants
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total value of Scottish Development Agency grants by year and local authority since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on grants prior to 1981–82 is not available in the form requested. From 1981–82 to 1989–90 the information is set out in the table. Figures for 1989–90 are provisional.
  325

  District

  1981–82 £'000

  1982–83 £'000

  1983–84 £'000

  1984–85 £'000

  1985–86 £'000

  1986–87 £'000

  1987–88 £'000

  1988–89 £'000

  11989–90 £'000

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  60

  989

  276

  130

  629

  1,571

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  8

  55

  29

  Banff and Buchan

  —

  —

  —

  45

  23

  38

  40

  22

  92

  Gordon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  —

  7

  28

  Aberdeen City

  —

  —

  —

  15

  966

  168

  82

  545

  1,315

  Kincardine and Deeside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian Composite

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  107

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  125

  148

  1

  111

  146

  132

  Caithness

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutherland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  —

  —

  —

  125

  148

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nairn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lochaber

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland Composite

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111

  146

  132

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland Composite

  600

  394

  657

  1,908

  4,598

  6,432

  5,542

  5,643

  8,671

  SDA Total expenditure

  600

  700

  5,500

  10,600

  10,700

  19,900

  19,000

  26,057

  24,157

  1 Figures for 1989–90 should be considered provisional only as they have not been fully reconciled. It should be noted that grant expenditure figures include payments in respect of business advisory services.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many senior managers in administration, professional and technical sections of the NHS in Scotland have left the service either through redundancy, resignation or early retirement during the past five years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A senior manager structure was introduced into the National Health Service in Scotland on 22 December 1987. Since that date, one officer in that category has retired prematurely from the service on grounds of redundancy and five on grounds of the interests of the efficiency of the service. No information is available centrally on resignation for any other reason.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are currently serving a prison sentence in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that this information is not available in the format requested. However, on the basis of provisional figures, in 1989, 56 persons born in Northern Ireland and 22 persons born in the Irish Republic were received under sentence into penal establishments in Scotland.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table of expenditure in 1988–89 by Scottish local authorities in respect of persons in residential care homes by the client groups (i) elderly, (ii) physically handicapped, (iii) mentally handicapped and (iv) mentally ill.
  326
  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  1Net expenditure on residential care in 1988–89 (£m)

  Elderly

  65·4

  Physically handicapped

  1·8

  Mentally handicapped

  10·0

  Mentally ill

  0·5

  1Net expenditure met from rates and grants.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money will be available to local authorities and voluntary organisations for the new mental illness project grant; when the final guidance will be issued to local authorities and other bodies; what provision there will be in Scotland for a special grant for projects helping people with alcohol and drug-related problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  As my right hon. and learned Friend indicated in his written reply to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 18 July, specific grant will be payable for increased community services for the mentally ill from 1991–92. Grant will be paid at 70 per cent. of the costs of projects up to a total of £3 million in the first year. A consultation paper outlining the proposed arrangements for the payment of grant was issued to local authorities and voluntary agencies in March. Formal guidance reflecting the result of these consultations will be provided to local authorities shortly.

  Voluntary sector projects providing assistance to persons with alcohol or drug-related problems will continue to be eligible to receive grant from my Department under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. In 1990–91 £96,000 has been made

  327
  available for current expenditure and £260,000 for capital expenditure. In addition the Scottish Office will continue to make funds available to health boards for the welfare of local drug misuse services. The level of support provided in 1990–91 is £2·2 million.

  Marine Nature Reserves
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sites under consideration for possible designation as marine nature reserves indicating which is the first to be designated and the likely date of designation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Two potential marine nature reserves have been identified in Scotland by NCC using guidelines laid down in the joint NCC/NERC report entitled "Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment". These are Loch Sween in Argyll and St. Abbs in Berwickshire. Work on Loch Sween is more advanced and is about to enter the public consultation stage.

  Birch Point (Dumping Allegations)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the preliminary findings of the initial investigation into the alleged dumping of explosives at Birch Point in the Firth of Clyde.

  Mr. Lang
  A report on the preliminary survey and other investigations carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is being published today. I am arranging for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report confirms that although there were shortcomings in ICI's sea disposal procedures in the early 1980s, these were resolved satisfactorily with the full co-operation of the company. The evidence of the survey indicates that the movement of dumped material from the dump site has been due to fishing activity in and around the disposal ground. It is not possible to say how far dumped material may have been spread.

  The further survey of the dump site, which I announced last week, is now in progress. To enable the survey to proceed undisturbed by fishing activity all fishing in the area has been prohibited for the duration of the survey. The results of this survey should provide the basis for decisions on further guidance to fishermen, the control of fishing activity and any steps to be taken in relation to the dump site itself.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to announce which areas of the highlands and islands are to be targeted under the business development scheme of the rural enterprise programme announced on 17 November 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am pleased to announce that the rural enterprise programme's business development scheme, which is designed to help farmers and crofters diversify into new enterprises, will operate initially in Wester Ross, Lochalsh, Lochaber and southeast Sutherland. Subject to parliamentary approval of the statutory instrument, locally based project officers should be appointed this autumn, and I expect the first awards to
  328
  be made under the BDS next spring. Subject to the response achieved in these areas, Ministers will review the case for extending the BDS to other areas next autumn.

  I have also decided that the REP's marketing scheme, which is designed to help farmers and crofters to market their produce more effectively, to promote a diversified business, and to publicise the benefits of improving the health status of livestock, will operate throughout the Highlands and Islands area eligible for assistance under objective 5b of the EC structural funds. I hope that the marketing scheme will be in operation before the end of 1990.

  Parole
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the Kincraig committee's report on parole and related issues in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  When the Kincraig report (Cm598) was published in March 1989, I invited comments on the review committee's recommendations from all concerned. I am grateful for the very positive response which this elicited.

  The Government's conclusions and proposals are published today in a paper entitled "Parole and Related Issues in Scotland—The Government's Response to the Report of the Review Committee", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Our proposals are based very substantially on the review committee's recommendations and reflect full acceptance of the underlying principles which they identified. Accordingly, our main proposals are that

  —all prisoners should serve at least half their sentences in custody;

  —release before the end of sentence should always be conditional, thus restoring meaning to the full sentence passed by the court;

  —parole should be available to prisoners serving sentences of four years or more, who would be eligible for parole from the half-way point in their sentences, and should be considered in the light of statutory criteria of which the most important should be whether the prisoner can safely be released without risk to the public;

  —there should be compulsory post-release supervision for all longer term prisoners, and, at the discretion of the courts, for prisoners sentenced to between one year and under four years.

  The aim of these proposals is that reformed arrangements for early release should be fairer than the existing arrangements, under which prisoners convicted of more serious offences may serve a smaller proportion of their sentence in custody than shorter-term prisoners, and that there should be a greater emphasis on the behaviour of offenders after their release from custody.

  I shall seek a suitable opportunity to bring before Parliament the legislative changes which will be required to implement these proposals.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the geographic and subject areas in which there is a current teacher shortage in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
  329
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: Information about the number of vacancies in full-time teaching posts, by education authority and by subject, as on 31 January 1990 is given in the following tables.

  The present teacher supply situation in Scotland is broadly satisfactory. The Scottish Education Department will continue to monitor teacher numbers, and, with advice from the planning group on teacher supply, set up in 1989, and on which education authorities, colleges of education and the General Teaching Council for Scotland are represented, will consider and instigate measures required to maintain an adequate intake to the teacher force in Scotland.

  Numbers of advertised vacancies for full-time teaching posts, Scotland, 31 January 1990

  Region or Islands area

  Secondary

  Primary

  Borders

  8

  2

  Central

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  Grampian

  19

  36

  Highland

  9

  4

  Lothian

  —

  18

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  3

  Strathclyde

  —

  —

  Tayside

  2

  —

  Western Isles

  2

  —

  Scotland

  49

  63

  Number of advertised vacancies for full-time secondary teaching posts, Scotland, 31 January 1990

  Subject

  Vacancies

  All subjects

  49

  Art

  2

  Business Studies

  7

  Classics, Greek, Latin

  —

  Computing

  1

  English

  6

  Gaelic

  2

  Geography

  2

  History

  —

  Home Economics

  1

  Mathematics

  3

  French

  3

  German

  —

  Other modern languages

  —

  Modern studies

  1

  Music

  7

  Physical education

  1

  Religious education

  1

  Biology

  —

  Chemistry

  3

  Physics

  3

  Speech and drama

  1

  Technological education

  1

  Learning support

  4

  Other

  —

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children received pre-five education in Scottish state schools during sessions(a) 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: There were 40,855 and 42,269 children in education authority nursery schools or departments in 1988–89 and 1989–90 respectively.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many adults enrolled in day-time classes in Scottish state schools in the following school sessions(a) 1987–88, (b) 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: There were 12,900, 14,010 and 13,525 persons aged over 18 years old who had resumed education in education authority schools in sessions 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 respectively. This information was published in SED statistical bulletins 1/B1/1988, 5/B1/1989 and 9/B1/1990, copies of which are in the Library.

  The presence of adults in the classroom is beneficial both to the pupils and to the adults themselves, and I expect that more adults will choose this path to continue their education in future. It is, however, for education authorities themselves to decide how far they wish and can afford to go in providing school education beyond the statutory requirements.

WALES

  Local Offices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes are currently being proposed to the pattern of local employment offices in Gwynedd; if he will give details of the assessed annual financial savings arising from these changes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Operational issues are a matter for the chief executive of the employment service. I have referred the hon. Gentleman's question to the director for Wales.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of inward investment by foreign-owned companies into Wales for each year from 1978–79 to the present.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of projects

  Capital investment £ million

  1979

  18

  —

  1980

  16

  —

  1981

  20

  —

  1982

  17

  —

  1983

  31

  —

  1984

  45

  164

  1985

  48

  144

  1986

  50

  155

  1987

  59

  159

  1988

  56

  1,048

  Information on inward investment projects in Wales by foreign-owned companies is held by Welsh Development International only for the years 1984 onwards. Capital investment associated with projects is that supplied by companies at the time. Final figures for 1989 are not yet available. Project numbers for the years prior to 1984 are those notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how far in advance changes in the ownership or management of private institutions for mentally handicapped people have to be notified.

  Mr. Grist
  There is no specified period in which changes in the ownership or management of private homes for mentally handicapped people have to be notified in advance.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what checks a social services department, health authority or any other relevant authority is obliged to make in respect of the suitability of(a) the proprietor, (b) the manager and (c) anyone with a position of responsibility in respect of a private establishment for mentally handicapped people.

  Mr. Grist
  In assessing the fitness of persons concerned or intended to be concerned with a private home for mentally handicapped people, registration staff are expected to consider individuals' qualifications, health skills, proven experience, and, where appropriate, financial acumen. Registration authorities should also ascertain whether applicants for registration have been convicted of any offence under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Furthermore, authorities are advised to inquire into whether applicants have any other criminal convictions, including "spent" convictions within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will undertake a review of the arrangements under which the suitability of people involved in the management and/or ownership of private establishments for the mentally handicapped is monitored; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. It is the responsibility of the registering authority to monitor the arrangements for assessing the suitability of people involved in the management and/or ownership of private establishments for people with a mental handicap under guidance issued by the Department.

  Countryside Council
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was anticipated to be the date upon which the Countryside Council for Wales would commence its activities on 1 January; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) when he expects the Countryside Council for Wales to commence its activities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if there has been any delay in the financing, establishment and starting date of the Countryside Council for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Subject to the passing of the relevant legislation, the Countryside Council for Wales will take over the responsibilities of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Wales with effect from 1 April 1991 as originally envisaged. The council will, however, be formally established before then, on a date to be determined, to enable it to prepare for its new role. The council will receive grant-in-aid from the date of its formal establishment.
  332
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the composition of the Countryside Council for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has already announced his intention to appoint Mr. Michael Griffith as the first chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales. My right hon. Friend and I are also currently considering the names of a number of candidates for other appointments to the council. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Hospital Catering
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken in relation to South Glamorgan health authority, to ensure that all necessary physical conditions and procedures are satisfactorily met in the catering departments at its district general hospitals.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department issued the latest guidance to district health authorities on food hygiene and pest control in the NHS in 1988. Responsibility for inspecting hospital catering premises and for monitoring food hygiene procedures generally within hospitals rests with the relevant local authority environmental health departments.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice his Department has given regarding the use of cook-chill methods(a) generally and (b) in national health service institutions in Wales; and if he will place copies of any guidance in the Library.

  Mr. Grist
  General advice on the subject was contained in the press release "Advice to the Public on Listeria and Food" issued by the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health on 10 February 1989. This advice was drawn to the attention of all chief environmental health officers and medical officers of environmental health.

  Further advice was provided in a letter entitled "Listeriosis and Food", copies of which were sent to all doctors in Wales on 21 February 1989.

  The most recent guidelines on cook-chill and cook-freeze catering systems were issued to the NHS in Wales on 5 July 1989.

  Copies of all these documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Pollution Inspectors
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is the officer of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution with responsibilities for Wales; what are his other duties; how much time he has spent in Wales in the current year; and when he last met him.

  Mr. Grist
  The head of west division of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP), based in Bristol, has overall responsibility for Wales. I have not yet had an opportunity to meet him, though our officials do so on a regular basis. There are also seven pollution inspectors with responsibility for Wales based in Cardiff.

  Pollution, Port Talbot
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to pollution from British Petroleum Chemicals at Port Talbot in the last two months; and what steps he intends to take to remedy the situation.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given to him on 20 July at columns 758–59.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will ask Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to monitor on a day-to-day basis industrial pollution at Port Talbot for the next three months.

  Mr. Grist
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution assures me that it will continue to discharge its statutory responsibilities in conjunction with the local authority as necessary.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish a liaison committee consisting of representatives of local community councils, Monmouth borough council, Gwent county council, the contractors and a representative of the Welsh Office to safeguard the environmental interests of people living near the construction of the second Severn crossing.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The most effective way of establishing liaison between the contractors and local communities on the environmental and other issues involved in this major project is currently under consideration.

  Emergency Provision
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that, following the implementation of the relevant sections of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, allowance will be made for sums to be paid by the health authorities of patients who receive emergency or other treatment while on holiday in another district health authority area to be held over for expenditure in the succeeding financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  Patients will of course be entitled to emergency treatment while on holiday, and it is the responsibility of each health authority to provide adequate accident and emergency cover in its area. When a patient is admitted to hospital for emergency treatment, the authority in which he or she lives will be responsible for meeting the costs of the treatment required. There will be no question of patients being unable to get treatment they urgently need because of uncertainty over payment. Health authorities will need to set aside funds for such eventualities, and we expect settlements to be made promptly—normally within the financial year—to protect the financial position of the hospitals providing treatment.

  BISF Houses
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet a delegation of hon. Members, peers and residents to discuss steel-framed houses and the Parnham report on BISF houses; an assessment of condition.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand the Parnham report is specific to the Nottingham area. In those circumstances, a meeting would not seem appropriate.

  Year of the Disabled
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to promote 1991 as the Year of the Disabled in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State delivered a speech,a copy of which is in the Library of the House, at a Wales Council for the Disabled event on Friday 20 July 1990, in which he stressed the importance of 1991 as the Year of the Disabled in Wales: a year in which substantial progress is made for people with disabilities and their carers to have ready access to the facilities and opportunities which able-bodied people take for granted. I fully support this objective.

  To this end, on 8 May 1990 my Department issued to all health and local authorities and other interests in Wales guidance on good practice in the provision of services for people with physical or sensory disabilities. We will shortly publish details of the targeted grants which will be available in Wales from April 1991 to help provide more flexible forms of domiciliary care.

  Help is also available through the new renovation grants regime for disabled people to receive financial support—up to 100 per cent. where appropriate—to help them to live independently in their own homes. For those who need to rent, nearly all the homes provided through Housing for Wales are built to mobility standards and a significant proportion of the annual programme goes to meet specific special needs provision.

  We will take every opportunity to reiterate the key messages to all with a part to play, including public bodies, the private sector and the community at large and ensure that they are taken forward as part of the comprehensive programme for the improvement of social and community care as set out in White Paper "Caring for People" and in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 18 July.

HEALTH

  Medway Health District
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the figures for the number of hospital in-patients treated in the Medway health district in 1988–89, or the most recent year for which figures are available and in the previous year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Year

  In-patient cases treated

  1986

  37,300

  1987–88

  38,400

  1988–89

  36,200

  Figures for all three years are deaths and discharges. Figures for 1987–88 have been adjusted to be comparable with definitions used in 1986 and 1988–89.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in negotiations on proposals for a reduction in the hours worked by junior doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I recently met with representatives of all key parties, including the profession, to discuss this matter.

  The talks were both productive and encouraging. A working group has been established to explore the main issues. It has been asked to make an initial report later this summer when I shall next meet them formally to discuss its findings.

  In-patients, Barnet
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the latest number of in-patient cases treated by Barnet health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  During 1988–89, the latest year for which data are available, a total of 36,482 in-patient cases were treated by Barnet district health authority. That is 9 per cent. more than in 1979.

  NHS (Environmental Proposals)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to make the national health service more environmentally friendly.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We recently launched two campaigns—"Brighter and Better Hospitals", concerned with generally improving hospitals' internal and external environments, and "Towards a Greener NHS", concerned with energy conservation, the use of lead-free petrol in NHS vehicles and reducing air pollution from waste incinerators.

  Health authorities are also encouraged, and are taking active steps, to reduce their use of CFCs and to examine possibilities both of collecting waste for recycling and the use of recycled materials.

  Details of the campaigns are given in Health Service Estate journal No. 70 (June 1990), copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Allen Mckay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding funding arrangements for the Government's community care proposals.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding funding arrangements for the Government's community care proposals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Many representations on all aspects of community care, including funding, have been received, from a wide variety of organisations. The local authority associations were invited to submit their views on the costs to the Department. These views have informed the Government's decision on the phasing of community care and the local authority settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 19 July at columns 1185–1208.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his estimate of the coist to local 336
  authorikties of preparing for the community care reforms to have been implemented in April 1991, now that he has postponed them;

  (2) iff any compensation will be available to local authorities for the preparatory expenditure for the community care reforms which have now been postponed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. We made adequate allowance in the local authority settlement for 1990–91 for pre-implementation costs for our proposals which build on existing good practice.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the waiting list initiative.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on 18 January at columns 403–4. The inter-authority comparisons and consultancy (IACC) initiative mentioned in my earlier reply is now complete and has been very effective in reducing waiting times. The number of patients waiting over a year in the 43 specialties studied by the IACC team has virtually been halved, and has reduced by 37 per cent. in the 22 districts as a whole. IACC published its full report on 19 July this year, and copies are available in the Library.

  Manchester Hospitals (Staffing)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about staffing levels in hospitals in Greater Manchester.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 3 July at columns 545–46.

  Ex-psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ex-psychiatric patients he estimates now to be living in the community; what were the comparable figures five years and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  In-patients
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of in-patients treated in a week in 1979 and in 1989.

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

  In-patient cases treated, NHS hospitals, England, 1979 and 1988–89

  Year

  In-patient cases treated1

  In-patient cases treated per week

  1979

  5,400,120

  103,848

  1988–89

  6,585,982

  126,654

  Increase

  1,185,862

  22,805

  Percentage increase

  22

  22

  1 Discharges and deaths.

  Source: SH3 return, 1979

  SH3a return, 1988–89.

  Hospitals, Kendal
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the number of hospital beds currently available in the Kendal district; and what is the anticipated number which will be available when the new hospital is open;

  (2) what is the number of doctors, nurses and other support staff who currently work in hospitals in the Kendal area; and what are the anticipated numbers who will be employed when the new hospital is open.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the number of hospital beds and the number of hospital staff employed is collected by district only. The current available information on South Cumbria district is as follows:

  3Number

  Average daily available beds (1988–89)

  796

  Medical and dental staff including locums (1988)1

  90

  Nursing and midwifery including agency staff (1988)

  1,120

  Support staff (1988)2

  810

  1 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Excludes senior registrars and consultants in non-teaching DHAs and senior registrars in teaching DHAs—these staff have their contracts with the RHA.

  2 Includes administration and clerical, ancilliary, professional and technical, works, maintenance and ambulance staff.

  3 "Number of staff employed are expressed as Whole Time Equivalents (WTE) and rounded up to the nearest 10."

  My right hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of South Cumbria health authority for further information.

  Donated Equipment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the value of equipment donated to the national health service by charity organisations and public appeals for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to improve the training of approved social workers resulting from the publication in February of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work paper on refresher training for approved social workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As CCETSW's paper says, responsibilities for continuing the work now firmly lies with local authorities and professional associations. CCETSW will continue to monitor the quality and content of training for approved social workers and to encourage their professional development. CCETSW will also continue to disseminate guidance and to provide training opportunities for training officers and supervisors of approved social workers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans are being made to equip social workers and other local authority staff with the knowledge and skills to make assessments of the need for social care of mentally ill people receiving hospital treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The training of approved social workers helps to equip them in making assessments 338
  of the needs of mentally ill people. Preparation for making assessments is also being incorporated in both qualifying and post-qualifying training for social workers and in the training of other social care staff.

  Mental Health Act
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects that mental health statistics will be available for the number of hospital beds, the number of patients, their admission and discharge, length of stay and detention under various sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 for a later year than 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We expect to issue a statistical bulletin covering the period to 1990 by early next year.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he now proposes to make any extension to the categories covered by free prescriptions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. A full charge is paid on less than one in five prescription items dispensed in the NHS. The present exemption arrangements protect those who are likely to have difficulty in paying charges. Those who are not exempt but who need a lot of prescriptions can limit their outlay by buying a prepayment certificate.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the results of his consideration of applicants for self-governing status so far received for the south-western region.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Each NHS trust application will be the subject of a three- month public consultation. I shall announce my decision on each application after I have had an opportunity to consider the outcome of the public consultation. I expect therefore to announce my decision on the first NHS trusts in November 1990.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if staff employed by a potential national health service trust will be included in the three-month public consultation exercise which will follow each application to become a national health service trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have consistently made it clear that we expect staff of potential trusts to be among those consulted by the regional health authority on an application for trust status.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the consultation period in relation to the submission of views to him concerning hospitals in Bradford becoming a self-governing trust; if he will list the individuals and organisations to whom the application prospectus has been sent; what is the total cost of the production, printing and distribution of the prospectus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We believe that three months should be ample time for public consultation on NHS trust applications. Regional health authorities are responsible for managing such consultations. The hon. Member may wish to contact Yorkshire RHA for information on the management of the consultation in Bradford.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, following his announcement of the provisional chairman and deputy chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, he will now announce the remaining membership.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am pleased to announce that the following people have indicated their willingness to serve as members of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority:Margaret Auld FRCN, formerly Chief Nursing Officer, Scottish Home and Health Department; Vice President, Royal College of Midwives;
  Professor Robert J. Berry FRSE, Professor of Genetics at the University of London;
  Professor Ian Cooke FRCOG, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Sheffield Jessop Hospital for Women; specialist in reproductive medicine.
  Professor Antony Cox FRCP FRCPsych, University of London Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospitals.
  Liz Forgan, Director of Programmes at Channel 4 Television;
  Joan Harbison ABPsS, Senior Lecturer in Education, Stranmillis College, Belfast;
  Dr. Stephen Hillier PhD MRCPath, Director of Reproductive Endocrinology Laboratory, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh Centre for Reproductive Biology;
  Professor Brenda Hoggett QC, Law Commissioner; Recorder of the Crown Court; Visiting Professor of Law at King's College, London;
  The Rt. Rev. Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh;
  Dr. Helen Houston, MD MRCGP, general practitioner, Senior Lecturer in Continuing Medical Education at the Department of Postgraduate Studies, University of Wales College of Medicine.
  Penelope Keith, actress;
  Angela Mays, training consultant;
  Dr. Anne McLaren FRS, Director of the Medical Research Council Mammalian Development Unit;
  Rabbi Julia Neuberger, Visiting Fellow, King's Fund Institute; Chairman of the Patients' Association;
  Professor Robert W. Shaw FRCS (Ed) MRCOG, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine;
  David Shilson, senior official in the Bank of England;
  Professor Robert Snowden, Professor of Family Studies at Exeter University;
  Christine Walby, Director of Social Services, Solihull;
  Professor David Whittingham FRCVS, Professor of Experimental Embryology, University of London and Director of the Medical Research Council Experimental Embryology and Teratology Unit.

  As the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority cannot be set up by the United Kingdom Health Ministers
  340
  until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has received Royal Assent, their acceptance is on a provisional basis until then.

  The members have been selected on the basis of their experience and personal qualities and not as representatives of any group or profession. They have been chosen so as to ensure that the authority is informed by views and experience across a wide range of relevant disciplines.

  Miss Auld, Professor Cooke, Dr. Hillier, Dr. McLaren, Rabbi Neuberger, and Professor Shaw are currently members of the Interim Licensing Authority. This body was set up in 1985 by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists pending legislation on human fertilisation and embryology. It will continue in being until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority assumes its full powers, probably in the summer of 1991.

  Road Accident Victims
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has for the total medical and ambulance costs associated with treatment for victims of road accidents; how much is recouped from insurance companies to meet the cost of treating road accident victims; and what plans he has to put in hand arrangements to recover any shortfall.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the actual cost to the National Health Service in England of road accidents is not collected by the Department. However, the Department of Transport has estimated the medical and ambulance costs associated with the treatment of road accident victims in Great Britain at around £160 million in 1988.

  Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 health authorities may levy an emergency treatment fee on the user of the vehicle involved in the accident. They may also raise charges for inpatient and outpatient treatment of road accident victims, subject to statutory maxima, against the owner of the vehicle or the authorised insurer. The total income collected by health authorities in England was £8·7 million in 1988–89. Details of the element recouped from insurance companies is not available.

  Radioactive Caesium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond),Official Report, 9 July, column 67, if he will publish such information as he possesses for the past five years on the number of reported cases of radioactive caesium in people.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the United Kindom the presence of radiocaesium in people is widespread but can be detected only by sophisticated monitoring equipment. The Department of the Environment are sponsoring a survey using mobile equipment of levels of radiocaesium in people in parts of England and Wales. Preliminary results demonstrate that in every person monitored the radiocaesium activity was less than one fifth of the radioactive potassium activity naturally present in the body. This represents a negligible risk to health.

  Blood
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to enable United Kingdom health authorities to sell whole blood and red cell concentrates to health authorities in 1992 in the single European market.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to enable the United Kingdom blood transfusion service to develop a programme which, subject to acceptable and validated product quality, would ensure that all plasma-derived factor VIII concentrate used in the national health services will be derived from United Kingdom blood donors.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At present approximately 70 per cent. of the factor VIII used in England and Wales is produced at the Bio Products Laboratory from the plasma of unpaid donors to the national blood transfusion service. The remainder is commercially produced factor VIII which is imported into the United Kingdom. The imported products are prescribed as a result of the preference of individual clinicians. The Bio Products Laboratory is, therefore, meeting in full the demand for its factor VIII, as it is for virtually all other blood products. It is making efforts to increase its share of the blood products market in this country, but the choice of product remains with the clinicians.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Advertising
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent on advertising and other promotional material for campaigns regarding(a) nurse recruitment, (b) blood donor recruitment, (c) drug misuse and (d) the national health service reforms, in 1988–89, 1989–90 and the estimated budgets in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Expenditure and estimated budget figures for the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 for campaigns relating to nurse recruitment, blood donor recruitment, drug misuse and the national health service reforms are as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 (estimate)

  Nurse recruitment

  2·338

  4·184

  3·871

  Blood donor recruitment

  0·405

  0·641

  0·627

  Drug misuse

  2·668

  3·808

  4·542

  National health service reforms

  0·139

  0·359

  2·746

  RU486
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received a report of the results of the British multi-centre trials of the drug RU486; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality the licensing authority does not disclose 342
  information about the receipt or progress of applications for permission to conduct clinical trials in patients, or of product licence applications. The result of all clinical trials are required to be submitted when an application for a product licence is made.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the recent salmonella outbreak at Burnley general hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There was an outbreak of food poisoning at Burnley general hospital in June this year due to Salmonella enteritidis PT4. The likely cause was cross-contamination from chicken which was defrosted in metal trays normally used for salads.

  Implementation of guidance issued by the Department of Health enables health authorities to maintain standards of hygiene and safety of patient meals. In particular, the guidance warns of the need to take care to ensure that raw meat, including poultry, does not come into contact with cooked or prepared foods.

  Publicity
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on advertising, publicity and communications(a) in 1989–90 and (b) in 1979–80, excluding any expenditure relating to social security which came under his Department's jurisdiction at that time.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total expenditure on advertising, publicity and communications for the years 1989–90 and 1979–80 are as follows:

  1979–80 £ million

  1989–90 £ million

  1·526

  17·244

  Emergency Provision
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that, following the implementation of the relevant sections of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, allowance will be made for sums to be paid by the health authorities of patients who receive emergency or other treatment while on holiday in another district health authority area to be held over for expenditure in the succeeding financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  If a person requires hospital treatment while away from home, the cost will be borne by the local district health authority in the case of outpatient attendance at a casualty department, and by the patient's home district health authority in the case of inpatient treatment. Districts will normally remit treatment costs to NHS providers within one month. It is already possible for health authorities to hold over up to half a per cent. of their budgets from one year to the next.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many notifications of abortion were received by the chief medical officer later than seven days after the abortion took place during 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The answer is 54 per cent. The explanations given

  Heart Disease
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest statistics of(a) deaths and (b) sufferers from heart disease in each health district in the north-west region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Information about the number of deaths due to heart disease is given in the table.

  Number of deaths due to heart disease1—usual residents of the North-Western regional health authority and component districts, 19892

  District Health Authority

  Male

  Female

  Lancaster

  282

  240

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  921

  774

  Preston

  230

  238

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  558

  582

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  503

  509

  West Lancashire

  215

  164

  Chorley and South Ribble

  328

  297

  Bolton

  495

  503

  Bury

  368

  358

  North Manchester

  331

  311

  Central Manchester

  246

  198

  South Manchester

  349

  368

  Oldham

  474

  472

  Rochdale

  394

  403

  Salford

  520

  497

  Stockport

  470

  495

  Tameside and Glossop

  478

  500

  Trafford

  397

  375

  Wigan

  630

  591

  Total

  8,189

  7,875

  1International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 390–429; this excludes congenital heart disease.

  2Provisional.

  The information in the table gives the estimated number of patients treated in NHS hospitals in the North Western RHA for conditions related to heart disease during 1988–89. Information on the number of sufferers from heart disease is not collected centrally.

  Estimated number of in-patient and day case completed consultant episodes for diagnosis heart disease (ICD 390–429) 1988–89.

  Numbers

  Lancaster

  800

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  3,100

  Preston

  1,200

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  2,800

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  3,100

  West Lancashire

  800

  Chorley and South Ribble

  1,300

  Bolton

  2,600

  Bury

  2,000

  North Manchester

  1,300

  Central Manchester

  1,400

  South Manchester

  1,500

  Oldham

  2,100

  Rochdale

  2,100

  Salford

  2,700

  Stockport

  2,500

  Tameside and Glossop

  2,500

  Trafford

  1,800

  Wigan

  4,000

  North Western RHA

  39,400

  Source: HES 1988–89.

  Asthma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has in respect of the numbers of people affected by asthma in(a) 1990, (b) 1985 and (c) 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: Precise figures on people affected by asthma are not collected centrally. However, it is estimated that there are approximately 1 million diagnosed asthmatics in England and Wales at present.

ENVIRONMENT

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the director of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to discuss progress in pollution control.

  Mr. Trippier
  I meet the director of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regularly and discuss progress on all aspects of HMIP's business including the discharge of the inspectorate's regulatory functions.

  Tenants' Choice
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the transfer of housing under the tenants' choice provision of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Tenants' choice continues to help improve the quality of management on local authority estates, by offering tenants a viable alternative which in turn has encouraged local authorities to look much harder at the service they provide.

  Public Water Supplies
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in reducing the nitrate levels of public water supplies.

  Mr. Trippier
  Considerable progress has been achieved in recent years in reducing nitrate levels in public water supplies. In addition to finding new nitrate-free sources, water companies have been blending water of high nitrate concentration with water of low nitrate concentration to meet the standard and have been developing de-nitrification treatment processes. Water companies have made undertakings to meet the required standards by these several means progressively over the coming years. All supplies will comply by 1995 at the latest. Those supplies which do not meet the standard in the interim are not considered to endanger health.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent communications he has received from the Commission in Brussels about the quality of the United Kingdom's drinking water and beaches.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Commission has commenced court proceedings against this country and
  345
  virtually all other member states on the bathing water and drinking water directive. I had useful discussions yesterday with the Commission about our very substantial investment programme to improve the quality of our drinking water and bathing waters.

  National Parks
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the boundaries of the national parks.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No: it is for the Countryside Commission to initiate reviews of the boundaries of national parks.

  Athletics
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the Government's support for British athletics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am meeting the vice-chairman of the Sports Council tomorrow to talk about the council's corporate plan. We will be touching on a variety of issues which may include British athletics.

  Bristol Channel (Dumping)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals there are to end the dumping of sewage and sewage sludge in the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are committed to ending dumping of sewage sludge at sea by 1998 and to the introduction of treatment for all substantial discharges of sewage. Discussions are now being held with the water industry and relevant regulatory bodies about the implementation of these policies.

  Toxic Land
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of toxic land from the land register.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering various possibilities to accelerate the removal of contaminated land from the land register. Any firm proposals would be the subject of consultation.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline his Department's responsibilities in respect of protection of the marine environment.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department is responsible for the overall co-ordination of Government policies as they affect the environment, including the marine environment.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many adults in England(a) are eligible to pay the community charge and (b) were registered to pay domestic rates in their last year of existence.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Some 36 million adults are eligible to pay the community charge this year compared with around 18 million domestic ratepayers under the previous system.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils to discuss the implications for poll tax projections of central Government funding for local services in 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend is planning to meet representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and other local authority associations at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 17 September. At the meeting he expects to discuss the level and distribution of central Government support for local authority spending in 1991–92.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many charge payers he estimates will have their community charge bill reduced in 1990–91 as a result of the community charge capping of a number of designated local authorities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  More than 4 million.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve further the assessment of the spending needs of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to changes in standard spending assessments for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals for standard spending assessments in the autumn.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations in favour of replacing the community charge with a property tax based on notional rental values.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any recent representations in favour of replacing the community charge with a property tax based on capital values.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in favour of replacing the community charge with the old system of domestic rates.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received in favour of a return to the domestic rates.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in favour of replacing the community charge with a tax on property.
  347
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in favour of a return to domestic rates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I continue to receive representations on all aspects of local government finance. Not surprisingly, very few of these favour a return to domestic rates.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people, and what proportion, of those required to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax were liable to pay rates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: I estimate that the community charge bill for about 4 million adults is 20 per cent. or less of the personal charge for their area, and for 2·4 million of this 4 million (58 per cent.) either they or their spouses were former ratepayers.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentages of local authority expenditure in the current year are financed from the community charge, the unified business rate and central Government support(a) on average in England and (b) in Worthing.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is as follows.

  Percentage of Local Authority Expenditure Financed by:

  England per cent.

  Worthing per cent.

  Community charge1

  27·0

  36·4

  Unified business rate

  26·0

  40·1

  Central government support2

  45·3

  22·9

  Use of reserves

  1·7

  0·6

  1 Community charges net of community charge benefit and transitional relief grant as reported on authorities' budget returns. These grants are included in Central Government support.

  2 Comprising Revenue Support Grant, safety net adjustments, special grants and specific and supplementary grants both inside and outside Aggregate External Finance.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of abolishing the requirement to pay poll tax of those who are currently required to pay only 20 per cent. of the poll tax.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Based on local authority returns, I estimate that 500,000 students currently receive relief under section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It is estimated that these students will pay about £40 million in community charge this year.

  The cost of increasing the maximum reduction available through community charge benefit to 100 per cent. is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to collect and to report to the House the average costs of collection of the community charge in its first year in England and Wales(a) per community charge payer and (b) as a proportion of the charge collected.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Yes.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about his proposals to charge-cap local authorities.
  348
  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend received a number of representations about his proposals on caps for those local authorities designated for charge capping in 1990–91.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his best estimates of the losses on poll tax collection likely to be incurred in 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government have made no separate estimates or assumptions about losses in the collection of the community charge. There is no reason why the percentage volume of community charge arrears should be any greater than under the rating system.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government intend to retain the power to cap local authority budgets.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Yes.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his best estimates of the likely average level of poll tax in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any assessment of spending needs of local authorities for the coming financial year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Members to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 19 July.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of District Councils; and whether community charge levels were discussed.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and whether levels of local authority spending were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils and other local authority associations at the meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 5 July. The meeting discussed the level of spending planned by local authorities in 1990–91, the need for spending by local authorities in 1991–92, and the implications for community charge levels.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning his Department's review of the poll tax.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to replace the community charge.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to review the operation of the community charge with a view to restricting payment to only one person in every household.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the principles which guided him in conducting his review of the community charge.
  349
  Mr. Nicholls
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 19 July.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet local authority leaders to discuss alternatives to the community charge.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Dykes) on Friday 20 July,Official Report, Volume 176, column 738.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many students in further education under 20 years of age have applied for exemption from the community charge.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information about applications for exemptions is not available centrally. I shall publish estimates of numbers of exempt persons when data are available from local authority returns.

  Ocean Dumping
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met his counterparts in the European Community regarding ocean dumping.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Dumping at sea was discussed by Ministers of North sea states at the third North sea conference held in The Hague in March this year which Ireland, Portugal and Spain also attended as observers.

  Environment White Paper
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his next White Paper on the environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  This autumn.

  Liverpool Football Club
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make representations to UEFA to lift the ban on the entrance of Liverpool football club into European competitions; how many representations he has received against the ban; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As I made clear in my recent letter and report to UEFA on progress on measures to combat football hooliganism, I believe that a blanket ban on English clubs participating in European competitions is no longer justified. As to the question of lifting UEFA's additional three-year ban on Liverpool football club, in the first instance it is for the English FA to nominate Liverpool and for UEFA to take the final decision. Since August 1989 I have received five letters in support of the lifting of the ban on Liverpool.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the uniform business rate for the year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.
  350
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the increase in the uniform business rate for the year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend will calculate and notify charging authorities of the national non-domestic rating multiplier for 1991–92 in the autumn. As the hon. Gentlemen will know, however, the multiplier cannot in future rise from year to year in real terms. This compares favourably with the 62 per cent. increase in real terms between 1979–80 and 1989–90 in the non-domestic poundage set by Bradford metropolitan borough council.

  Land Register
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of underutilised land from the land register.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of dormant land from the land register.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of unused land from the land register.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of underutilised land from the land register.

  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of underutilised land from the land register.

  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of toxic land from the land register.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to accelerate the removal of derelict land from the land register.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of derelict land from the land register.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of unused land from the land register.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of vacant land in the inner cities from the land register.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of dormant land from the land register.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of dormant land from the land register.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of toxic land from the land register.
  351
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of vacant land from the land register.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of dormant land from the land register.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of derelict land from the land register.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of under-utilised land from the land register.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of vacant land from the land register.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby).

  Sewers (Radioactive Discharges)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on radioactive discharges to the public sewer.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), to the hon. Member on 27 June 1990,Official Report, Vol. 175, column 266.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the quality of designated bathing waters.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We maintain a dialogue with the Commission on this topic.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will transpose the requirements of designation and compliance of 76/160/EEC bathing water directive to United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We are at present discussing with the water industry a draft of regulations to be made under the Water Act 1989 to bring the requirements of directive 76/160/EEC explicitly within the scope of United Kingdom law.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce a sampling and analysis system to be used by the National Rivers Authority for its monitoring responsibilities in bathing water.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Secretary of State has appointed the National Rivers Authority as the competent authority for implementing directive 76/160/EEC. It is for the National Rivers Authority to determine the appropriate sampling and analysis procedures consistent with the directive.
  352
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of United Kingdom bathing waters complies with the European Community directive; and what the figure was in 1979.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many United Kingdom bathing waters complied with the European Community bathing waters directive(a) in 1979 and (b) at the current time; and what percentage of total designated waters this represents.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1979, 18 of the 27 identified bathing waters complied with the directive's mandatory coliform standards; this is 67 per cent. For 1989, 336 of the 440 identified bathing waters complied with the directive's mandatory coliform standards; this is 76 per cent.

  Planning Legislation
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about existing planning legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is always receiving comments on the operation of town and country planning legislation and suggestions for improving it. In addition, we have received many comments in response to consultation papers on specific aspects of planning law.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce new planning legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following recent public consultation exercises my right hon. Friend intends to introduce legislation on town and country planning when the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make further funds available to the Housing Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We are already increasing very significantly the level of resources available to the Housing Corporation for investment in housing associations. The corporation's gross capital expenditure in 1989–90 was £935 million; provision for 1990–91 is £1,100 million and is planned to rise to £1,536 million in 1991–92 and £1,736 million in 1992–93.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation to discuss its finances.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning meets the chairman of the Housing Corporation from time to time to discuss the corporation's finances and other matters.

  Transitional Relief
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his best estimates of the level of take-up of transitional relief for non-ratepaying pensioners and people with disabilities for 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I estimate that about half a million elderly or disabled persons in England are entitled to extra help
  353
  under the transitional relief scheme. They have until 1 October, or later if the charging authority allows, to apply. I therefore have no estimate of the number likely to receive extra relief.

  Water Infrastructure Charge
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the Director General of Water Services to discuss the workings of the water infrastructure charge.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting the Director General of Water Services shortly. They will be discussing a number of matters of general interest.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of housing association houses and flats is subject to equity sharing agreements; and what proportion carries the right to buy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Since April 1979 there have been some 22,000 housing association sales in England under shared ownership arrangements. Information about those which have subsequently been fully purchased by the occupier, or reverted to housing association ownership, is not available centrally.

  Housing associations owned an estimated 565,000 dwellings in England at the end of March 1990, and the right to buy is available to all tenants except (a) those with assured tenancies, (b) tenants of charitable housing associations, (c) those in housing associations which have not been publicly funded, and (d) those in associations which are fully mutual co-operatives. Estimates of the number of tenants excluded are not available.

  Recreational Facilities
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional playing fields and games facilities, including leisure centres, are estimated to have been established since 1979; what were the figures for the previous five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is estimated that during the period from 1980 to 1989 inclusive, 682 new sports facilities were built in England. This figure compares with the 478 that were estimated to have been built during the period 1975–79. No central record of playing fields provision exists.

  Sewage Outlets
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the sewage outlets into seas and estuaries which were at a planning stage and will now incorporate full treatment, as a result of his North sea conference announcement; how much will be contributed from Government funds; and what proportion of the additional costs that contribution represents.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Discussions are being held with the sewage undertakers, the National Rivers Authority and the Office of Water Services about the implications for individual schemes of the decision to treat all substantial sewage discharges.

  The additional costs must be met by the water service companies, although these costs will be eligible for consideration for cost pass-through.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department has introduced since 1979 to help council tenants to buy their own homes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The right to buy was introduced in 1980 to enable council tenants to buy their homes, and has been regularly improved since: the qualifying period has been reduced from three years to two, discounts have been increased and tenants of disabled persons' housing, outside sheltered schemes, have been given the right to buy. Over 1·2 million tenants of local authorities, new towns and housing associations in England have bought their homes as sitting tenants since 1979 under the right to buy or on voluntary terms. Since 1989, local authorities have also had the power to pay grants to help their tenants buy homes of their own on the open market.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure he has for the number of tenants in the north-west of England who have bought their homes under the Government's right-to-buy legislation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is estimated that, up to the end of March 1990, 111,000 dwellings had been sold by local authorities and new towns in the north-west of England under the right-to-buy legislation.

  I have today placed in the Library a table giving available information on local authority sales up to March 1990. It shows year-by-year information for each authority since 1984–85 together with cumulative figures since April 1979 and the proportion of stock sold since April 1979.

  Sewage Disposal, Fylde
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received from Lancashire county council for a workable solution to the problems of sewage disposal on the Fylde coast and in the River Ribble.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  North West Water plc is consulting interested parties, including local authorities, about proposals for disposing of sewage on the Flyde coast. It will then be for the National Rivers Authority to consider applications for discharge consents.

  European Football Competitions
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had concerning the re-entry into European football competitions of English football clubs.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  I had meetings with both the president and vice-president of UEFA in May. I have also had discussions with the chairman of the Football Association and the chairmen of Manchester United and Aston Villa. On 10 June, I submitted a report to UEFA covering the behaviour of spectators during the 1989–90 domestic season and the World Cup finals in Italy.

  I indicated to the president of UEFA that the Government had withdrawn their objections to the participation by English clubs in European competitions.

  355
  Taking into account our views, UEFA decided to admit Manchester United to the European cup winners cup and Aston Villa to the UEFA cup next season.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made a recent assessment of the safety of drinking water.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The quality of drinking water from public supplies in England and Wales is generally of a high quality. Most supplies already comply with the requirements of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 which incorporate the standards of the EC drinking water directive. Programmes are under way to improve as quickly as practicable those supplies which do not yet comply.

  The drinking water inspectorate has commenced inspection of the water companies and will report to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales in 1991 upon the quality of drinking water supplied during the current calendar year.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the levels at which lead in drinking water is officially regarded as safe.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Any exposure to lead should be considered potentially harmful. The Commitee on the Medical Aspects of the Contamination of Air, Soil and Water, an independent committee which advises the chief medical officer, reviewed the position in November 1988. Its conclusions are reproduced in annex 1 of "Guidance on Safeguarding the Quality of Public Water Supplies", which is in the Library. In accordance with the committee's recommendation a standard of 50 micrograms/litre is incorporated in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, and applies to any sample rather than to the average level. This is more rigorous than the standard in the EC drinking water directive.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to reduce the danger of lead in drinking water.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Much has already been done to reduce lead levels in those parts of the country where there was a particular problem.

  As well as setting a standard of 50 micrograms/litre for lead in any sample of drinking water, the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 require water companies to carry out additional treatment of drinking water in certain circumstances where, in the company's opinion, this will eliminate, or reduce to a minimum, the risk that the lead level in the water will rise to more than 50 micrograms/litre after leaving the company's pipes; and, where there is such a risk, to co-operate with the owner of the premises in removing its part of any lead pipe which connects directly to a tap using drinking water. Water companies have given undertakings to the Secretary of State to identify by specified dates supply zones where additional treatment may be appropriate, and to install such treatment by specified dates.

  The water byelaws prohibit the installation of any pipe or other water fitting made of lead and the use, in the construction or installation of any pipe or water fitting, of
  356
  any material or substance which is likely to cause contamination of water. We are considering whether any further steps should be taken to increase the effectiveness of the byelaws in this respect.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the presence of pesticides in drinking water.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The trace amounts of pesticide found in a small proportion of United Kingdom drinking water supplies are not regarded by the Government's medical advisers as posing a danger to health. Under the water quality regulations water companies are required to carry out regular monitoring for pesticides residues and, where appropriate, to develop the technology for their removal and to investigate with the National Rivers Authority the case for restricting their use within water catchment areas.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce mandatory rate relief for voluntary sports clubs.

  Mr. Atkins
  Present arrangements allow local authorities to award discretionary rate relief of up to 100 per cent. to non-profit making bodies—such as voluntary sports clubs. The Government have considered mandatory rate relief, but believe that local authorities are best placed to assess the benefits that local communities derive from sports clubs and should, therefore, be allowed to tailor rate relief accordingly.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the legislation for the preservation of hedgerows.

  Mr. Trippier
  Our current review of tree preservation policies and legislation is also considering matters relating to hedgerows.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been damaged or destroyed during the last seven years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested. Since 1 April 1984 information on the number of SSSIs damaged is set out in the NCC's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Housebuilding
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the current condition of private sector housebuilding.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The most recent housebuilding statistics were published by my Department in a press release on 5 July 1990, which is in the Library.

  Although the housebuilding industry is currently suffering from the effects of anti-inflationary measures, the success of those measures will provide a sound basis for its long-term prospects for growth.
  357
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has developed any proposals concerning public sector housebuilding.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The task of providing new subsidised homes for rent and sale is increasingly passing to housing associations, with local authorities fulfilling an enabling role. Local authorities decide their own priorities in using the capital resources available to them, although the Government have encouraged them to concentrate on the improvement of their own stock and on assistance to private owners with grants.

  Newspapers (Recycled Newsprint)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiative he is taking to increase the use of recycled newsprint by national newspapers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I intend to have meetings with individual newspaper publishers, newsprint manufacturers and the Newspaper Publishers Association shortly to discuss further what measures can be taken to increase the proportion of recycled paper used in newsprint.

  New Territories
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new tenancies he estimates will be created by private landlords(a) during 1990 and (b) in 1991.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new tenancies have been created by private landlords under the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We are about to commence a detailed evaluation of the impact of deregulation and that will include an assessment of the number of tenancies so far created. There are already clear signs of increased activity in the residential letting market. We estimate that £535 million has so far been invested in business expansion scheme companies letting on assured tenancies, which should provide some 9,500 additional homes for letting.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the Government are taking in assisting developing countries to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 18 June, column 392, and to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 2 July, column 418.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date it is his policy that all non-essential use of chlorofluorocarbons in Britain should be phased out.

  Mr. Trippier
  Much of the non-essential use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has already gone. It is the Government's policy to phase out all CFC use by 1997 subject to an exemption if necessary for essential uses such as medical aerosols.
  358
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's target for reducing the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are negotiating within the European Community for the following targets: chlorofluorocarbons—50 per cent. cut by 1992, 85 per cent. by 1995, phase-out by 1997 subject to an exemption if necessary for essential uses such as medical aerosols; halons—50 per cent. by 1995, phase-out by 2000 except for agreed essential uses; carbon tetrachloride—an 85 per cent. cut by 1992, phase-out by 2000; and methyl chloroform—freeze by 1992, 30 per cent. cut by 1995, 70 per cent. by 2000, phase-out in 2005. These targets imply faster progress than the recently agreed changes to the Montreal protocol for all the substances except halons.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's current estimate of the ongoing effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has asked the stratospheric ozone review group to report as soon as possible on the likely impact on the ozone layer of the tightening of the Montreal protocol agreed at the second meeting of the parties held in London last month. Our preliminary estimate is that, if all significant users of ozone-depleting substances ratify the amended protocol, chlorine loading in the atmosphere will peak at about four parts per billion in 1997, and fall to about three parts per billion by 2040. This fall would be significantly greater if use of HCFCs is phased out between 2020 and 2040, as envisaged in the resolution agreed at the meeting.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received supporting the agreements reached at the London ozone conference in June on phasing out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recieved a number of representations supporting the agreements reached in London. He has also received a number supporting our call for a phase-out, within the European Community, of chlorofluorocarbons by 1997, subject to an exemption if necessary for essential uses such as medical aerosols.

  Rivers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of United Kingdom rivers are of good or fair quality; and what are the comparable figures for the rest of the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The river quality surveys carried out in 1985 throughout the United Kingdom showed that 95 per cent. of the United Kingdom's rivers were of good or fair quality. A review of river classification schemes across the European Community published in 1988 by the Water Research Centre showed that the average figure in the EC for rivers of comparable quality was 75 per cent.; the review also indicated that no other member state bettered the United Kingdom's position.
  359
  Mr. Lyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to discuss progress on improving the quality of rivers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on Wednesday 18 July,Official Report, Volume 176, column 564.

  Water Leakage
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take powers to require water companies to reduce the levels of leakage within their areas.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services already have adequate powers under part II of the Water Act 1989 for this purpose. I would also refer to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 13 February 1990,Official Report, column 181.

  Acid Rain
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent research he has commissioned into the effects of acid rain on trees.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has commissioned extensive studies into the effects of acid deposition and gaseous pollutants on trees, with emphasis on establishing possible mechanisms for damage and methods for early diagnosis of damage. This is part of the ongoing air pollution research programme. Recent results from this programme and from work carried out elsewhere have significantly advanced our knowledge and my Department has therefore set up a sub-group of the United Kingdom terrestrial effects review group specifically to evaluate this new information. The sub-group will report in January 1991.

  Documents
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn),Official Report, 2 July, what steps he takes to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department complies fully with the requirements of the Public Records Act 1958, and responds to advice from the Public Records Office on the safekeeping of documentary records.

  Irish Sea Conference
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the Irish sea conference to be held in the Isle of Man in October.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I regularly receive correspondence from members of the public as well as parish and community councils about the Irish sea, but these have not focused particularly on the forthcoming Irish sea conference. This is being organised by the Irish sea study 360
  group which includes Government, industry, academic institutions and voluntary organisations and is supported by the Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement outlining progress following the London international conference in June on the ozone layer.

  Mr. Trippier
  Discussions have started within the European Community on a new regulation to control ozone-depleting substances. For the chlorofluorocarbons, the Government are pressing for a phase-out date of 1997 subject to an exemption if necessary for essential uses such as medical aerosols.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has developed any new proposals for the creation of affordable rented housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 13 December 1989 to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope),Official Report, column 711.

  Action for Cities
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the action for cities programme.

  Mr. Portillo
  Substantial progress is being made in the regeneration of our inner cities under the Government's action for cities programme. In partnership with the private sector, substantial investment is taking place in new factories, housing, shopping centres, roads and other infrastructure, and in treating derelict land; unemployment in the 57 inner city target areas has fallen by a third since March 1988. The Government, through the city action teams and inner city task forces, are working closely with business, local government, the voluntary sector and local people to build on the progress already made and to maintain the pace of inner city regeneration.

  Capital Values
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations in response to the capital value rating figures published by his Department on 4 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  Although I receive representations on many aspects of local government finance, not many have been on this aspect.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made with his Department's initiative to provide direct access to subsidised accommodation for single homeless people sleeping rough on the streets of London and other cities.
  361
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Urgent consultations are currently taking place with voluntary groups, local authorities and housing associations about the provision of direct access accommodation in London. Consideration will be given in due course to the possibility of extending the initiative to other major cities.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra resources he will make available for the monitoring of methane gas from current and disused landfill sites.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) on Thursday 19 July 1990 to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley),Official Report, Volume 176, column 726.

  Mortgage Repossession
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Building Societies Association to discuss mortgage repossession.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 27 June,Official Report, Vol. 175, column 265.

  Beaches
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is responsible for deciding how many and which bathing beaches are tested each year for compliance with EEC standards.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In England this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland it is a matter for the respective Secretaries of State. Identifications were made in consultation with the competent authorities. Local authorities and the National Rivers Authority also measure the quality of other, non-identified, waters in their area.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from industry in respect of the introduction of integrated pollution control; what has been the nature of these representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), on 24 July.

  Southampton Buildings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ask an inspector from English Heritage to reassess Southampton Buildings as regards the grade II listing for part of the site.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  362
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the cladding removed in 1984 will be replaced on the east wing of Southampton buildings, London WC2.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: The cladding was removed in 1986 because of serious deterioration following storm damage in that year. Re-cladding was planned to start in December last year, but this had to be postponed because of funding difficulties and other maintenance priorities. It may, however, be possible to start next year.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the plans for Southampton buildings when the Patent Office and British library vacate the buildings;

  (2) whether there are plans to redevelop the site formerly known as the great seal patent office and library.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 24 July 1990]: The last parts of the Patent Office vacated Southampton buildings in September last year. The building is expected to be occupied by British Library and others until the mid-1990s when the opportunity may occur for refurbishment or redevelopment. It is too early to say which option might be adopted.

  Empty Properties
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of empty private properties which have been brought back into use since the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 came into force.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No such estimate has been made. I expect the 1990 private renters' survey, the results of which will be available next spring, to show that many landlords of all types of property have been encouraged to make them available by the 1988 Act.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any intention to change the legislation in relation to noise pollution, in particular as it relates to noise created by parties and similar activities.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to strengthen noise pollution legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  An independently chaired working party has been meeting regularly since February to discuss noise pollution, including loud parties and neighbourhood noise. The working party's recommendations will be considered in drafting the environment White Paper and the working party's report will also be published in full. These will indicate the changes that may be needed in noise control legislation.

  The Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act received Royal Assent on 13 July. This substantially increases the penalties to fines of up to £20,000 or imprisonment for up to six months, or both, in all cases where an event is held without a licence or where a licence condition regarding the number of people who might be present is breached. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home

  363
  Secretary has proposed that magistrates should be given power under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to confiscate profits in excess of £10,000 made by those organising illegal parties or allowing their land or premises to be used for them.

  Waste Control
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement concerning the role of waste regulation authorities in carrying out visits to industrial and chemical waste producers; and what plans he has to extend the advice set out in waste management paper No. 4 to include visits to industrial and commercial waste producers;

  (2) what advice he has given and to whom concerning the frequency of site visits to producers of industrial and commercial waste;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the financing of inspections of industrial and commercial waste producers in respect of duty of care provisions as currently outlined in the Environmental Protection Bill;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the number of producers of (a) industrial and commercial waste in London and England which will be covered by duty of care provisions under the Environmental Protection Bill;

  (5) what is his estimated cost for regulating producers of waste (a) in London and (b) in England.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Environmental Protection Bill places waste producers under a duty of care to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their waste will not be dealt with illegally. The duty will apply to all persons who produce or hold waste in the course of a business. There are around 800,000 registered companies in England and Wales, and considerably more non-registered businesses. The duty of care imposes no additional regulatory duties on local authorities, nor will it require them to visit waste producers routinely. We have no plans to include advice on visits to producers' premises in any revision of waste management paper 4, which deals with the licensing of waste management facilities, not the duty of care. General advice on the implications of the duty of care has been published in the form of a draft code of practice, to be issued under clause 33 of the Bill. It will be open to any authority or individual to prosecute any producer or holder of waste whose actions constitute a breach of the duty of care. Further advice on the steps to be taken by authorities to follow up a suspected breach of the duty will be issued in the form of a circular when the duty of care provisions are enacted. The effect of the duty of care on waste regulation authorities will be to provide, for the first time, an effective sanction against producers of waste who collaborate in the commission of existing offences. I do not foresee any need for significant extra resources to deal with this new provision.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a revised timetable for the introduction of regulations necessary to bring into effect the powers of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  The regulations necessary to implement the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 are being prepared with a view to their being issued for consultation later in the summer and coming into force early in 1991.

  Ferro Alloys (Pollution)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has made in securing the co-operation of Ferro Alloys in Glossop in meeting the reduced target rate of 113 kg/hour by 31 August 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No intermediate target has been set for the company. The inspectorate will continue to monitor the situation and as yet is unaware of any reasons why the target will not be met.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current hourly rate of sulphur dioxide emissions from the Ferro Alloys chimney stack in Glossop for the last six months, measured in metric terms.

  Mr. Trippier
  The estimated hourly rates of sulphur dioxide emissions from the Ferro Alloys chimney for the last six months are given in the table:

  Month

  Kg/hr sulphur dioxide

  1990

  January

  325

  February

  358

  March

  320

  April

  325

  May

  313

  June

  296

  Average figures are based on monthly production figures and monthly sulphur dioxide results.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will inform the Peak Park planning board of the current level of sulphur dioxide emissions from the Ferro Alloys chimney stack in Glossop: and if he will monitor the effect of sulphur dioxide emissions from that stack on the area covered by the Peak Park planning board.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information is available and the inspectorate will contact the Peak Park planning board to ensure that this information is made available to it on a regular basis.

  HMIP does not normally carry out environmental monitoring. This is usually done by the relevant local authorities, in this case both High Peak borough council and Derbyshire Dales district council, both of which cover the Peak Park near to Glossop.

  At any distance from the Glossop plant it is unlikely that any emissions from Ferro Alloys could be distinguished from other sources.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to establishing a consultation mechanism between the Nature Conservancy Council and interested parties, including sea fisheries committees and harbour authorities in relation to coastal and marine areas of high nature conservation interest.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Nature Conservancy Council is already consulted on a wide range of matters affecting
  365
  coastal and marine areas of nature conservation interest. Nevertheless, there are a large number of conflicting interests, which raise complex legal issues, and the Government are therefore actively considering the possibility of voluntary consultation arrangements for sensitive marine areas.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the consultancy studies currently being carried out in relation to the proposed reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission indicating where reports, or draft reports, are yet available; and if he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Trippier
  Three consultancies have been commissioned by the Government in relation to the proposed reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council:

  (i) a review of the staffing and organisational needs of the scientific and secretarial support unit of the joint Nature Conservation Committee. This review was carried out by the consultancy and inspection services division of HM Treasury, and is now complete;

  (ii) a review by PE—International (Inbucon) of the scope for certain non-scientific services to be provided by one of the new agencies on a common basis for two or all of the successor agencies and the JNCC, which is also complete;

  (iii) a study by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency of the information systems requirements of the new agencies and the JNCC. This review is still in progress.

  Although work by the consultants has finished on the two reviews at (i) and (ii) above, the reports have not yet been fully considered by the Government, existing agencies and the chairmen-designate of the new agencies and the JNCC. Copies of the reports for all three reviews will be placed in the Library of the House when the consultation procedures have been completed.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to contract out any of the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council on an agency basis following its proposed reorganisation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Following reorganisation it will be for the three new country councils and the joint nature conservation committee to decide in the first instance how their statutory duties and work programmes can be most efficiently discharged.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the number of additional staff posts which are likely to be required by the Nature Conservancy Council arising from the Government's reorganisation proposals and the number of additional posts identified by the consultants PE International plc.

  Mr. Trippier
  Detailed work on the staffing, structure and organisation of the three new country councils, including the joint nature conservation committee, is currently being undertaken by the Government and the existing agencies, in consultation with the chairmen-designate of the new councils and the JNCC. Final figures are not yet available for the number of staff likely to be employed after reorganisation. An announcement will be made shortly.

  The consultants, PE-International, were employed by NCC to estimate total resource requirements for all the new bodies based on a range of different assumptions. They did not make any recommendations about what staffing levels should be.

  Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his officials last met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to discuss the international movement of wild birds.

  Mr. Trippier
  Officials are in regular touch with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and have met the society on several occasions during the past few years to discuss a number of matters relating to the conservation of and trade in birds.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the redevelopment proposals for the county hall, London SE1.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms. Walley),Official Report, 4 July, column 564, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Brussels meeting on safe substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals, held on 4 and 5 July.

  Mr. Trippier
  The meeting held in Brussels on 4 and 5 July was attended by representatives of the member states of the European Community including officials from my Department, DTI, HSE, the European Commission; the United States Environmental Protection Agency and European industry. It afforded a valuable opportunity for an exchange of views on the introduction of safe substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals and their testing requirements. There was general agreement between European and United States officials on how to proceed further in the development of testing strategies and requirements for these substances.

  Isotopic Fingerprinting
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his letter of 20 November 1989 B/PSO/35125/89 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what consideration he has given to isotopic fingerprinting as an aid to controlling trade in endangered species.

  Mr. Trippier
  No information about the progress of research into this technique has been forthcoming since the matter was first raised by the hon. Member, and we have thus not yet been able to make any evaluation of its potential.

  Sea Outfalls
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the method, frequency and publication of analysis in monitoring the marine environment at the emission point of sea outfalls.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The available information is held on the registers maintained by the National Rivers Authority under section 117 of the Water Act 1989.

  Sewage Slick (East Anglia)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to deal with the sewage slick off the coast of East Anglia; where this slick originates from; what specific dispersal attempts there have been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am not aware of any such slick.

  Weston Shore, Southampton
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he, or representatives from his Department, last met representatives of the National Rivers Authority and Southern Water with regard to Weston shore, Southampton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My officials are in correspondence with representatives of the National Rivers Authority and of Southern Water Services Limited concerning Weston shore, Southampton. My officials are preparing a factual reply to a complaint from the Commission of the European Communities concerning water quality and use at Weston shore.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to ensure the beach at Weston shore, Southampton, meets European Community standards.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The water is not identified under directive 76/160/EEC, so there is no obligation for it to meet that directive's standards.

  Waveney Beach
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to ensure the beach at Waveney, East Anglia, meets European Community standards.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am pleased to report that in 1989 both the identified bathing waters in Waveney met the standards for coliforms set in the bathing water directive and one, Lowestoft South, was awarded a blue flag. In addition, Southwold beach was also awarded a blue flag, although this bathing water is not at present identified under the directive.

  Waveney Sewage Outfall
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals there are to extend the sewage outfall at Waveney, East Anglia; what volume of raw sewage is currently emitted through the outfall; what volume is planned through the extended outfall; and if there are proposals for full treatment sewage works to service the Waveney area.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no immediate plans to extend the existing outfall at Lowestoft, which has an average flow of 30,000 cubic metres a day. We are at present discussing with the water industry the level of treatment to be provided at Lowestoft. Sewage from Southwold is already given secondary treatment.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any further plans for housing action trusts.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We are having discussions with tenants and councils on possible housing action trusts in Southwark and Waltham Forest. I am ready at any time to consider proposals from councils and tenants for the use of HAT powers in other areas.

  Football Trust
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions an observer from his Department has attended meetings of the Football Trust 1990 since its commencement of operations; and what has been the number of meetings at which his observer has been entitled to attend over the same period.

  Mr. Atkins
  An observer from the Department of the Environment has attended all three meetings of the Football Trust 1990 held since its establishment on 5 April.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions an observer from his Department attended meetings of the Football Trust after 1 July 1986 and before the establishing of the Football Trust 1990; and what was the number of meetings at which his observer was entitled to attend over the same period.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: An observer from the Department of the Environment attended all 16 meetings of the Football Trust held between 1 July 1986 and the establishment of the Football Trust 1990 on 5 April.

  Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much was paid by Warrington and Runcorn development corporation in redundancy payments to each senior officer, other than the head of department, in the marketing department;

  (2) how Warrington and Runcorn development corporation assessed the appropriate fee reductions in respect of work for other clients carried out by business ventures using its property;

  (3) whether Warrington and Runcorn development corporation had unrestricted access to information about what contracts the business ventures using its property had with other clients;

  (4) how much was deducted from fees paid to each business venture by Warrington and Runcorn development corporation to take account of (a) the cost of gas and electricity, (b) rates and (c) the use of their property; and how these deductions were calculated;

  (5) what fees were paid by Warrington and Runcorn development corporation to each business venture; and what would have been the cost of retaining these services in house in each case;

  (6) if he will make it his policy for all future contracts to be awarded on the basis of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Hazardous Waste
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on part II of the Environmental Protection Bill concerning the division of responsibilities between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the waste regulatory authorities for the enforcement of(a) the special waste regulations and (b) the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste regulations with regard to waste disposal facilities subject to integrated pollution control and those not subject to integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Trippier
  In January 1990 we published a consultation paper reviewing the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 and setting out the changes which we propose to make to the present arrangements. It is proposed that waste regulation authorities should continue to be responsible for the enforcemet of the revised special waste regulations which will be made in due course under part II of the Environmental Protection Bill, including those cases where special waste is consigned to a process authorised for control by HMIP under part I of the Bill. In such cases, it is proposed that waste regulation authorities should have access to and should be provided with the information necessary for them to discharge their responsibilities under the special waste regulations.

  The Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 implement directive 84/631/EEC. This directive is at present being reviewed by the European Commission in the light of the Basel convention on transboundary movements of hazardous waste. It is anticipated that the Commission may propose a regulation to replace directive 84/631/EEC. A decision on the continuing responsibilities of waste regulation authorities under the 1988 regulations will be taken in the lightof the regulation adopted by the Community.

  Merryhill Tower Block (Fire)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the fire on 13 July in the Merryhill tower block in Smethwick and the danger in other tower blocks of similar faulty contruction of fire spreading rapidly; and what remedial action he intends in similar such blocks.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The first step is to establish precisely what happened in the tower block at Merryhill, and to understand how the fire travelled. Sandwell council, the owner, is carrying out an urgent investigation, and experts from the fire brigade and my Department's Building Research Establishment are helping. If there are lessons to be learnt, we shall take immediate steps to see that other owners of similar buildings are informed.

  Press Officers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many press officers are employed by his Department.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department's press office is currently staffed by 14 press officers.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government response to the Environmental Select Committee's report on contaminated land will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government's response is being published today and a copy has been placed in the Library. We welcome the report as a valuable contribution to the debate on contaminated land and confirm the need to safeguard against risks to human health or the environment.

  In identifying areas for further assessment and action the Government have been able to accept or consider many of the Committee's recommendations. The Government response looks at the scale of the problem, analyses the need for more information on extent and location of contaminated sites and goes on to consider a suitable framework for protection and the opportunities for supporting clean-up action. This includes review of the scope for further research and evaluation.

  The Government have already gone ahead with proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill for publicly accessible local authority registers of potentially contaminated land uses. A programme of work on a more comprehensive system of quality standards for dealing with contamination is now proposed; this will build upon current Government approaches to guidance, but at this stage stopping short of the statutory requirements recommended by the Committee. The Government already provide grant aid on some aspects of work on contamination and propose further to assess available technology including possible demonstration projects on the latest clean-up techniques.

  Environmental Protection Bill
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will announce the results of the consultation on the draft code of practice on the duty of care under the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department together with the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office have considered the responses made to the consultation papers on the draft codes of practice for waste holders under the duty of care issued on 12 February in England and Wales and 22 March in Scotland.

  A total of 108 responses were received in England and Wales and 41 in Scotland. Copies of those responses whose authors agreed to publication are in the libraries of the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office for public inspection.

  The overwhelming majority of comments supported the general substance of the duty of care and the draft code of practice. Points of detail and improvements to the presentation of the code will be attended to before a revised final text is issued to take effect. The Government also recognise a need for simplified explanatory material and publicity to accompany the final launch of the code.

  A further consultation exercise will be launched on draft regulations governing documents to be kept under the duty. The duty of care and code of practice will then be brought into effect as soon as possible next year. It is intended to issue a single code for Great Britain.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next increase fees for planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales intend to lay before the House after the summer recess regulations which would increase fees for planning applications by 20 per cent. The regulations would amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Planning Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989. If approved by the House and another place, they could come into effect by mid-November.

  As proposed in the consultation paper "Efficient Planning" published last year, the Government also intend that planning application fees should cover 100 per cent. of local authorities' development control costs. My right hon. Friends intend to lay before the House further regulations over the next several years to raise fees progressively in order to achieve 100 per cent. recovery.

  Deemed Planning Consent
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement about the future of local authority road schemes, where county councils have no deemed planning consent powers;

  (2) if he will make a statement on arrangements for county councils to fulfil their statutory waste disposal functions where they have no deemed planning consent facility;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the arrangements for the emergency provision of temporary classrooms, where county councils have no deemed planning consent powers;

  (4) what plans he has for deemed planning consent powers for both district and county councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: I announced on 7 February, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) (Official Report, Vol. 166, column 638) that I had issued a consultation paper seeking views on proposals to amend the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976. Among the proposed changes was that councils should in future be required to apply for planning permission like any other applicant, for any development where they were not the responsible development control authority. Under this proposal, county councils would, for example, have been required to seek planning permission from district councils for road schemes and to provide temporary classrooms, although not for waste disposal development because for that the county council is the responsible local planning authority.

  The consultation paper, "Local Authorities' Deemed Planning Permission" provoked 275 responses of which 70
  372
  per cent. were broadly in favour of the Government's proposals. The proposal to require county councils to seek planning permission from district councils was criticised for its unfairness to county councils and the difficulties they would have fulfilling their statutory functions.

  The Government have considered carefully these criticisms, and we have decided to implement modified proposals as follows. In the case of local authorities' own development, whether on their own land or elsewhere, the present arrangements for deemed permission will continue, subject to three specific safeguards. We shall require such a proposal to be fully advertised; to be determined in public by a committee not responsible for managing or disposing of land or buildings owned by the authority; and, if the development proposal conflicts with the development plan, we shall require it to be reported to my right hon. Friend or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to enable them to consider calling in the proposal for their own decision.

  These safeguards will also apply to development proposals by other parties on land owned by local authorities, but for these proposals we shall in future require planning permission to be sought from the responsible local planning authority; we shall make appropriate similar arrangements for national park special boards and planning committees.

  Only the last of these proposals requires primary legislation, for which an early opportunity will be sought. We intend to achieve the remaining proposals by means of secondary legislation.

  The Government believe that these modified proposals represent a useful reform that will increase the accountability of local authorities when deeming themselves planning permission and will enable their probity to be publicly demonstrated.

  Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the guidance notes being prepared by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for part A and B processes of the Environmental Protection Bill are comprehensive in respect of what constitutes excessive cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 July, column 569]: The notes for the part B processes, which it is intended will come under local authority air pollution control, will contain detailed guidance for local authorities on the standards of control which constitute the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, including time scales for the upgrading of existing processes. The notes will be issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; under clause 7(11) of the Bill, local authorities will be required to have regard to this guidance.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Message From The Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address on the occasion of the ninetieth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother".
"I am deeply moved by your wish to be associated with the congratulations offered to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother on this happy occasion and by the warmth of your tributes to her".

Scotland: Community Charge Administration
2.36 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston Lord Stodart of Leaston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that local authorities in Scotland are able to administer the community charge with reasonable efficiency.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I recognise that some difficulties remain in certain areas but most initial problems have been largely overcome and overall local authorities now appear to be administering the system both effectively and efficiently.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Perhaps I may express my relief that despite various rather gloomy forecasts in the Scottish press he still occupies his position.
Is my noble friend aware that the principle of the community charge is being undermined by the complexity of its operation? This is confirmed by the reported evidence given in Glasgow Sheriff Court by Strathclyde Regional Council that there was a pile-up of never less than 20,000 letters about the community charge on any one day. Will my noble friend urge upon his right honourable friend that in any amendments which may be made to the community charge, simplification is of vital importance?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his opening remarks. It just proves that one should not believe everything one reads in the Scottish press!
The fact that some local authorities still encounter basic administration problems is for them to resolve. They have been adequately resourced. It is not a
1440
symptom of a wider problem with the community charge, which in the great majority of cases for the great majority of people is working well. I accept, however, as I did in my opening Answer, that we have problems in some areas which must be overcome.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, are the Government unable to say how many extra staff have been appointed in Scotland to deal with the poll tax, as stated to me in a Written Answer last week?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. I know that in Lothian there was a request for 48 extra staff to deal with the community charge. That brought about a court case because the local authority did not wish to appoint them. However, I am glad to know that the court case has now been satisfactorily resolved.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say what would be the policy if, as it appears, thousands of people in Scotland feel that the poll tax is so unjust that they ought to have the courage—and some probably will—to resist it? What would happen then?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I know that some people in Scotland can pay and will not pay: that is perfectly true. It just means that those who pay have to carry more of a burden. I have to say to the noble Lord that I am not particularly impressed with the replacement of the community charge by the roof tax, as proposed for Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend will recall that I raised various points at Question Time concerning the standard charge and the interpretation of the second homes legislation for Scotland. Does he agree that the solutions which were found after a year of the poll tax, the community charge, in Scotland have led to a great improvement in the situation since 1st April for England and Wales?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords. I thank my noble friend for that. We made some changes during the course of last year. Only last week my right honourable friend announced further changes. A number of improvements have been made to the community charge relief scheme, including the extension of the scheme by two years and a reduction in the threshold for relief from £3 to £2. There are a number of additions to the prescribed classes for standard community charge purposes which I know my noble friend will welcome. Most important of all to me, as the Minister with responsibility for tourism, bed and breakfast accommodation for up to six people is to be exempt from non-domestic rates.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as a Londoner, although it is impertinent of me to interfere in Scottish affairs, nevertheless my common sense tells me that those who do not pay the community charge would not have paid rates either.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord may well have a point. Nevertheless a considerable number of people have not yet paid the community charge. I hope they realise what they are doing to those who have paid it.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, following on from the previous question, can the noble Lord tell us how

1441
the rates of collection of the community charge compare with the former collection of rates? That may be a great help to the House.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Viscount details. All I can say is that to date I do not think that the allowances which some authorities have made for bad debt provision—I hope I may put it that way—have been sufficient to meet the differential between what has been collected and what was expected to be collected. At the moment the estimated shortfall is £135 million. However, that should be compared with a budgeted charge income of £1,020 million for that year. I shall see whether I can find any further information for the noble Viscount and I shall write to him.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it has been put to me that some councils in Scotland are making much more determined efforts than others to collect a high proportion of the community charge. Can my noble friend tell me whether the figures bear this out?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords. There is no doubt at all that in Grampian region, for example, the rate of collection has been good. As it happens, Grampian region had allowed for a bigger bad debt provision than some other authorities. However, it would be invidious of me to refer to any other authorities. I believe we may be able to learn some lessons from the experience in England as regards the follow-up period after the time of collection. In England the first bill can be followed up with action after one month, whereas in Scotland it is followed up after three months.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will perhaps be aware of the letter sent to the Secretary of State by the convenor of CoSLA, Mrs. Jean McFadden. CoSLA realises that it has a duty to collect this charge and it realises that if local government is to continue, the money must be collected. However, the officials of CoSLA have certainly reached the conclusion that the community charge constitutes a much greater administrative burden than even they predicted. They have made a number of helpful suggestions which the Minister may know about: for example, the need for publicity to encourage early notification of a change on the part of citizens who move house. One of the biggest difficulties that arises when citizens move house, even within the same district, is that a totally new file has to be opened on them.
CoSLA has suggested that the forms should be re-examined. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, some of the forms are extremely complicated. CoSLA has further suggested that the definitions of exemptions should be simplified. It is difficult to assess where merchant seamen and people working on oil rigs stand as regards the community charge. It is also difficult to assess the standing of elderly people who may stay with relatives for an extended period but who still have their own home. All these problems are real. I hope that the Minister will read the letter from CoSLA and perhaps place the reply in the Library.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we are well aware of the difficulties that can arise with some local authorities. There are ongoing discussions on how to improve the system. Cash provisions for making the necessary changes to the community charge have been well covered by the Government.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, how can the Government defend the justice—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will forgive me for pointing out that we have spent eight minutes on the first Question. We have three more Questions to discuss and your Lordships have already decided that 20 minutes should be the average length of time allowed for Question Time. It would be helpful to the House if we could pass on to the next Question.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, how can the Government defend the justice—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will give way. When we have spent a certain amount of time on a Starred Question—we have now spent nine minutes on this Question—it is normal to pass to the next Starred Question. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will feel that he can leave the matter there on this occasion.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, this is not the first time that the Government Chief Whip has done this to me. How can the Government defend—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not continue. I am trying to relay the feelings of the House. We have now spent 10 minutes on the first Question. I hope that we can pass on to the next Question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are rather wasting time unnecessarily. As I understand it, the Procedure Committee recommended that there should be a certain elasticity and that a desirable amount of time to spend on any Question is seven minutes. In those circumstances I feel that my noble and distinguished friend should be allowed to ask his question.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, how can the Government defend the justice of a tax where a highly paid company chairman—there are a lot of them about—pays exactly the same amount as a bus conductor or a farm labourer? Does not the inherent injustice of this tax have a great deal to do with the non-payment of it?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: No, my Lords.

The Coal Industry
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of the coal industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the future of the coal industry is very much in the hands of the management and mineworkers

1443
themselves, and in particular on their ability to reduce costs to competitive levels through improving productivity which is up by 75 per cent. from pre-strike levels. Further cost reductions and productivity gains are essential. I believe that the industry has the technology, the investment and the skills to secure its own future. The Government remain committed to transferring British Coal's mining activities to the private sector, but no decisions will be taken on the future structure of the industry until after the next general election.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, how much importance do the Government place on the security of supply of coal, given that our present reserves are sufficient for some 200 years at the present rate of extraction? As all forecasts predict that the price of imported coal will increase in the medium and long term, and as the British coal industry continues to improve its efficiency, ought not the Government to look again at the policy of pit closures? I stress that I am referring to the medium and long-term position, especially as the Secretary of State in another place this week said that there was a great need for long-term contracts. One cannot mothball a pit.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the contracts with the generators provide British Coal with a large market opportunity to aim for. They are three-year agreements, as the noble Lord indicates with his hand, and will provide a guaranteed stream of income over the next three years and time in which to adjust to new market conditions. That guarantee of production will give British Coal the incentive it needs to reduce its prices with an eye on the world price of coal. I am certain that coal will be burned by the electricity generators for many years to come.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, with the introduction of gas-fired power stations and the closure of some coal-fired stations, with up to 15 million tonnes of cheap imported coal coming into this country—remembering that 1 million tonnes equals 1,000 miners' jobs—and with the Government's coal Bill necessitating the vast expansion of open-cast coal mining, what size of deep coal mining industry will we have left by the year 2,000?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it would be wrong to ignore the fact that the Government have approved over £7 billion worth of new investment in the coal mining industry and provided more than £10 billion of restructuring grant since 1979. That is no mean figure. The noble Lord asked me about the 15 million tonnes of imports. My figures do not show that we import 15 million tonnes but nearer 11 or 12 million tonnes. Part of that is special coal required by the steel industry which cannot be found and mined economically in this country.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as he intimated in his Answer that the coal industry has achieved a remarkable amount in improving its productivity in recent years, does the noble Viscount agree that it is to be commended on the efforts that it is now making to develop clean burning processes for coal which are of great importance in view of environmental considerations?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. I agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. However, the improved productivity still leaves the coal mining industry at odds with deep mining productivity in Australia and the United States. Research projects are under way so that the clean coal-burning technique can be improved and used in the future, especially to protect the environment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that my noble friends are right in saying that the future of the coal industry is a long-term problem? Does he not agree that the privatisation process means that generators will look to gas rather than to coal in the short term, partly for cost reasons and partly because that will meet the Government's environmental targets which they refuse to meet by other means? What will then happen when the gas runs out and all the pits are shut down?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that that is a correct scenario. The problems with the coal mining industry have been long-term problems for a great many years, as I am sure the noble Lord will know. Over the past 30 or 40 years pits have been closed at the same rate. Environmental considerations will mean that we have to clean up coal burning. However, I am quite certain that the fitting of FGD to power stations will assist with the environmental problems. I cannot agree that privatisation will hinder the process of looking to the future of the industry.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Viscount consider that the Government could take a more objective view of the problem and recognise the fact that Mr. Arthur Scargill has done far more to rationalise the industry than any government department or Minister?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, all I can say is that Mr. Arthur Scargill has made an interesting contribution.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the coal industry is under a twin threat from the EC: first, from restrictions on government assistance to the coal industry; and, secondly, from its insistence that there should be no import controls on coal? Are not those two matters likely to do great damage to the coal industry in the future?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that government assistance has been restricted. All I can say is that in the past government assistance has not been restricted. I quoted some interesting figures to the House. The noble Lord shakes his head and says that that is not the question. The figures indicate that the Government have not shrunk from assisting the coal industry. As I indicated earlier, to date most of the imports of coal have been of special coals. I agree that the Government have no policy to restrict imports of coal. It must be up to the generators to decide where to purchase their coal. I do not believe that the taxpayer can go on subsidising British Coal at everybody's expense indefinitely.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the Government are not concerned about the security of

1445
supply, which was the purport of my Question, what lessons have they learnt from the fact that there is now not a single pit in the country producing coking coal, that all of the low-sulphur pits have been closed, and that there is one pit left producing anthracite?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have dealt with the fact that some of the coking coal cannot be produced economically in this country. We cannot just go on producing coal at the pithead for the industry at any price. It leaves us uncompetitive. I have dealt with the security of supply: that is one of the reasons that we are concentrating on building a nuclear power station.

Common Land
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any recent progress has been made towards a solution of the problems preventing the introduction of legislation to protect common land.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, further progress has been made and we hope to make a Statement before the Recess.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before I acknowledge that Answer perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord on his first appearance with his new brief. I look forward to a long and harmonious relationship.
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer and in view of that Answer I shall not ask any supplementary questions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that all his answers to my noble friend or to any questions from these Benches will be as helpful as the one he has just given?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course, if the question is as helpful.

Youth Organisations: Amalgamation
3.53 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the reason for the proposed creation of a new body, the National Youth Agency, to amalgamate the National Youth Bureau, the National Council of Voluntary Youth Services, the British Youth Council, the Council for Education and Training in Youth and Community Work and the National Association of Young People's Advisory Councils.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State seeks to help the whole of the youth service to develop a secure educational foundation and clear framework for meeting the challenges of the 1990s. The development of a single, strong, comprehensive body through which government funding can be channelled to provide support at national level is central to achieving that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. On reflection, I wonder whether she is
1446
entirely happy with it. I understand that essentially her right honourable friend the Secretary of State has set up a highly centralised new quango in place of the very successful decentralised structure that we had before. Is it now the Government's new policy to set up such quangos and to centralise in that way? Perhaps I may also draw her eye to the wording of the Question. I asked what the reason was. I did not ask what the policy was.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I do not agree that it would necessarily decentralise. We were talking about replacing centralised bodies—many of them—with one agency. The reasons for that include: better use of resources; better co-ordination of support services; strengthening of the partnership between the voluntary and the private sectors as well as the local authority sector; strengthening support services to the youth movement generally throughout the country and to community education; improving the quality, range and effectiveness of services and making the responses to government priorities even better.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, George Carey, whose appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury was announced this morning, has a long-standing interest in youth matters? Is she further aware that when he comes to this House he will have much to contribute on that subject, among others?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall have the privilege to be the first to welcome him from the Dispatch Box. I look forward very much to his involvement in this debate.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I must declare an interest which I am sure will surprise some noble Lords. I am a president of the British Youth Council. I shall explain at a later date to my noble friend the Deputy Leader, who asked from a sedentary position about my qualifications for that post.
Is the noble Baroness aware that there is great concern in the British Youth Council that its 40 years' democratic running of an organisation which has provided tremendous experience for young people is being eroded by the Government? Already it has had its core funding taken away and is only able to carry out projects which have government approval, not just the approval of its members. What is the intention of the Government in relation to the activity of the British Youth Council in international matters, which has been in a compartment separate from the funding by the Department of Education and Science?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the funding has changed for all youth bodies operating nationally and will continue for the agency. The funding will be based on work submitted to the Government and approved by them. The organisation with which the noble Lord has an involvement has chosen to remain separate under the new arrangements and will continue to be separate. Therefore the way in which the British Youth Council operates outside the national agency will be very much a matter for it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the appointment of a national youth agency necessarily means that all the other organisations involved in such work have to cease to exist? Is it not possible that in their separate forms they can exist and make a contribution towards strengthening the National Youth Agency which is now being set up?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to assure my noble friend that the decision to exist alongside the national agency as an independent body is very much a matter of choice. The agency will be based on the National Youth Bureau and on the Council for Education and Training in Youth and Community Work. Those two bodies will be subsumed under the new agency. However, the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services and the National Association of Young People's Counselling and Advisory Services have opted to remain separate but nevertheless to work constructively with the agency. The British Youth Council has also opted to remain separate outside the agency. They all wish to work constructively with the agency. I believe that it will be a very profitable arrangement.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have now spent 25 minutes on four Questions. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, asks his question and that my noble friend answers it. Then may be the time to move on.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I protest strongly against this curtailment. I asked my Question in a perfectly bona fide way and I expect to get a decent amount of your Lordships' time on an issue which I regard as of great importance to the youth of this country. I resent it very strongly because I know that, at least until this moment, several noble Lords wished to intervene. I appreciate the noble Lord's problems but I do not see why I should bear the cost of them.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the difficulty is that by the express wish of your Lordships' House we are meant to take 20 minutes on Questions. We took an inordinate length of time on the first two Questions. We got through the third one very expeditiously. We have now been on this Question well over six or seven minutes. I am in the hands of the House, but if the House wishes Questions to take a reasonable length of time it must support whoever rises at this Dispatch Box to cut to noble Lords the feelings of the House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister say whether there have been any discussions with the existing seven youth organisations? If not, will there be such discussions, and when they have taken place will those discussions be brought to Parliament for further examination?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there have been discussions with the five organisations. All of them have responded. All the local authority associations have also been consulted. The proposals are being brought forward on the basis of all those consultations.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Defence: Options for Change.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during that adjournment the Companies (Fees) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1990, the Weights and Measures (Various Foods) (Amendment) Order 1990, the EEC Merger Control (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 1990 and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1990 will be taken.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
The Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill will create Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and enable them to delegate appropriate functions and powers to a network of local enterprise companies. It sets out a broad framework within which the new bodies and the local enterprise companies will have as much flexibility as possible to tackle the challenges and opportunities of building up a stronger Scottish economy.
There is no doubt as to the widespread enthusiasm for these proposals across the spectrum of Scottish opinion. As I said at Second Reading, we have been delighted by the calibre of those who have come forward to form the 22 prospective local enterprise companies throughout Scotland. These consortia are all now drawing up their business plans. I am confident that 1991 will prove to be an important marker in the development of the Scottish economy as

1449
Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies set about their tasks.
Noble Lords have given this Bill careful consideration at Second Reading, in Committee and at Report stage. I am grateful to all those who have taken part and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for his constructive approach in raising some key issues. I am glad to have the opportunity to restate our commitment to give Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise a strong strategic role and to reaffirm the importance of both new bodies and the local enterprise companies working in partnership with local authorities and other bodies.
The integration of training and economic development functions is central to the Scottish Enterprise concept. I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for her contributions on the importance of training. The wide-ranging powers in the Bill will enable Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to tackle, through the local enterprise companies, the particular needs of each local labour market.
I was glad also to have the opportunity, in response to speeches from my noble friend Lord Selkirk, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and others, to put on record our commitment to a rural dimension for Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. We shall expect them to tackle the problems and opportunities in rural as well as urban areas.
My noble friend Lord Gray of Contin highlighted the needs of the Highlands and Islands. In creating Highlands and Islands Enterprise we recognise the distinctive nature of the differences that exist in that part of Scotland.
The Bill also prepares for the winding up of the Scottish new town development corporations. I pay tribute to the past work of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his work on the Bill. He has special interests in the new towns. We certainly heard from him during the passage of the Bill. We now look forward to achieving a smooth transition to new arrangements while maintaining the economic momentum of the new towns.
The Bill is a landmark in the evolution of the Scottish economy. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will help, I am sure, to stimulate both existing and new businesses and act as a catalyst in reskilling our workforce. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for going through the Bill and for the nice words that he said about all those who took part in the debates on it. If, as he suggested, I raised key issues he will also be aware that they did not seem to unlock any real response from the Government.
He is well aware that we were disappointed that the
1450
Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill had no social remit. There was a reference to the rural areas but no provision on the face of the Bill. The reference came from the Minister. That added some weight because the Minister has sympathy with those issues. However, we would have preferred such provision to be on the face of the Bill.
We are not happy with the training function of the new enterprises. As many Members of the House said, there could be a tendency for short-term training to meet short-term shortages whereas we hope that training will be more fundamental. We can only hope that the reorganisation of the Scottish Development Agency will be profitable and worthwhile to Scotland. However, as I said at an earlier stage, I do not see why we need to shake up those aspects that were going rather well.
On the new towns, we did not resolve one of the main concerns. The Government have spoken about giving greater choice to people, but during discussions on the Bill there was almost a growing dislike of local government. Tenants were not given a real choice when they changed their tenancy from the new towns corporations. The Minister will be well aware, as we are, that all the surveys indicated that there was a very strong feeling among the tenants that they would like to choose the local authorities.
However, the Minister showed great charm and helpfulness during the Committee. Unfortunately he also showed his usual firmness with his remit, which after all is his job. I believe that we gained as much as we could by way of promises from the Minister, and probably more than we would have done from most other Ministers. I am disappointed that such promises are not on the face of the Bill. However, we shall look forward to seeing whether this measure becomes a landmark in Scottish economic and training development, as we all hope that it will be. We have grave doubts whether it will meet the challenge. I wish God-speed to the Bill.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I do not need to add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said other than that I agree with everything he said.
I should perhaps refer to two successes of the Minister. I congratulate him on the first: that he has survived the trauma of Monday and is still with us as the Minister of State for Scotland. The second success is one that I predicted but on which I cannot congratulate him: that he has successfully carried out the brief that he was given to carry the Bill through this House with no change whatever. It is his success and our regret.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly thank both noble Lords for their comments. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, thinks that training is going in the wrong direction. The fact that training functions come to Scotland proves that we are trying to devolve powers in the proper way. I believe that the combination of training and enterprise which the new bodies will have will be helpful for Scotland.

1451
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for what he has said. I know that he would have wished for more "give", in particular on the new towns issue. However, we debated the matter very thoroughly. I am most grateful to him for bringing to the debates his knowledge of the new towns scene and for giving us the benefit of his advice. I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Broadcasting Bill
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.—[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 93 [Applications for national licences]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 265A:
Page 75, line 34, after ("service") insert ("having taken into account evidence of demand,").
The noble Baroness said: I have not so far taken part in this important Bill. However, the amendment that I have tabled is important and its purpose needs to be aired. As I am sure are many Members of this Chamber, I am a great listener to the radio. One of the facts that one notices about the Bill, and from reading about it, is that the part relating to television seems to be much greater than that relating to sound radio. Yet sound radio is of immense service to millions of people in this country.
This is a probing amendment. I am seeking to find out the Government's intentions in this field. The effect of the amendment is to require the Radio Authority to take into account the evidence of demand when it advertises the three new national radio services. The nature of two of those services is specified in Clause 80(2)(a). As I understand it, one is:
"a service the greater part of which consists in the broadcasting of spoken material".
The second is a service:
"which consists, wholly or mainly, in the broadcasting of music other than pop music".
The nature of the third service is left unspecified. However, there is a clear inference that it might be a channel for some kind of popular music.
As I understand the preamble to Clause 80(2)(a) it would still be required to be different from existing popular music services and thus be required to meet the Government's external diversity requirements for independent national radio. However, as drafted, the Bill seems to place some duty on the Radio Authority to advertise the two specified services of speech and light/classical music before any other. My right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Mellor, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, have both spoken as
1452
though the Government intend to make sure that the services are of spoken material and music other than pop, and that those are the first to be advertised.
The purpose of the amendment is to ask the questions: what is the reason for that? Is that what we believe the public want? Have we attempted to find out whether that is the case? Indeed, is it what the market wants? Is there any evidence that there would be significant advertising support for such radio services? I understand that United Kingdom radio companies are undertaking research on those issues. Their views and findings will be expressed in letters of intent for the ILR by 14th August 1990, as requested by the Radio Authority. The purpose of my amendment is to place a duty on the Radio Authority to pay heed to those and other significant indications of the demand for a new national radio service in the UK media market-place.
I understand that it is the intention to allocate one of the two services specified in Clause 80 to the single available stereo FM channel while the other services will be on AM, which is not currently available in stereo. Therefore, it is less suited to the broadcasting of music. Can my noble friend confirm that?
It would also be helpful if my noble friend could indicate the Government's intentions. That would go some way towards ensuring that, while properly meeting the Government's requirements for diversity, the new national radio services in the United Kingdom will meet the expressed intentions of public demand. It would have the effect of increasing competition for national radio licences. The present basis on which they are to be set up leaves many radio companies uncertain about whether they are worth applying for. Therefore, a second important point is involved and I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: It is a pleasure to hear my noble friend Lady Young take part in the debate on the Bill. It was interesting to hear her views and the reasons why she tabled this probing amendment. There will be three new national services. One will be non-pop, another will be speech-based and the third will be open to offers. The chances are that it will be pop because often that is the most lucrative category. However, the Bill deliberately leaves open the third option.
My noble friend's amendment puts an obligation upon the Radio Authority to delay an advertising licence while it seeks the evidence of demand. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the Bill deals with this aspect in the audience research provisions in Clause 91. The clause puts the authority under a duty to arrange to ascertain the types of programmes which members of the public would like to be included in licensed services, including national services.
Recently the authority demonstrated that it is thinking along the same lines. It has invited those who may wish to apply for a national licence to send it a letter of intent by 14th August. That will enable the authority to assess the extent and nature of the likely demand to run the national services. Naturally, no commitment is involved at this stage. Those

1453
expressing an interest now will not be obliged to apply in due course; nor will anyone be excluded from applying if they do not register their interest at this point. The invitation is for people to set out, confidentially if they wish, the format and broad content of the service which they are contemplating. They should also state any preferences over the waveband and size of population to be served, together with brief details of the potential applicant group's background and resources. From the applications and their content will be determined the likely demand not only as regards the provider but also the listener.
Baroness Young: I thank my noble friend for that response. I fully appreciate the point that he makes about Clause 91 and the audience research. However, can he confirm that it has been decided to establish two channels before the audience research has taken place? Can he further say whether he is satisfied that, before the research is carried out, companies will bid for the licence in the belief that they will be able to make it pay?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is right in saying that two categories of broadcasting have been allowed for. One is a speech-based service and the other is non-pop. That is because we did not want all three national radio services to be allocated to the category where the profitability is likely to be greatest; that is non-stop pop, or pop as a whole. Therefore, it was decided that one broadcasting category should be non-pop and another speech-based. We hope that the full range will be covered by the three systems.
Baroness Young: I shall read carefully my noble friend's reply. I am not absolutely sure that he has answered my point. I accept the importance of diversity as regards radio and I have no reason to think that others do not, because it is a valid point. Clearly, the question is how that will be determined. I do not wish to pursue the matter further this afternoon and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 76, line 40, after ("provided") insert ("which shall be the same as an equivalent national service provided by the BBC").
The noble Lord said: I do not understand why the amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 267, which relates to a different topic. I shall speak to my amendment and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Thomson and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will speak to Amendment No. 267.
Amendment No. 266 contains a relatively simple but important point. It seeks to provide that the authority has a duty to ensure that national services are what they claim to be; that is to say, national. We have raised the issue because in another place the then Minister of State indicated that under this Bill the national services would not be expected to cover more than 70 per cent. of the country. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. The fact that 30 per cent. of the country would not be covered by services which
1454
claim to be national is deeply unsatisfactory. That is what happens if one allocates on a purely financial auctioning basis services that have been regarded as public. In that process the nation becomes smaller and 30 per cent. of it will be left out because it is not lucrative.
The Minister indicated that the transmission costs will be too high. I suppose that the noble Earl will reply that they will be looked after by the BBC. Therefore, we shall return to the position that we had yesterday and on Monday. We shall be told that when any person is neglected and any service is not provided the BBC, so beloved by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and others, will pick up the tabs and do the job which the commercial companies are not prepared to undertake. That is deplorable.
Unless the amendment is accepted the Government will allow a company to run a service in competition with local radio and with much greater rewards at its disposal. It will not have to pay the costs nor will it have to carry out the obligations involved in running what we on these Benches would call a national service.
I hope very much that the noble Earl will feel able to consider this point in the same way that yesterday he kindly said that he would consider the point brought to his attention by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth in connection with the pricing policy for rural local stations in difficult terrain. This is the same kind of point. Either the cost paid by the successful bidder must be reduced or some assistance must be given so that a national radio station covers, broadly speaking, the nation; and certainly an omission of 30 per cent. seems to me to be too high. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: I wish to support Amendment No. 266. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I do not see what connection that amendment has with Amendment No. 267 except its geographical contiguity. That seems to me to be a rather odd method of grouping amendments.
This amendment ensures that the new national radio services have the same universal transmission coverage as the equivalent BBC national services. Without this amendment it is possible that, like Channel 5, the independent national radio channels could have a limited coverage because of the heavy transmission costs of providing a truly national service.
If the national radio services are expected to compete directly with BBC services, they should not be allowed to escape from the public service obligation of universal coverage. If they do not have to provide a national coverage, then the outlying areas in Wales and Scotland, particularly the south west, would not be able to receive the new services. For reasons of geography and terrain, in rural Highland and Island areas, transmission is costly and listeners are fewer and more scattered. Such areas are more vulnerable.
We believe that national commercial services should be equally available to all and that no one

1455
should be disadvantaged purely by reasons of geography. Therefore, the amendment ensures that such services are specifically required to match the universal or near universal coverage of equivalent BBC services. That would ensure that real choice in radio is available to all citizens of the United Kingdom.
Earl Ferrers: I thought I detected a minor flutter of irritation from the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, because Amendments Nos. 266 and 267 are grouped together. As they have spoken only to Amendment No. 266, I am content to do the same. Nothing pleases me more than to make them happy.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was rather hard on commercial radio. He said that commercial radio would not be prepared to go to the trouble of broadcasting to 100 per cent. of the population. Clause 93(2) aims to strike a balance between securing sufficient coverage to justify the use of a scarce national resource and limiting the demands which this coverage would make so that the operators have a reasonable chance of running a viable service.
We must remember that the BBC has been building a number of new transmitters each year for many years, as a result of which a near universal coverage has been achieved. It would not be remotely feasible for a new operation to match that coverage from day one and it would certainly delay arrival on the air while the network was being built. That is why Clause 100 recognises that coverage might reasonably be expected to grow over a period. It allows the authority to require such growth where it considers it reasonably practicable.
The main point is that if we were to impose what is commonly known as a universality requirement on independent national radio stations comparable to that for the BBC, the likelihood is that we would kill them off at birth. In the case of the new FM service, in particular, universality would not be economically viable and would use up a large number of allocations within the national network which could otherwise be used for community radio. The position is not quite the same in the case of the two AM networks because those are being taken from the BBC. However, there may well be options for using some of the frequency allocations which are designed to improve the night-time reception of the services or for community radio. It does not follow that the new operators should necessarily be burdened with the full transmission obligations borne by the BBC.
The Radio Authority is now turning to the complex question of possible coverage planning for the new national networks. It is likely to be reasonable to expect each of the three new services to attain at least 80 per cent. coverage. However, at this stage we should not seek to anticipate the authority's judgment as to whether a higher minimum would be compatible with Clause 93(2).
The position is that 70 or 80 per cent. would be covered from about 15 different sites. To attain 100 per cent., large numbers of relay transmitters would
1456
have to be installed and some might reach only a very few people. Once one is in the area of 90 per cent. coverage, the cost of ensuring that the last small percentage of people are covered becomes quite over-burdening. If the noble Lord seeks to pursue his argument, that would make commercial radio inoperable and non-viable from the start.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I thank the noble Earl for agreeing to treat this amendment separately from the subsequent amendment. That makes sense. I am grateful that he has said that although coverage will not be any higher than is suggested on day one—and I agree with the noble Earl that you cannot expect to have 100 per cent. coverage on day one—it is hoped that in the course of time it will be the aim of the so-called national services to achieve national percentages which are higher than 80 per cent. I imagine that with the advances in technology that will be made easier and cheaper. However, it is important that that should not be left entirely to the commercial judgment of the Radio Authority and that that objective of maximum coverage should be made clear to those bidding as the objective for which they should aim.
Having said that, I do not propose to press this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 77, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) a programme schedule which shall act as an illustrative guideline, and which shall include an indication of the range of programmes which the Authority expect applicants to include in their programme services; and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to that moved at an earlier stage in our proceedings in relation to television contracts. It seeks to make a provision in relation to the new national radio contracts similar to that provided for television.
There is quite an important difference between the three new national television contracts and the various regional television contracts; namely, that the new national commercial television channels are a very important and major innovative development in British broadcasting. However, that is rather taking place on a blank sheet of paper.
We all welcomed the fact that the Government agreed that there should be broad specifications to distinguish one national broadcasting channel from another. One is to be predominantly speech and one of a non-pop kind, and presumably the third will be open to music of a more popular kind. So far, so good. However, it would be an advantage if the Radio Authority were to spell out matters in rather greater detail by asking those who apply for the ownership of the channels to provide a programme schedule and an illustration of the kind of programmes which they would provide. It is for the Radio Authority to set the broad parameters in order to ensure that in the public interest there is a reasonable diversity of subject matter between the three channels, and that therefore they genuinely broaden and enhance the range of taste available in this form of sound broadcasting.
I do not suggest anything very detailed; I do not suggest that the Radio Authority should seek to lay down in any great detail particular types of programmes. But in a broad way it should sketch out the character that each channel should have and the kind of programming one would expect from it. For example, it would be comparatively easy to have a speech channel that consisted largely of phone-ins, which is one of the cheapest forms of radio entertainment. There is a proper place for phone-ins, but one does not want an endless stream of them.
Presumably the formula for the speech channel would include a reasonable mix of quality news and current affairs together with phone-ins. It should also include a wide range of speech-based programming. It is that general distinctive character for each channel that we seek by this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I rise to support the amendment from these Benches. Although not explicitly on the face of the Bill, the ITC should be required to issue similar guidelines to applicants as is now the case with Channel 3. No doubt the Minister will argue that with regard to Channel 3 applicants the requirement is not on the face of the Bill; the difference is that with Channel 3 applicants there is a quality duty written in that is not written in here. Perhaps noble Lords who were here as late as some of us last night will remember that we divided the Committee on the question of quality. Unfortunately we lost the Division. Therefore quality is not defined in the Bill; it is not in this part of the Bill at all. It makes one think that the Government have something against the word "quality" which they are prolonging.
The amendment also implies that each service should offer a range or diversity of programmes, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, pointed out, in order to guarantee that the service is not exclusively popular music, news or current affairs. The idea is that the three national services will be speech: news and discussions; classical music with a light touch (that is the best way I can describe it)—it is not meant to be heavy classical music; and there will also be some kind of pop station.
Without clear guidelines it is likely that commercial pressures in the form of competition for audiences and revenue may force licence holders in the direction of lowest common denominator programming produced at minimum cost. Any kind of programming which is seen as potentially more expensive or less attractive to a mass audience is likely to be given a low priority. I do not say that that has to happen, and I hope that it does not happen. But in legislating for the future of broadcasting in this country it is our job to ensure that we make every effort to prevent those things which we all agree would be bad for broadcasting; in this case bad for radio.
That is why there should be at least a duty to provide an illustrative guideline. It is a mild and sensible amendment which we on these Benches heartily support.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: If I may I should like to give a little Back Bench support to the amendment. It may generally be argued that a radio programme supported by advertising is necessarily and inevitably inferior to public service broadcasting. However, I suggest that that is not necessarily so. It has certainly been so in this country so far, but I should like to see the Bill make some attempt to raise the level of commercial broadcasting. On the whole it has been abysmally low.
For example, commercial radio in this country has not made the slightest attempt to match the BBC in any serious way. There has been no attempt to match the output of the BBC radio drama department. The department is remarkable and produces more plays than anybody else in this country; some are of good quality. The programmes have an audience of around 1 million. That figure is not to be despised. I am sure that many Members of the Committee and their families enjoy the BBC's output of radio drama. Is there any inherent reason why radio, because it is broadcasting at the expense of advertising, should not have such a programme? I venture to suggest not. Television manages it, and some pretty good material is produced from time to time.
I hope in answering the amendment that the noble Earl will say that more detailed information will be required from people putting forward programmes. We might wish them to state in greater detail what it is they intend to do before giving them a licence. I hope that that will be borne in mind, and that the authority responsible for giving a licence will not assume, "This is commercial so we do not have to bother about it. It is supported by advertising and will necessarily aim at a massive audience"; and that is the end of it. If that is said it will be a condemnation of the system as a whole.
If Members of the Committee think it is possible for broadcasting supported by advertising to produce good quality radio, a wide range of programmes and the kind of programmes I have mentioned, this is the time and the place to achieve it. I therefore support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: We are speaking essentially of licences for national radio. Amendments were made in another place to the procedure for licensing the national services. That means that applicants will now have to offer some variety and be different from each other. I do not believe that the case for a statutory requirement to publish illustrative guidelines is the same as for Channel 3, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, agreed. The statutory requirement for Channel 3 is that it must cater for a wide variety of tastes and interests. The requirement for national radio in this part of the Bill is that there should be a variety of tastes and interests.
I have no doubt that the Radio Authority, when it advertises its licences, will indicate the minimum variety of programming elements which will be needed to satisfy the internal diversity test. In the case of two out of the three advertisements, it will state what is

1459
needed in order to satisfy the statutory programming categories; in other words, the non-pop and the speech-based categories, and to achieve sufficient difference from an existing service.
There is nothing in the Bill to preclude such guidance. There is no need to go further by referring, as the amendment does, to the provision of illustrative programming schedules. It would be difficult if we prescribed that.
The problem with the amendment is that there would be little for the guidelines to illustrate. The duty of the Radio Authority is simply to ensure that there is some variety—not a wide variety, but some variety—with a small number of extra ingredients. For instance, some news and current affairs, perhaps, on a predominantly non-pop music service. The authority cannot stipulate what the extra ingredients must be. But it can and must stipulate that there should be some extra ingredients. Therefore, I do not see how the guidelines would fit in.
In Clause 93(3)(a) (ii) the obligation is that any application must be accompanied by,
"the applicant's proposals for providing a service that would consist of a diversity of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests".
In other words, if you wanted to put on a speech-based programme you could not have all speech because you have to accommodate a variety of interests. Equally, if it is to be all classical music with a light touch, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—that may be her interpretation and assuming that is correct—it does not mean that all the material has to be classical with a light touch; it must appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
It will be part of the applicant's application to say what he intends to do. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was rightly concerned about that. When an applicant makes his application he will say what he intends to do if he is granted a licence. If he is granted a licence the intentions outlined in his application will form part of the licence. In other words, he will be held to transmitting the intentions contained in his application.
Therefore, I believe that it is better to leave it to the Radio Authority to make the judgment. It would be difficult for the authority to say, "In this licence, or another licence, we shall stipulate the variety of programmes that are to be made". It is up to the applicant to propose what the variety should be, and, if his application is successful, that will form part of his licence.
Baroness Birk: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may put this point to him, because there is one aspect that I do not understand. He twice asked what could be put in the illustrative guidelines. All we are saying is that they should indicate the range of programmes that the authority feels should be transmitted. It is all very well starting with an open mind but the authority cannot start with a completely blank mind.
Earl Ferrers: It is all a matter of approach. The noble Baroness believes that the Radio Authority
1460
should state what is expected should be transmitted. We are saying that the Radio Authority must ensure that there is a range of interests. It is up to each applicant to say how he proposes to interpret that. It would be wrong for the Radio Authority to indicate in advance what is expected—how many hours of a certain type of programming should be broadcast. The authority wants to find out how the various applicants intend to interpret this part of the Bill and will then choose the most suitable. Once that has been done, what the applicant puts forward on his application form will be part of his licence.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: It is a matter of degree as to how far the Radio Authority should be expected to go in setting out the formula for the various channels. Clearly, we differ across the Floor of the Committee on how far one should go. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the noble Earl for giving such a closely argued response to our proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 77, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 12.
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 269 to 271 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 93, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I may use this opportunity to ask the noble Earl a simple and straightforward question. Am I right in my reading of Clause 93, and subsequent clauses which relate to it, that there is nothing in the clause that requires all three national stations to be based in London? I take the view that if we are to have three national radio stations at least one of them should be somewhere in the provinces or regions and not in London. Am I right in my understanding that the clause permits that?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is perfectly right. It does not matter where the headquarters of any of the licensed operators exist because they will be connected to a network and therefore their position is relatively irrelevant.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Defence: "Options for Change"
3.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another

1461
place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"In the defence debate last month, I set out the basis on which we have been considering options for change in defence. I should now like to advise the House of the broad proposals that we are considering and on which we will now be consulting with the NATO authorities and our allies, with the defence industries and, most importantly, with all those directly affected in the Armed Forces and the MoD's civilian staff. My Statement today follows the publication this morning of a valuable report from the Select Committee on Defence on the defence implications of recent events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
"The Declaration issued at the NATO Summit meeting here in London earlier this month said:
'Europe has entered a new, promising era … This alliance must and will adapt'.
"The Options for Change have identified the ways in which our forces might be restructured by the mid-1990s in the light of these developments. The pace of change will depend upon the signature and implementation of a CFE agreement, and on how quickly Soviet troops leave Eastern Europe and other Soviet forces are run down. The precise shape of our contributions to NATO must reflect discussions yet to come with the NATO authorities and with our allies.
"In the options for change studies, we have sought to devise a structure for our regular forces appropriate to the new security situation and meeting our essential peacetime operational needs. The framework we have provided would be reinforced in a period of tension by drawing on volunteer reserves and reservists, who will have an important role to play. We have also allowed for the possible need to build back up our forces over a longer period should international circumstances ever require us to do so.
"There clearly are opportunities but also risks in Europe; and elsewhere some worrying trends—not least the proliferation of sophisticated weapons systems. We shall therefore continue to need a robust defence capability as our insurance against the unexpected. Our Armed Forces, albeit at lower levels, will be as important a safeguard for our country in the future as they have been in the past.
"Our proposals will bring savings and a reduction in the share of GDP taken by defence. We need force levels which we can afford and which can realistically be manned, given demographic pressures in the 1990s. The aim is smaller forces, better equipped, properly trained and housed, and well motivated. They will need to be flexible and mobile and able to contribute both in NATO and, if necessary, elsewhere.
"What I now have to put before this House are some proposals for change and some elements that will not change. We shall retain our strategic
1462
deterrent with a four-boat Trident force. In accordance with NATO policy for an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, based in Europe, we shall also need a substrategic force of dual-capable Tornados with a stand-off missile.
"We must also continue to ensure the effective defence of the United Kingdom itself. A comprehensive air defence capability will still be essential, although with a smaller fighter force than had been planned. The UK fighter force would be held at seven squadrons of air-defence Tornados, supplemented by armed Hawks, and the remaining two Phantom squadrons would be withdrawn. We plan to retain at about present levels our home defence forces and our capability to deal with hostile mine-laying in home waters. We shall sustain our contribution in support of the police in Northern Ireland. For as long as they are needed, we will provide forces for our dependent territories and other overseas responsibilities in the Falklands, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Belize and—until 1997—Hong Kong.
"We will continue to play our full part in the defence of Europe. We will continue to deploy forces in Germany alongside our German and other allies, a contribution which is, I know, warmly welcomed by the German Government. We envisage that, in the changed circumstances of the mid-1990s, our stationed forces could be roughly half their present strength. When reinforced from the United Kingdom our army contribution could comprise of the order of two divisions, rather than four as at present. Our contribution will need to be shaped with that of our allies to fit the new force structures which we expect to see in the central region.
"We expect to reduce the RAF presence in Germany from four bases to two. We envisage retaining Harrier and helicopter forces there. As Germany takes on the air-policing responsibility for its territory, we would envisage phasing out our air defence contribution. We envisage maintaining six squadrons of Tornado aircraft in Germany and the UK with nuclear and conventional roles in Europe. The two variants of Tornado will provide the backbone of the future Royal Air Force. Aircraft not deployed in peacetime will be retained for use should we need to build back up our capability.
"In view of Chancellor Kohl's request that troops of the three Western powers should stay in Berlin as long as Soviet forces are in the present GDR, we envisage continuing to contribute to an allied presence, including an RAF contingent, for this period in Berlin.
"We intend to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term, whose roles include reinforcement of NATO's northern region. We shall also maintain an air contribution to the defence of the northern region; but we are looking again at the future requirement for the United Kingdom mobile force.

1463
"Elsewhere in our maritime contribution, we need to take account of the decline in the size of the Soviet navy but also of its continuing modernisation, especially with new classes of submarine. We propose to maintain three carriers, update their Sea Harrier aircraft, and, subject to satisfactory progress, proceed with the EH101 helicopter programme. I would envisage a future destroyer-frigate force of around 40 ships. The reduction would be achieved by paying off older, less capable ships. In addition to Trident, we envisage a future submarine force of about 16 boats of which three-quarters would be nuclear powered. We see the Buccaneer force in the anti-ship role being replaced by dual-capable Tornados redeployed from Germany and re-equipped with Sea Eagle missiles. There would be a small reduction in Nimrod numbers.
"A capability for other contingencies would be provided by establishing a strategic reserve division bringing together amphibious, parachute, air-mobile and armoured formations with roles also in Europe or in national defence.
"Mr. Speaker, I have described how we now see the Armed Forces evolving in the period to 1995. These proposals are now for further study and consultation with NATO and our Brussels treaty partners. When we are able to take final decisions will depend on many factors, not least progress in the autumn on CFE, a successful outcome to the two plus four talks, a clear timetable for Soviet withdrawals from Europe, and the pace of discussions with our allies on the evolution of NATO strategy and operational concepts. We shall want in particular fully to consult the German Government over changes in our deployments there. We shall aim to move in an orderly and properly planned way to our new force structure, after the consultations I have described and when the necessary conditions have been met. We shall at the same time be conducting a detailed scrutiny of our equipment plans, including our research and development effort, to ensure that they would be in keeping with our changed requirements.
"Work remains to be done on detailed force structures and on changes in the support area, where we will be looking for substantial savings, before we can clarify the implications for individual units. We envisage in broad terms by the mid-1990s a regular Army of around 120,000, Royal Navy-Royal Marines of around 60,000 and a Royal Air Force of around 75,000. On this basis the overall reduction in regular service manpower would be around 18 per cent. We expect our civilian numbers to be similarly reduced. The volunteer reserves will continue to play a key role, and we wish Lo consider the appropriate numbers for the future, having regard to our needs and realistic levels of recruitment and retention.
"There will now be further work on the detailed implications of these broad proposals. Their cost will of course be within the expenditure plans published in the last public expenditure White
1464
Paper. Revised figures for defence expenditure will be announced as part of the Government's decisions on the total public expenditure programme in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement. In respect of the current year the House is aware that I am taking steps to constrain spending within the agreed provision. Announcements have been made on aircraft. Consistent with our longer-terms plans we shall be easing back on army recruiting and retiring early several ships and submarines, and making some other short-term changes to the programme which will be announced shortly.
"This country has owed a great debt to its armed services throughout its history. Their abilities and professionalism are not something that can be lightly discarded and then easily recalled when they may suddenly be needed. We have a duty to tell them what we believe the future is likely to hold for them at a time when the pace and scale of events in Europe offer real opportunities for change.
"We believe that the new force structures we envisage can give us strong and reliable defences, in changing circumstances, and at an affordable cost. Our proposals provide for us to continue to make a major contribution to the North Atlantic alliance as it adapts to the changes that its resolution and cohesion have done so much to make possible.
"It is a time of opportunity and hope for change yet without putting at risk the safe protection of our country nor neglecting fair consideration of those whose task that is. Our aim is an orderly and planned transition to the new world now unfolding and I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is a very long Statement. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I make only one or two points; obviously, we need to read and digest its contents.
Generally, we welcome the Statement. It is much more detailed than we expected and it contains some important information. I refer to our recent debate. The Statement amounts to a defence review, in other words, a radical reshaping of Britain's defence posture, possibly for the first time since the Second World War.
We are glad that the Statement is not dominated by exclusively financial considerations. There has been a worry that, with mounting inflation and cuts in public expenditure, the Ministry of Defence would be compelled to put our security at risk for that reason. The Statement recognises the fact—we must call it the fact—of the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Eastern Germany. For the first time, so far as I am aware, there is recognition of the fact that Soviet naval strength is falling. We welcome that recognition by the Government.

1465
As a general comment, the Statement has to be judged by its effect on the morale of the Armed Forces. We wholly support the Statement where it says—I shall repeat it because it is important—that,
"this country has owed a great debt to its Armed Services throughout its history. Their abilities and professionalism are not something that can be lightly discarded and then easily recalled when they may suddenly be needed".
We wholly support that part of the Statement.
How does the Statement contribute to the maintenance of the Armed Forces' morale? That is the vital point as we go into a transitional period: we all know that it is a transitional period. How do we avoid damage to the Armed Forces' morale when we know that those forces are to be reduced? Nothing is worse than for an officer cadet at Sandhurst or even a corporal in training to know that in five years' time he will not have a job. We should like the Government to be more specific. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give an assurance that the next instalment of what is a fundamental defence review will be in the form of a Green Paper or a White Paper in the autumn so that noble Lords will have a chance to debate fully what needs to be debated.
In coming to its conclusions on the costings, has the Ministry of Defence adopted a rate of inflation that would be considered reasonable in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks yesterday? Your Lordships will be aware that in the defence budget of £21 billion, somewhere between 40 per cent. and 45 per cent.—I do not have the exact figure but no doubt the noble Earl will be able to provide it—is spent on personnel. If inflation is rising at 10 per cent. per annum, which may well be so at the moment, and if it continues to rise, this will mean a quite inordinate increase in the defence budget over the years. That is rather difficult to reconcile with the idea of a peace dividend, a subject to which I shall return later.
What arrangements do the Government envisage—I recognise that these are early days—in the way of retraining those in the Armed Forces who will inevitably be made, in the classic sense of the word, redundant? Recruitment freezes and natural wastage are the worst ways of developing the kind of armed forces that this country requires because the best people go first. We have to make sure that the good people stay, that good people are recruited and that other people who are perhaps not so good or perhaps have skills which are not required are made satisfactorily redundant and are retrained to face their future in civilian life.
What is the future of the European fighter aircraft? That is not mentioned in the Statement. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us his views. That links in to a much more important and general question. What is to be the future of our defence industries? Let us assume that the CFE-1 negotiations are completed successfully and that the CFE-2 negotiations go forward as the NATO summit wished. What the noble Earl is saying is that our defence industries will have to adapt to a new life and that procurement will be much lower. There is even talk of
1466
the defence budget being halved in real terms by 1995. Do the Government accept that there is a governmental responsibility to ensure that that rundown and that adaptation to civilian manufacturing are properly planned? What measures do the Government envisage to ensure that?
Will the noble Earl confirm that there is no intention of expanding out of area capability and that we have ceased to be the policemen of the world? We cannot afford to be the policemen of the world. I should like confirmation that it is not intended to expand that capability.
There has been a great deal of talk about the peace dividend. That dividend will largely be absorbed over the next few years by the reorganisation of the armed forces into smaller and better equipped units. However, with good fortune, and assuming that the CFE-2 talks are successful, there should be a substantial peace dividend in the late 1990s. It is important that the dividend should be applied to ensuring the proper conversion of our defence industries to civilian purposes, the retraining of our Armed Forces personnel who have to face civilian life, and the general reconstruction of our manufacturing base. On no account should it be frittered away, as North Sea oil has been frittered away, on inflationary consumer booms. We look to the Government to give us an assurance that this great section of our manufacturing industry, which at the moment is involved in defence, will be properly converted to civilian purposes and that the Armed Forces which have served us so well, as the noble Earl said, will not be let down when they are asked, as many of them will be, to enter civilian life.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, on these Benches we thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and associate ourselves with the warm and well deserved tribute that he paid to the Armed Services. I wish that I could be as complimentary about the Statement as the Opposition Front Bench. Possibly because on these Benches we do not have to live down a long record of lunacy on defence matters, we feel freer to criticise what is now put before us. The fact is that, in the light of the extraordinary changes in Europe, of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, of the withdrawal of Soviet troops, of the announcement of very great reductions in the German armed forces and of American forces in Europe, a reduction of 18 per cent. in overall manpower over five years is extremely modest. It is too modest. Why have the Government turned down proposals for a faster run-down—for example, the proposals made by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement? Was it because of the practical difficulties of the run-down, or was it because of worries about the remaining threats in Europe? I should be grateful to the noble Earl if he could answer that specific question.
My noble friends and I accept the need set out in the Statement to retain a four-boat strategic deterrent, though we are disappointed that there appears to be no effort to discuss with the French the possibility of Anglo-French nuclear co-operation. We see no defence requirement for the tactical air-to-surface

1467
missile outlined in the Statement. We see no requirement for it, nor do we think any other European NATO government think other than we do.
I should like to ask the Minister about paragraph 15 of the Statement. It refers to a capability for other contingencies, a capability—quite a substantial one: a strategic reserve—distinct from the role in Europe, or in national defence or our well known, familiar, specific British commitments. What are these contingencies? Will the noble Earl tell us what they are? Why should we now take on apparently new tasks and new responsibilities? What has happened in Europe to make any out-of-area responsibilities more necessary than they were before? I should be grateful for some reassurance on that point.
I turn now to the naval paragraphs in the Statement. We are all aware that although the Soviet fleet is becoming smaller, it is nevertheless becoming more modern. On these Benches we see no reason why naval forces should not be introduced into the disarmament process. The only people to oppose it are those in NATO. The Russians want it, but NATO refuses it under the particular leadership of the Prime Minister. That certainly was the case at the recent NATO summit. Perhaps the noble Earl will explain why we refused to allow naval arms to be included in the disarmament process.
Finally, I come to a point upon which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. In my view we must have a proper audit debate on these proposals. The Government must not take decisions on such matters independently of Parliament. In this connection, I am not reassured by paragraph 1 in which the Government promise to consult the NATO authorities and our allies, the defence industries and all those affected in the Armed Forces and the MoD's civilian staff. There is no mention of future consultation with Parliament and no mention of a White Paper or a Green Paper. However, these are important matters. I believe that a debate on the subject would show that the announcements in the Government's Statement today, and such decisions as they have taken, are too limited and are likely to be overtaken very soon by events.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and for the questions which they raised on the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was somewhat more generous than the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Perhaps I may deal first with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, upon which I think I can be helpful. He said that he was glad about the Statement and welcomed overall some of its aspects. He said that it was a long Statement. It is indeed a long Statement. However, there has been much to announce and there will be much more to announce at a later date. He went on to say he was delighted that the Soviet's navy strength was falling. That may be true, but whereas the numbers may be falling the quality is certainly improving.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made a most important point about the morale of the Armed Forces. That is one of the most important reasons why
1468
we decided to make the Statement this afternoon before the Summer Recess. We realised that there was a certain amount of uncertainty as to the direction in which we were moving.
I have visited many units during the past year and I have found that morale and spirits are very high among members of our Armed Forces. I think that the release of the Statement will come as a great relief to them. As I have already said, a great deal of further work remains to be carried out during the summer and autumn, but further final decisions will depend upon progress in CFE and the outcome of the two plus four discussions with allies on military strategy. Further announcements will follow when all that is complete. The announcements made today show the direction in which we are moving and, if I may say so, scotch the wild rumours which we have seen recently in newspaper reports. They indicate a much clearer future for our excellent Armed Forces.
The next point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, concerned retraining for those who may be made redundant in the future. I must stress that we hope there will be as few redundancies as possible. As regards retraining, that aspect of the matter will be under consideration in the future. The noble Lord also asked about the EFA, the European fighter aircraft. I should tell him that we see a continuing need for the aircraft.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked also about the defence industries. I can say again, as I have said many times in this House and as the Statement also says, that we aim to inform, consult and make proposals to the defence industries. Therefore, it will be a matter of ongoing discussions. However, as regards the future—what they wish to do and what their direction will be—that must be a matter for them to decide, in conjunction with their workforce, while at the same time considering the best way forward for their shareholders.
The noble Lord also mentioned the out of area capability. I must forcefully say again that the world in which we live is an uncertain place. Therefore, we want to organise four brigades with NATO or home defence roles so as to provide, if required, a self-contained division-size force either for use in Europe or for tasks outside NATO.
I shall deal now with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, concerning the reasonable rate of inflation. We have made sensible and adequate provision for the effect of general inflation on the defence programme. He also mentioned, as perhaps will other noble Lords, the peace dividend. We cannot answer that question until the further work and consultation referred to in the Statement has been completed. We need to cost the proposals in detail and then consider the defence programme as a whole.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was not quite as generous about the Government's Statement. He asked particularly why it was that we had not taken a more radical step. I can tell him that we have most certainly taken a radical look at the matter, but

1469
not an irresponsible one. Some capabilities remain central to our security and cannot be eliminated. We decided on balance that the international situation justifies retention of a wide range of capable forces and that we should continue to contribute to all our current NATO roles, albeit at lower levels in some cases. We aim to retain all capabilities in militarily significant quantities and to make genuine contributions to the common defence commensurate with those of our allies.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also asked the same question about the out of area capabilities and responsibilities to which I replied in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I trust that the noble Earl will forgive my intervention, but can he explain whether this is an increase in our provision for out of area capability?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords; it is not an increase in our out of area provision. However, it is something which will be constantly examined, as and when circumstances demand that this should be done.
The noble Lord also asked about maritime arms control. He asked why the West would not agree to include naval forces in negotiations. The answer is that the Soviets have agreed to the exclusion of naval forces from the CFE mandate because the huge imbalance in land forces in Europe is the main priority.
I trust that I have been able to answer most of the questions put to me by both noble Lords.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope my noble friend is aware that the House will be grateful to him for repeating this immensely important Statement. I should like to ask him one or two questions which arise from it. First, can he say whether the reduction in the army will involve the closing down or the abolition of any individual regiments and, if so, whether any decision has been taken as to which regiments will be involved? Further, is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in the army on this subject, especially in view of past history?
Secondly, my noble friend referred to some reduction in the numbers, although not in the strength, of the USSR's navy. Can he say why a country which consists of a large land mass with hardly any dependence on sea communications needs to maintain the very large navy which the USSR maintains, except for possible aggression?
Thirdly, will my noble friend say whether the Russian army, air force and chemical warfare establishment has been in any sense reduced as a result of the events of the past year, or whether it is continuing on the same scale? Is there any sign of reductions in the Soviet forces comparable in proportion to those that he has announced in respect of our own?
Finally, will my noble friend reassure the House that the Government will not forget the fact that twice
1470
in the lifetime of some of us the running down of our Armed Forces has brought this country to the edge of defeat?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks, particularly the last point to which I know that all noble Lords will pay particular attention.
My noble friend asked, first, a most important question concerning redundancies and the future of individual units. We intend to retain a spectrum of existing capabilities, but a good deal of detailed work must now be done on both concepts and organisation. It is too soon to comment on the implications for individual units, although there will necessarily be some reductions. However, as my honourable friend said in another place during a recent debate, although some reductions will be required, we remain totally committed to the regimental system, thereby combining the traditional, historic and essential esprit de corps that has served us so proudly over so many years.
As regards the possibility of the threat having gone away, we do not believe that the Soviet Union currently has any hostile intentions. However, it retains formidable military capabilities and will do so even after the implementation of the CFE. It is important to bear that point in mind.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as one who has carried out possibly the largest defence review ever held in peacetime, having negotiated the withdrawals from Mauritius, Singapore and Gan and negotiated the beginning of the withdrawals from Malta, let me say quite frankly to the House that there is no easy, quick peace dividend. That is tabloid sloganising.
Is the Minister aware that withdrawals and reductions must be a graduated process? The arms industries also need time for change. The services want to avoid turbulence and massive retirements. That is most important.
Is the Minister aware that there is still a need for substantial professional Armed Forces and that, although a major threat to our democracy has been mainly removed by the crumbling of the Communist empire, it is still unsettled in Eastern Europe and there is unease in other parts of the world where, within our own alliances and defence agreements, we may well be involved? There is obviously also a recognition that our Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve and auxiliary forces will become increasingly more important.
Is the Minister aware that we have reason to believe that our faith in NATO has been proved? We now hope that in its broadest sense—militarily, defensively and with a new political dimension in keeping with recent events—it may also give us a guarantee of peace in Europe for many years to come. However, is he also aware that it will have to remain vigilant? The Soviet Union still has a massive nuclear and conventional military capability and consequently we must remain on our guard.
Finally, is the Minister aware that reappraisals and armed force reductions take time? The options for change and defence savings are clearly there. The

1471
Minister referred to a possible 18 per cent. cut in service manpower and civilians, but I hope that it is done sensitively, cautiously and carefully. Is he aware that our Armed Forces must not be brutalised in that euphoria of a rush for a so-called peace dividend? In doing so, we might seriously impair the defence of the realm.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that was a most magnificent contribution to the debate. I agree with absolutely every word that the noble Lord said.
Perhaps I may pick out some particular points. The noble Lord said that there is no easy, quick dividend, as I have told noble Lords. He said that withdrawals and reductions must be a graduated process. That will happen. He said that there is still a need for substantial professional Armed Forces. That is most certainly the case and will continue to be the case. He laid particular emphasis on the continuing need for the Territorial Army and reservists in the vital role that lies ahead of them. Finally, he said that it is at all times the responsibility and duty of this country to remain on its guard. I agree with the noble Lord and thank him for his comments.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I take on board, like the noble Lord, Lord Mason, the figure of an 18 per cent. cut, in both military and civilian personnel. However, perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that it has been traditional, whichever government have been in power, that, when the axe comes down, it is the teeth arms within all three services that catch it. Perhaps the noble Earl has looked at the figure in the last White Paper regarding the size of the Ministry of Defence. Does he agree that, when planning the reconstruction, the same percentage, if not more, should also hold for the Ministry of Defence? That is a large establishment. Does he, agree that, if we are to have fewer forces, we can certainly cut the commands and the staff?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, is interesting to hear on that point. As regards the teeth versus tail plans for the support area, we are determined to reduce support at least in proportion to reduction in front line units. I make that point perfectly clear. Reductions in the Ministry of Defence and in the general support areas will also be commensurate with the front-line reductions. However, I should point out to the noble Viscount that many such reductions were carried out in the early 1980s.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, speaking as one with an industrial interest to declare, I think that industry will certainly want to give much more study to the Statement that has been made. Nothing precise can be said at the moment.
However, I am glad that my noble friend was able to say what he said about the long-term future of the Navy and the aim to keep it as modern and as well equipped as possible. If it is to be a 40-frigate Navy, I hope that it will not slip into a 39-frigate Navy, as the present frigate size has slipped from 50 to fewer than 50.
1472
I welcome the reductions being achieved through natural wastage and scrapping of ships after completing their life. However, will my noble friend confirm whether orders and start dates for warships, which are in place at the moment, will stay in place? On the question of naval forces reduction, is he aware that there are long lead times on ship design and that the Russians are perhaps not ready to give up the high quality of warship design that they have achieved? Is that not probably one of the reasons why they do not wish to enter into a naval forces reduction?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the last point made by my noble friend is probably not quite right. Both the super-powers—Russia and America—agreed that they would not enter into maritime talks. My noble friend asked about the approximately 40 frigates and destroyers. As I said at the beginning of the Statement, all these proposals are up for consultation and general information. That also goes for my noble friend's points about orders staying in place for frigates and destroyers. I take his point about naval force reductions.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the promised consideration of the numbers of the volunteer reserve forces which my right honourable friend has proposed, will my noble friend ask him to bear three points in mind? The first is that the wind-down in regular forces will provide automatically a source of vehicles and equipment suitable for equipping and training the reserves. Secondly, the wind-down in personnel in the regular teeth arms will provide a highly professional source of cadre and permanent staff for territorial and other reserve formations.
Finally, and perhaps rather more originally, will my right honourable friend bear in mind that the training of young people in the volunteer reserve forces is an admirable means of character formation for our young people? At present, that is in very short supply. We should welcome an expansion of it for social as well as military reasons.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I certainly agree with the last point that my noble friend made. I can tell him out of interest that yesterday I visited some members of the ACS at Crowborough. I found them a most impressive unit of young men and women aged between 13 and 18. Not only did some of them wish to play a part in the Armed Forces later, but as my noble friend said, they make a most admirable contribution to the local community. That is a point that we shall bear in mind.
I also take my noble friend's points about the TA, and training and equipment. I assure him that we shall look closely at it in the months that lie ahead. I am glad to see that your Lordships are already starting to make proposals for the future. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will find that most helpful.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I have two questions to put to the noble Earl, concerning the future of nuclear weapons in the British forces. That is, the future of American-made nuclear weapons in the hands of

1473
British forces. The first question concerns TASM. The Statement mentioned the Tornados and other RAF formations whizzing about the globe with considerable speed, coming back from Germany and going to Germany. It was rather hard to follow. I note that in the report of the House of Commons Defence Committee, published this morning, the committee has this to say in paragraph 68 about TASM:
"The deployment of a new sub-strategic nuclear weapon system, even if replacing an existing one, could be interpreted as a hostile gesture in the current climate of arms control and the relaxation of military tensions … There is no evident urgency to deploy a nuclear-armed TASM: rather the opposite".
Can the noble Earl make clear whether the Statement he has just read alters the hitherto declared intention of the Government to acquire an American-built nuclear system for that purpose?
My second question is about the future of the strategic deterrent, the four boats. Paragraph 86 of the same report from the House of Commons Defence Committee states:
"the prospect of speedy progress in START negotiations, and of a second round of START, again raises the possibility of the UK nuclear deterrent being affected by future negotiations, either now, or as a result of Soviet attempts to curb future transfer by the US to the UK of strategic weapon systems".
To my knowledge, that is the first statement ever to have come from a responsible body controlled by the Government party, admitting the existence of such a possibility. Nevertheless, in the Statement this afternoon the Government stated boldly that they would maintain the four-boat strategic deterrent, as always. Have the Government now taken into account the possibility outlined by the House of Commons Defence Committee in the paragraph that I have just read?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have not had time to consider this aspect in the report of the House of Commons Defence Committee. It was published today, I think I am right in saying, and we have not had time to look at it carefully. However the policy of the four-boat system will continue.
Regarding tactical air to surface missiles, TASM, which the noble Lord mentioned, there is no change to the United Kingdom position on it. NATO has identified the requirement for TASM. The replacement of the United Kingdom's WE-177 free-fall nuclear bomb will allow penetration of improved Soviet air defences. The WE-177 is likely to reach the end of service life towards the end of the century. The United Kingdom continues to study options for replacement.
Regarding the United States and French options under consideration for the United Kingdom TASM, the Government are not prepared to comment on individual options under consideration. That makes some points in rejoinder to the noble Lord's question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House agrees that this important Statement deserves a full debate in the House in due course. There is no hope that we shall have a debate this side
1474
of the Recess and it may well be that the Government will choose the opportunity of the debate on the Address for that purpose. However, we cannot expect that until November. The subject should be discussed between the usual channels between now and 8th October.
However, my noble friend Lord Williams suggested a Green Paper or a White Paper might be published. That would be extremely helpful in advance of a debate. We might then have a full government Statement in a suitable paper, especially as the Statement said that further discussions are to take place between the Government and our NATO partners on this. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell the House whether there is a possibility that such a paper will be available in due course, certainly before a debate.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the way ahead for further discussion on defence has not yet been determined by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. At the moment we are about to enter into discussions with our NATO allies. We shall consult far and wide. For the future, the exact way in which more information will be divulged is not entirely known. I understand and will pass on the comments of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Broadcasting Bill
4.47 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 94 [Procedure to be followed by Authority in connection with consideration of application for national licences]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 272 and 273:
Page 78, line 29, at end insert ("and").
Page 78, line 33, leave out from ("force") to end of line 35.
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 were spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move them both en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 78, line 35, at end insert:
("(cc) where the proposed service consists wholly or mainly in the broadcasting of music, that a sufficient amount of time is given to the broadcasting of live music.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment concerns the amount of live music which is to be broadcast on the radio. When the independent local radio system was first introduced in the early 1970s, the then Conservative Government were persuaded that the new stations should have an obligation to provide employment in music, since it was recognised that gramophone recordings of music would be a substantial proportion of the output. There was little likelihood that the commercial radio stations would provide much in the way of specially produced music.

1475
This obligation was therefore incorporated into franchise applications and radio stations that were given franchises entered into a commitment to spend not less than 3 per cent. of their net advertising revenue on the employment or engagement of musicians. This obligation has evidently worked well for both radio stations and musicians. On numerous occasions when radio stations have used the 3 per cent. obligation to sponsor live musical engagements, they have made a profit over and above the amount originally spent under the 3 per cent. obligation. Capital Radio, for instance, used the 3 per cent. allocation to sponsor the Wren Orchestra and its hugely acclaimed Capital Radio Jazz Festival. Even before the advent of the Broadcasting Bill, the lighter regulatory touch on radio has been apparent as the 3 per cent. commitment has not been enforced for the new radio stations such as Melody FM, Jazz FM and Kiss FM.
With the only restriction on the use of gramophone recordings being the cost of a Phonographic Performance Limited licence—PPL is the licensing arm of the British record industry—the new London-based 24 hours a day music stations such as Melody FM, and from September Kiss FM, rely totally on gramophone records for their music output. There is an exception with Jazz FM at present which broadcasts some live jazz performances. The three new national radio networks proposed under the Broadcasting Bill are likely to consist of two music-based channels. We discussed that matter earlier. Without any restrictions being imposed, they will almost certainly rely totally on recorded music for their output. That position is unfair to musicians. Further, the commercial pressures on the BBC as the public service broadcaster which at present provides proper employment for musicians and produces specially recorded music programmes will intensify as the commercial operators can be seen to obtain their music more cheaply. I believe that will have an unfortunate knock-on effect.
The commercial broadcasters are now making determined efforts to obtain records even more cheaply by continuing to press PPL for a reduction in its licence fee structure. The ordinary session musicians who perform on these records receive no further payment for their continued use on radio. They, not unnaturally, consider it grossly unfair that records made primarily for sale and supply to the public are now used 24 hours a day for supplying music on radio. They also consider it unjust that corporate businesses, for example the Hanson Trust which owns Melody FM, should seemingly exploit the musical performances of musicians without investing in their future. The Musicians' Union contends that a broad-based musical profession can only exist when musicians are given regular opportunities to perform. Broadcasting has always been such an outlet.
We must not forget the listeners. They also highly value and appreciate the original quality of live performances, whether of classical or popular music.
1476
This rich stream of music could be lost if economic considerations take priority over the choice of material used by the new services. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I wish to support the amendment which touches on an important problem. The other day we discussed the position of London as a centre of live musical performance. These radio stations are living off the skills and the work of musicians. In my view, they are gaining a short-term advantage if they do not consider that it is in their interests to employ the musicians in live performances. It is not a question of killing but rather of starving the goose that lays golden eggs for them in the shape of the substantial profits which the music stations make. Given the fact that the levy system which operated in the past has produced such admirable bodies as the Wren Orchestra, I consider it was an experiment that proved itself to be valuable and added to the cultural life of the nation. I hope therefore that the Government will look favourably upon the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I can understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness and of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to try to help musical performers by their amendment. However, it would be too onerous a requirement to stipulate that a minimum amount of live music should be broadcast by music-based services. That could greatly increase their costs. Even in the case of the national services, this would be a prime example of jeopardising the development of new services by placing substantial and in some ways unnecessary burdens on them from the outset.
In the case of local music-based services, the requirement that is envisaged in the amendment would put pressure on applicants to make financially unviable proposals. I believe it was only yesterday that the Committee was concerned about the viability of local radio stations and commercial radio stations. If we try to place this kind of imposition upon them, it will give even more substance to the worries that have been expressed.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that by using tapes or records, radio stations were exploiting musical performers. However, every time the music of an orchestra or individual is heard on the radio, that person or orchestra is publicised. Therefore there is a two-way traffic here. If we start to place these kinds of burden on commercial radio stations, which constitute a new enterprise, their costs will be increased enormously and they may become unviable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to add a few words in support of the amendment that we are discussing. I believe it is the case that broadcasting or any reproduction of performance can be either an extremely good thing or completely destructive. I should give the example of the BBC whose contribution to music in this country has been tremendous. I do not think anyone would dispute the fact that the pre-eminence which this country now enjoys in the musical field is in no small degree due to the work of the BBC over the years, particularly in sound radio but also to some extent in television. The BBC has always recognised that it is not sufficient to

1477
broadcast performances which are recorded, and that the organisation that benefits from those performances has a duty to sustain the source of those performances. The BBC has fulfilled that obligation.
In this amendment we are suggesting that that obligation should equally be recognised in this new sphere. I should have thought that was a reasonable request. I do not believe that anything unreasonable has been suggested. The amendment does not stipulate how long a "sufficient amount of time" should be. However, it at least places some obligation upon an organisation. One of the reasons for the enormous hostility shown towards pirate radio stations is that they did not pay anything for the music that they pumped out. Pirate radio stations were entirely destructive regarding live music. Live music was the source of what those stations were transmitting.
I hope that the Minister will have another look at this matter. I hope he will consider that what the amendment proposes is not unreasonable, dogmatic or doctrinal. The amendment merely tries to ensure that the source of the material that is transmitted should not be ignored. Commercial radio is moving into a sphere of considerable importance and it ought to accept some of the obligations which its great competitor the BBC has always recognised.
5 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of my noble friend the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned Jazz FM. I am a director of that company. It is our policy to use live music wherever possible. However, it is expensive. It is not cheap to record at live venues. It is more expensive than playing records.
The main debate on PPL and needle time will take place tomorrow but, by way of example, I remind the House that this country represents about 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. of the world record market, and the international record industry has been able to extract from the UK what could be in excess of 30 per cent. of all world broadcast royalties. That is something that we should like to put right at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Airedale: It may be that one radio station cannot afford to employ live musicians just as one local newspaper cannot afford its own foreign correspondent in China. However, in the same way as newspapers share foreign correspondents, surely radio stations can share live musicians and overcome the problem in that way.
Earl Ferrers: That is an ingenious device. I do not understand how a local radio station operating in the South West can share a musician with a radio station operating in the North East.
Lord Airedale: They would share the cost of putting on a concert. That concert would be available to all of them, as recorded, to be broadcast. The fact that it was recorded when they broadcast it would not affect the position. They would have employed live musicians to provide the recording.
Earl Ferrers: The debate is becoming more convoluted. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that it is perfectly acceptable to play music that is recorded provided that one has employed the musicians who recorded it in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that there was nothing doctrinal about the requirement. I believe that it is doctrinal. One would be telling all new local, commercial and community radio stations that they must employ a certain number of live musicians. The noble Lord compared the situation with the BBC and said that the BBC had done an enormous amount for musicians. That is true, but for years the BBC had a monopoly of broadcasting and a licence fee to fall back on. With that licence fee it could afford to employ live musicians and orchestras. In this case we are talking about a multitude of new services—possibly 300 or so—all operating on different wavebands in small communities. Some may operate within a radius of five to 10 miles and others over longer distances. If this type of requirement is placed upon them, as my noble friend Lord Colwyn said, it will increase their costs enormously.
There was no point in noble Lords saying yesterday that they were very worried about how the radio stations would be viable if in the next breath they say that they have to employ live musicians, which would put up their costs.
Lord Winstanley: I believe that I am right in saying that the clause deals with national commercial radio and not with local commercial radio.
Earl Ferrers: That may well be so, but these new enterprises have to be allowed to get off the ground without being inhibited too greatly.
Lord Ardwick: The noble Lord has talked of the employment of musicians as if they were to be on the staff. The amendment does not say that; it refers to the broadcasting of live music. That is quite different from having an expensive resident orchestra.
Earl Ferrers: I quite see that. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, were the licensee of a radio station and employed the London Symphony Orchestra he would find it very much more expensive than providing a tape.
Lord Ardwick: There is no need to go to such lengths. To employ four or five musicians occasionally would be sufficient. That would be live music. All my life, since the advent of the "talkies" when musicians lost their jobs in the cinemas, musicians have had a hard life. There are no rank-and-file musicians driving six-cylinder cars along Whitehall. It is a life that is fraught with difficulties. Musicians fall prey to physical difficulties which affect their limbs, and so on. One always has to have sympathy for them.
Earl Ferrers: I have enormous sympathy for them. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, is quite right to pursue their lobby on their behalf. However, there are two sides to the story. The introduction of such a requirement would be very expensive for the new organisations.
I come back to the point that every time music is played some form of royalty should be paid. I should

1479
be very surprised if there is no advantage to the players of the music because every time their music is played it is to their advantage.
Baroness Birk: It was unfair of the Minister to say in reply to my noble friend Lord Ardwick that he was quite right to pursue their lobby. It is not just a case of pursuing a lobby. It is true that the Musicians' Union is concerned about the situation, and with good reason. However, the objective is to protect live music so that we do not reach a situation in this country in which everything is recorded and there is no live music.
As has been pointed out, the amendment does not require that a specific amount of time should be devoted to live music. If the Minister was prepared to say that he would look at the matter again, I should be happy even to change the phrase "a sufficient amount of time" so that we keep the important element of live music in radio broadcasting. This is the time to do it—in this Bill. Otherwise are we to enter decades in which children will not have the opportunity to listen to live music and there will be no incentive for people to take up music as a profession? That would he a very bleak outlook.
If the Minister is not prepared to take the matter any further, then I shall have to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I do not know whether he intends to stand up.
Earl Ferrers: As the noble Baroness was about to withdraw the amendment if I did not stand up, that gave me a very great incentive not to do so. Of course I shall take note of what the noble Baroness said. However, I really cannot give her any indication that I am likely to change my mind, even though I understand her philosophy. In a way this is similar to the time when television came along and people said that all the cinemas would close. However, actors still find other work, on television and elsewhere.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, or his noble friend who said that the clause deals with national radio. Amendment No. 274 deals with national radio but Amendment No. 297C, which we are also debating, deals with local radio.
I do not believe that I shall be able to help the noble Baroness because when one is trying to encourage small organisations to start up, placing such a liability on them would weigh the balance against their viability. I do not see how one can suggest to a local community radio station, which might be set up to put forward the views of certain ethnic minorities, that it should broadcast a certain amount of live music. That would be an intolerable imposition.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 73, line 38, leave out ("to (c)") and insert ("and (b)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment together with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 95 [Award of national licence to person submitting highest cash bid]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 275A:
Page 79, line 9, at end insert ("; and where it appears to the Authority, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of this subsection, those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 109—I apologise, in the desire to get along quickly, I went a little too fast. This amendment is a technical but important amendment. It follows Clause 17(4) and makes clear that the authority may address the question of whether exceptional circumstances apply in relation to each national franchise application individually. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I apologise to the Committee for not having realised that the amendment would come up for discussion so soon. This is a very unfortunate amendment. It gives different definitions of "exceptional circumstances" for radio without explaining them. It weakens the situation for radio compared with television and the ITC. It gives the authority no direction when defining exceptional circumstances, allowing it to interpret them in different ways for different licences. It could mean that the speech-based channel is awarded to a higher quality bidder while the popular music channel is awarded to a bidder who could target a higher proportion of listeners in, say, social classes A, B and C.
It is not an equitable and transparent way of awarding licences. If the ITC is required to apply a single and defined interpretation of exceptional circumstances, there is no reason why the Radio Authority should not be in the same situation. We return to the point that the Government refuse to accept quality requirements for anything in the Bill if they can possibly avoid it. It is therefore even more important that the Bill should not be weakened further in this way.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I apologise to the Committee for rising straight after my noble friend. I should like to say a few brief words in support of her remarks. We feel rather worried that already the Radio Authority does not have to apply any quality requirements to the applicants for the three commercial services. This amendment further weakens the Bill by not giving the authority any direction in defining exceptional circumstances and allowing it to interpret exceptional circumstances in different ways for different licences.
It is a fact that in relation to television the viewers' preferences were extensively discussed, but we have said very little about listeners' views in relation to sound broadcasting. It would seem unwise to neglect those views. After all, at the end of the day it is the listeners who count. Even the most superficial research among radio listeners shows that they have definite quality requirements. They have priorities about what

1481
they wish to hear on radio which should be taken into consideration when deciding the make-up of the three new national radio services.
When discussing radio with people, one recognises that there is a thread running through all age groups which marks a preference for more speech-oriented programmes, plays and discussions. There is also a desire for more live music. Those preferences are expressed both in the older age group and among people in their 20s and 30s. Many listen to their car radios. One could say that for them radio has a very powerful opinion-forming influence. Even among young people there is a very distinct group which wants what the young people describe as a more "with it" Radio 4-type programme. Again, they would like to have something of substance. It is important to remember that a wish for quality and substance has been expressed by all the age groups. There is also great loyalty and devotion to radio, which has not been much discussed in this Bill.
The Government have made out that radio is of less importance than television. One often feels that to many people it is of more importance than television. But that is not reflected in the provisions of the Bill. I believe that there should be greater protection for listeners when the three commercial services are chosen. It is a pity that this government amendment further weakens the Bill in that regard. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments in response to what my noble friend and I have said.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am genuinely puzzled by the purpose of this amendment. As we keep repeating, the heart of the Bill is a bidding system. We sought to modify that bidding system with a reference to exceptional circumstances and the Government went along with that desire in the case of television contracts. We were very happy about that, even though they did not go so far as we wished.
I think I am right in saying that this amendment applies to the national radio contracts. Both the noble Baronesses said that it seems to give the Radio Authority a blank cheque in defining exceptional circumstances. As I am critical of a bidding system, I am basically in favour of the authority having the right to give the contract to someone other than the highest bidder where there are exceptional circumstances. However, this provision seems to be a blank cheque. I simply do not understand what lies behind it.
Earl Ferrers: There is a certain amount of confusion. I shall do my best to try to straighten the matter out. It is not a question of giving a blank cheque. Contrary to what was said by the noble Baronesses, we are simply trying to introduce uniformity. The amendment follows exactly the wording of Clause 17(4). It makes clear that the same set of exceptional circumstances may occur more than once. In other words, it means that exceptional circumstances would not cease to apply in relation to applications for the third national service simply because the authority had invoked the exceptional
1482
circumstances provision in the case of the two preceding national radio competitions. It does not give a different definition of exceptional circumstances. It offers the same clarification as for television in Clause 17(4).
The amendment is being used to reopen the quality debate which is not affected by it at all. The purpose is a narrow one. The amendment simply repeats the words which apply to television in Clause 17 and applies them to radio in this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 79, line 41, leave out ("(subject to section 96)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 80, line 5, at end insert:
("(10) In a case where the licence has been awarded to any person by virtue of the operation of this section, in accordance with any provision of this Part, on the revocation of an earlier grant of the licence, subsection (9) shall have effect as if—

(a) paragraph (b) were omitted; and

(b) the matters specified in that subsection included an indication of the circumstances in which the licence has been awarded to that person.").

The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 278 not moved.]
Clause 96 [Holder of national licence to give security against failure to maintain proposed service]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 80, line 6, leave out subsections (1) to (3).
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I have to advise the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 280.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 280 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 80, line 30, leave out ("revoke the licence,") and insert ("serve on him a notice revoking the licence as from the time the notice is served on him,").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 282 and 283:
Page 80, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 33.
Page 80, line 43, leave out subsections (6) to (10) and insert:
("(6) Where the Authority revoke a national licence under this section or under section 104, they shall serve on the licence holder a notice requiring him to pay to them, within a specified period, a financial penalty of the prescribed amount.
(7) In subsection (6) "the prescribed amount" means—

1483

(a) 7 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for the last complete accounting period of the licence holder (as determined in accordance with section 97(2) to (6)); or

(b) where his first complete accounting period has not yet ended, 7 per cent. of the amount which the Authority estimate would have been the qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as so determined).

(8) Any financial penalty payable by any body by virtue of subsection (6) shall, in addition to being recoverable from that body as provided by section 115(4), be recoverable by the Authority as a debt due to them from any person who controls that body.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 282 and 283 with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 97 [Additional payments to be made in respect of national licences]:
[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 285 to 292:
Page 81, line 36, after ("him") insert ("or by any connected person").
Page 81, line 39, leave out ("by him").
Page 81, line 43, after ("holder") insert ("or any connected person").
Page 81, line 44, leave out ("him") and insert ("the licence holder").
Page 82, line 2, leave out ("the licence holder and") and insert:

("(a) the licence holder or any connected person, and

(b) ").

Page 2, line 3, after ("holder") insert ("or any connected person").
Page 82, line 12, leave out ("the licence holder, in any accounting period of his,") and insert (", in any accounting period of the licence holder, the licence holder or any connected person").
Page 82, line 19, leave out ("him") and insert ("the licence holder or the connected person, as the case may be").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 285 to 292 with Amendment No. 145. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment no. 293:
Page 82, line 44, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 293A:
After Clause 97, insert the following new clause: ("Restriction on changes in control over holder of national licence
.—(1) Where—
(a) any change in the persons having control over—

(i) a body to which a national licence has been awarded or transferred in accordance with this Part of this Act, or

(ii) an associated programme provider,

takes place within the relevant period, and
(b) that change takes place without having been previously approved for the purposes of this section by the Authority,
then (subject to subsection (5)) the Authority may, if the licence has not yet been granted, refuse to grant it to the body referred to in paragraph (a) (i) above or, if it has already been granted, serve on that body a notice revoking it.
(2) In subsection (1)—
"associated programme provider", in relation to such a body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) of that subsection, means any body which is connected with that body and appears to the Authority to be, or to be likely to be, involved to any extent in the provision of programmes for inclusion in the licensed service; and
"the relevant period", in relation to a national licence, means the period beginning with the date of the award of the licence and ending on the first anniversary of the date of its coming into force;
and paragraph 3 in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection as if a body to which a national licence has been awarded but not yet granted were the holder of such a licence.
(3) The Authority shall refuse to approve for the purposes of this section such a change as is mentioned in subsection (1) (a) if it appears to them that the change would be prejudicial to the provision under the licence, by the body referred to in subsection (1) (a) (i), of a service which accords with the proposals submitted under section 93(3)(a) by that body (or, as the case may be, by the body to which the licence was originally awarded).
(4) The Authority may refuse so to approve any such change if, in any circumstances not falling within subsection (3), they consider it appropriate to do so.
(5) The Authority shall not under subsection (1) refuse to grant a licence to, or serve a notice on, any body unless they have given it a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.
(6) Where under subsection (1) the Authority refuse to grant a licence to any body, section 95 shall have effect as if that body had not made an application for the licence; and, where under that subsection they serve on any body a notice revoking its licence, subsections (5) and (6) of section 104 shall apply in relation to that notice as they apply in relation to a notice served under subsection (3) of that section.").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 163A. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 293AA to 293AE, as amendments to Amendment No. 293A, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 293A agreed to.
Clause 98 [Applications for other licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 293B and 294 not moved.]
Lord Ardwick Lord Ardwick moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 83, line 18, after ("provided") insert ("including news").
The noble Lord said: The amendment proposes that applicants' proposals for local radio licences must include news programmes. We do not suggest what those news programmes should be. We are not thinking in elaborate terms, but we believe that there should be some news programmes. It should be an absolute and explicit requirement on all local radio stations to provide some local news programmes.
At present the Bill requires only a diverse and broad range of local programmes with no guarantee for specific programmes. While it may be right that in the Bill local services are not required to carry sports, children's or religious programmes, and so on, the importance of local news in every area should surely

1485
make it a prerequisite for all services. It would not be possible to cater for local tastes without news programming. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, says that it should be absolute and explicit that local broadcasters should carry news. Part III deliberately avoids imposing any requirement on the Radio Authority licensees to carry news and current affairs. I see no reason why, say, a jazz or country and western station should have to do so. The indications are that many services will wish to carry news, and some listeners like it. But I do not believe that there is any reason to require the Radio Authority's licensees to have to mirror the public service obligations of the BBC radio stations. It is far preferable to base the Radio Authority licensing on what listeners want and on the extension of listener choice.
In addressing questions such as this it is important not to be misled by false parallels with television. In British terrestrial television at present we have a genuine duopoly. ITV and Channel 4 broadly match BBC1 and BBC2 in terms of both coverage and programming obligations. There is no equivalent for radio. For many people the most familiar radio services are the BBC national networks, Radios 1 to 4 (and soon 5). For these there is as yet no independent equivalent. The Bill provides scope for up to three independent national services; but they must establish themselves, and that will take time.
There are of course a number of excellent independent local radio services. But they do not have universal coverage, and any networked or syndicated programming which they take has to fit in with their local character. For radio it is a mistake to imagine that, if the BBC has a programming obligation, the independent sector should necessarily have it too. It is far better to take the BBC networks (and the BBC local services, which also have public service obligations) as a bedrock, which enables independent services to be more lightly regulated and to concentrate on adding something different for listeners. That approach will ensure both that there will be more independent services than under heavier regulation and that they will expand in a way which genuinely adds to listener choice. The Government's approach to news on independent radio is entirely consistent with this philosophy.
It may well be that the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, will bear fruit and that local radio will find it prudent and proper to carry news. However, I do not think that it should be obliged to do so.
Lord Ardwick: It would probably be prudent. However, when we talk of radio news in a local station we do not refer to any vast enterprise. We are not talking of anything expensive. We refer to an arrangement with a local paper to supply spot news, if a disaster or some such event occurs. There might be some arrangement with ITN to have the national news headlines. Those are the terms in which we are thinking.
Lord Bonham-Carter: One cannot help but support the noble Lord on this matter. The noble Earl said that he is adding to consumer choice by local radio stations not broadcasting something. It is a very odd way of adding to consumer choice by not doing something. One cannot choose what is not available.
As usual we fall back on the public service obligation of the BBC. Whenever anything is missing from commercial radio we are told that it will be picked up by the BBC. It will walk behind commercial television and radio picking up ill-considered items which the commercial companies do not believe will pay.
That is a formula for lower quality across the board and that is our objection to the whole Bill. I do not suspect that these amendments will cure it of that intrinsic disqualification. However, this is a classic example of the Government saying, "We shall not ask them to do anything unless it pays in hard cash and if that item is necessary for the public the BBC will do it"
5.30p.m.
Lord Airedale: Let us suppose that a local road is blocked by an overturned vehicle and that the police inform the local radio station of the fact. Is that an item of news and, if so, ought not the local radio station be required to broadcast it?
Earl Ferrers: It might well be an item of news but whether or not to broadcast it would be a matter for the local radio station. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, wishes to place an imposition on the stations to broadcast all such news. That is not right because there are many other avenues where such news will be broadcast. It may be that the local radio station will wish to do so, but we are discussing the proposal to impose an obligation.
I find the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to be quite extraordinary, and not for the first time. He asked the question: how do you add to consumer choice by omitting something? Of course, by omitting something you allow something else. If the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, were to have dinner and to take the last helping of chicken it would mean that someone else would be denied it. However, if in his generosity he decided to take the fish the chicken would be available for someone else. To say that if one omits something one is denying freedom of choice is an extraordinarily narrow point of view. One is not doing so—
Lord Bonham-Carter: One would not be adding anything.
Earl Ferrers: One would be adding to the consumer choice of the person following, but I do not wish to go too far with that analogy. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, expressed anxiety about whether the local radio station should transmit the fact that the road is blocked. A commercial radio station might do so, but the BBC would do so because it must provide news.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am provoked to speak because the answers that the Minister has given remind me of a gentleman whom I knew in the independent local radio sector. He complained bitterly

1487
about the regulatory system which sought to impose public service standards on the holders of independent local radio stations. He had once run a local radio station in the United States. He said that it was marvellous and all that he did was to send a chap out to the airport to pick up tapes for the programmes. He took them back to the station, put them on and all he had to do all day was insert local advertisements. That was his blissful idea of local radio and the Government appear to be bringing local radio down to that level.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is mistaken. An applicant might go to the Radio Authority and say, "I want to have a radio licence. I shall be transmitting all the records and tapes that I shall receive from Heathrow airport. I shall collect them and bung them on". However, they would not be covering the variety of interests for which they must cater. If that proposal were contained in the application but another application did not contain such a mundane attitude, that other applicant would be awarded the licence.
Lord Moyne: I am inclined to sympathise with the Opposition. It appears to be a mild obligation to impose on broadcasters. It is a small item of public service which they should have in mind and be obliged to have in mind.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to interrupt the vibes which appear to be crossing between the two Opposition Front Benches. I thought that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, cajoling the noble Baroness to take immediate action. Perhaps I may interrupt while they are making up their minds in order to refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Moyne. In agreeing with the noble Baroness, he is saying that every single radio station, even if it were serving a small community within a radius of five miles, should be obliged by law to carry news items. That is going too far.
Baroness Birk: It was never my intention to take the matter to a vote. However, it appears that support is greater for news on local radio stations than for the Minister's response. He is in the minority as regards Members who have spoken. I realise that that does not necessarily mean anything when the Division bells ring. The cohorts who have not heard a word of our debate will stream in. Nevertheless, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Baroness does so, perhaps I may explain that the silence from the Benches behind me probably shows a generous desire not again to keep the noble Baroness here until 1.15 a.m.
Baroness Birk: Members from all sides of the Committee have spoken in support and heads were nodding like mad behind the Minister.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 295) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bonham-Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Moyne, L.

Castle, B.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ogmore, L.

Croham, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glasgow, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Swann, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Walston, L.

Hirshfield, L.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchester, Bp.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Flather, B.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Annan, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Auckland, L.

Haddington, E.

Balfour, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Havers, L.

Beloff, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hives, L.

Blake, L.

Howe, E.

Blyth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boardman, L.

Ironside, L.

Borthwick, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Joseph, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Killearn, L.

Brookeborough, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Butterfield, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Lothian, M.

Caccia, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Lurgan, L.

Campbell of Gray, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Margadale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Marsh, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mountevans, L.

Downshire, M.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

1489

Pender, L.

Swinfen, L.

Quinton, L.

Swinton, E.

Reay, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renwick, L.

Tollemache, L.

Rodney, L.

Tryon, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sharples, B.

Walpole, L.

Stockton, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wharton, B.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 296 not moved.]
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 296A:
Page 83, line 42, leave out from ("unless") to end of line 45.
The noble Lord said: I was under the impression that I had spoken to this amendment last night. However, as the grouping is rather complicated, if I find that I have made an error and I have not spoken to it, then perhaps I can return to the matter at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 296A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 297:
Page 83, line 47, leave out ("under subsection (5)") and insert ("in a case where, in accordance with subsection (5), no notice is to be published under subsection (1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 297A not moved.]
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 297AA:
Page 84, line 6, at end insert:
("(8) The Authority shall publish its decision on which applicant has been successful or its decision not to award a licence, and the detailed reasons for its decision, in such form as it sees fit.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to require the Radio Authority to publish decisions and reasons for decisions on applications for a licence. That will ensure that all information, financial and otherwise, will be made available to the public on request. That has been the established practice of ILR and continued with the incremental contract initiative. It would seem a great pity if such a useful practice was abandoned by the new Radio Authority under the Bill.
It seems desirable that bodies with regulatory functions assigned to them by Acts of Parliament should, unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary, conduct their business as openly as possible and make known as widely as possible their decisions and the reasons for them. As I understand it, that would not necessarily take place under Clause 98 as it stands.
The normal objection to providing such information is commercial confidentiality. That has never been a problem in the past and I do not see why it should be a problem in the future. Information and decisions made available to the public provide an invaluable guide as to how the Act is working for both
1490
the public and prospective applicants for licences. A series of precedents is established which tells people how licences are awarded.
Publication of reasons for decisions helps and improves the quality of decisions. It has an additional advantage which should not be neglected. People whose applications fail often feel resentment. They often explain the failure by various rationalisations to the detriment of the body responsible for that failure. If the reason is explained openly, it assists in preventing bitterness, although it will not always do so. I believe that it is legitimate for unsuccessful applicants to know both why they were unsuccessful and why the successful applicant was successful.
On the basis of past practice and open government, and as a means of providing a guide to the way the Act works and mollifying the feelings of those who have failed, I urge the Government to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I support the amendment. It seems right, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Radio Authority should publish in detail its reasons for deciding to award a local licence. The Bill requires the Radio Authority to publish its reasons for awarding a national licence to an applicant. Therefore, it is logical that the same should apply to local radio services.
A very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was that the provision brings the whole process into public view; it makes the public feel more knowledgable and part of the system. It means that the authority will have to take care to be as honest and open as it should be. I cannot see any reason why the amendment should be rejected. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Earl Ferrers: I readily concede that there is a certain attractiveness to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, it should be open for all to know what the position is. The amendment is concerned with the reasons for the decision, and not with the disclosure of the applicant's business or financial plans. Those would remain confidential under the Bill.
If the amendment were incorporated in the Bill it would place a great burden upon the authority. It would require the authority to explain in detail the reasons for its licensing decision in each and every case on which it had to make one, both to those who were successful and to those who were unsuccessful. In due course we expect the Radio Authority to issue several hundred radio licences. That means that there will be many more applicants for those several hundred licences, as well as many other forms of radio licence—such as satellite radio, special event radio and university radio services—to which the amendment would also extend.
To have to explain its decision on each and every occasion would greatly add to the task and the cost of the authority. The overall effect would extend the time it took to grant a licence, which inevitably would increase licence fees. For some kinds of Radio Authority licence, such as satellite radio services and

1491
licensable sound programme services, the licensing process will not be competitive; it will be more in the nature of a certification process. In those cases a detailed statement of the reasons for the licensing decision would not necessarily be illuminating.
If the unsuccessful applicants wish to write to the radio authority to inquire why they were unsuccessful, there is no reason that those explanations should not be given. However, if the amendment was agreed to,—for the very good reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—it would add considerably to the burden on the authority.
Lord Bonham-Carter: That is a very unsatisfactory reply. Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the noble Earl. Would it be within the capacity of the licensing authority to explain the reasons it gave the licence to the successful applicant? That would not be a severe burden. If one has considered a lot of applications and come to the conclusion that one should be successful, there must be a reason for that decision. It is not a severe burden simply to put those reasons in writing and communicate them to anyone who requests them. That would go a considerable way to providing a kind of guide to the way in which the Act was being administered, and some way towards mollifying those who had failed if they knew why someone else had succeeded.
The noble Earl's suggestion that it would create a burden on the authority if the Bill was modified in the way I suggested, does not apply. Perhaps the Minister will consider my suggestion?
Earl Ferrers: My immediate response is that it would be more helpful if the Radio Authority told those who had not succeeded why they had not succeeded rather than telling those who had succeeded why they had succeeded. The trouble with the second course is that one would have to reply to more people than would if one took the course suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
I shall certainly consider his point. There is a genuine issue of openness. I can only say—I hope the noble Lord will not regard this as de minimis—that there is the other side to the coin; we do not want to oblige the Radio Authority to have to write to hundreds of people explaining why they did not receive the licence. The basic reason is that somebody else produced better programme suggestions.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am grateful to the noble Earl for agreeing to think about the matter, and I look forward to seeing the results. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 [Special requirements relating to grant of local licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 297B and 297C not moved.]
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Requirements as to quality and coverage of national and local services]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 297D:
1492
Page 84, line 45, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Where the Authority is considering whether to authorise the holder of a licence, by means of a variation of his licence to that effect, to provide the licensed service for any additional area or locality falling outside the area for which that service has previously been licensed to provide, they shall first carry out their duties under section 98(1) (a) and (b) and section 98(2) (a)—(d).").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 297D is to prevent existing or future stations being able to increase their broadcast area without first going through an open and fair application process. The concern is that Clause 104, if unamended, would allow the Radio Authority to continue the practice of the IBA of extending licence areas of existing operators even though there is evident interest from community groups in a specific region within that area.
For example, I am told that over the past two years GWR extended its transmission areas into Marlborough and Bath; Plymouth Sound extended to Tavistock, and Downtown Radio extended in its area. Such developments are unwelcome; they pre-empt possible future opportunities. In addition, the clause as it stands does not limit expansion to contiguous areas. It allows the building up of a radio empire by erosion of other areas without going through a formal licensing application.
Finally, if unamended, the clause would enable an operator to cover new communities to which a new frequency would usually have to be allocated. That is not dissimilar to the provisions of Amendment No. 234A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. It raises a genuine point of concern to people in the field of local radio. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I wish briefly to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the authority should be required to advertise the additional licence rather than just to award it. It makes the process more open and fair, and in many ways less arbitrary. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has put a strong case for making this small but important change, and I hope that the Minister will listen to it.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for explaining the intention behind the amendment. As I perused it beforehand I was not totally clear what the aim was, given that the amendment appears to suffer from some technical deficiencies. I acknowledge that there may be a case for saying that Clause 100(4) should be more restrictively framed. It was put into the Bill to solve an awkward problem which regularly arose under the Broadcasting Act 1981.
The Act had the effect that where an independent local radio station wished to seek approval to instal a relay transmitter with the aim of improving the coverage for a significant group of listeners within the contract area, it could be thwarted from so doing if the effect of its proposals was that listeners outside the contract area might be able to receive the service from the proposed new relay transmitter. That was because if any significant extension of the contract area was

1493
possibly affected by these arrangements the IBA would have been under an obligation under the 1981 Act to readvertise the whole of the franchise area. In those circumstances a number of local radio stations naturally preferred not to go ahead with the reception improvements for listeners within their areas if the alternative was to have to face readvertisement.
Clause 104 was intended to do no more than cure that problem. However, I accept that in principle if not in practice it could open the way for the authorisation of large extensions of coverage area, though the better course would be for the second new service to be advertised separately. I do not think that the Radio Authority would operate the provision in such a way, especially in view of its general duty to secure a range and diversity of local services and to ensure fair and effective competition in the provision of such services. Nevertheless, I realise that there is a problem and I will be happy to consider the matter further to see whether there is a case for tightening up the drafting. Perhaps the noble Lord will be content with that assurance.
6 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his response to my amendment. In the light of what he said I am happy to withdraw it, and I look forward to his thoughts at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 297E:
After Clause 101, insert the following new clause:
("Promotion of equal opportunities in relation to employment by holder of national licence
.—(1) A national licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder—

(a) to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by him, equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups; and

(b) to review those arrangements from time to time.

(2) In subsection (1) "racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 193A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102 [Power to require scripts etc. or broadcasting of correction or apology]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 298:
Page 85, line 44, after ("apology") insert ("(or both)").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 299 and 306A. These are minor drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 298 and 299 ensure that the authority can direct its licensees to include both a correction and an apology if this appears appropriate when a licence holder has failed to comply with a condition of his licence. Amendment No. 306A, to Clause 119, is a consequential amendment to those
1494
made in another place where references to a range of frequencies were removed from Clause 79. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 299:
Page 85, line 47, after ("apology") insert ("(or both)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Power to impose financial penalty or suspend or shorten licence period]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 300:
Page 86, line 40, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I refer also to Amendments Nos. 301 and 302. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Power to revoke licences]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 301 and 302:
Page 87, line 34, at end insert:
("(3A) If the Authority are satisfied in the case of any national licence—

(a) that the holder of the licence has ceased to provide the licensed service before the end of the period for which the licence is to continue in force, and

(b) that it is appropriate for them to do so,

they shall (subject to subsection (7)) serve on him a notice revoking his licence.").
Page 87, line 44, after ("(3)") insert (", (3A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 105 to 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Licensing of additional services]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 302A:
Page 90, line 23, leave out ("other person") and insert ("person to whom this subsection applies").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 302B:
Page 90, line 24, at end insert:
("(3A) Subsection (3) applies to any person who is not a disqualified person in relation to an additional services licence by virtue of Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 agreed to.
Clause 110 [Procedure to be followed by Authority in connection with consideration of applications for, and awarding of, licences]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 303 and 304:
Page 92, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("subsection") in line 36.
Page 92, line 38, leave out ("requirements of section 94(1) (a) and (b)") and insert ("requirement specified in section 94(1) (a)").
The noble Lord said: Both these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 304A and 304B:
Page 92, line 42, leave out from second ("that") to ("or") in line 43 and insert ("none of the services in question will be provided once the licence has come into force,").
Page 92, line 45, leave out from first ("that") to end of line 46 and insert ("none of those services will be so provided,").
The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 305:
Page 92, line 48, leave out ("revoke the licence,") and insert ("serve on him a notice revoking the licence as from the time the notice is served on him,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 305A:
Page 93, line 5, leave out ("he will not provide the services in question") and insert ("none of the services in question will be provided").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 111 and 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Enforcement of additional services licences]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 305B:
Page 94, line 18, after ("pay") insert (", within a specified period,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 196B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 [Certain receipts of Authority to be paid into Consolidated Fund]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 306:
Page 95, line 16, leave out ("or forfeited to them under section 96") and insert ("to them by virtue of section 96(6)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 116 to 118 agreed to.
Clause 119 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 306A:
Page 96, line 15, leave out from ("79(3)") to end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 298. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Scheme Providing for Division of Assets of IBA]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 306B:
Page 170, line 38, leave out from ("(7)") to ("any") in line 39 and insert ("Any power to modify a transfer scheme which is conferred on the Secretary of State by this paragraph may be so exercised as to make").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 306C. These are two purely drafting amendments. They are intended to make it plain that the Secretary of State's powers to modify the transfer scheme by order in Schedule 7 paragraph 2 include the power to provide for such modifications to take effect as from the coming into force of the scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 306C:
Page 170, line 40, at end insert (", and an order under sub-paragraph (6) above may provide for any of its provisions to have effect as from the coming into force of the scheme to which it relates.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 307:
Page 171, line 10, after ("equipment") insert ("or other asset").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I believe that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 308 to 309, 309ZA(1) to 309ZA(39), 309ZB, 309ZBA and 309ZC to 309ZJ. This complicated group of amendments and new clauses all relate to the transitional arrangements for independent radio and television. The main transitional provisions which are to be found in Schedule 9 were added to the Bill at the Committee stage in another place. These amendments make a number of changes to those provisions, which are mainly technical. There are, however, three additions of substance. It may be helpful to the Committee if I were to explain them briefly.
First, these new provisions make transitional arrangements for direct broadcasting by satellite (DBS). As the law stands, the IBA is responsible for broadcasting the services of its DBS contractor, BSB, just as it is responsible for broadcasting ITV and Channel 4. As the ITC will not be a broadcasting authority like the IBA, this arrangement needs to be modified. We have therefore decided that BSB should continue as DBS contractors until the end of 1992, with the ITC standing in the shoes of the IBA, but then become domestic satellite service licensees under Clause 39 of the Bill. The changeover at the end of

1497
1992 will coincide neatly with the end of the ITC's responsibility, which it will inherit from the IBA in relation to the existing ITV contracts. This change will entail BSB losing certain regulatory obligations and privileges such as the benefits of the must-carry rule. Broadly speaking, it will put them on the same regulatory footing as non-domestic satellite service licensees such as Sky. We believe that this will be helpful in the interests of ensuring that the various satellite operators are competing on a fair and even basis.
As part of the present DBS arrangements, the IBA owns and operates the uplink for BSB services. The uplink is the transmission equipment which transmits the signals from the earth to BSB's satellite. As the ITC will not take over the IBA's terrestrial transmission system, which is to be privatised, it would not be appropriate for it to take over the uplink. An operational engineering function of this sort would not sit easily with the ITC's main responsibilities as a regulatory body. As BSB has met the costs—amounting to around £8 million—of constructing the uplink we have decided that it would be reasonable to transfer that uplink to it for a nominal sum.
My noble friend Lord Morris has tabled an amendment to this part of the transitional provisions. If I have understood that amendment correctly, it means that the IBA would be able to transfer the uplink to anybody other than BSB. In the light of the explanation I have given, he may agree that this would be rather odd, and I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The second main addition to the transitional provisions is to take account of the privatisation of the IBA's terrestrial transmission system. The ITC will inherit the IBA's responsibilities in relation to ITV and the fourth channel in 1991 and 1992. Those responsibilities include transmission. However, the ITC will not own a transmission system with which to discharge those responsibilities itself. The new provisions therefore oblige the ITC to discharge them by requiring the ITV contractors to enter into a transmission contract with the new private transmission company during 1991 and 1992. There will be a similar arrangement for Channel 4 and S4C. The Radio Authority will be given a similar duty in relation to any independent local radio stations which remain as contractors, though we expect that they will in fact all opt to become new-style licensees.
Finally, the new provisions make transitional arrangements for the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. They ensure that the remit of the two bodies will extend to the services provided by the ITC during 1991 and 1992 under the responsibilities it will inherit from the IBA. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: My noble friend suggested that it was for the convenience of the Committee that he spoke to this massive number of amendments. I do not find it
1498
in the least convenient. He may possess the mental agility necessary to deal with the amendments together; I certainly do not. I did not table lightly my amendment to the government Amendment No. 309. We are talking about BSB. I do not think that my noble friend quite understands because he referred to the BSB satellite. BSB does not own the satellite; it is simply leasing capacity on it.
Similarly, the uplink can be used not only for broadcasting purposes but for a myriad of other services and data links. There is absolutely no reason at all why the broadcasting company, which in effect is a retailing company, should own, manage, maintain and control the means of transmission. It is my very strongly held view that a separate body should own the means of transmission as a common carrier to allow other entrants to the market, should there be available capacity, to share the links. That is the only point I am making.
As I see it, there are very serious implications for Her Majesty's Government in selling these assets to one particular party at nil cost or at little value. The amendment says,
"whether or not any such consideration represents the market value of the assets".
A preferential price could be deemed to be a hidden government subsidy to an entrant into the market. I am not sure whether that would be seen to be fair or indeed whether it would contravene European competition laws. That is my reason for tabling my amendment to Amendment No. 309.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: It may be convenient if I ask my questions at the same time so that the noble Viscount can then reply. I am grateful to him for his explanations of these complicated matters. Although they are technical, there are behind the technicalities some significant issues of policy. The noble Viscount referred to the disposal of the uplink to BSB as part of these changes. I think I am probably right in saying that, as part of the original contractual arrangements under which BSB was given the DBS contract by the IBA, it was BSB that paid for the uplink. That must be taken into account and is perhaps the background to the nominal figure which the Minister mentioned.
I should like clarification on two other points. The noble Viscount said that one of the purposes of these changes in relation to the DBS operation is to put the DBS contractor on a fair and even base with the other non-domestic satellite competitor, which is of course the Sky channel. No fair and even base will be provided by the Act for the competition as between Sky and BSB. Under the Broadcasting Act, BSB will continue to have various regulatory commitments of a public service character. It is not the same extensive public service range of obligations that apply to Channel 3 but they are quite significant and they do not apply to Sky. They produce a distorted and unfair situation between the two. There is also the significant difference with regard to the law relating to ownership, a matter which we have already debated. I could not allow to pass without that comment the

1499
Minister's statement that he is creating by these amendments a fair and even base between the two satellite operators.
The Committee is owed some explanation of the privatisation of the IBA transmission system. As the noble Viscount said, it was introduced in another place very late in the Committee stage proceedings. It is a significant piece of government privatisation and has important policy implications. It would be helpful to have more explanation. I do not know whether this is the correct time for it, or exactly how it is to be done. The schedule refers to a nominated company. The nominated company is apparently to be formed by the transfer of the transmission assets of the IBA to this nominated company at the beginning of 1991, which is very soon. How is it then to be disposed of to a private owner? Is it to be put out to competitive tender? Is there to be a proper public bidding system, or is it to be done by the kind of private deal to which the Government seem rather disposed in other fields? The Committee is entitled to a much fuller explanation of the major change lying behind these technical amendments.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may reply first to my noble friend Lord Morris. I did not want him to think that I had misled him or the Committee into thinking that BSB owns its own satellite. I was referring to the transmission of signals to the satellite that BSB uses rather than to BSB's satellite.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, assisted me in his remarks because it is true that BSB has met the costs of constructing the uplink from this country. I mentioned a figure for what BSB had spent. It won on a competitive tender the right to use the channels. It could use the uplink for further purposes, but as it has won it and paid for it it would still be right to go down the route that I suggested in my remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that he could not agree that it was a fair and even base. I have to accept that BSB has regulatory requirements greater than those for Sky. However, we have already dealt with this area in some way. What I have said indicates the transitional arrangements between now and the end of 1992 for BSB and the transmission arrangements in regard to that.
The noble Lord is correct in saying that the transmission system will be vested in a new company at the end of 1990. He referred to the beginning of 1991. That company will be wholly owned by the Crown until its sale to the private sector. The noble Lord asked how it would be sold. All I can tell them at the moment is that the method of sale has not finally been decided. Whatever the exact method, the process will be fair, open and competitive.
Lord Morris: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I must apologise to him and to the Committee for wasting the Committee's time. I did not realise that DBS has contributed substantially to the cost of the uplink. My amendment was therefore quite unnecessary and I apologise.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 308:
1500
Page 171, line 11, at end insert ("or (Disposal by IBA of DBS transmitting equipment etc)(1) of this Act").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 307. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 7, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Baroness Birk: I want to ask some questions about IBA staff. The debate on whether Schedule 7 shall stand part seems the appropriate point to do so. Some of the former IBA staff who have been offered employment with the new privatised transmission company have been offered an option of equity participation in the company. Can the Minister confirm that all former IBA staff will be consulted and given the option of employee participation in the running and ownership of shares in the privatised transmission company? What is the Government's view of possible employee participation? What does the future hold for them in the privatisation?
6.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The position is that it will not be the IBA's staff, it will only be the transmission staff. At present, the exact arrangements have not been made.
Baroness Birk: I am sorry, but I thought that the Minister was going to give a fuller explanation. I understand that some of the former IBA staff have been offered either employment with the new privatised transmission company or an option of equity participation in the company. I am talking about all former IBA staff. I should like to know whether they have been consulted and will be given the same sort of option. I ask this because they will no longer be employed by the IBA once the Bill becomes enacted and the ITC takes over. Will they be given the option of employer participation or the option of ownership of shares in the privatised transmission company? The position is not very clear under the provisions of the Bill. Can the Minister help us in this respect?
Earl Ferrers: I shall certainly do the best I can. The noble Baroness asks a question of detail. In the circumstances, I think that it would be best if I were to write to her on the matter. It is quite an important issue and I would not like to mislead her.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Transitional provisions relating to IBA's broadcasting services and to existing cable services]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 308A to 308C:
Page 98, line 13, leave out ("and") and insert:
("(aa) for the purpose of the regulation by the Commission after the end of that period of services provided in succession to the DBS services provided by them during that period; and").
Page 98, leave out line 15 and insert ("provided by the IBA down to the transfer date-").
Page 98, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) The programmes provided by a programme contractor under his contract for inclusion in any

1501
broadcasting service provided by the Commission or the Radio Authority in accordance with Part II or III of Schedule 9 shall not he transmitted by, or under arrangements made by, the Commission or the Radio Authority (as the case may be) but shall be transmitted—

(a) by the nominated company in pursuance of a contract made between that company and the programme contractor in accordance with section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements), or

(b) under arrangements made in accordance with subsection (3)(a) of that section in a case where any such contract made between a DBS programme contractor and that company is terminated by the contractor as mentioned in that provision.

(3) The programmes broadcast on Channel 4 during the interim period in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9 shall not be transmitted by, or under arrangements made by, the Commission but shall be transmitted by the nominated company in pursuance of such a contract made between that company and the Channel 4 company as is mentioned in subsection (4).
(4) The contract referred to in subsection (3) is a contract which makes provision for and in connection with the transmission by the nominated company during the interim period of the programmes to be broadcast on Channel 4 during that period, and in particular makes provision—

(a) for specified standards relating to technical quality, coverage and reliability to be attained in connection with the transmission of those programmes by that company; and

(b) for the transmission of those programmes to be suspended, if the Commission so direct in circumstances falling within subsection (5), for such period, or in the case of such programme or programmes, as they may specify.

(5) The circumstances referred to in subsection (4)(b) are circumstances where the Commission consider it necessary to require the transmission of the programmes in question to be suspended in order for them to comply, or secure compliance, with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (as it has effect in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9 to this Act) or with any restriction or requirement imposed thereunder.
(6) In the following provisions, namely—

(a) Parts II and III of Schedule 9 to this Act, and

(b) any provision of the Broadcasting Act 1981 which is to be construed as referring to the Commission or to the Radio Authority by virtue of either of those Parts of that Schedule,

any reference (however expressed) to the broadcasting of programmes, or to programmes broadcast, by the Commission or the Radio Authority shall, in consequence of subsections (2) and (3) above, be read as a reference to the broadcasting of programmes, or to programmes broadcast, by that body whether the transmission of the programmes is undertaken (according to the circumstances of the case)—

(i) by, or under arrangements made by, that body, or

(ii) by the nominated company in pursuance of any such contract as is referred to in either of those subsections, or

(iii) under any such arrangements as are referred to in subsection (2)(b);

and those Parts of that Schedule contain other modifications of provisions of that Act which are consequential on those subsections.
(7) This section and section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements) shall have effect in relation to any teletext service provided by the Commission in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9 as if—

(a) any reference to a programme or television programme were a reference to a teletext transmission; and

1502

(b) any reference to a programme contractor were a reference to a teletext contractor.

(8) This section and section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements) shall, in so far as they apply to the transmission of the programmes provided by a DBS programme contractor under his contract for inclusion in any DBS service provided by the Commission in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9, be construed as applying only to the carrying on of such activities in connection with the transmission of those programmes as were being so carried on by the IBA immediately before the transfer date.
(9) In this section—
"the Channel 4 company" means the body corporate referred to in section 12(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1981, and "on Channel 4" means in the additional broadcasting service referred to in section 10(1) of that Act;
"the interim period" means the period specified in subsection (1) (a) above.
(10) The reference in subsection (4) to specified standards is a reference to such standards as the IBA shall specify for the purposes of that subsection before the transfer date.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 307. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 308D:
After Clause 122, insert the following new clause:
("Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4), it shall be the duty of the IBA to make before the transfer date such variations of each contract between them and a programme contractor ("the programme contract")
as appear to them to be appropriate—
(a) for requiring the programme contractor to enter into a contract with the nominated company which makes provision for and in connection with the transmission by that company during the interim period of the programmes which the programme contractor has the right and the duty to provide under the programme contract, and in particular makes provision—

(i) for specified standards relating to technical quality, coverage and reliability to be attained in connection with the transmission of those programmes by that company,

(ii) for the transmission of those programmes to be suspended, if the relevant authority so direct in circumstances falling within subsection (5), for such period, or in the case of such programme or programmes, as they may specify, and

(iii) where the programme contractor is a TV programme contractor, for the consideration payable in respect of the transmission of those programmes to be payable in accordance with subsection (6); and

(b) for securing that the right and the duty of the programme contractor under the programme contract to provide those programmes is accordingly (so long as any such contract with the nominated company remains in force) a right and a duty to provide them for transmission by that company.
(2) Subsection (1) shall apply to a contract for the provision of television programmes for broadcasting in a DBS service ("a DBS programme contract") as if—

(a) the reference to coverage in paragraph (a) (i) were omitted; and

(b) for paragraph (a) (iii) there were substituted—

"(iii) for the programme contractor to be entitled to terminate the contract if he is notified by the Commission that they are satisfied that the

1503
standards referred to in sub-paragraph (i) are not being attained as mentioned in that sub-paragraph;".
(3) The IBA shall, in the case of any DBS programme contract, make before the transfer date such variations of the contract as appear to them to be appropriate—
(a) for requiring the DBS programme contractor, if he terminates his contract with the nominated company under any provision included in the contract in consequence of subsection (2) (b), to make such arrangements as the Commission may approve for and in connection with the transmission during the interim period of the programmes which he has the right and the duty to provide under the DBS programme contract, being arrangements under which—

(i) specified standards relating to technical quality and reliability are to be attained in connection with the transmission of those programmes under the arrangements, and

(ii) the transmission of those programmes is to be suspended, if the Commission so direct in circumstances falling within subsection (5), for such period, or in the case of such programme or programmes, as they may specify; and

(b) for securing that the right and the duty of the programme contractor under the DBS programme contract to provide those programmes is accordingly (so long as any such arrangements remain in force) a right and a duty to provide them for transmission under the arrangements.
(4) Subsection (1) shall apply to a contract for the provision of local sound broadcasts as if the reference to the interim period were a reference to the remainder of the period for which the contract continues in force by virtue of paragraph 2(1) in Part III of Schedule 9; and that subsection accordingly does not apply to any such contract if—

(a) the programme contractor notifies the IBA, before such date as they shall determine, that he proposes to request the Radio Authority to determine the contract as from the transfer date in accordance with paragraph 1(1) in Part IV of that Schedule; or

(b) the contract is one to which paragraph 2(1) in that Part of that Schedule would apply on the transfer date.

(5) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (a) (ii) of subsection (1) or (3) are circumstances where the relevant authority or (as the case may be) the Commission consider it necessary to require the transmission of the programmes in question to be suspended—

(a) in order for them to comply, or secure compliance, with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (as it has effect in accordance with Schedule 9 to this Act) or with any restriction or requirement imposed thereunder, or

(b) in view of any matter which they consider constitutes or would constitute a breach of the programme contractor's contract.

(6) The IBA shall make before the transfer date such variations of each contract between them and a TV programme contractor as appear to them to be appropriate for requiring the programme contractor to enter into an agreement with all of the other TV programme contractors which—

(a) relates to the payment by those contractors to the nominated company of the consideration payable by them in respect of the transmission by that company of the programmes provided by them; and

(b) provides for the amounts payable by each of the contractors to be such proportion of the total consideration so payable as corresponds to the proportion of the relevant amount which he was liable to pay by virtue of section 32(1) (a) of the 1981 Act (rental payments) in respect of the period beginning with 1st April 1990 and ending with the transfer date;

1504
and in paragraph (b) "the relevant amount" means the aggregate amount of all payments falling to be made by TV programme contractors by virtue of section 32(1) (a) of that Act in respect of that period (excluding any payments falling to be so made in consequence of section 13(2) of that Act (advertisements on Channel 4)).
(7) The IBA shall, in the case of each such contract as is mentioned in subsection (6), also make before the transfer date such variations of the contract as appear to them to be appropriate in consequence of section 122(3).
(8) In this section—
"the interim period" means the period specified in section 122(1) (a);
"the relevant authority"—

(a) in relation to any such contract as is mentioned in subsection (1) (a) which relates to the transmission of television programmes, means the Commission, and

(b) in relation to any such contract which relates to the transmission of local sound broadcasts, means the Radio Authority;

and section 122(7) and (8) apply for the purposes of this section.
(9) Any reference in subsection (1) or (3) to specified standards is a reference to such standards as the IBA shall specify for the purposes of that subsection before the transfer date; and different standards may be so specified for the purposes of subsection (1) in relation to programme contractors of different descriptions.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 307. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 308E and 309:
After Clause 122, insert the following new clause:
("Supplementary provisions relating to variation of programme contracts
.—(1) Where the IBA make any variation of a programme contract in pursuance of section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements)(1) to (4) or (6), they may make such variations of that contract of a supplemental, incidental, consequential or transitional nature as they consider appropriate.
(2) The relevant authority may on or after the transfer date make any variation of a programme contract which could have been made before that date by the IBA—

(a) in pursuance of section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements) (1) to (4), or

(b) in pursuance of subsection (1) above in connection with any variation made in pursuance of section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements)(1) to (4).

(3) Before making any variation of a programme contract in pursuance of any provision of section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements), this section or Schedule 9, the IBA or (as the case may be) the relevant authority shall consult the programme contractor concerned.
(4) Any such variation shall be made by means of a notice served on that programme contractor.
(5) In this section—
"programme contract" means a contract between the IBA and a programme contractor;
"programme contractor" includes a teletext contractor;
"the relevant authority"—

(a) in relation to a programme contract for the provision of television programmes or teletext transmissions, means the Commission; and

1505

(b) in relation to a programme contract for the provision of local sound broadcasts, means the Radio Authority.").

After Clause 122, insert the following new clause: ("Disposal by IBA of DBS transmitting equipment etc.
.—(1) The IBA shall have power, with the approval of the Secretary of State—
4

(a) to dispose of any relevant assets to a DBS contractor; and

(b) to do so on such terms and for such consideration as they may determine (whether or not any such consideration represents the market value of the assets).

(2) Any disposal under subsection (1) shall take effect on the transfer date.
(3) In this section—

(a) "relevant asset" means any equipment or other asset (of whatever description) which has been used or held by the IBA in connection with the transmission of DBS services; and

(b) "DBS programme contractor" and "DBS service" have the meaning given by section 37(3) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984.").

The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments in connection with Amendment No. 307. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 309ZA not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Transitional Provisions Relating to IBA's Broadcasting Services]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309ZA(1) to 309ZA(39), 309ZB and 309ZBA:
Page 177, line 34, leave out ("and").
Page 177, line 35, at end insert (", and
(d) any DBS services so provided,").
Page 177, line 39, after ("quality") insert ("both as to the transmission and").
Page 177, line 45, at end insert—
("(ba) sections 14(3) and 15;").
Page 177, line 46, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 28 and").
Page 178, line 2, leave out ("relation to the Commission and") and insert ("connection with").
Page 178, line 4, leave out ("relation to the IBA and") and insert ("connection with").
Page 178, line 5, at end insert—
("(3A) The provisions specified in sub-paragraph (3) above shall have effect in accordance with that sub-paragraph with the following general modifications, namely—

(a) any reference to the IBA shall (subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (6) below) be construed as a reference to the Commission; and

(b) any reference to any of the broadcasting stations used by the IBA shall be construed as a reference to any of the broadcasting stations used in the provision of any of the services provided by the Commission as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.").

Page 178, line 10, at end insert—
("(5) Section 8 of the 1981 Act shall have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) above with the omission of subsections (6) to (9) of that section; but (except in the case of any programme to which the Commission determine that the following prohibition is not to apply) none of the broadcasting services provided by the Commission as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above shall include a
1506
programme which is sponsored by any person whose business consists, wholly or mainly—

(a) in the manufacture or supply of a product, or

(b) in the provision of a service,

the advertising of which in any such broadcasting service is prohibited by virtue of any provision of that Act (as applied by this paragraph) or of the code under section 9 of that Act (as so applied).
(6) Section 29(5) of the 1981 Act shall have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) above as if the reference to requiring the IBA by notice in writing to do, or not to do, anything mentioned in that provision were a reference to requiring the Commission by notice in writing to direct any programme contractor specified in the notice—

(a) to do, or not to do, that thing, or

(b) (if the context so requires) to secure that that thing is or is not done.

(7) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 below, the Commission may make such variations of a contract to which sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph applies as appear to them to be appropriate for facilitating or ensuring compliance with any direction or notice given to or served on them under section 28 or 29 of the 1981 Act (as applied by this paragraph).").
Page 178, line 12 leave out from ("(1)") to ("contractor") in line 16 and insert ("Sections 2(3) and 14(2) of the 1981 Act shall have effect in relation to the Commission and the programmes and teletext transmissions broadcast by them in the services provided by them as mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above as they had effect immediately before the transfer date in relation to the IBA and the programmes and teletext transmissions broadcast by them in the services mentioned in paragraph 1(1); and where a contract between the IBA and a programme contractor or a teletext").
Page 178, line 19, after ("contractor") insert ("and any other party to it").
Page 178, line 30, after ("contractor") insert ("or teletext contractor").
Page 178, line 31, at end insert ("and subject also to paragraphs 4 and 4A below.").
Page 178, line 34, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to paragraphs (aa) and (ab) below)").
Page 178, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert—

("(aa) sections 21 and 23 shall have effect as if any reference to the IBA's obligation to transmit the programmes supplied by a programme contractor were a reference to the right and the duty of the programme contractor under his contract to provide programmes for broadcasting in one of the services provided by the Commission as mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above;

(ab) section 22 shall have effect as if any reference to the programmes, or television programmes, supplied to the IBA were a reference to the programmes, or television programmes, supplied for broadcasting in one of those services; and").

Page 178, line 43, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").
Page 179, line 14, leave out ("and").
Page 179, line 18, at end insert ("; and

(d) in section 13, subsection (4) shall (in consequence of paragraph 1(5) above) have effect with the omission of paragraph (c).").

Page 179, line 20, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—
("4.—(1) For the purposes of—

(a) this Part of this Schedule, and

(b) the provisions of the 1981 Act which have effect in accordance with this Part of this Schedule,

teletext transmissions shall not be treated as programmes; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (2) and to any of those

1507
provisions of the 1981 Act which expressly requires such transmissions to be so treated for the purposes of any particular provision.
(2) In paragraphs 1(6) and 2(3) (aa) above and 8 below and in the provisions specified in Part I of Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act (as they have effect in accordance with this Part of this Schedule)—

(a) references to programmes or to television programmes shall be read as including references to teletext transmissions; and

(b) references to programme contractors shall be read as including references to teletext contractors;

and section 14(5) of the 1981 Act shall have effect during the interim period only in so far as it applies to the provisions specified in Part II of that Schedule.
(3) In section 3(2) of the 1981 Act, in its application to teletext transmissions or teletext contractors by virtue of sub-paragraph (2), the reference to section 2(3) of that Act shall be read as a reference to section 14(2) of that Act (as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1) above).
(4) The following provisions of the 1981 Act, namely—

(a) section 20(2) (b) and (3), and

(b) section 22,

shall not have effect by virtue of paragraph 2(2) above in relation to teletext contractors or their contracts.").
Page 179, line 39, at end insert—
("Provisions relating to DBS services
4A.—(1) The following provisions of the 1981 Act, namely—

(a) in section 2(2), paragraph (c) and in paragraph (b) the words "and a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter",

(b) in section 4(1), paragraph (d) and so much of paragraph (b) as relates to the giving of a sufficient amount of time in the programmes to news and news features,

(c) section 20(2) (b) and (3),

(d) section 22, and

(e) section 24,

shall not have effect by virtue of paragraph 1(3) or 2(2) above in connection with the provision of DBS services by the Commission or (as the case may be) in relation to DBS contractors or their contracts.
(2) Every contract between the Commission and a DBS programme contractor shall contain all such provisions as the Commission think necessary or expedient to ensure that the financial and other arrangements for the provision of the satellite transponder are made by the contractor.
(3) For the purpose of enabling a DBS programme or teletext contractor to make charges for the reception of programmes provided by him or transmissions containing material so provided, the Commission may, notwithstanding anything in the 1981 Act as it has effect in accordance with this Part of this Schedule, broadcast the programmes or transmissions in such a form (whether scrambled, encoded or otherwise) as will prevent persons from receiving them unless they obtain from the contractor the means of doing so.
(4) Where under the power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) the Commission broadcast programmes or transmissions in such a form as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph, nothing in the 1981 Act (as it so has effect) shall be taken as requiring the Commission to permit advertisements to be included in the programmes or transmissions.").
Page 179, line 45, leave out ("the reference in section 52(3) or 53(3)") and insert ("any reference in section 52(3) or 53(2) or (4)").
Page 180, line 41, leave out ("to (8)").
Page 180, line 42, leave out ("those provisions apply") and insert ("that provision applies").
Page 180, line 51, leave out ("and").
Page 181, line 2, at end insert ("and
(d) (except in the case of any programme to which the Welsh Authority determine that this paragraph is not to apply) S4C shall not contain any programme which is sponsored by any person whose business consists, wholly or mainly—

(i) in the manufacture or supply of a product, or

(ii) in the provision of a service,

the advertising of which on ITV is prohibited by virtue of any provision of that Act or of the code under section 9 of that Act.").
Page 181, line 35, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—("8.—(1) Part V of this Act shall have effect as if—
(a) section 131(3) of this Act included a reference to any television programme broadcast by the Commission during the interim period;
(b) (subject to sub-paragraph (2)) the Commission were—

(i) in relation to the provision by them of television broadcasting services in accordance with this Part of this Schedule, and

(ii) in relation to the broadcasting of advertisements on S4C during the interim period,

a broadcasting body within the meaning of that Part of this Act; and
(c) the Welsh Authority accordingly were not a broadcasting body within the meaning of that Part of this Act in relation to any such broadcasting of advertisements on S4C.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) (b) shall not have effect for the purposes of section 133(5) of this Act; and the Commission shall make such variations of any contract to which paragraph 2(1) above applies as appear to them to be appropriate—
(a) for requiring the programme contractor under that contract—

(i) to make a recording of every programme provided by him which is broadcast by the Commission during the interim period, and to retain that recording for the period of 90 days beginning with the broadcast,

(ii) if requested to do so by the Commission for the purpose of enabling them to comply with any requirement imposed on them in pursuance of section 133(4), 143(3) or 155(1) of this Act, to produce any such recording to them, and

(iii) if requested to do so by the Commission for the purpose of enabling them to comply with any requirement imposed on them in pursuance of section 133(4) or 143(3) of this Act, to produce to them any transcript of any such programme which he is able to produce to them; and

(b) for ensuring compliance by the programme contractor with any request to which section 133(7) of this Act applies which may be made to him by the BCC.
(3) For the financial year which includes the commencement of section 137 of this Act, and each subsequent financial year falling wholly or partly within the interim period, the Secretary of State shall notify to the Commission the sum which he considers to be the appropriate contribution by that body, in respect of the programme contractors under contracts to which paragraph 2(1) above applies, towards the expenses of the BCC; and the Commission shall pay to the Secretary of State any sum notified to them under this sub-paragraph.
(4) Paragraph 2(1) (g) (i) of Schedule 11 to this Act shall have effect during the interim period as if the reference to the BBC or the Welsh Authority included a reference to the Commission.
(5) In this paragraph "the BCC" means the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.").
Page 181, line 45, at end insert—
("Provisions relating to Broadcasting Standards Council
8A. Part VI of this Act shall have effect during the interim period as if—
(a) section 140(2) of this Act included a reference to any television programme broadcast by the Commission during that period;
(b) the Commission were—

(i) in relation to the provision by them of television broadcasting services in accordance with this Part of this Schedule, and

(ii) in relation to the broadcasting of advertisements on S4C during the interim period,

a broadcasting body within the meaning of that Part of this Act; and
(c) the Welsh Authority accordingly were not a broadcasting body within the meaning of that Part of this Act in relation to any such broadcasting of advertisements on S4C.").
Page 182, line 14, at end insert—
("PART IIA
REPLACEMENT OF DBS CONTRACTS BY
LICENCES UNDER PART I
Replacement of DBS programme contract by domestic satellite licence
1.—(1) Where any contract which, by virtue of paragraph 2(1) in Part II of this Schedule, has effect as a contract between the Commission and a DBS programme contractor is effective immediately before the relevant date—

(a) the contract shall cease to have effect on that date; but

(b) the contractor shall be granted by the Commission as from that date a licence under Part I of this Act to provide a domestic satellite service which, in accordance with section 39(1A) of this Act, authorises the provision of a multichannel service on the frequencies on which any DBS services consisting of programmes provided by him under the contract were being provided by the Commission down to that date.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "multichannel service" means a service which to any extent consists in the simultaneous transmission of different programmes on different frequencies.
(3) Any licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) shall be so granted notwithstanding anything in sections 15 to 17 of this Act (as applied by section 39 of this Act); and nothing in section 19 of this Act (as so applied) shall apply to any such licence until such time (if any) as it is renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (4).
(4) Section 20 of this Act (as so applied) shall apply to any such licence as if—

(a) in subsection (1), the first reference to a period of fifteen years were a reference to the period beginning with the relevant date and ending with the date on which the contract referred to in sub-paragraph (1) would have expired apart from that sub-paragraph;

(b) in subsection (7) (b), the words from "a different" to "as" were omitted; and

(c) in subsection (10) (a), the reference to any conditions included in the licence in pursuance of section 19 were a reference to any conditions so included in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) below.

(5) Where any such licence is to be renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (4), the Commission shall (notwithstanding section 3(4) of this Act) by notice served on the licence holder vary the licence, as from the date of its renewal, by including in it such conditions as appear to them to be necessary or expedient in consequence of sub-paragraph (4).
(6) Section 3(3) shall, in its application in relation to any such licence, have effect—

(a) with the omission of paragraph (a), and

1510

(b) as if the reference to Part I of this Act included a reference to this Part of this Schedule.

(7) Section 36 shall have effect in relation to any such licence with the omission of subsection (2); and the maximum amount which the holder of any such licence may be required to pay by way of a financial penalty imposed in pursuance of subsection (1) (a) of that section shall instead be the sum for the time being specified in section 40(5).
(8) Except as provided in the preceding provisions of this paragraph, Part I of this Act applies to a licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph as it applies to any other licence to provide a domestic satellite service.
(9) In this Part of this Schedule "the relevant date" means the day immediately following the end of the interim period.
Power to require licence holder to make additional payments under 1981 Act
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for such of the provisions of sections 32 to 35 of, and Schedule 4 to, the 1981 Act as are specified in the order to have effect (subject to such modifications as are so specified)—

(a) in relation to the holder of any licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 1 above, or

(b) in relation to any such licence,

with a view to making provision for and in connection with the making by the holder of any such licence to the Commission of payments determined in accordance with section 32 of that Act in respect of profits or advertising revenue (or both) within the meaning of that section.
(2) Any such order shall be so framed as to secure that, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and to sub-paragraph (4), the provisions of the 1981 Act applied by the order as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a) and (b) so apply in a similar way to that in which they applied immediately before the relevant date in relation to a DBS programme contractor or (as the case may be) in relation to the contract of any such contractor.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (2), any such order shall provide for any excess of a DBS programme contractor's relevant expenditure over his relevant income to be carried forward and treated as relevant expenditure for the purpose of computing his profits as the holder of a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph I above.
Expressions used in this sub-paragraph which are also used in Schedule 4 to the 1981 Act have the same meaning as in that Schedule.
(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (8) of section 32 of the 1981 Act shall include power to make an order amending any of the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of that section in so far as they have effect, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), in relation to the holder of a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 1 above.
(5) Where an order under sub-paragraph (1) comes into force at any time after the relevant date, the Commission shall (notwithstanding section 3(4) of this Act) by notice served on the licence holder vary any licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 1 above by including in it such conditions as appear to them to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the order.
(6) Nothing in any such order shall impose on the holder of any such licence any liability to make any payment in respect of any time when any conditions included in the licence in accordance with paragraph 1(5) above are in force.
(7) An order shall not be made by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Replacement of DBS teletext contract by additional services licence
3.—(1) Where any contract which, by virtue of paragraph 2(1) in Part II of this Schedule, has effect as a contract between the Commission and a DBS teletext contractor is effective immediately before the relevant date—

1511

(a) the contract shall cease to have effect on that date; but

(b) the contractor shall be granted by the Commission as from that date an additional services licence under Part I of this Act which allocates for use under the licence all of the spare capacity within the frequencies on which any DBS services consisting of programmes provided by him as a DBS programme contractor were provided by the Commission down to that date.

(2) Any such licence shall be so granted notwithstanding anything in sections 45 and 46 of this Act; and nothing in section 47 of this Act shall apply to any such licence until such time (if any) as it is renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (3).
(3) Section 48 of this Act shall apply to any such licence as if—

(a) in subsection (1) (a), the reference to a period of ten years were a reference to the period beginning with the relevant date and ending with the date on which any contract to which paragraph 1(1) above applies and to which the DBS teletext contractor was a party immediately before the relevant date would have expired apart from that provision;

(b) subsection (3) were omitted;

(c) in subsection (6), paragraph (a) were omitted;

(d) in subsection (7) (b), the words from "a different" to "as" were omitted; and

(e) in subsection (10), the reference to any conditions included in the licence in pursuance of section 47 were a reference to any conditions so included in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) below.

(4) Where any such licence is to be renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Commission shall (notwithstanding section 3(4) of this Act) by notice served on the licence holder vary the licence, as from the date of its renewal, by including in it such conditions as appear to them to be necessary or expedient in consequence of sub-paragraph (3).
(5) Section 3(3) shall, in its application in relation to any such licence, have effect—

(a) with the omission of paragraph (a), and

(b) as if the reference to Part I of this Act included a reference to this Part of this Schedule.

(6) Section 50 shall have effect in relation to any such licence with the omission of subsection (2); and the maximum amount which the holder of any such licence may be required to pay by way of a financial penalty imposed in pursuance of subsection (1) of that section shall instead be the sum for the time being specified in section 40(5).
(7) Except as provided in the preceding provisions of this paragraph, Part I of this Act applies to a licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph as it applies to any other additional services licence.").
Page 182, line 25, after ("quality") insert ("both as to the transmission and").
Page 182, line 32, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 28 and").
Page 182, line 34, leave out ("relation to the Authority and") and insert ("connection with").
Page 182, line 36, leave out ("relation to the IBA and") and insert ("connection with").
Page 182, line 37, at end insert—
("(3A) The provisions specified in sub-paragraph (3) above shall have effect in accordance with that sub-paragraph with the following general modifications, namely—

(a) any reference to the IBA shall (subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (6) below) be construed as a reference to the Authority; and

(b) any reference to any of the broadcasting stations used by the IBA shall be construed as a reference to any of the broadcasting stations used in the provision of any of the services provided by the Authority as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.").

Page 182, line 42, at end insert—
("(5) Section 8 of the 1981 Act shall have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) above with the omission of subsections (6) to (9) of that section; but (except in the case of any programme to which the Authority determine that the following prohibition is not to apply) none of the broadcasting services provided by the Authority as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above shall include a programme which is sponsored by any person whose business consists, wholly or mainly—

(a) in the manufacture or supply of a product, or

(b) in the provision of a service,

the advertising of which in any such broadcasting service is prohibited by virtue of any provision of that Act (as applied by this paragraph) or of the code under section 9 of that Act (as so applied).
(6) Section 29(5) of the 1981 Act shall have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) above as if the reference to requiring the IBA by notice in writing to do, or not to do, anything mentioned in that provision were a reference to requiring the Authority by notice in writing to direct any programme contractor specified in the notice—

(a) to do, or not to do, that thing, or

(b) (if the context so requires) to secure that that thing is or is not done.

(7) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2 below, the Authority may make such variations of a contract to which sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph applies as appear to them to be appropriate for facilitating or ensuring compliance with any direction or notice given to or served on them under section 28 or 29 of the 1981 Act (as applied by this paragraph).").
Page 183, line 6, after ("contractor") insert ("and any other party to it").
Page 183, line 29, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to paragraphs (aa) and (ab) below)").
Page 183, line 30, leave out ("and") and insert—

("(aa) sections 21 and 23 shall have effect as if any reference to the IBA's obligation to transmit the programmes supplied by a programme contractor were a reference to the right and the duty of the programme contractor under his contract to provide programmes for broadcasting in one of the services provided by the Authority as mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above;

(ab) section 22 shall have effect as if any reference to the programmes supplied to the IBA were a reference to the programmes supplied for broadcasting in one of those services; and").

Page 183, line 38, leave out ("sub-paragraph (4) (b)") and insert ("any of the provisions of this Part of this Schedule").
Page 183, line 40, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
("3.—(1) Part V of this Act shall have effect as if—

(a) section 131(3) of this Act included a reference to any sound programme broadcast by the Authority in accordance with this Part of this Schedule; and

(b) (subject to sub-paragraph (2)) the Authority were, in relation to the provision by them of local sound broadcasting services in accordance with this Part of this Schedule, a broadcasting body within the meaning of that Part of this Act.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) (b) shall not have effect for the purposes of section 133(5) of this Act; and the Authority shall make such variations of any contract which continues in force by virtue of paragraph 2(1) above as appear to them to be appropriate—
(a) for requiring the programme contractor under that contract—

(i) to make a recording of every programme provided by him which is broadcast by the Authority in accordance with this Part of this Schedule and to retain that recording for the period of 42 days beginning with the broadcast,

1513

(ii) if requested to do so by the Authority for the purpose of enabling them to comply with any requirement imposed on them in pursuance of section 133(4), 143(3) or 155(1) of this Act, to produce any such recording to them, and

(iii) if requested to do so by the Authority for the purpose of enabling them to comply with any requirement imposed on them in pursuance of section 133(4) or 143(3) of this Act, to produce to them any transcript of any such programme which he is able to produce to them; and

(b) for ensuring compliance by the programme contractor with any request to which section 133(7) of this Act applies which may be made to him by the BCC.
(3) For the financial year which includes the commencement of section 137 of this Act, and each subsequent financial year falling wholly or partly within the period during which the Authority provide local sound broadcasting services in accordance with this Part of this Schedule, the Secretary of State shall notify to the Authority the sum which he considers to be the appropriate contribution by that body, in respect of the programme contractors under contracts which continue in force by virtue of paragraph 2(1) above, towards the expenses of the BCC; and the Authority shall pay to the Secretary of State any sum notified to them under this sub-paragraph.
(4) Paragraph 2(1) (g) (i) of Schedule 11 to this Act shall have effect during the period referred to in sub-paragraph (3) above as if the reference to the BBC or the Welsh Authority included a reference to the Authority.
(5) In this paragraph "the BCC" means the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.").
Page 183, line 47, at end insert—
("Provisions relating 'o Broadcasting Standards Council
3A. Part VI of this Act shall have effect as if—

(a) section 140(2) of this Act included a reference to any sound programme broadcast by the Authority in accordance with this Part of this Schedule; and

(b) the Authority were, in relation to the provision by them of local sound broadcasting services in accordance with this Part of this Schedule, a broadcasting body within the meaning of that Part of this Act.").

Page 184, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Page 185, line 6, leave out from ("locality") to end of line 7 and insert ("comprised in the locality in which such broadcasts were for the time being to be provided by another programme contractor under a contract entered into before that time,").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 307. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 123 [Functions exercisable by IBA before transfer date in connection with local sound broadcasting]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309ZC to 309ZJ:
Page 99, line 30, leave out ("any relevant transmitting equipment") and insert (", or of an interest in, any relevant assets").
Page 99, line 32, after ("so") insert ("on such terms and").
Page 99, line 33, leave out ("it") and insert ("any such consideration").
Page 99, line 33, leave out ("equipment") and insert ("assets").
Page 99, line 39, at end insert:
(" "relevant asset" means any equipment or other asset (of whatever description) which has been used or held by the IBA in connection with the transmission of local sound broadcasts;").
Page 99, leave out lines 44 to 46.
Page 99, leave out lines 47 and 48.
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 307. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 309ZK:
After Clause 123, insert the following new clause:
("Transitional arrangements relating to existing cable services
Schedule 10 to this Act shall have effect—
(a) for the purpose of the regulation by the Commission on and after the transfer date of—

(i) diffusion services (within the meaning of Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984) which, immediately before that date, were authorised to be provided under that Part of that Act, and

(ii) services provided in succession to such services; and

(b) for the purpose of the regulation by the Commission or the Radio Authority on and after the transfer date of services provided in succession to restricted services (within the meaning of that Part of that Act) which, immediately before that date, were authorised to be provided under that Part of that Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Transitional Provisions Relating to Existing Cable Services]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309ZL to 309ZZH:
Page 186, line 12, leave out (""relevant licence" means a licence") and insert ("and in Part III of this Schedule "relevant licence" means a licence to provide a prescribed or other diffusion service").
Page 186, line 13, leave out ("(3)").
Page 186, line 38, leave out from ("to") to ("as") in line 40 and insert ("the generality of paragraph 2(3) in Part III of this Schedule, the Commission may, in accordance with that provision, make such variations of a licence which continues in force by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above").
Page 187, line 6, after ("is") insert ("authorised").
Page 187, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
("(3) A local delivery licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph may authorise the licensed service to be provided by wireless telegraphy to such extent as is specified in the licence.").
Page 187, line 17, leave out ("reference to fifteen") and insert ("first reference to a period of fifteen").
Page 187, line 28, leave out ("vary the licence") and insert ("by notice served on the licence holder vary the licence, as from the date of its renewal,").
Page 187, line 43, after ("be") insert ("authorised to be").
Page 187, line 44, at end insert ("authorised to be").
Page 188, line 30, at end insert:
("(6) No person shall, in connection with a particular licence to which paragraph 1(1) above applies, be granted both a licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph and a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 3A below; and that paragraph shall have effect subject to this sub-paragraph.").
Page 188, line 30, at end insert:
(" Prescribed diffusion services: cable licences to be succeeded on their expiry by local delivery licences
3A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person who is the holder of a licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service, being a licence to which paragraph 1(1) above applies ("the existing licence"), may apply to the Commission for the grant, as from the date on which the existing licence is due to expire ("the expiry date"), of a licence under Part II of this Act to provide a local delivery service for the area in which the prescribed diffusion service is authorised to be provided under the existing licence.
(2) An application under sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) may be made by the holder of the existing licence not earlier than five years before the expiry date and not later than the relevant date; and
(b) must be in writing and specify—

(i) the area which would be covered by the applicant's proposed local delivery service, and

(ii) the technical means by which that service would be provided.

(3) Where any such application is made before the relevant date, the Commission may postpone the consideration of it by them for as long as they think appropriate but not beyond that date.
(4) In sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) "the relevant date" means the date which the Commission determine to be that by which they would need to publish a notice under section 69 of this Act if they were to grant, as from the expiry date, such a licence under Part II of this Act as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(5) Notwithstanding anything in sections 69 to 71 of this Act, where an application under sub-paragraph (1) has been duly made to the Commission, they may only refuse the application if—

(a) they propose to grant, as a replacement for the existing licence, a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area which would be different from that in which the applicant's service is authorised to be provided under the existing licence ("the franchise area"); or

(b) the applicant is not, at the time when he makes his application, providing a prescribed diffusion service throughout the whole of the franchise area; or

(c) it appears to them that the applicant's proposed local delivery service would not cover the whole of the franchise area; or

(d) it appears to them that any telecommunication system proposed to be used by the applicant in the provision of that service would not be acceptable to the relevant licensing authorities.

(6) A local delivery licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph shall come into force on the expiry date.
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), subsections (6) to (9) of section 73 of this Act shall apply in connection with the grant of an application for a local delivery licence under sub-paragraph (1) above as they apply in connection with the grant of an application for the renewal of a local delivery licence under subsection (1) of that section.
(8) In the application of those subsections in accordance with sub-paragraph (7)—

(a) any reference to the renewal of a local delivery licence stall be construed as a reference to the grant of such a licence in pursuance of this paragraph (and related expressions shall be construed accordingly);

(b) in subsection (6) (b), the words from "a different" to "as" shall be omitted; and

(c) in subsection (7), the words ", in accordance with sections 69 to 71, a licence" shall be substituted for "a fresh licence".

(9) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (7) to (9) of paragraph 2 above shall have effect in relation to a local delivery licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph as they have effect in relation to such a licence granted in pursuance of that paragraph.
(10) In this paragraph "the relevant licensing authorities" has the same meaning as in section 70 of this Act.").
Page 188, line 37, after ("being") insert ("authorised to be").
Page 188, line 49, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 189, line 12, leave out from ("to") to ("as") in line 14 and insert ("the generality of paragraph 2(3) in Part III of this Schedule, the Commission may, in accordance with that provision, make such variations of a licence which continues in force by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above").
Page 189, line 15, at end insert:
("(5) Where—
(a) a licence to which sub-paragraph (1) applies ("the relevant licence") is due to expire on a particular date in accordance with that sub-paragraph (being a date falling within the period specified in sub-paragraph (6)), and
(b) it appears to the Commission that on that date there would be in force either—

(i) any such licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (b), or

(ii) a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area consisting of or including the area in which a diffusion service is for the time being provided under the relevant licence ("the relevant service"), but

(c) it also appears to them that on that date the holder of any such licence would not be in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses for which the relevant service is for the time being provided,
the Commission shall so vary the relevant licence as to secure that (subject to sub-paragraph (6)) the licence continues in force until such time subsequent to that date as they may specify in a notice given to the holder of the licence; and the Commission shall not specify a time for the purposes of this sub-paragraph unless they have reasonable grounds for believing that, at that time, the holder of any such licence as is mentioned in paragraph (b) (i) or (ii) above would be in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses referred to in paragraph (c) above.
(6) A licence to which sub-paragraph (1) applies shall not continue in force in accordance with that sub-paragraph or sub-paragraph (5) beyond the end of the period of eight years beginning with the transfer date.
(7) If on the date when such a licence ceases to be in force ("the expiry date") either of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (8) is satisfied, the holder of that licence ("the relevant licence") shall be granted by the Commission, as from the expiry date, a licence under Part II of this Act to provide a local delivery service for the area in which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before that date.
(8) The conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (7) are—
(a) that neither of the following is in force, namely—

(i) any such licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service as is referred to in subparagraph (1) (b), or

(ii) a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area consisting of or including the area in which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before the expiry date;

(b) that any such licence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) or (ii) above is in force but it appears to the Commission that the holder of the licence is not in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses for which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before the expiry date.
(9) Subject to sub-paragraph (10), the following provisions, namely—

(a) sub-paragraphs (7) to (9) of paragraph 2 above, and

(b) sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) of paragraph 5 below,

shall have effect in relation to a local delivery licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (7) above as they have effect in relation to such a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 2 above or (as the case may be) paragraph 5 below.
(10) In its application in relation to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (7), paragraph 5(4) (a) shall have effect with the substitution of a reference to the date as from which the licence is granted for the reference to the transfer date.").
Page 189, line 25, leave out ("being") and insert ("authorised to be").
Page 189, line 32, leave out ("reference to fifteen") and insert ("first reference to a period of fifteen").
Page 189, line 33, at end insert (", and the second reference to a period of fifteen years were a reference to a period of five years").
Page 189, line 44, leave out ("vary the licence") and insert ("by notice served on the licence holder vary the licence, as from the date of its renewal,").
Page 190, line 21, after ("date") insert ("either—
(i) ").
Page 190, line 22, at end insert (", or
(ii) is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.").
Page 190, line 25, after ("being") insert ("authorised to be").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 309A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309B to 309S:
Page 190, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert:
("(5) Where—
(a) a licence granted under sub-paragraph (2) ("the relevant licence") is due to expire on a particular date in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), and
(b) it appears to the Commission that on that date there would be in force either—

(i) any such licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service as is referred to in subparagraph (2), or

(ii) a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area consisting of or including the area in which a diffusion service is for the time being provided under the relevant licence ("the relevant service"), but

(c) it also appears to them that on that date the holder of any such licence would not be in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses for which the relevant service is for the time being provided,
the Commission shall so vary the relevant licence as to secure that (subject to sub-paragraph (5A)) the licence continues in force until such time subsequent to that date as they may specify in a notice given to the holder of the licence; and the Commission shall not specify a time for the purposes of this sub-paragraph unless they have reasonable grounds for believing that, at that time, the holder of any such licence as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) or (ii) above would be in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses referred to in paragraph (c) above.
(5A) A licence granted under subsection (2) shall not continue in force in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) beyond the end of the period of eight years beginning with the transfer date.
(5B) If on the date when such a licence ceases to be in force ("the expiry date") either of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (5C) is satisfied, the holder of that licence ("the relevant licence") shall be granted by the Commission, as from the expiry date, a licence under Part II of this Act to provide a local delivery service for the area in which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before that date.
(5C) The conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (5B) are—
(a) that neither of the following is in force, namely—

(i) any such licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service as is referred to in sub-paragraph (2), or

(ii) a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area consisting of or including the area in which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before the expiry date;

(b) that any such licence as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii) above is in force but it appears to the Commission that the holder of the licence is not in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses for which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before the expiry date.").
Page 191, line 7, after ("(7)") insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (8)").
Page 191, line 10, after ("sub-paragraph") insert ("(5B) or").
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("(8) In its application in relation to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5B) above, paragraph 5(4)(a) shall have effect with the substitution of a reference to the date as from which the licence is granted for the reference to the transfer date.").
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("(9) In the case of a local delivery licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (6) above, nothing in paragraph 1(1) in Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have the effect of rendering—

(a) a local authority, or

(b) a body which is controlled by such an authority,

a disqualified person in relation to the licence during the period of five years beginning with the date of its coming into force; and in this sub-paragraph "local authority" has the same meaning as in that Schedule.").
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("Other diffusion services: services falling partly within and partly outside franchise areas
7A.—(1) Where immediately before the transfer date there is in force under Part I of the 1984 Act a licence to provide a diffusion service which—

(a) is not a prescribed diffusion service, but

(b) is provided in an area ("the relevant area") only part of which is comprised in the area in which a prescribed diffusion service is for the time being authorised to be provided under a licence to which paragraph 1(1) applies ("the franchise area"),

then (subject to paragraph 6 above)—

(i) paragraph 4 above shall apply to the licence to the extent that it authorises the provision of a diffusion service in so much of the relevant area as is comprised in the franchise area, and

(ii) paragraph 5(1) above shall apply to the licence to the extent that it authorises the provision of such a service in so much of the relevant area as is not so comprised.

(2) The reference in paragraph 5(1) to the area in which a diffusion service was authorised to be provided immediately before the transfer date shall accordingly be construed, in relation to a licence to which sub-paragraph (1) above applies,

1519
as a reference to so much of that area as is not comprised in the franchise area.
(3) The reference in paragraph 6(1) above to a licence to provide a diffusion service shall be construed, in relation to a licence to which sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) in connection with the application of paragraph 4(1) above, as a reference to the licence to the extent that it authorises the provision of such a service as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(i) above; and

(b) in connection with the application of paragraph 5(1) above, as a reference to the licence to the extent that it authorises the provision of such a service as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(ii) above.

(4) Where immediately before the transfer date any such diffusion service as is mentioned in paragraph 7(1) above is provided in an area ("the relevant area") only part of which is comprised in the area in which a prescribed diffusion service is for the time being authorised to be provided under a licence to which paragraph 1(1) above applies ("the franchise area"), then (subject to sub-paragraph (5) below)—

(a) paragraph 7(2) above shall apply to the service to the extent that it is, immediately before that date, being provided in so much of the relevant area as is comprised in the franchise area, and

(b) paragraph 7(6) above shall apply to the service to the extent that it is then being provided in so much of the relevant area as is not so comprised.

(5) Neither paragraph 7(2) nor paragraph 7(6) shall apply to a diffusion service in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) if the part of the service to which it would otherwise so apply would serve only—

(a) a single building, or

(b) an area in which there are not more than the prescribed number of dwelling-houses;

and in paragraph (b) "the prescribed number" has the same meaning as in paragraph 6(1) above.").
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("Restricted services: replacement of existing licences
7B.—(1) Where immediately before the transfer date there is in force under Part I of the 1984 Act a licence to provide a restricted service ("the restricted service licence"), the licence shall cease to have effect on the transfer date; but if he makes the appropriate request before that date the holder of the licence shall—

(a) where the restricted service consists in the provision of television programmes, be granted by the Commission as from that date a licence under Part I of this Act to provide a licensable programme service, or

(b) where the restricted service consists in the provision of sound programmes, be granted by the Radio Authority as from that date a licence under Part III of this Act to provide a licensable sound programme service,

being a service of such a description as will, in the opinion of the Commission or (as the case may be) the Radio Authority, enable the service to be provided under the licence mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) to correspond as nearly as possible to the service provided under the restricted service licence.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "the appropriate request"—

(a) in a case to which paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph applies, means a request to the Commission; and

(b) in a case to which paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph applies, means a request to the Radio Authority.

(3) Nothing in section 42(1) to (3) or (as the case may be) section 81(3)(b) or 106(1) or (2) of this Act shall apply in relation to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1); and any such licence shall (subject to the provisions of Part I or, as the case may be, Part III of this Act) continue in
1520
force for the remainder of the period specified in the restricted service licence.
(4) Section 3(3) of this Act shall, in its application to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(a), have effect as if the reference to Part I of this Act included a reference to this Part of this Schedule; and section 81(4) of this Act shall, in its application to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(b), have effect as if the reference to Part III of this Act included a reference to this Part of this Schedule.
(5) Except as provided in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)—

(a) Part I of this Act applies to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(a) as it applies to any other licence granted under that Part to provide a licensable programme service; and

(b) Part III of this Act applies to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(b) as it applies to any other licence granted under that Part to provide a licensable sound programme service.

(6) In this paragraph—
"licensable programme service" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act;
"licensable sound programme service" has the same meaning as in Part III of this Act;
"restricted service" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1984 Act.").
Page 192, line 23, after ("(3)") insert: ("(aa)").
Page 192, line 28, at end insert (", or
(bb) vary the period for which—

(i) a licence to which paragraph 4(1) in Part II of this Schedule applies, or

(ii) a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 7(2) in that Part,

is to continue in force.").
Page 192, line 30, leave out ("4(3)") and insert ("4(5)").
Page 192, line 30, at end insert ("; but any such variation shall be effected by means of a notice served by the Commission on the holder of the licence in question.").
Page 192, line 30, at end insert:
("(6) Section 3(6) and (7) of this Act shall apply to a relevant licence as they apply to a licence granted under Part II of this Act.").
Page 193, line 46, leave out (""control",").
Page 194, line 3, at end insert:
("(aa) any reference to a national or local newspaper is a reference to a newspaper which is, or is to be treated as, a national or local newspaper for the purposes of Part IV of that Schedule;").
Page 195, line 11, leave out ("corporate").
Page 195, leave out line 27.
The noble Viscount said: This group of amendments makes technical amendments to Schedule 10 to the Bill.
Baroness Birk: Can the noble Viscount say whether the grouping includes Amendment No. 309T?
Viscount Ullswater: No, it does not. It stopped one amendment short in that headlong rush.
These amendments all relate to the transitional arrangements for existing cable systems. The new clause gives effect to Schedule 10. It replaces a similar provision which was previously in Clause 122. The clause now deals only with Schedule 9. The other amendments, which are mainly technical, make a

1521
number of changes to Schedule 10. There are, however, four additions of substance. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain them briefly.
First, they give effect to the undertaking made by my honourable friend, the Minister of State in another place, that similar renewal provisions to those in Clause 73 should apply to broadband franchise holders who by virtue of this schedule retain their status under the 1984 Act. Provided they meet the necessary criteria, such operators would be granted a local delivery licence on renewal. Secondly, provision is made to cover the specific transitional problem of SMATV systems under construction in half-built housing developments which, when complete, would cover more than 1,000 households. Thirdly, the amendments make transitional provisions for the licensing of SMATV systems partly within and partly outside cable franchise areas.
Finally, provision is made for restricted services. Any restricted services licence granted under the 1984 Act will cease to have effect on the transfer date; but holders of such licences will be entitled to be granted by the ITC (or Radio Authority) a licensable programme service licence (or a licensable sound programme service licence) in respect of their services. The amendments are of a technical nature. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Transitional provisions relating to existing cable services]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309ZL to 309ZZH:
Page 186, line 12, leave out (""relevant licence" means a licence") and insert ("and in Part III of this Schedule "relevant licence" means a licence to provide a prescribed or other diffusion service").
Page 186, line 13, leave out ("(3)").
Page 186, line 38, leave out from ("to") to ("as") in line 40 and insert ("the generality of paragraph 2(3) in Part III of this Schedule, the Commission may, in accordance with that provision, make such variations of a licence which continues in force by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above").
Page 187, line 6, after ("is") insert ("authorised").
Page 187, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
("(3) A local delivery licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph may authorise the licensed service to be provided by wireless telegraphy to such extent as is specified in the licence.").
Page 187, line 17, leave out ("reference to fifteen") and insert ("first reference to a period of fifteen").
Page 187, line 28, leave out ("vary the licence") and insert ("by notice served on the licence holder vary the licence, as from the date of its renewal,").
Page 187, line 43, after ("be") insert ("authorised to be").
Page 187, line 44, at end insert ("authorised to be").
Page 188, line 30, at end insert:
("(6) No person shall, in connection with a particular licence to which paragraph 1(1) above applies, be granted both a licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph and a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 3A below; and that paragraph shall have effect subject to this sub-paragraph.").
Page 188, line 30, at end insert:
(" Prescribed diffusion services: cable licences to be succeeded on their expiry by local delivery licences
3A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person who is the holder of a licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service, being a licence to which paragraph 1(1) above applies ("the existing licence"), may apply to the Commission for the grant, as from the date on which the existing licence is due to expire ("the expiry date"), of a licence under Part II of this Act to provide a local delivery service for the area in which the prescribed diffusion service is authorised to be provided under the existing licence.
(2) An application under sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) may be made by the holder of the existing licence not earlier than five years before the expiry date and not later than the relevant date; and
(b) must be in writing and specify—

(i) the area which would be covered by the applicant's proposed local delivery service, and

(ii) the technical means by which that service would be provided.

(3) Where any such application is made before the relevant date, the Commission may postpone the consideration of it by them for as long as they think appropriate but not beyond that date.
(4) In sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) "the relevant date" means the date which the Commission determine to be that by which they would need to publish a notice under section 69 of this Act if they were to grant, as from the expiry date, such a licence under Part II of this Act as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(5) Notwithstanding anything in sections 69 to 71 of this Act, where an application under sub-paragraph (1) has been duly made to the Commission, they may only refuse the application if—

(a) they propose to grant, as a replacement for the existing licence, a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area which would be different from that in which the applicant's service is authorised to be provided under the existing licence ("the franchise area"); or

(b) the applicant is not, at the time when he makes his application, providing a prescribed diffusion service throughout the whole of the franchise area; or

(c) it appears to them that the applicant's proposed local delivery service would not cover the whole of the franchise area; or

(d) it appears to them that any telecommunication system proposed to be used by the applicant in the provision of that service would not be acceptable to the relevant licensing authorities.

(6) A local delivery licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph shall come into force on the expiry date.
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), subsections (6) to (9) of section 73 of this Act shall apply in connection with the grant of an application for a local delivery licence under sub-paragraph (1) above as they apply in connection with the grant of an application for the renewal of a local delivery licence under subsection (1) of that section.
(8) In the application of those subsections in accordance with sub-paragraph (7)—

(a) any reference to the renewal of a local delivery licence shall be construed as a reference to the grant of such a licence in pursuance of this paragraph (and related expressions shall be construed accordingly);

(b) in subsection (6)(b), the words from "a different" to "as" shall be omitted; and

(c) in subsection (7), the words ", in accordance with sections 69 to 71, a licence" shall be substituted for "a fresh licence".

(9) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (7) to (9) of paragraph 2 above shall have effect in relation to a local delivery licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph as they have effect in relation to such a licence granted in pursuance of that paragraph.
(10) In this paragraph "the relevant licensing authorities" has the same meaning as in section 70 of this Act.").
Page 188, line 37, after ("being") insert ("authorised to be").
Page 188, line 49, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 189, line 12, leave out from ("to") to ("as") in line 14 and insert ("the generality of paragraph 2(3) in Part III of this Schedule, the Commission may, in accordance with that provision, make such variations of a licence which continues in force by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above").
Page 189, line 15, at end insert:
("(5) Where—
(a) a licence to which sub-paragraph (1) applies ("the relevant licence") is due to expire on a particular date in accordance with that sub-paragraph (being a date falling within the period specified in sub-paragraph (6)), and
(b) it appears to the Commission that on that date there would be in force either—

(i) any such licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b), or

(ii) a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area consisting of or including the area in which a diffusion service is for the time being provided under the relevant licence ("the relevant service"), but

(c) it also appears to them that on that date the holder of any such licence would not be in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses for which the relevant service is for the time being provided,
the Commission shall so vary the relevant licence as to secure that (subject to sub-paragraph (6)) the licence continues in force until such time subsequent to that date as they may specify in a notice given to the holder of the licence; and the Commission shall not specify a time for the purposes of this sub-paragraph unless they have reasonable grounds for believing that, at that time, the holder of any such licence as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) or (ii) above would be in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses referred to in paragraph (c) above.
(6) A licence to which sub-paragraph (1) applies shall not continue in force in accordance with that sub-paragraph or sub-paragraph (5) beyond the end of the period of eight years beginning with the transfer date.
(7) If on the date when such a licence ceases to be in force ("the expiry date") either of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (8) is satisfied, the holder of that licence ("the relevant licence") shall be granted by the Commission, as from the expiry date, a licence under Part II of this Act to provide a local delivery service for the area in which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before that date.
(8) The conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (7) are—
(a) that neither of the following is in force, namely—

(i) any such licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b), or

(ii) a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area consisting of or including the area in which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before the expiry date;

(b) that any such licence as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii) above is in force but it appears to the Commission that the holder of the licence is not in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses for which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before the expiry date.
(9) Subject to sub-paragraph (10), the following provisions, namely—

(a) sub-paragraphs (7) to (9) of paragraph 2 above, and

1524

(b) sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) of paragraph 5 below,

shall have effect in relation to a local delivery licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (7) above as they have effect in relation to such a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 2 above or (as the case may be) paragraph 5 below.
(10) In its application in relation to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (7), paragraph 5(4)(a) shall have effect with the substitution of a reference to the date as from which the licence is granted for the reference to the transfer date.").
Page 189, line 25, leave out ("being") and insert ("authorised to be").
Page 189, line 32, leave out ("reference to fifteen") and insert ("first reference to a period of fifteen").
Page 189, line 33, at end insert (", and the second reference to a period of fifteen years were a reference to a period of five years").
Page 189, line 44, leave out ("vary the licence") and insert ("by notice served on the licence holder vary the licence, as from the date of its renewal,").
Page 190, line 21, after ("date") insert ("either—
(i) ").
Page 190, line 22, at end insert (", or
(ii) is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.").
Page 190, line 25, after ("being") insert ("authorised to be").
The noble Viscount said: I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 309ZK. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 309A:
Page 190, line 31, leave out ("five years") and insert ("one year").
The noble Lord said: As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill clearly reflects in these technologically volatile times the need for flexibility of technology in the broadcasting market-place and thus enhances consumer choice in broadcasting received in the home. In that, the Government deserve our support and admiration.
I am moving the amendment because there is one aspect of customer choice, and flexibility of the use of technology, that the Government have not properly addressed. That is the shift from narrowband technology to broadband cable technology. As the Bill stands, where a broadband cable operator offering a fully interactive service is franchised by the ITC, or has been franchised previously by the Cable Authority, to provide a service where a narrowband operator is already in situ, the broadband operator will find himself competing on a completely inequitable footing.
The Committee will be aware that narrowband cable operators can provide only a limited service to the customers that they serve. Their obsolescent technology has a capacity of, in most cases, only four to six channels. A few carry more. Unlike broadband operators, they cannot provide interactive services such as home shopping, banking, security services, switching and a myriad of other services which will shortly be on the market.
It was that lack of flexibility of the use of modern technology, thus leading to lack of consumer choice,

1525
that the Bill was intended to address. The Government have accepted the principle that, because of its benefits over narrowband, broadband should be encouraged. Only that can explain why the Bill provides that the ITC shall not renew a narrowband operator's licence if, at the licence renewal date, a broadband operator has started to provide a service in the same locality. That is quite reasonable. It promotes investment in new technology, giving the consumer a better service and greater choice.
It is important that the playing field in that regard be set as level as possible. The new technology broadband operators, offering comprehensive interactive services, will be squeezed out if the Bill remains as it is, giving the narrowband operators a five-year period before they need to renew a licence.
My amendment also seeks to dispel the fear that broadband cable will never displace the old narrowband technology because the commercial odds will be stacked against it. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention. The amendment would help in that regard. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My noble friend's amendment touches on a complex area of the Bill, and it may be helpful if I were to sketch in the background.
As the law stands, cable systems carrying only BBC and IBA services (including DBS) do not need to be licensed by the Cable Authority. That is because the main purpose of licensing is to regulate programme content. Since BBC and IBA services are separately regulated, licensing by the Cable Authority would be otiose. However, under the Bill, all systems serving more than 1,000 homes will need to be licensed by the ITC, unless they carry only the four terrestrial channels. So systems serving more than 1,000 homes which carry BSB as well as the terrestrial channels will for the first time need to be licensed under the Bill. That should be welcomed by cable operators, as they have expressed concern in the past about the non-licensability of systems carrying BSB.
However, that change gives rise to a need for transitional arrangements to ensure that the presently unlicensed systems can continue in operation. The Bill therefore provides that they should be given five-year licences. My noble friend's amendment would reduce that to one year in those cases where the system fell within a franchise area. A balance must be struck between the legitimate expectations of the operators of the presently unlicensed systems and the interests of the cable franchise holder. As things stand, the former can look forward to an indefinite regulatory life. There is no mechanism to bring those systems to an end, even where there is a cable franchise holder ready and willing to provide an alternative service. The Bill will reduce that expectation to a five-year life. That reduction is balanced by the fact that the operator will be able to start carrying satellite channels other than BSB, but reducing the licence length to one year, as my noble friend suggests, would be rather unfair. The
1526
operator would find that, as a result of an Act of Parliament, he would have to shut down or sell his business within a year.
I recognise that my noble friend is trying to protect the interests of cable operators, but the proposals in the Bill take proper account of their interests by limiting the licence length to five years. I think that my noble friend is seeking to tilt the balance too far in favour of the cable operator. In the light of those arguments, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris: I have listened with care to what my noble friend has said. Obviously, I shall need time to consider what he has said in print because I do not have the wit to pick up all that he said on this complicated subject. I may write to him if there is any misunderstanding or a need for clarification on my part. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309B to 309S:
Page 190, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert:
("(5) Where—
(a) a licence granted under sub-paragraph (2) ("the relevant licence") is due to expire on a particular date in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), and
(b) it appears to the Commission that on that date there would be in force either—

(i) any such licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service as is referred to in sub-paragraph (2), or

(ii) a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area consisting of or including the area in which a diffusion service is for the time being provided under the relevant licence ("the relevant service"), but

(c) it also appears to them that on that date the holder of any such licence would not be in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses for which the relevant service is for the time being provided,
the Commission shall so vary the relevant licence as to secure that (subject to sub-paragraph (5A)) the licence continues in force until such time subsequent to that date as they may specify in a notice given to the holder of the licence; and the Commission shall not specify a time for the purposes of this sub-paragraph unless they have reasonable grounds for believing that, at that time, the holder of any such licence as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) or (ii) above would be in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses referred to in paragraph (c) above.
(5A) A licence granted under subsection (2) shall not continue in force in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) beyond the end of the period of eight years beginning with the transfer date.
(5B) If on the date when such a licence ceases to be in force ("the expiry date") either of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (5C) is satisfied, the holder of that licence ("the relevant licence") shall be granted by the Commission, as from the expiry date, a licence under Part II of this Act to provide a local delivery service for the area in which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before that date.
(5C) The conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (5B) are—
(a) that neither of the following is in force, namely—

1527

(i) any such licence to provide a prescribed diffusion service as is referred to in subparagraph (2), or

(ii) a local delivery licence authorising the provision of a local delivery service for an area consisting of or including the area in which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before the expiry date;

(b) that any such licence as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii) above is in force but it appears to the Commission that the holder of the licence is not in a position to provide his licensed service for all of the dwelling-houses for which a diffusion service was being provided under the relevant licence immediately before the expiry date.").
Page 191, line 7, after ("(7)") insert ("Subject to sub-para graph (8)").
Page 191, line 10, after ("sub-paragraph") insert ("(5B) or").
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("(8) In its application in relation to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5B) above, paragraph 5(4)(a) shall have effect with the substitution of a reference to the date as from which the licence is granted for the reference to the transfer date.").
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("(9) In the case of a local delivery licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (6) above, nothing in paragraph 1(1) in Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have the effect of rendering—

(a) a local authority, or

(b) a body which is controlled by such an authority,

a disqualified person in relation to the licence during the period of five years beginning with the date of its coming into force; and in this sub-paragraph "local authority" has the same meaning as in that Schedule.").
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("Other diffusion services: services falling partly within and partly outside franchise areas
7A.—(1) Where immediately before the transfer date there is in force under Part I of the 1984 Act a licence to provide a diffusion service which—

(a) is not a prescribed diffusion service, but

(b) is provided in an area ("the relevant area") only part of which is comprised in the area in which a prescribed diffusion service is for the time being authorised to be provided under a licence to which paragraph 1(1) applies ("the franchise area"),

then (subject to paragraph 6 above)—

(i) Paragraph 4 above shall apply to the licence to the extent that it authorises the provision of a diffusion service in so much of the relevant area as is comprised in the franchise area, and

(ii) paragraph 5(1) above shall apply to the licence to the extent that it authorises the provision of such a service it so much of the relevant area as is not so comprised.

(2) The reference in paragraph 5(1) to the area in which a diffusion service was authorised to be provided immediately before the transfer date shall accordingly be construed, in relation to a licence to which sub-paragraph (1) above applies, as a reference to so much of that area as is not comprised in the franchise area.
(3) The reference in paragraph 6(1) above to a licence to provide a diffusion service shall be construed, in relation to a licence to which sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) in connection with the application of paragraph 4(1) above, as a reference to the licence to the extent that it authorises the provision of such a service as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(i) above; and

1528

(b) in connection with the application of paragraph 5(1) above, as a reference to the licence to the extent that it authorises the provision of such a service as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(ii) above.

(4) Where immediately before the transfer date any such diffusion service as is mentioned in paragraph 7(1) above is provided in an area ("the relevant area") only part of which is comprised in the area in which a prescribed diffusion service is for the time being authorised to be provided under a licence to which paragraph 1(1) above applies ("the franchise area"), then (subject to sub-paragraph (5) below)—

(a) paragraph 7(2) above shall apply to the service to the extent that it is, immediately before that date, being provided in so much of the relevant area as is comprised in the franchise area, and

(b) paragraph 7(6) above shall apply to the service to the extent that it is then being provided in so much of the relevant area as is not so comprised.

(5) Neither paragraph 7(2) nor paragraph 7(6) shall apply to a diffusion service in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) if the part of the service to which it would otherwise so apply would serve only—

(a) a single building, or

(b) an area in which there are not more than the prescribed number of dwelling-houses;

and in paragraph (b) "the prescribed number" has the same meaning as in paragraph 6(1) above.").
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("Restricted services: replacement of existing licences
7B.—(1) Where immediately before the transfer date there is in force under Part I of the 1984 Act a licence to provide a restricted service ("the restricted service licence"), the licence shall cease to have effect on the transfer date; but if he makes the appropriate request before that date the holder of the licence shall—

(a) where the restricted service consists in the provision of television programmes, be granted by the Commission as from that date a licence under Part I of this Act to provide a licensable programme service, or

(b) where the restricted service consists in the provision of sound programmes, be granted by the Radio Authority as from that date a licence under Part III of this Act to provide a licensable sound programme service,

being a service of such a description as will, in the opinion of the Commission or (as the case may be) the Radio Authority, enable the service to be provided under the licence mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) to correspond as nearly as possible to the service provided under the restricted service licence.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "the appropriate request"—

(a) in a case to which paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph applies, means a request to the Commission; and

(b) in a case to which paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph applies, means a request to the Radio Authority.

(3) Nothing in section 42(1) to (3) or (as the case may be) section 81(3)(b) or 106(1) or (2) of this Act shall apply in relation to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1); and any such licence shall (subject to the provisions of Part I or, as the case may be, Part III of this Act) continue in force for the remainder of the period specified in the restricted service licence.
(4) Section 3(3) of this Act shall, in its application to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(a), have effect as if the reference to Part I of this Act included a reference to this Part of this Schedule; and section 81(4) of this Act shall, in its application to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(b), have effect as if the reference to Part III of this Act included a reference to this Part of this Schedule.
(5) Except as provided in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)—

1529

(a) Part I of this Act applies to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(a) as it applies to any other licence granted under that Part to provide a licensable programme service; and

(b) Part III of this Act applies to a licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(b) as it applies to any other licence granted under that Part to provide a licensable sound programme service.

(6) In this paragraph—
"licensable programme service" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act;
"licensable sound programme service" has the same meaning as in Part III of this Act;
"restricted service" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1984 Act.").
Page 192, line 23, after ("(3)") insert: ("(aa)").
Page 192, line 28, at end insert (", or
(bb) vary the period for which—

(i) a licence to which paragraph 4(1) in Part II of this Schedule applies, or

(ii) a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 7(2) in that Part,

is to continue in force.").
Page 192, line 30, leave out ("4(3)") and insert ("4(5)").
Page 192, line 30, at end insert ("; but any such variation shall be effected by means of a notice served by the Commission on the holder of the licence in question.").
Page 192, line 30, at end insert:
("(6) Section 3(6) and (7) of this Act shall apply to a relevant licence as they apply to a licence granted under Part II of this Act.").
Page 193, line 46, leave out (""control",").
Page 194, line 3, at end insert:
("(aa) any reference to a national or local newspaper is a reference to a newspaper which is, or is to be treated as, a national or local newspaper for the purposes of Part IV of that Schedule;").
Page 195, line 11, leave out ("corporate").
Page 195, leave out line 27.
The noble Viscount said: I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 309ZK. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 124 to 127 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 309T:
After Clause 127, insert the following new clause: ("Loans by Secretary of State to nominated company
.—(1) As from the transfer date the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make loans to the nominated company out of money provided by Parliament; but no loan shall be made by him under this section at a time when the company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.
(2) The aggregate amount outstanding in respect of the principal of loans made by the Secretary of State under this section shall not exceed the limit specified in subsection (3).
(3) That limit is £20 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £100 million, as the Secretary of State may from time to time specify by order made with the consent of the Treasury.
(4) Any loan made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be repaid to him at such times and by such methods, and interest on the loan shall be paid to him at such times and at such rates, as he may from time to time direct with the consent of the Treasury.
(5) An order shall not be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 309U to 309Z. These are technical provisions which seek to regulate the transmission company's borrowing for the period which we intend should be kept as short as possible during which it remains wholly owned by the Crown. I believe that I answered the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, about that transfer at the end of 1990. They are a common feature in privatisation statutes.
The new clause will limit the total funds which may be lent to the company from the Exchequer. We do not expect to need to make significant loans; but it is clearly important that we have the facility, should the need for government loan-funding arise before the company is privatised. Advances will be made only from money voted by Parliament and will be subject to statutory maxima. In the unlikely event of the company needing advances of more than £20 million, an affirmative order would need to be made before the limit could be increased. Advances of more than £100 million would be excluded in any event.
The third amendment, Amendment No. 309W to Clause 28, read with Clause 124(1), makes it possible for the Secretary of State to inject debt into the transmission company before it is sold. Enabling the company to be sold in this way might have technical advantages in managing the proceeds of the privatisation. A final decision on this, and the exact method of sale, has not yet been taken. I believe that I also indicated that on the last amendment. We think that it would be wrong to close off this option. The other amendments are simply drafting matters. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Baroness Birk: Perhaps I may ask some questions about the amendments. Probably it is my lack of understanding that necessitates them. The loan will be used to set up the company to start with, as I understand it. The Government have received a great many offers—about 20—to take the company over. How will they decide? Once again, may we know what the employee participation will be in all this? I believe that I am right in saying that the ITV companies and the BBC are excluded from these sales. Can the Minister say specifically what the money will be spent on? Is it general infrastructure? Some £20 million, rising to £100 million, is a lot of money, and I hope that it does not somehow manage to disappear.
What are the likely terms of repayment and at what interest rates? If that is too involved, perhaps the Minister can say how it ties up with interest rates generally. How soon will the loan be repaid? In what segments, and how? I am sorry to ask these complicated questions but I have only just read the amendment, and it is difficult to understand.
A point arises with all these amendments—and I gather that many were tabled the other evening. We are trying to understand them—some of us less well than others. If when we go through them again, reading in Hansard how the Minister explained them

1531
—he has explained them as well as he possibly can at this stage—if we are unhappy about some of the points or if questions arise, I take it that they will not be unwelcome at the next stage of proceedings. I find it difficult to take matters in at this rate and density.
The amendments may be transitional or technical, as the Minister said; but a number are more than what I would call technical. I am rather worried, I feel they are whooshing past us without our saying, "Hey, wait a moment, we're not quite sure about that".
Viscount Ullswater: I must agree with the noble Baroness that the amendments have been put down at a late stage. They are complicated and need a certain amount of consideration. I have been advised that it would be perfectly in order to examine them in some detail and read the replies I have given the noble Baroness. Then if need be, she may come back at another stage with probing amendments in order to elicit more information.
The noble Baroness asked one or two questions and I shall try to answer as many as I can. First, the loans will not be used for the purpose of setting up the company. It is unlikely that there will be any requirement for them at all. However, it is a matter of safeguarding the provision that if loans are required, the Bill (and then the Act) will allow for them to be made. We dealt with the method of sale, and I said on a previous occasion that it had not been finally decided. Whatever the exact method, the process will be fair, open and competitive.
Baroness Birk: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to put a further question. Will the method of sale be decided during the progress of the Bill or afterwards, once it has become law?
Viscount Ullswater; I fancy that it will be done after the Bill becomes an Act.
Baroness Birk: If the Minister cannot tell me now, perhaps he can tell me definitely at the next stage. I do not fancy his "I fancy".
Viscount Ullswater: I confirm that the process I am talking about is, as I indicated, that the company would reach the private sector, it would be vested in a company wholly-owned by the Crown at the end of 1990. By that time the Broadcasting Bill will be an Act.
The loans will be subject to interest at normal base rates. The terms would be negotiated when the loans are required. It is important to stress that at the moment no loans are planned so it would be wrong to leave the impression that loans will be made.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The method of privatising one half of the public broadcasting transmission system of this country is something about which Parliament is entitled to know a good deal more before the Bill finally becomes an Act.
I feel some sympathy for the Minister who is wrestling with these late amendments. I suspect they came from a department other than the Home Office at this late stage. We need a good deal more information about the Government's intentions at a later stage in the proceedings. For example, can the Minister say something now or perhaps write to me
1532
later about how the privatisation of the IBA side of the transmission system will be performed in relation to the BBC? The United Kingdom has a single broadcasting transmission system. It is shared 50–50 by the BBC and IBA at present. The BBC owns half the sites and, in rough terms, the IBA owns half the sites. I have visited a number of sites where part of the ground belongs to the BBC, and part to the IBA. Unscrambling that omelette must present some problems. We should like to know a little more about it.
7 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I agree that these are complicated matters. I believe the right course to follow at the moment is that I should write to the noble Lord and send a copy of that letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. These matters need to be considered in some detail. The noble Lord realises that these amendments have only just been tabled and that no decision has been taken on the method of sale. It is more likely to be a trade sale than a public flotation, but I have no further details on that. However, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Airedale: Perhaps a copy of the letter can be placed in the Library so that the rest of us may be made aware of the position.
Viscount Ullswater: I apologise if I did not make that point clear. I shall of course place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Baroness Birk: Am I right in assuming that a Price Waterhouse report will be issued on the method of sale? Will the Government publish that report?
Viscount Ullswater: My information is that it will not be published.
Baroness Birk: Why should such a report not be made public once a company has been nominated? We are talking about public money.
Viscount Ullswater: It is a question of the Government taking advice on the matter of privatisation. In other cases, the Government do not necessarily publish all the details of reports on methods of privatisation.
Baroness Birk: That is a pity. The Government might not get into such a mess if they published such details.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128 [Temporary restriction on borrowings of nominated company]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309U to 309W:
Page 102, line 7, after ("means") insert: ("(a) ")
Page 102, line 8, after ("than") insert:
("(i) ")
Page 102, line 9, at end insert (", and
(ii) loans made to that company by the Secretary of State under section (Loans by Secretary of State to nominated company); and
(b) loans which are to be treated as having been made to that company, including loans which are to be treated as having been so made by virtue of the issue of debentures in pursuance of section 124.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 309U to 309W en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 309T.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 [Interpretation of Part IV]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309X to 309Z:
Page 102, line 12, at end insert:
(""debentures" includes debenture stock;").
Page 102, line 18, leave out from ("company") to end of line 19.
Page 102, line 23, at end insert:
("(1A) Other expressions used in this Part which are also used in the Broadcasting Act 1981 have the same meaning as in that Act.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 309X to 309Z en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 309T.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: This may be a convenient time to break for dinner. I suggest that we should not return to the Committee stage before 8 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Companies (Fees) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1990
7.4 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations set out amendments to certain of the fees for the statutory activities of Companies House Executive Agency. They replace a similar order which expired at midnight on 4th July, before it had been considered by this House.
The main changes set out in the regulations are to the fee for a company search, which is increased from £2·50 to £2·75, and to the fee for registering an annual return, which is increased from £20 to £25. In addition, the fees for re-registering a company, for example from a public to a private company, have been standardised at £50.
I am pleased to say that there are no changes to the other statutory fees of Companies House. This includes the fees for incorporation and change of
1534
name, which will remain at £50 and £40 respectively, the levels set in 1973. Companies House has a duty to recover, taking one year with another, all the costs involved in running the system of regulating companies and of developing company law. In addition from this year the annual return fee will be used to provide a contribution to financing the new framework for setting accounting standards. While Companies House is firmly committed to providing its many customers with a better quality service which represents good value for money, it is now necessary to increase these fees in order to achieve a broad balance between income and the relevant costs. In moving these regulations, I wish to say what a pleasure it is to be dealing again with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved. [23rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having made some brief observations on these regulations, No. 1368.
Although the noble Lord introduced the regulations in his usual urbane style, we on this side rather expected to hear an expression of contrition from Her Majesty's Government on this matter. The original regulations, No. 1197, which introduced this same measure, were laid before Parliament on 8th June, to come into force on 1st July. Unhappily, owing to an error for which the Opposition were in no way responsible, they lapsed because they were not approved in time. This is a unique event. If it had not been for the vigilance of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, the original regulations, No. 1197, would have been assumed, wrongly, to be valid. That error would have passed unnoticed, until perhaps some enterprising chappie in about three or four years' time suddenly decided to look at the original regulations No. 1197, and lighted upon the fact that, as they had lapsed at midnight on 4th July, they were not valid at all.
One could envisage circumstances where companies or directors of companies suddenly became apprised through their legal advisers that the sums of money that they had paid, possibly on incorporation but certainly thereafter by way of filing annual returns, had been illegally paid and that the regulations had no validity. The Government could have been exposed to a whole series of actions for the return of moneys. I believe we are entitled, as I have said, to some little show of contrition from the Government. We are also entitled to hear some appreciation for the work of the Opposition on this matter. If it had not been for the vigilance of the Opposition, the regulations numbered 1197 would have been void because they lapsed at midnight on 4th July.
The Opposition do not have the clerical and secretarial resources that are available to the Government. The Government have a vast Civil Service machine behind them of highly paid and skilled individuals whose business it is to ensure that mistakes do not occur. An expression of contrition

1535
would have done no harm, and neither would an expression of thanks to the Opposition for having drawn this matter to the attention of the Government. The regulations have now been reintroduced as regulations No. 1368 made on 5th July instead of 7th June. They were laid before Parliament on 6th July instead of 8th June and came into force on 6th July instead of 1st July.
The regulations are unexceptional. I say in parenthesis that all the small businesses that are coming into being as a result of what is termed the "whoosh" enterprise of the DTI, may find the sums of money a little more onerous than the ones that were previously enforced. Generally speaking, and bearing in mind the general inflationary tendencies under Her Majesty's Government, we have to accept them.
In the meantime I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions of which I have already given him notice because I wish to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible. First, what happens in the case of those people who have already paid fees on the basis of regulation number 1197 which they need not have paid until 6th July? I do not know how many people are affected. But do the Government anticipate repaying the difference between the old fees and the new fees to those people who have paid fees they need not haw paid?
There is a short interregnum between midnight on 4th July and the afternoon of 6th July. The Government may conceivably have lost revenue by reason of applications being submitted during that period with cheques which were incorrectly made out. Have the Government taken those small matters into account? I willingly concede that they are small matters, but we have found over the years—and the noble Lord will find in due course—that attention to such matters of detail and correctness are very often the sign of good government whereas to ignore them and try to ride over them may be out of place and a sign of taking things too much for granted. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I take it that he welcomes the regulations. Of course we apologise to the House. Perhaps I can direct the noble Lord to col. 2330 of Hansard of 5th July when my noble friend Lord Ullswater made a proper and full apology to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me what was being done about those people who had been overcharged. We have already agreed that it is a matter that we all regret. I can confirm that Companies House has written to all companies whose annual returns were registered on that day. It has also written to all of its major search customers as well as putting up notices in its search rooms. Companies House will consider all claims for reimbursement from those who believe that they were charged incorrectly. That is precisely how it should be.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weights and Measures (Various Foods) (Amendment) Order 1990
7.13 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order would amend two 1988 orders—the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order and the Weights and Measures (Miscellaneous Foods) Order. Those orders approved by your Lordships' House in November 1988 contain detailed provisions for the sale of food and drink.
There are three amendments to the intoxicating liquor order. First, we are proposing to add 25 millilitres to the existing imperial range of quantities of ¼ and gill in which gin, rum, vodka and whisky may be sold for consumption on the premises. Sales in the imperial quantities would be prohibited after the end of 1994. In response to representations on those proposals, the Government intend to consult interested parties about the possibility at a later stage of extending the requirements to sell in prescribed quantities to other spirits and of permitting a further round metric quantity of 35 millilitres.
Secondly, from the beginning of 1995, still table wines sold by the glass for consumption on the premises may be dispensed only in quantities of 125 millilitres and 175 millilitres. Thirdly, to implement a recent amendment to the EC directive on pre-packed liquids, some minor changes are proposed to the range of prescribed quantities for pre-packed still table wines.
The draft order before your Lordships' House also includes four minor amendments to the miscellaneous foods order. The draft order was sent to over 200 organisations representing United Kingdom manufacturers, importers, retailers, consumers and enforcement authorities. The comments we received have been taken into account in drawing up the current text.
I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I dissent very little from what the noble Lord has said. The order covers a most agreeable subject. Most of us from time to time have spent pleasurable minutes, sometimes hours, imbibing the liquids concerned, whether or not in the quantities prescribed and whether in gills or millilitres.
It would not be entirely out of order if I were to refer, in parenthesis, to the grossly extortionate charges for non-alcoholic refreshment. I hope that as part of the noble Lord's duties at the DTI some attention may be given to that undesirable factor which afflicts the harmless and alcohol-free enjoyment of so many of our citizens.

1537
The noble Lord may consider giving some thanks to my noble friend Lord Mason who can claim some paternity of this regulation. My noble friend, who is zealous on all matters affecting consumers and in particular those who enjoy consuming tobacco or imbibing alcohol, has always paid close attention to the matter. He has fought for some time to have the sale of wine by the glass put on a proper footing. Some measure of thanks should be accorded my noble friend who has fought on these matters and whose proposals have largely been incorporated in the regulations. He deserves some credit. We have no objection to the order.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I welcome the measure. It is the culmination of a campaign that I have waged for years to introduce legislation in place of a code of conduct which has largely been ignored by all who sell wine by the glass. The objective has been to obtain a fair deal for the wine consumer who should be aware of the quantity of wine he is to receive and the price per measure.
All of the bodies and societies in the trade agreed a code of conduct based on those facts. The code came into effect in May 1984. Since then it has been ignored by the majority of those who sell wine by the glass. Indeed, they still ignore it on a large scale.
I have raised the matter in parliamentary Questions on 22 occasions. We have debated the issue in this House and I introduced a Bill to make the code compulsory. I am pleased to say that the Government eventually respected my view and, by agreement, took over the Bill—hence the order. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the Department of Trade and Industry for being so helpful.
The measure introduces prescribed quantities of 125 millilitres and 175 millilitres and multiples thereof. This I welcome. Most wine is sold in those measures. In particular the order deals with still table wines. It also requires that a statement in writing showing quantities in which still table wines are sold shall be prominently displayed. Therefore, the code is to be changed into a legislative requirement. Customers buying wine by the glass will be able to make an informed choice as the measure and price must be displayed where still table wines are sold in the prescribed measures. All that is to the good.
However, I should like consideration to be given to the introduction by legislation of lined wine glasses, especially in the prescribed sizes. That is being introduced in the beer trade. There is no reason why this consumer protection measure should not be established for wine drinkers.
I am also concerned about the date for the introduction of this measure, which is on or after 1st January 1995. The date is not even specific. Moreover, it is nearly five years hence. I realise that it has been chosen to coincide with the implementation date of 31st December 1994 when sales of spirits on licensed premises will change from being served in gills to a
1538
single metric quantity of 25 millilitres. However, I believe that the timing of this legislation for the sale of wine by the glass should be reconsidered.
I have explained in previous debates that every survey carried out by trading standards officers—by LACOTS (the Local Authority Committee on Trading Standards)—found that well over 70 per cent. of wine traders or wine sellers ignored the code of conduct and often fleeced the wine consumer. This has already gone on for five and a half years. I therefore ask: are the wine consumers not to be protected for another four and a half years? It is ludicrous. There is substantial evidence that the code has not worked and that legislation is urgently needed. Yet this order is not to be implemented legislatively for another four and a half years.
The latest survey by trading standards officers found in seven counties, after visiting 110 premises with 189 separate bars—this is an indication of the size and seriousness of the problem which ignores codes and ignores the law in the beer and wine trades—that 71 per cent. of the beer and 74 per cent. of the lager served were short measures. In some cases there were deficiencies as high as 15 per cent. for beer and 10 per cent. for lager. In the same survey, with regard to wines served by the glass 80 per cent. of premises did not fully comply with the code of practice. So the situation still goes on. If licensed premises had abided by the code, legislation would not have been necessary. But easy gains have been too good to be ignored.
If the Government took the view that licensed premises were abiding by the present code, they should not need nearly five years to prepare for the introduction of this order. I hope that LACOTS will continue its surveys and give us the opportunity to raise periodically in this House the results of its proceedings before legislation is implemented. It would be interesting to learn the burdens that would be placed on the trade if a more immediate date of operation were to be introduced.
I welcome this measure but I earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government will speed up its introduction and take the earliest opportunity to give the wine consumer a fair and honest deal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I cannot speak with any authority from the ministerial point of view and I am not much of a consumer. But I should like to say that in our primary legislation we go into far too much detail. When such detail is found to be necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, pointed out—and we should pay tribute to him, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for the initiatives that he has shown—it is gratifying to find that a statutory instrument, secondary legislation, can bring forward such detail and that it is acceptable to noble Lords on both sides of the House. It is a lesson to us all that, although we must have detail in some (but not all) matters on which we legislate, it is better to have as much as possible put into secondary legislation, as happens on this occasion, rather than take up time with endless amendments trying to get the detail right in primary legislation.

1539
For that reason alone, and without going into the merits, I too welcome this measure.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I very much welcome the words of all noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular those of my noble friend Lord Renton. I agree with him that in this case it makes good sense to bring in these changes in regulations rather than through primary legislation. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for giving a warm welcome to the regulations. I hope that he will not take it the wrong way when I say to him that no doubt he will change his attitude toward the Department of Trade and Industry and, in this instance, regard it as having done a very good job.
I join him in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. I was the unfortunate Minister responsible at the time of one of the debates a couple of years ago when I was generally harangued from around the House about sales of wine by the glass. I was obstructive then, so it is a delight to come to the House with this order.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, is not entirely satisfied and would like to see the regulation brought in considerably faster. We have to consider the needs of the consumer and also the needs of the licensee. We have come to the conclusion that the best way to bring in this order is to do it over a period of years so as to allow licensees, especially those who do not sell very much wine, to adjust to the new regulations and to replace their glasses.
A point was raised about using a lined container. Such a container is not usual when dealing with the sale of spirits. I am not entirely convinced by the argument that it should be used for wine.
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, is extremely pleased with the work that he has done over a number of years and that he will recognise that a Conservative Government have brought in this measure and have shown themselves to be caring about the needs of the noble Lord and have listened to them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EEC Merger Control (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 1990
7.27 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations make technical changes only to the competition legislation of the United Kingdom, consequential upon the adoption last year of a European Community merger regulation. They do not reflect any change in the Government's mergers policy.
Under the regulation adopted by the Council of the European Communities last December, mergers with a Community dimension—those with a combined world-wide turnover of more than 5 billion ecu (around £3·7 billion) and where at least two of the
1540
undertakings concerned have a Community turnover in excess of 250 million ecu (around £185 million)—will be subject to examination by the European Commission. Mergers which primarily concern one member state, in that more than two-thirds of the turnover of each company concerned is in the same member state, remain subject to national controls.
However, it is possible that from time to time a merger thought initially to fall within the Commission's jurisdiction is later—possibly some months later and after examination by the European Court—found not to be one for the Commission but for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to deal with under United Kingdom law. Under UK law, the Secretary of State's ability to act is lost when certain time periods have elapsed; hence the need for these technical amendments merely to restore the status quo. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved (23rd Report from the Joint Committee).—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord for having brought forward these regulations. As he said, the new regulations are designed to give effect to Council Regulation No. 4064/89 of 21st December 1989. In examining the regulations that are now before us, we in the Opposition have carefully examined the Council regulation. It would appear that the two are somewhat in conflict.
I should like to refer the noble Lord to Article 4 of the regulation referred to. It is in the Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 395/1. It states:
"Concentrations with a Community dimension as referred to by this Regulation shall"
—and I underline the word "shall"—
"be notified to the Commission not more than one week after the conclusion of the agreement, or the announcement of the public bid, or the acquisition of a controlling interest. That week shall begin when the first of those events occurs".
This regulation which, under Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1970, automatically becomes part of British law, would seem to be in conflict with the provisions of the Companies Act 1989. I refer in particular to Sections 75A and 75B which amend the Fair Trading Act covering these points. So far in this country all notification in regard to mergers has been on the basis of a code of practice. The operative words in Sections 75A and 75B are in support of that. They are a voluntary code.
I refer to Section 75A which is headed:
"General rule where notice given by acquirer and no reference made within period for considering notice".
Subsection (1) states:
"Notice may be given to the Director by a person authorised by regulations".
The regulation of the Commission states "shall". Which is to prevail? Paragraph 2 of the regulation amends Section 75B of the Fair Trading Act 1973. A new paragraph (d) is added which states:
"[if] it appears to him that the notified arrangements are, or if carried into effect would result in, a concentration with a

1541
Community dimension within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4064/89 of 21st December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings".
Subsection (7) once again becomes governed by the words:
"The Director may, at any time before the period for considering any merger notice expires, reject the notice if",
and then there are paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and the new (d).
On the one hand, the Council regulation says "shall" but we are apparently still saying "may". Which is right? Which is to prevail? I am sure that it is a matter which the noble Lord's department will have considered.
I immediately concede, having had only a very limited time to study both the Council regulation and the appropriate sections of the Fair Trading Act, that my conception may be entirely wrong. If that is the case, I shall be obliged to the noble Lord for having corrected me because I always like to have matters of detail absolutely correct.
Am I right or wrong? If I am wrong, I shall accept the noble Lord's rebuke for having wasted his time in drawing his attention to it. If I am right, I should like to know how he proposes to bring English law into conformity with Community law bearing in mind that the Fair Trading Act cannot of itself be amended by regulation. It would need the Government to bring forward a new Act to amend the Fair Trading Act and in particular Sections 75A and 75B. I am very hopeful that that may not be necessary and that the noble Lord may be able to elucidate the problem that I regret to have laid before him. However, it is a matter upon which the House should be informed and which ought to be cleared up.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House joins me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on the assiduous way in which he has tackled this subject, and quite obviously the enormous amount of work that he has put into trying to work it out.
I can see where the confusion lies. I too find comparing these regulations with various pieces of legislation at UK or Community level extremely complicated. However, I hope that I can allay the fears of the noble Lord. Perhaps I may also say how grateful I am that he raised this issue with me a few moments before we came into the Chamber. I have therefore been able to do a certain amount of investigation.
The Community system requires notification of mergers falling within the regulation. Under our system the Secretary of State may refer a merger for investigation by the MMC. That instrument ensures that the Secretary of State retains his discretionary power to make a reference in the event that a merger notified to the EC proves to be within the UK's jurisdiction. That could take some time to resolve and the UK system involves time limits which may meanwhile have expired. The UK's voluntary notification system is based upon our belief that the market should be free to operate. A mandatory system
1542
for the much larger number of cases covered by our legislation would be considerably more burdensome for companies and consume greater public resources. We therefore prefer to intervene only when it is essential to protect the public interest.
Article 4 requires notification. It is a mandatory requirement. Sections 75A and 75B are voluntary. We therefore do not feel that there is any conflict because the Community regulation establishes exclusive jurisdiction above a certain threshold. Cases which come below the threshold—which will include cases which have therefore slipped through the net which this regulation picks up—remain within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction. Therefore we are free to deal with those on our own voluntary or mandatory basis—and we of course choose the former.
I hope that that that has allayed the noble Lord's fears. I can understand from where his concerns arise. However, I hope that that explanation will suffice.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, he does not quite satisfy me. The existing Sections 75A and 75B cover not only the small mergers and concentrations that escape the Commission net, as the noble Lord says, but also those which are within the Commission net. I agree that the numbers will, we hope, be comparatively small. We are becoming a little sick of mammoth mergers which do not add to the country's products in the slightest. But even on the assumption that there are a few which come within the Commission net, and therefore there is the mandatory element, as the noble Lord says, those same larger mergers within the Community net still remain within the voluntary net which is created by Sections 75A and 75B.
Therefore, to be logical, the Act should be amended to conform with the Community regulations in respect of those companies and directors who fall within the Community net; otherwise there will still be the conflict of laws. I do not know whether the noble Lord has given thought to that aspect. I believe that the essence of what I said in my introductory remarks still holds good.
It is common knowledge that I am not in favour of the Commission taking away powers from the United Kingdom Parliament, other than the barest possible necessities. However, once again it is a question of having everything legally correct. One may dissent from the principle but at least what is done should be legally intelligible and capable of proper legal application. On reflection, does not the Minister believe that the directors of companies which fall within the Commission net should be covered by a corresponding provision introduced by an appropriate amendment to Sections 75A and 75B?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made a telling statement when discussing the role of the European Community. It was slightly at odds with that of his Front Bench and the rest of the leadership of the Labour Party. As we all know, it has wholeheartedly taken on board the Commission's proposals as regards almost every single issue. I

1543
welcome the noble Lord's comments. They provided tremendous enlightenment and I hope that he will stick to them in the months and years to come.
I turn to the more substantive points that he raised. I forgot to reply to the remarks that he made in opening about the possibility of amending the Companies Act 1989. The prenotification procedures in Section 75B can be amended by secondary legislation. As regards European Community mergers policy, mergers falling within Community limits automatically fall within the Commission's jurisdiction and therefore Community law prevails. The obligation in the Community regulations is simply notification to the Commission. The overlap between our prenotification cases and the Community cases would be small. Copies of Community notification are sent under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4064/89 to the UK authorities.
I have looked at the problem raised by the noble Lord. However, I believe that there is no problem because in the instances where Community jurisdiction clearly applies Community law will apply. Here we are merely dealing with cases which were first thought to apply to Community law but which then trickled down to UK law. As a result of the time-limit, we are merely extending the provision so that it might apply in the normal way under United Kingdom law. I hope that as a result of that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will agree to approve the regulations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that reply. It still does not completely clarify the legal situation. As ignorance of the law is no excuse in the United Kingdom, in order to comply with the law it will now be necessary for a library of Commission regulations to be kept in case, for some unspecified reason, British law does not comply with Community law which is alleged to affect it. Complications may arise.
I willingly concede that I may be in error because I have had only a matter of hours to study the regulations. However, the Minister's department has been studying them for a month or more. They will have been regurgitated over a number of expert committees possessed of far better professional qualifications than I have. Perhaps I am wrong but I remain uneasy.
As regards the Minister's more political point about my attitude towards the European Community, I am a British citizen first and a Member of the British Houses of Parliament. It has always been my objective here to ensure that the interests of my country are fully protected in all eventualities within the bounds of the treaties that it has signed and the undertakings that it has given. That remains my position and in no way am I at odds with my party on this issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1990
7.45 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order, when made, will give effect to the immunities and privileges set out in chapter VIII of the articles of agreement and attested to by all signatories as necessary to enable the bank to fulfil its purposes and functions. All signatories are required to give effect to these basic immunities and privileges.
Your Lordships will acknowledge the extraordinary changes in eastern Europe which provide new opportunities and allow the disciplines of the free market to operate. The free world must react quickly to this process if it is to help and influence events. A clear example of quick reaction and long-term commitment is this new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).
In December last year, when meeting in Strasbourg, the European Council decided to establish as soon as possible a new European bank to further the implementation in central and eastern European countries of democracy and economic reform. The discussions, begun in Paris in January this year, culminated in the signing on 29th May by representatives of its 42 prospective members of the articles of agreement establishing the bank. Signatories include the world's leading economic powers—all members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including of course all member states of the European Community. All members of Comecon have signed and are potential recipients. Other states have also signed—Egypt, Israel, the Republic of Korea, Mexico and Morocco. It is truly an international effort and we must ensure that the impetus of this effort is maintained.
The purpose of the EBRD, as set out in the articles of agreement, will be to foster the transition towards open market-orientated economies. Equally, it is to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the central and eastern European countries committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics.
The functions of the EBRD include, among others, the implementation of structural and sectoral economic reforms, including demonopolisation, decentralisation and privatisation; the promotion of the improvement and expansion of productive, competitive and private sector activities; the mobilisation of domestic and foreign capital and experienced management; fostering productive investment; providing technical assistance for the preparation, financing and implementation of relevant projects; and encouragement for the development of capital markets.
The articles of agreement, signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th May, were presented to the House as Command Paper 1116 on 28th June. These articles will come into force only when ratified by signatories representing two-thirds of the total voting power, including at least two countries from central and eastern Europe. It is imperative that ratification be completed quickly. As host nation, the United Kingdom plans to be among the first to ratify. The president-designate, M. Attali, expects the agreement to enter into force early next year. Such is the pace of development in Europe, however, that we must hope the necessary processes are completed as soon as possible to enable the bank to start operating at the earliest opportunity. Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree. Thus, it is important that the draft order be approved now so that we can ratify the agreement to establish the bank.
The principal privileges and immunities to be conferred on the bank by this order, under the provisions of the International Organisations Act 1968, as amended, are legal capacity, certain immunities from seizure of its property and assets, inviolability of its archives, exemptions from taxes on income, capital gains and other direct taxes, certain exceptions from Customs and Excise duties and restrictions on goods imported for official use, and relief from VAT. Officers and employees of the bank will be exempted from taxation on salaries paid to them by the bank, although there will be an internal tax for the benefit of the bank, as well as immunity from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts.
Your Lordships will be aware that the new bank is to have its headquarters in London. It will be the first multilateral development bank to have its head-quarters here. I am delighted that the advantages of London as the location of the bank's base were clearly acknowledged when the final choice was made.
Accordingly, a headquarters agreement is to be negotiated with the bank which will set out in detail the immunities and privileges of the bank and its employees within the limits imposed by the International Organisations Act 1968, as amended. Approval by your Lordships of a further order will be sought later when negotiations are completed. This process must be finalised before the bank is ready to commence full operations here.
The reform process in central and eastern Europe poses one of the great political challenges of our time. Political courage and fortitude from within and firmness of purpose from without have combined to end the political impasse of the cold war. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development can now help to provide the economic prosperity necessary to underpin political freedom. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are happy to associate ourselves with the general sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. As the noble Lord says, recent developments have presented all western nations with an opportunity to assist in the considerable reconstruction which must take place in the wake of the abolition of the old dictatorial and centrally planned states of eastern Europe. Of course it is to be hoped that their courage is matched by our imagination and that we concentrate, possibly rather more altruistically than we may have done in the past, on bringing constructive assistance rather than on the making of a quick buck—our principal preoccupation. However, we welcome the instrument, which is in standard form.
We welcome the fact that the bank will be in London. We commend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his fellow Ministers for their initiative in this matter.
There are one or two points in the order on which I should like illumination. I do not raise the matters in any querulous spirit; I do not intend to make an issue of them. Paragraph 8 states that the bank shall have,
"relief from rates on its official premises".
I do not know to which kind of rate it would otherwise be subject. Would it be the business rate at the standard rate or the rate which is being levied following the institution of the poll tax? I am not sure what relief is afforded to the bank.
In paragraph 9, in regard to the importation of goods and services, the order states that the bank is exempt from taxes subject to such conditions as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe. What kind of conditions will be prescribed? It will be useful to know that because the bank's directors must know in due course.
Paragraph 10 states:
"The Bank shall be exempt from prohibitions and restrictions on importation or exportation in the case of goods and publications imported or exported by the Bank and necessary for the exercise of its official activities".
Do the authorities or does the bank itself determine what is necessary?
At paragraph 14 one sees the reference to which the noble Lord referred:
"As from the date on which an internal effective tax for the benefit of the Bank on the emoluments paid to him by the Bank is applied".
Employees and directors are exempt from taxation in this country as the noble Lord described. I am fascinated by the term "internal tax". It is rather novel for an institution to levy a tax upon its employees for its own benefit. I know that that is done in the European Commission. British employees of the Commission do not pay any income tax in the United Kingdom. They pay considerably reduced income tax in the EC which is then applied to a reduction of the Commission's own vote for expenditure. That is rather a novel way of going about it. Is the noble Lord quite sure that that is the best way to proceed? I note that the emoluments can be taken into account for the purposes of determining total income for other purposes. Perhaps the noble Lord will expand on that.

1547
These are small matters. I raise them only to enable the noble Lord to provide a little more information. On this side of the House we are more than willing to expedite the progress of the order through the House in the hope that it will achieve the objectives which the Government have so ably set out.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the general welcome which he has given to the order. He has quite properly raised one or two points which he described as being small matters. He was kind enough to give me advance notice of them; so I hope I shall be able to throw some light upon them.
The noble Lord asked about the exemption of rates of the bank's premises. My understanding is that the bank's premises will be subject to exemption from all but the beneficial portion of the non-domestic rate. The beneficial portion is 20 per cent. of the rate operative in the borough in which the premises are situated. That is my understanding.
With respect to paragraph 9, the noble Lord asked if I could explain the conditions which the Customs and Excise might prescribe for the protection of the revenue. I believe that those are yet to be determined in respect of this organisation but they will be for the protection of the revenue.
With regard to paragraphs 9 and 10, the noble Lord asked who was to decide what is necessary for the exercise of the official activities of the bank. In any dispute that would be for initial discussion between the bank and the relevant United Kingdom authorities; for example, Customs and Excise. Guidance is available from Customs and Excise, and ultimately in any dispute it would be a matter for interpretation by the United Kingdom courts.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions regarding internal tax. An internal tax is one levied by the international organisation for its own benefit. The revenue generated serves to reduce the contributions payable by member states. I understand that in international practice that is the treatment normally accorded to emoluments paid by an international organisation.
I hope that that deals with most of the queries raised by the noble Lord. Once again, I thank him for his general reception of an order which it is hoped marks an important step forward in the welcoming back of eastern and central Europe into the fold of the western world.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill
8 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 11 [The Broadcasting Complaints Commission: Supplementary Provisions]:
[Amendment No. 311ZA not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 311ZB:
Page 197, line 11, after ("made") insert:
("(a) ").
The noble Earl said: The following amendments are mainly technical. They are intended to bring the provisions regarding the interests of members of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council into line with the schedules for other public bodies contained in the Bill. That would enable the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council to have the discretion to resolve that a member's interest may be disregarded to enable a member to take part in the work of the bodies. Other public bodies have this same discretion in their schedules. I refer not only to Amendment No. 311ZB, but also to Amendments Nos. 311A, 311ZC, 311ZD, 311CA, 311CB, and 311CC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment Nos. 311ZC to 311A:
Page 197, line 12, after ("and") insert:
("(b) (subject to sub-paragraph (1A))").
Page 197, line 14, at end insert:
("(1A) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to any meeting of the BCC at which all of the other members present resolve that the member's interest should be disregarded for the purposes of that provision.").
Page 197, leave out lines 24 to 37.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 [Function of BCC]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 311AA:
Page 103, line 6, leave out ("actually").
The noble Viscount said: While speaking to Amendment No. 311AA, for the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 311AB and 311AC. These are purely drafting amendments. The reference to "actually" is superfluous. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 311AB and 311AC:
Page 103, line 9, leave out ("actually").
Page 103, line 11, leave out ("actually").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Consideration of complaints]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 311B:
Page 105, line 22, leave out ("body corporate") and insert ("broadcasting body").
The noble Lord said: While speaking to Amendment No. 311B, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 311C. These are primarily technical amendments to ensure that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is able to receive assistance when considering a complaint from either a broadcasting body, a body other than a broadcasting body or an individual. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 311C:
Page 105, line 25, at end insert:
("(aa) where the relevant person is a body other than a broadcasting body, to arrange for one or more of the following, namely—

(i) the persons who take part in the management or control of the body, or

(ii) the employees of the body,

to attend the BCC and assist them in their consideration of the complaint, or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 134 to 138 agreed to.
Clause 139 [The Broadcasting Standards Council]:
On Question, Whether Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Clause 139 is the first of the clauses dealing with the Broadcasting Standards Council. We have given notice of our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill. This may be a convenient moment, at the beginning of this group of clauses, to state our anxieties regarding the Broadcasting Standards Council.
In moving that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, we are stating that the Broadcasting Standards Council should not continue with the statutory basis provided for it by the Bill. In opposing the clause, I wish to make clear that it is in no way a reflection on those who serve on the Broadcasting Standards Council—the noble Lord, Lord William Rees-Mogg, who is with us in Committee this evening, or his colleagues. Our case, which I hope to develop, is that the council is unnecessary in terms of the regulatory arrangements for broadcasting standards inside British broadcasting.
Proceeding on a personal note for a moment, perhaps I may say that the Broadcasting Standards Council is served by Mr. Colin Shaw, who is one of the most experienced professional people in the regulating of broadcasting standards in this country. He recently wrote to me putting forward the position of the Broadcasting Standards Council and very properly saying that we should be aware that its members are no less committed to the public interest than the governors of the BBC or the members of the IBA.
I totally accept that, as all members of the Committee will. Colin Shaw went on to indicate some of the very useful work that the council has done since its inception; for instance, breaking new ground with small scale public meetings, and in particular seeking to deal with anxieties about violence on television and the treatment by the broadcasting media of disaster victims. That I totally accept. That is good work. Indeed, if the Broadcasting Standards Council were to be limited in its operations to what I would call background work in relation to the maintenance of broadcasting standards in this country, that might be useful. There is certainly a need for independent
1550
bodies doing serious research work about the general impact of television on behaviour and the general climate of our society.
However, the reason why we believe that the Broadcasting Standards Council in its statutory form is unnecessary is that, in an unacceptable way, it duplicates the responsibilities already laid on the shoulders of the members of the IBA—soon to become the ITC—and on the governors of the BBC and members of the Radio Authority. I think it is a general principle of good public administration that when one lays responsibilities on people one makes those responsibilities clear-cut and does not confuse people by having them overlapping and shared with other groups.
It is true that there are differences in the structures of the BBC and independent broadcasting as it exists at present. There will be further differences when the new ITC structure is established. Nevertheless, the fact is that the governors of the BBC, although they head what is perhaps one of the world's greatest broadcasting organisations and feel a sense of loyalty and pride in the work that the professional broadcasters do, are there as the trustees of the public interest. I know that they take that trusteeship extremely seriously. They have the responsibility under the BBC's royal charter for exactly the same programme standards which are now being made part of the terms of reference of the BSC.
In the case of the IBA the structure was again different. Members of the IBA stood at arm's length from those who made the programmes and the companies that held contracts under the IBA. They will be even more at arm's length under the new arrangements where they will become more of a licensing body, though still with a heavy responsibility not only for setting the standards in the first place but ensuring that those standards are fulfilled once the licences are issued.
To seek to duplicate that responsibility for broadcasting standards in the areas that are referred to the BSC is a recipe for confusion. It is a fifth wheel to a British broadcasting coach that has worked well in the past, and there is no reason to believe that it will not work equally well in the future.
There are some other matters of concern about the way that the BSC is approaching its duties under this Bill. I am bound to say that one has caused particular concern. I quote from the brief kindly supplied to Members of the Committee by the council:
"The Council believes it to be essential to its task of monitoring and reporting on programmes to be able to initiate complaints with the broadcasters on its own account".
That is a very dangerous position with great risks involved for the way in which the Broadcasting Standards Council will find itself fulfilling its responsibilities.
Another matter of interest—again I refer to the briefing we have received—is that the council is seeking to regard itself as apparently the proper voice of British broadcasting on these matters of programme standards in regard to our relations with Europe. I cannot speak definitely on this matter but I

1551
think the Broadcasting Standards Council is a unique body within the European broadcasting scene. Generally speaking, the familiar pattern is to lay the responsibility for standards on the broadcasting authorities themselves. Again, I believe there will be confusion if we have both the BBC and, presumably, the ITC represented on the European Broadcasting Union and taking the normal path in the development of European broadcasting affairs, and a separate body also engaged in work on that territory. I know that there is a certain amount of confusion on the mainland of Europe in that respect.
Those are some of the reasons why we are opposed in principle to the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council on a statutory basis. We oppose the clause.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to the council as being unnecessary and said that its functions would be carried out by other people. It is extremely important to get this matter straight before we go into some of the other reasons why the council should not be given statutory status. In the first place, it is responsible for drawing up a code in consultation with the broadcasting authorities and others. That is on page seven of the latest annual report. The duty to do that is found in Clauses 6, 7 and 9. That duplicates the responsibilities of the ITC.
The report also refers to the monitoring of programmes and the subsequent reporting of standards in domestic services or services reaching this country from elsewhere. That can be found in Clauses 11 and 12, which cover research into such matters as nature and the effects on attitudes and behaviour, the portrayal of sex and violence in programmes, and on commercials. Therefore, those subjects are already handled sufficiently and, we are sure, efficiently by the bodies already existing. Again, the handling of complaints is a function of the ITC and the BBC. Liaising with Europe—the fifth of the functions described in the report—can be found in Clause 65, where the ITC has the power to do that.
In regard to research, I note that the Broadcasting Standards Council is anxious to fulfil that function. We already have an excellent broadcasting research unit which for many years has produced invaluable independent research, much of which has found its way into academic circles. It covers the whole spectrum of the popular press as well, and it is highly respected. It has produced useful background material for members of all parties concerned with the Broadcasting Bill and other broadcasting matters. I understand that it is likely to continue with that function on behalf of the ITC.
It is only fair to say that the Broadcasting Standards Council has become something of a joke. It is an unnecessary carbuncle on the face of a Bill which is packed with regulatory bodies whose functions more than adequately cover its role. The Government have created a great new quango. Its preoccupation partly with sex has already given rise to some polite amusement at the findings of one of its earlier studies
1552
that the great British public are far less concerned than some would have us believe about nudity or the depiction of sexual images.
In the report commissioned by the Government on the financing of broadcasting by the BBC, Professor Peacock recommended the phasing out of all these regulations for broadcasting other than the normal laws of the land. The Broadcasting Standards Council is a waste of time and money. Over £1 million a year is spent on what many of us feel may be a well meaning but futile exercise. Its function is best described as that of a gloomy gremlin crouched in the corner of every television screen in the land waiting to cast a shadow of doubt over the creative activities of the broadcasting industry.
On the face of it, the BSC is not a censorship body with previewing powers. In effect, it certainly has the capacity to inhibit unduly broadcasters and programme makers who know that even the most mischievous complaint could result in the publication of a ruling that some small part of a television schedule has upset a vociferous minority. Let us look for one moment at what the Bill already requires of broadcasters in terms of taste and decency. We now trot out phrases such as taste and decency in the same way as cream and coffee or sugar and honey. They are words that run together. They are not always so meaningful in our society as the right reverend Prelate would like them to be. That is because we are using old-fashioned phrases and not bringing them up to date in ways in which they can be communicated, particularly to young people.
Both the ITC and the Radio Authority are required to ensure that high standards are maintained not only by means of the judgment made in awarding licences but also by means of the old codes of practice. They are extremely thorough and lengthy enough to cover all the matters that the Broadcasting Standards Council is attempting to deal with. The BBC's royal charter ensures that the corporation operates on precisely similar lines. Yet the BSC must take the BBC under its own censorious wing. It makes no sense. The Obscene Publications Act has been extended to cover broadcasting as a backstop, according to the Minister.
In Committee in another place the Minister said that there should be no need for it ever to be applied to broadcast programmes since there are sufficient safeguards on the face of the Bill to ensure that no programme maker ever falls foul of its provisions. Mr. Mellor said in Committee that the Obscene Publications Act will be used because the mechanisms that control the acceptability of materials have been deliberately drawn much more closely than the Obscene Publications Act by successive governments. Clause 6 sets far more rigorous standards than anything in the Obscene Publications Act, which therefore takes up its position as the backstop in matters relating to the mainstream licensed broadcasters in this country. He went on to say that the Act is a rusty blunderbuss that goes off in the face of the person trying to fire it. I do not think that the Opposition could have put it any better than that, or more forcefully.

1553
The ITC and the Radio Authority are required to ensure that nothing is broadcast that is likely to offend against taste and decency. They have brought in these words which are recognisable by most people. Whether one likes them or not, they are there and to be obeyed. They have also to ensure that nothing is broadcast that is likely to encourage or incite to crime. There are specific clauses referring to programmes broadcast at a time when children are likely to be watching; there are powers to influence the issue of scheduling; and there are codes relating to the content of advertising which mirror those given to the BSC. In addition, there is the Advertising Standards Authority. So where is the real need for the Broadcasting Standards Council? Complainants can go direct to the broadcasters, the regulatory bodies and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. They may even have recourse to law if they feel that the law has been breached.
Despite public protestations that there has been an increase in the number of complaints from members of the public about offensive items on television, the IBA research shows that there has been no increase in complaints since 1983. Of those complaints, bad language seems to upset people far more than sexual matters. IBA research suggests that the large majority of ITV and Channel 4 viewers feel that standards have improved over recent years.
The BSC exists at present simply because the Government thought it was a good idea at the time and was rather pushed into creating it because of a wave of panic on the part of a very vociferous minority of people. The Government were forced to set up a body that was completely unnecessary though the people concerned with it, like the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and the director, Mr. Colin Shaw, believe in it deeply. However, that is not enough to justify its creation or to pacify the most vociferous critics of broadcasting.
As I have said, it is costing £1 million a year to convince people that standards will not fall as a result of the changes being introduced in this Bill. We have good reason to believe that standards will fall where profits are the consuming interest of broadcasters in a free market environment. If there are concerns about the standard of the material pumped into the living rooms of the nation—that is one of the justifications which the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, gave for the existence of the BSC at last year's Edinburgh television festival—then such concerns can and should be dealt with by the ITC. The Bill allows that that should be so.
The BSC is not the way to halt plummeting standards. It is the function of such bodies to create unnecessary anxiety among broadcasters—in other words, to act as discreet censors. To be fair, they are put in that position where, in order to justify themselves, they have to stir up complaints themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, pointed out, the right that they have to
1554
initiate complaints is a very dangerous power. It is an example of Parkinson's Law with moral overtones which we certainly do not need.
We would much rather that the Government had the courage of their convictions and relied on the considerable apparatus of regulations that has been built into the Bill. The Broadcasting Standards Council does not provide the way forward but the way backward. This Bill is supposed to be about the future. Perhaps the most serious consequence of the creation of the BSC will be when—not if—conflicts of judgment arise between the BBC, the ITC and even the Advertising Standards Authority. Disagreement between the BSC and other regulatory bodies will serve only to undermine its authority and cause confusion among viewers, complainants, programme makers and broadcasting companies. This body is a silly whim and it should be recognised for what it is. It should be consigned to the dustbin of expediency from which it was so hastily plucked.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: Much of what has been said in the last two speeches is familiar to me. We had this kind of debate in the committee on the future of broadcasting when it sat between 1974 and 1977. In those days we were adamant against any broadcasting council being set up. We said that the authorities and the governors of the BBC and the IBA were there to safeguard all standards and to deal with the problems in regard to impartiality. They were the people who were given that duty. To put any kind of council above them was a great mistake.
We had in mind something rather different from the Broadcasting Standards Council. We were being urged at that time to set up a broadcasting council which would have, in the great phrase of the people who advocated it, an overarching responsibility for the whole of broadcasting. We said that there was a great danger of this council developing its own programmes. At best we thought it would be a perpetual fidget; and at worst, an incubus hovering over the broadcasters. We then said that what mattered was to get the public to express views. That was why we recommended public discussions and hearings by the authorities about whether the public was satisfied with the services it was receiving.
What has changed? Our report fell into two parts. There were the recommendations about the structure of broadcasting, which were voluminous and, many people thought, enormously over-bureaucratic. Those were severely criticised. On the other hand, Chapter 16, on standards in broadcasting relating to violence, sex, bad language and other matters, and Chapter 17, on news and current affairs and the responsibility of broadcasters to be impartial in this field, were widely praised. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, who was then chairman of the governors of the BBC, told me that he sent photostats of those chapters to every single producer in the BBC. The irony was that practically all the recommendations about structure have over the years been accepted by different governments, including even the recommendation that there should be an authority for local radio broadcasting, whereas

1555
the chapters which were so widely praised were neglected by the broadcasters themselves. That is why the Government have set up this body.
There is a lack of confidence in the ability certainly of the governors of the BBC to do two tasks. We spent much time worrying about this as we saw the governors as a kind of Janus figure—it faced both ways. Part of the duties of the governors of the BBC is to govern the corporation, to appoint the senior people in the corporation and to be a real board of the corporation. The other part of the governors' duties is to act in the public's interest and to interpret whether the BBC is giving the public the service that it should have. It has proved very difficult ever since the 1960s for these two sets of duties to be reconciled. The IBA has done a better job over the years than the governors of the BBC in this respect. There is no doubt that one of the reasons that we have the Broadcasting Standards Council is the lack of confidence in these matters
I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that there is packed into the Bill an over-kill in these matters. There is reference to the Obscene Publications Act operating upon the broadcasters. In this respect I commend to the Government a report which came out some years ago on the whole question of obscenity. The body which produced the report was chaired by Professor Bernard Williams. I well remember the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, making one of the most self-confident remarks I have ever heard in this Chamber. He awarded Professor Williams, who was Knightbridge professor of moral philosophy at Cambridge, a double alpha for casuistry and a double delta minus for the conclusions in his report.
The conclusions in the report were very interesting. The report concluded that while it was no use trying any longer to operate laws on obscenity on the written word—in a books—a very different standard should obtain in broadcasting. In that respect things are beamed into family living rooms in a way in which they are certainly not in terms of books. I remember Professor Williams saying that acts such as sexual intercourse between a husband and wife, while undoubtedly legal and highly admirable, would be intolerable if they were shown on the screen regularly, night after night. Those are the matters which the Broadcasting Standards Council is bound to have to take into account. I believe that some of its pronouncements on this matter have been wise.
I rather agree with the noble Baroness that obscenity is not one of the matters about which the great British public is particularly worried. However, it has bean very much worried about violence. It has also been worried about a kind of violence which expresses itself in language and which produces simply by virtue of the language used—I do not necessarily mean four-letter words—a coarse and intolerable standard of behaviour which can have, and I think does have, an effect on viewers.
We are bound to have this council. It is going to come. What worries me is that one matter has not been part of the remit of the Broadcasting Standards
1556
Council. I refer to the whole question of impartiality in news, current affairs and documentary programmes. I have listened time and again to people like the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who some may think eccentric but who I believe represent a very strong body of opinion. If we do not look out, what will come into the remit of the council—this is the danger of the council—is the oversight of impartiality in news and current affairs.
I will end by quoting from a Session in 1601 of another place. The other place was debating the monopolies and patents which had been granted in great numbers to various individuals in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The Commons were extremely angry about this. In the buzz of debate Mr. Hakewill rose and said, "Is not bread there amongst them?" "Bread'?", quoth one, "Bread?", quoth another, "This voice seems strange", quoth a third. "Nay", said Mr. Hakewill, "if order be not taken in this matter, bread will be there before the next Session". I say this to the broadcasters. If order be not taken, impartiality in news and current affairs will be within the remit of the Broadcasting Standards Council within the next decade.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for what he said. I do not agree with his last sentence although I understand why he said it. I thought that the noble Lord breathed a sense of fresh air and realism into this debate on the Broadcasting Standards Council.
The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, left me breathless. If I may say so within the bounds of courtesy, her speech consisted of appalling humbug. All the way through our debates on the Bill the Opposition have asked for quality. All the way through the proceedings on the Bill they have accused the Government of lowering standards. One of the things we do here is to set up a Broadcasting Standards Council to look into and determine the standards which ought to be reasonable for violence and sex and standards of taste and decency.
If the noble Baroness does not realise that the council was set up because of a genuine public concern about the standards of such programmes, I honestly wonder where she has been for the past five or 10 years. I say that because, without question, there has been general concern about sex and violence in television programmes. The reason for the concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, correctly said, is that programmes are beamed directly into the family living room. People are worried about sex, violence and bad language because they can and do inculcate coarse and intolerable standards of behaviour.
Baroness Birk: I did not for one moment expect the Minister to agree with me. If he had, I should have been absolutely shell-shocked. However, he must not spread what is merely a subjective view on quality. I do not know how he can say that quality is measured by the Broadcasting Standards Council. Of course, he believes in it; I do not. Moreover, I have a right not to do so.

1557
Perhaps I may also put the noble Earl right on a question of fact. It is not true to say that sex and violence are the concerns of most people. Responsible research into the subject shows that that is not the case. The biggest concern of many people is first bad language, followed by violence and then sex. The concern to which he referred involves a small number of people. With respect, I believe that the Minister is quite wrong to give the impression that hordes of people were demanding a Broadcasting Standards Council.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness is entitled to her opinion. It is all very well for her and her colleagues throughout the proceedings on the Bill to say that the legislation will result in the lowering of standards and quality. When the Government introduce an organisation which will home in on standards but not set them—it will advise upon them—the noble Baroness says that it is a waste of time and money; that the members of the council are gloomy gremlins; and that it is a carbuncle on the broadcasting system. In my view, that is really going over the top. However, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that that view is no criticism of those who serve on the Broadcasting Standards Council. The body has existed in a brief statutory form for over two years. During that period its record justifies its establishment on a statutory basis. I do not believe, as the noble Baroness said, that it has shown itself to be a joke.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested that the council might try to override the responsibilities of the broadcasters. He said that it would add to the confusion. It was never the intention to override the duties of the broadcasters. The council deserves credit for the way in which it has responded sensibly to concerns. I accept that they are serious concerns. The BBC and its governors have a remit as regards the quality of the programmes which are broadcast, as indeed have the other broadcasting authorities. However, through effective and patient communication, the Broadcasting Standards Council has assured both the public and the broadcasters that it is there to assist in the development of what should be acceptable standards and that it is not there to dictate terms. Similarly, the constitutional independence of the broadcasters will not he disturbed.
It would be wrong to pretend that the broadcasters' record on standards of taste and decency is entirely without blemish. The public interest in this area needs to be defended. We cannot always rely upon the broadcasters to ensure that this is so. It is essential that we look after the interests of the young. We need to consider the effect which too heavy an emphasis on violence in some programmes might have on impressionable young minds. There may be no conclusive evidence of a direct link between violence in broadcasting and violence in society. However, there is no doubt that the depiction of violence can have a deep and lasting impression on those who are most vulnerable.
It is not intended that the Broadcasting Standards Council will take over the role of the ITC and that of
1558
the BBC. It will reinforce the work which has been carried out in the past. In particular, it will take a lead in the establishment of standards on issues which have been of concern to many people and in relation to issues upon which it is difficult to pontificate and draw a line. In short, it is there to help. The BBC and the ITC will be required to reflect the general effect of the Broadcasting Standards Council's code. That will leave room for the corporations to do their jobs.
It would be wrong to think of the Broadcasting Standards Council as in any way a censor; it will have no power. It will have no power to preview nor any right to remove offending material from television screens or radio sets. However, it will be able to provide advice and reflect public opinion in what is a very difficult and elusive task of deciding what should or should not be shown on our broadcasting services. Moreover, as soon as it has carried out its investigations, it will be able to publish its findings in the annual report—and there is not much wrong with that. It will also be able to require those findings to be broadcast by the broadcasters.
If I may say so, I think that it is a pity that the noble Baroness weighed in so heftily against the Broadcasting Standards Council. It does not override the duties of the governors of the BBC or those of the broadcasters; indeed, it tries with them to set standards.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I must apologise to Members of the Committee for having arrived a little late, thereby missing the beginning of the debate. However, I arrived in time to hear the admirable words of my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth and also one of the most effective speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to which I have ever listened. In my view, she made a devastating case. To pretend that it was purely as described by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seems to me a travesty; it was in fact an expression of opinion that many of us share.
I listened to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with my usual sense of surprise. He seems to have a kind of schizoid relationship towards the BBC: it is not exactly as he would have it be. However, to raise the Janus figure argument once more is a mistake. He said that the BBC cannot carry out its duties both as regards the running of the corporation and as guardians of the public interest. He said that those two functions are in contradiction to each other. However, those functions are carried out by every Minister of the Crown every day of the week. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is the protector of public interest and, at the same time, he runs the Home Office. He also runs the police. This division between administration and the representation of public interest lies at the heart of British constitutional arrangements. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, knows that to be true in his heart of hearts.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, also said that there is a great lack of confidence in the governor of the BBC and in the IBA. I do not know upon what

1559
evidence he bases that conclusion. Of course, it may be the evidence of Mrs. Whitehouse, but that is not evidence which entirely convinces me. He also said that the public are deeply disturbed or shocked by programmes which are screened in terms of sex and violence. I do not know which of the programmes portraying sex screened by the BBC and the IBA he finds to be totally unacceptable.
Anyone who has looked into the nature of complaints against television or broadcasting will know that the main complaint—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will agree with me—is bad language. That is what the public really object to. You cannot switch off bad language, because you do not know when it will occur. Indeed, it comes into the home in odd ways. People who use bad language outside the home do not necessarily use it inside the home. It is for this reason that people object to it so strongly. I simply do not know why he reaches the conclusion that the Broadcasting Standards Council was bound to come about or why he is so worried about impartiality.
Lord Annan: One of the reasons is that the governors of the BBC were for many years hardly ever known to accept any complaint that was made. They always justified it through thick and thin and never gave an inch.
Lord Bonham-Carter: If I were a Minister I would say, "I shall write to the noble Lord about that". The number of complaints that I have known the BBC to accept and to apologise for is substantial. The noble Lord is simply repeating the tittle-tattle of the campaign against the BBC which, we know, has been mounted over the past five years by a number of people who could be said to be interested in the result.
As for impartiality, I honestly think that the noble Lord should have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on that subject earlier in the debate. If he was here, he did not listen to it; if he was not here he could not have listened to it. He should accept that the basis of the cases for impartiality produced by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who I am sorry is not here, is the Media Monitoring Unit. That consisted of one man with a tape recorder—a man whose application to join the BBC had been turned down. His findings have been agreed by almost everyone to be extremely dubious and bad evidence. That is the basis of many of the accusations against impartiality.
However, let that be. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that we on these Benches had throughout the debate complained that the Government would jeopardise the quality of broadcasting in this country. That is profoundly true. It was admitted by his honourable friend, Mr. David Mellor, in the other place. It was admitted that that was likely to lead to a lower quality. There is no doubt about that. Why should there be if our criterion is financial reward and if we abandon public service? He has told us again and again that that was the criterion and we shall see the result.
1560
However, the noble Earl also said that we cannot define quality. He spent a great deal of time last night telling me that we could not define quality, but are standards easier to define than quality? Is the portrayal of good taste and decency easier to define than quality? Is the acceptable portrayal of sex and violence easy to define? That matter will be left in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, who knows my opinion on the subject, and of an absolutely classic quango composed of the statutory bishop, the statutory Scot, the statutory woman, the statutory black and the statutory ex-Labour MP. Those people will decide those matters. I ask you!
Earl Ferrers: I noticed that the noble Lord deliberately omitted the ex-statutory Liberal.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I should be delighted to see an ex-statutory Liberal. Is he ex-statutory or ex-Liberal? In any case, I find the idea that those people will reflect public opinion—
Lord Annan: Is the noble Lord not prejudging a little what the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, may or may not do? It may well be that the Broadcasting Standards Council will hold public hearings in order to achieve a cross-section of what the public hears. The idea that the body will simply sit and brood by itself is surely a little far-fetched.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Lord does not appear to have read the council's annual report. I happen to have read it. It tells me exactly how it tests public opinion with 750 people, 35 monitors and expeditions all over the country asking people questions which were vividly described to us by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans who is on the council. We know how it does that. On the whole, I am sceptical—that may be a mistake—of its ability to reflect public opinion.
Finally, the noble Earl said that the public interest cannot be left to broadcasters, but no one ever supposed that it was to be left to broadcasters. There are two bodies called the IBA and the governors of the BBC who are strictly enjoined to protect the public interest. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip. Was the noble Earl really saying that he did not trust the governors of the BBC and the IBA to look after the public interest? That is the implication of the arrangement.
I and my noble friends have felt quite unable to table an amendment to the clause because nothing in the world can rescue it from its own folly. The Government are setting up an organisation—a classic quango—which will simply take in its own washing and which is perfectly clearly in search of a role. Whether it will succeed in finding one is another matter, but in so doing it will no doubt tread on the toes of my noble friend and of the Advertising Standards Authority.
Earl Ferrers: I was trying to follow the noble Lord down his path. He said that the Broadcasting Standards. Council would simply take in its own washing. How do you take in washing that you have not produced?
Lord Bonham-Carter: You have to produce washing to take it in. That is just the trouble. The

1561
council is in search of a role and it will try to find grounds for work. It will try to build an empire. That is exactly what happens. How else can it justify its existence? That seems perfectly clear to me from what it is doing.
The council's conduct of research is a classic example. The amount of research that has been undertaken into sex and violence would fill the whole of that wall. The Broadcasting Standards Council not only undertakes research; it undertakes research into research. The first research that it undertook into research stated that the research had found out nothing.
I argue that the council is unnecessary. In addition to being unnecessary, it is confusing. It is confusing because, as I have said before, it is necessary to assign responsibility unambiguously if that responsibility is to be fulfilled. If, as the noble Baroness pointed out in her admirable speech, there are, as there now are, in the broadcasting world the governors of the BBC and of the IBA, the Broadcasting Standards Council, the Home Secretary, the ITC, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority—an array of regulatory institutions—it will produce confusion. It will lead the broadcasters to say, "How far can we push them?" That would be an administrative mistake.
The noble Earl has revealed the two faces of Thatcherism. There is greedy Thatcherism, which is the face that we have been attacking most of the time and which relies on the market in all respects. Then, suddenly, there is Granny Thatcherism, which is the one that interferes with our behaviour and starts telling us what to do. That one frightens me because it is deeply anti-libertarian.
The latest example of that is the Broadcasting Standards Council which has still to make up its mind about those difficult matters. In a famous interview, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, indicated the difficulties when he was asked what he thought was sexually acceptable and okay to put on television. He said—and it shows the extreme complexity of the problem facing us—that there were three kinds of sex in his view. There was romantic sex which he described as Romeo and Juliet sex, neglecting the fact that Juliet was under age. In Romeo and Juliet, sex and violence are more intimately interlocked than in any other of Shakespeare's plays. He then said that there was pornographic sex which he rightly did not define; that was unacceptable. Finally, he said that there was a grey area which he described in memorable terms as "groping sex". That is the problem that has faced the council. It has to decide whether this is groping sex, Romeo and Juliet sex, or pornographic sex. It should be left in the hands of those who to date have handled it perfectly well. This provision has undermined their authority; it undermines their authority now; it produces confusion, it is an invasion of liberty. Say what the noble Earl may, it is a form of censorship, hence we oppose this clause.
9 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: I cannot possibly follow that degree of passion and eloquence from the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I rise to make one or two simple points. When all this BSC business began, I said a kind word about it because I wanted to express my confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, who was then Sir William Rees-Mogg. I had known him for many years as a splendid, liberally minded editor of great quality. However, the Broadcasting Standards Council has turned out to have a very narrow brief. I quote from its annual report:
"The Council's remit concerns the portrayal in television and radio programmes and advertisements of violence, sexual conduct and matters of taste and decency".
This is not looking at the changing standards of a society in transition, a society searching for a new set of values which it can accept. The council has a special role: to consider violence, sexual conduct and matters of taste and decency. After all the publicity it has been given, it is natural that the council should have received complaints from members of the public over the past nine months. I regret that the brief prescribes that it is to deal with complaints. Perhaps the noble Earl or a spokesman on the Government Front Bench could tell us more about the way in which it will deal with complaints.
We are told in the annual report that the initial framework for handling complaints will continue to be modified and to reflect parliamentary decisions on the Bill. How is it being modified? The report says that in the meantime complaints should be made in writing or by telephone with a written confirmation to follow; and all complaints will be considered initially by a complaints committee.
If a body set up to deal with sex, violence and so forth issues a public invitation to people to complain to it, it will be overwhelmed with complaints. Every Mrs Grundy in Britain will write to the council once the invitation has been publicised. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested that we might even find it being concerned with the terrible subject of impartiality. I do not wish to re-open the debate we had the other day. It is a debate that I have been hearing for the past 20 or 25 years with exactly the same evidence and exactly the same lack of evidence. For example, there was a complaint about a broadcast in which a comment was made about defence. An outrageous opinion about defence had been expressed on television or radio. It was one little broadcast, out of all the thousands of orthodox broadcasts on NATO and Britain's defence policy. Yet one little breach on the other side is regarded as a flight from impartiality. That is the kind of situation we might easily get into. I hope that impartiality is dead, at least until the Report stage.
On Question, Whether Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 29,

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Arran E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Blatch, B.

Havers, L.

Blyth, L.

Hives, L.

Boardman, L.

Joseph, L.

Borthwick, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brightman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Moyne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Reay, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Renton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Stockton, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Downshire, M.

Swinton, E.

Eccles, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Trumpington, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Faithfull, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Winchester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Seear, B.

David, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Glasgow, E.

White, B.

Glenamara, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 139 agreed to accordingly.
9.14 p.m.
Schedule 12 [The Broadcasting Standards Council: Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 311CA to 311CC:
Page 200, line 33, after ("made") insert:
("(a) ").
Page 200, line 33, after ("and") insert:
("(b) (subject to sub-paragraph (1A)").
Page 200, line 35, at end insert:
("(1A) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to any meeting of the Council at which all of the other members present resolve that the member's interest should be disregarded for the purposes of that provision.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 311CA, 311CB and 311CC en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 311ZB.
On Quostion, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 311D:
1564
Page 200, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 201.
The noble Earl said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 311ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 140 [Preparation by Council of code relating to broadcasting standards]:
[Amendment No. 312 not moved.]
Clause 140 agreed to.
Clause 141 agreed to.
Clause 142 [Consideration by council of complaints relating to broadcasting standards]:
[Amendment No. 313 not moved.]
Clause 142 agreed to.
Clauses 143 and 144 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 145 [Power of Council to commission research]:
The Lord Bishop of Winchester The Lord Bishop of Winchester moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 112, line 31, after ("research") insert ("and consultations with the public and others").
The right reverend Prelate said: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 314 and 315 is to widen the terms of reference of the Broadcasting Standards Council. We have just debated very fully the role of the council. The purpose of the amendment is to accept the work of the council and to give it greater significance. I believe that it could prove to have a more valuable role.
I am one of those who welcomed the Government's initiative in establishing the council and I want to applaud the work of the council in the last two years since it came into being. It has already published a code of practice covering the portrayal of violence, sex, sexuality, taste and decency after a full process of consultation with those in broadcasting, with numerous public organisations which have been listed in one of its annual reports and also with the general public, through the means of its road show, in different parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that the fact that the code, after going through two drafts and being so fully discussed, has been so well received is in large measure due to the quality and thoroughness with which the council has conducted its consultations as well as owing a great deal to the discrimination and wise judgment of its authors. It is also significant that the code has aroused considerable interest in European countries where the BSC is involved in discussion of standards of trans-frontier broadcasting.
Secondly, the council has undertaken what I believe, despite some of the critical comments made earlier this evening, has been a significant piece of research work which is described in its two annual reports. Recently we received Dr. David Docherty's study on violence in television fiction. That is the first in a series of publications on public opinion and

1565
broadcasting standards. I look forward to receiving the subsequent issues in the series. Further research projects are in hand.
The Committee will remember that when the White Paper was published two years ago it cited the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee's welcome to the inclusion of research in the BSC's remit. The committee recommended that the council should base its role in a changing broadcasting environment on properly researched findings.
We all know that we are on the threshold of enormous changes in the broadcasting environment. The number of companies and service providers in this country and in Europe will increase immensely as the new technologies become available. There will be a great proliferation of radio services and television channels. Those changes will properly be the subject of public discussion and debate.
The purpose of Amendment No. 315 is to broaden the council's brief so that its concerns will extend beyond the portrayal of sex and violence and matters of taste and decency, important and sensitive though those are, to the wider issue of standards and quality in programmes generally. At the moment we simply do not know what the effect will be of the many new television and radio services as they come into operation. They may, as the Government hope, extend the range and quality of programmes for the benefit of the listener and viewer. Alternatively, the effects of increased competition could well make quality programme-making more difficult to sustain and the costs prohibitive, and we could possibly see and hear an immense amount of trivialisation. We simply do not know what will happen.
But with an extended research remit, the evidence for the new developments as they take place can be properly obtained by the BSC and made available to the public to show what is happening as the changes take place. The BSC is well placed to undertake that responsibility. It seems likely that neither the ITC nor the Radio Authority will have such a significant research organisation as the IBA currently possesses.
In any case, with the greatly increased number of radio and television outlets, it is clear that the BBC, the ITC and the Radio Authority could not possibly research into the services laid on by other radio and television providers, of which there will be an enormous number. They would only be able to research into the effects of their own output. But the BSC, with complete neutrality and dispassionately, could mount research into different aspects of the output of the whole range of the new services and what they provide. That could be very valuable.
Good research can provide a basis for a continuing and well-informed debate as the broadcasting scene in our country changes very considerably. It would be a debate between the broadcasters, the interested public and many cultural bodies and institutions on the standards and quality of broadcasting and the social and cultural needs of the system.
The BSC has already had experience of mounting public forums for discussion. One recalls the lively debate a year ago at the National Film Theatre on whether there should be different standards operating in subscription and non-subscription television services. This year the council is collaborating with British Action for Children's Television in mounting a conference on the needs of children between the ages of 7 and 14. It will shortly be joining the Scottish Film Council in hosting a conference on the responsibility for children's viewing.
As programmes multiply, and in a much less tightly regulated broadcasting industry, the need for a general public discussion about choices, trends and developments in viewing and listening will become more important. The BSC not only has the experience and competence to mount such consultations but also is uniquely placed to do so. It enjoys a statutory basis; it is not self-appointed; it is involved with the broadcasting organisations but is independent from them; it has no particular bias or animus to conduct research or mount conferences, which are essentially in-house conferences. In fact, it can provide a much more objective kind of public forum.
We know that there are pressures in this debate to curtail the work of the BSC. One proposal has been to merge its functions with the Broadcasting Complaints Council. Another set of amendments has the intention of eliminating the BSC altogether. A further amendment would cut out advertisements from the council's terms of reference.
I should like to see the council not only remain intact but have its role enhanced. I believe in the Government's action in establishing the council. The council does valuable work and I applaud what the Government have done. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to widen the council's remit in the way suggested by my amendment.
By definition, broadcasting is the most public of all human activities. The way in which the system in this country alters and develops and the kinds of programme provided by the multiplying number of new suppliers and companies are of legitimate public interest. Broadcasting is a proper subject for public debate. The BSC is strategically placed to provide both the necessary research and the right kind of forum for an informed yet vital kind of discussion.
I very much hope that the Government will not only have the conviction to keep the council in its proper, present role but will also have the imagination to see that with an enlarged remit as the broadcasting scene in this country changes and develops it could provide research and a forum for a vigorous public debate. Public bodies and the general public could take part in that debate to ensure that we as viewers, listeners and citizens can have a share in responding to what is happening and help to determine the shape of the future.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for having been kind enough to welcome the Government's initiative in setting up the Broadcasting Standards Council and for having applauded its work.

1567
He was quite justified in applauding the work because it has done a considerable amount in a relatively short period of time. The right reverend Prelate hoped that the Government would hold to their conviction to keep the council in its present role. I can assure him that that is our intention.
His amendments would, as he wished, add to and broaden the research function of the Broadcasting Standards Council. Amendment No. 314 would require the council, in addition to commissioning research, to undertake consultation exercises with the public and interested bodies. I doubt the need for a statutory obligation in that context.
As a matter of good practice, the council will want to consult the public about their views on the portrayal of violence and sex, and standards of taste and decency in programmes. The reason for establishing the council was to act as a focus for public concern on these issues. That is reflected in some of its statutory functions. In drawing up or revising its code of practice the council is already under a statutory obligation to consult the broadcasting and regulatory bodies and such other persons as appear to the council to be appropriate. The council is also under a statutory obligation to monitor and make reports on the attitudes of the public at large towards the portrayal of violence or sex or standards of taste and decency in programmes. We therefore doubt the need for an additional statutory obligation to consult the public and others in connection with this clause.
The right reverend Prelate hoped that the Government would have the imagination to increase the remit of the council. Amendment No. 315 seeks to do exactly that. However, I am bound to tell the right reverend Prelate that that would be highly controversial. In the Government's view it would be unacceptable, although I understand the desire of the right reverend Prelate. It never was the intention that the Broadcasting Standards Council should concern itself with the quality of broadcasting generally. The council was established specifically as a response to, and to act as a focus for, the public concern about the portrayal of sex and violence in all forms of broadcasting. Its effectiveness would inevitably be diminished if its remit were widened into more general areas.
It is the role of the Independent Television Commission and the governors of the BBC—as some noble Lords were only too keen to point out fairly vociferously on the discussion on clause stand part—to set and monitor acceptable standards of quality broadcasting. In establishing the Independent Television Commission we have sought to introduce a light-touch regulatory regime. A Broadcasting Standards Council which researched into, and consulted the public about, broadcasting quality generally would undermine both the role of the Independent Television Commission and the Government's purpose in establishing it. We should be going down a very slippery and controversial slope if we were to accept that idea, and I think that it would be undesirable.
1568
Clause 16(2) sets out the criteria for the quality threshold. It will be for the Independent Television Commission to determine whether applicants for licences meet those criteria and whether, thereafter, the standards are met. The Independent Television Commission will also have a statutory duty to make arrangements for ascertaining the state of public opinion as regards programmes included in licensed services.
In those circumstances it is difficult to see what purpose will be served by the Broadcasting Standards Council conducting research into broadcasting quality. While I understand the reasons the right reverend Prelate wishes to extend the remit of the council, I hope that in the light of my explanation he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: Has my noble friend observed that Clause 145(1) provides that the council "may"? He spoke about statutory requirements, but the clause is only permissive. I thought that there was a lot to be said for the argument put forward by the right reverend Prelate. The provision is only "may"; it is not "must".
Earl Ferrers: It is true that the council may make arrangements and it has a statutory responsibility in that respect. However, if it wished not to do so I suppose that it could not be made to do so. As the provision is written into the statute, the chances are that the Broadcasting Standards Council would do so.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I thank the Minister for his reply. While I am disappointed that the Government do not see the possibility of using the Broadcasting Standards Council to provide a forum for a general and ongoing debate about the way the system develops and the quality of programmes in the coming year, I realise that they have taken that view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 315 not moved.]
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 agreed to.
Clause 147 [Duty to publicise Council]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 315A:
Page 113, line 6, leave out ("publish (by means of broadcasts or otherwise)") and insert ("arrange for the publication (by means of broadcasts or otherwise) of").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 148 agreed to.
Clause 149 [Interpretation of Part VI]:
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 113, line 43, at end insert (""programme" does not include an advertisement;".).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to redefine the word "programme" as used in the Bill in such a way that it will no longer include advertisements. Therefore, the power of the

1569
Broadcasting Standards Council to intervene in television and radio advertisements would be removed. The noble Lord, Lord Plowden, has asked me to say that illness prevents his being present to support the amendment.
The present system of regulating advertisements will not be altered substantially by the Bill. In Clauses 8 and 9 it provides for effective control by the ITC and in Clauses 87 and 88 by the Radio Authority. As drafted, the established arrangements work admirably. They will be deranged by the addition of the Broadcasting Standards Council to the bodies responsible for regulating advertisements. Last year the IBA employed some 40 people to pre-vet around 15,000 scripts and 5,000 completed commercials, thus providing advertisers with security for expenditures ranging from £40,000 to £1 million for each commercial. They provided viewers with the assurance that advertisements conform to a code far stricter than that applying to programmes.
There are hardly any complaints about sex or violence in television advertisements and there are no complaints about bad language because that has never been permitted. Unless the Bill is amended the Broadcasting Standards Council is required by Clause 142 to consider complaints about advertising and could not decide whether such complaints are inappropriate without examining the advertisements complained about.
Moreover, in practice, a regulatory body cannot tell a complainant that it would be inappropriate to deal with his complaint without giving a good reason. Accordingly, if the Broadcasting Standards Council possesses the power, it will be compelled to use it.
Therefore, we shall have an extra regulatory body either with its own code, although I have not yet seen one, or it must apply the ITC's code. The Broadcasting Standards Council has neither the personnel nor the machinery for pre-vetting advertisements and the advertiser will be exposed to the risk of considerable commercial loss because advertisements are often part of wider promotional strategies for mass consumption products. Unlike most other programmes on television, advertisements are repeated many times.
Under the Bill the unlimited authority of the council to require broadcast publication of its opinion about advertisements could certainly result in the disruption of marketing arrangements at great cost to advertisers. That is not a power which, in my view, can or should be entrusted to a body which lacks the means to give advance clearance to advertisements.
Nothing is contained in the Bill, nor has anything been said during its passage, to give any reassurance about that confusion of authorities and muddle of procedures which will mystify the public and harass advertisers and licensees. The existing and excellent regulatory system will be weakened to the disadvantage of consumers and advertisers. The result will be a general weakening of our present system of
1570
advertising control, not only over television but also over print advertising which works very closely with the IBA in that field.
What makes the situation so ridiculous is that there is no need whatever for it. The ability to intervene in advertisements adds nothing to the power of the Broadcasting Standards Council to discharge the duties for which it was set up and which we have just debated. There are no complaints that television advertising contains violence, sex or obscenities or needs additional control.
Unhappily, one manifestation of sex in advertisements has attracted the attention of the Broadcasting Standards Council. It observed in its annual report for 1988–89 that broadcasting still reflects the unthinking stereotypes of both male and female behaviour, and this is particularly true of many commercials.
I have searched without success in the council's publications for the evidence on which the latter generalisation rests. I note in the current annual report a list of research projects that the council initiated. These include "Women's perception of domestic and sexual violence on television"; "Children: television and moral development"; "Teenagers' perception of media stereotypes and morality"; "Media-based fantasy", though that was only a preliminary study. Another project was: "Advertising: sex role stereotyping".
I tried to conduct social research over an academic lifetime, and developed a prejudice that worthwhile work begins only by asking clearly defined and answerable questions. That has not been the habit of those engaged in what is portentously described as the sociology of mass communications.
Ten years ago I was a member of a panel set up by the former Social Science Research Council to report on the desirability of large investment in research on mass communications in British universities. The panel was under the chairmanship of Professor Aubrey Diamond, the then director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London. It had among its members Sir Edmund Leach and Professor Hilde Himmelweit, who published one of the few superb studies on the effects of television written in this country since the war. She was a member of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
The SSRC panel reported its principal conclusion which reflects an opinion widely voiced to the panel that what is being done includes some work of high quality, but in general is fragmented, conceptually weak and often of no great disciplinary weight. The panel declined to recommend special funds for such research.
In my opinion, nothing has changed in the past 10 years. I am sad that the Broadcasting Standards Council is funding such trivial work rather than devoting its resources to proper basic research. I take fright when I read of the Broadcasting Standards Council's interest in what it calls the unthinking stereotypes of male and female behaviour which it finds in many television commercials.
Stereotyping is a fashionable concept of a not very reputable pop sociology. I am horrified that it may be used by the council in the exercise of its powers over television commercials. It is precisely in that sort of area, and as a result of reading the research projects which are under way, that I am sceptical when I am told that the council will rarely if ever intervene in advertisements. I can see only too clearly the lines of intervention which will stem from research projects of the order that I have described.
I hope very much that the Government and the council will give further thought to the difficulties which will stem from this wholly unnecessary power of the council to intervene in advertisements. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, also wanted to be here tonight and to speak in support of the amendment. He told me that he has no objection to that being mentioned. Indeed, he intended to have his name added to the amendment but for some unknown reason that did not happen. As we know, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has been playing a thorough part in the Committee's proceedings, including earlier today.
It seems almost an impertinence to speak in support of the amendment instead of simply silently supporting it because the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, tonight and in his Second Reading speech has spoken so fully, persuasively and authoritatively. He speaks also with the background of being chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. However, I want to add to what he said, if only to put forward some additional thoughts from someone who is in a different part of the industry from himself.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, that adequate machinery already exists. Indeed, it has shown itself over the years to be very much more than adequate in the regulation and control of advertisements on television. The system has proved itself to be effective over the years. As a corollary to the basic proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, he makes the point that it would be confusing for all concerned—the viewer, the public generally, the complainant, the advertiser and the broadcasting industry—to add another body to which complaints can be made. One had hoped that we were now in an age where we were moving away from excessive bureaucracy, but this adds another quite unnecessary layer.
I emphasise that this is not to say anything against the members and staff of the Broadcasting Standards Council, and certainly not against its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, who can always be relied upon, if I may say so with respect, to handle any responsibility laid upon him with competence, skill and judgment. It is the principle and practicality with which we are concerned. Not only would there be an extra layer of bureaucracy but it would also be a costly layer.
1572
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has already pointed out, tonight and on Second Reading, that the system for examining complaints, including the pre-vetting procedures which are so essential—the procedures for examining advertisements for television before they get anywhere near to being shown on the screen—is handled, and needs to be handled, by a sizeable number of people.
There is the staff at the IBA. The ITC will need a similar team. There is also the team employed by the ITVA—the Independent Television Association. These teams of people include the copy-clearance secretariat who help to scrutinise the material. In addition to those staffs there are also people within the programme companies themselves who are part of their sales and marketing departments. They scrutinise proposed advertisements. Thus they are also part of the process seeking to ensure that advertisements comply with the proper requirements.
The ITVA team is in frequent touch with the IBA and refers cases to the authority. I understand the intention is that the essence of that relationship and those contacts between the two bodies will continue when the ITC replaces the IBA. I also gather that the ITC is likely to make it a licence condition that licensees will need pre-vetting facilities so that the careful pre-vetting procedures that go on now will be continued when it takes over.
To do its job as effectively, no doubt the Broadcasting Standards Council will need to build up its own team. It could hardly use the same teams for that would surely concede the case against its own involvement in these matters. We do not know because we have not been told about the precise details of the procedures that it is intended should be followed, but it might well be that the Broadcasting Standards Council will not undertake any pre-vetting of advertisements. However, it would still need significantly more staff than it has at present to deal with complaints effectively.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, indicated that his council would not take a dominant role in the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has, I believe, pointed out, under Clause 142 the council will have a duty to consider all complaints made to it on matters within its remit. There is no escape from that. I understand that the number of complaints about advertisements considered by the IBA amounts to about 3,000 a year. Those are generally within the two categories of advertisements that are alleged to give offence and those which are claimed to be misleading.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said. I understand that virtually no complaints are alleged that relate to offence given on grounds of sex or violence. I gather that well over half of all the complaints about advertisements—that is to say, about 3,000 per year received by the IBA—are quite capable of reaching the Broadcasting Standards Council. Of that category alone, we are talking about 1,500 complaints a year.

1573
The Broadcasting Standards Council might have imagined that this aspect of its proposed work would be small involving very little intervention. That is likely to be a forlorn hope, not only for the reasons already given, but also because some people might see it as an easier channel through which to make complaints. In addition, once the council is in the business, as it were, of dealing with complaints, that is likely to generate them still further whether they are justified or not.
The amendment proposed would not in any way threaten or jeopardise the basic role planned for the Broadcasting Standards Council. Indeed, it is fair to point out that an active role in relation to advertising was never part of the original design for the council. The Government may feel that advertising slipped into the council's remit more on grounds of drafting for tidiness than for any clear reasons of need. Perhaps they will welcome the chance to reconsider the matter. I very much hope that the noble Earl the Minister will be prepared to do so. I join my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris in supporting the amendment.
Lord Annan: I support the amendment. It is in a different category from those we have discussed before. We already have a very effective regulatory body. It was set up by the advertisers themselves and is under the auspices of the IBA. I know it is often said that we have the best broadcasting in the world. I am quite sure that we have the best advertising among television companies all over the world. Advertisements are nearly always in good taste and are clever and amusing. Indeed so clever and amusing are they that I sometimes do not know what the devil is the product being advertised.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McGregor. I have had considerable experience over a number of years of the workings of advertising control in this country. I deliberately did not raise this matter when I spoke earlier on the general role of the BSC. That has been determined by the Committee. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham. With the BSC now in the Bill, to accept the arguments put so persuasively by my noble friends would be a practical improvement to the Bill.
I understand the desire of the Broadcasting Standards Council to get into these wider issues relating to advertising matters. However, I agree with what has been said. If it sets its foot on that road there will be no stopping it getting into the business of dealing elaborately with complaints and duplicating the work already done so effectively by the various advertising control mechanisms. The kind of duplication that would then take place would be financially and bureaucratically very wasteful. It would be infinitely confusing and a thoroughly good system would be undermined. I hope that the Government will feel disposed to accepting the amendment.
10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Members of the Committee have been very persuasive about their concerns on this matter. Perhaps I may try to allay the Committee's fears about the role of the Broadcasting Standards Council. The noble Lords, Lord McGregor and Lord Boston, and to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, portrayed anxieties about the role of the Broadcasting Standards Council which are out of proportion to what I think will be the fact. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that this is a different point from what we were discussing earlier. I do not think that it is. The Broadcasting Standards Council was set up specifically to act as a focus for concern about the portrayal of sex and violence and standards of taste and decency in all forms of broadcasting. It stands to reason that this necessarily and obviously includes advertisements, which are just as much a part of broadcasting and just as much a potential cause of offence as ordinary programmes.
The noble Lords, Lord McGregor and Lord Thomson, were concerned that, if the council's remit continues to cover advertisements, this will conflict with the role of the Independent Television Commission as the regulator of television advertising. I do not think that that is so.
I want to make it quite clear that there is no question of the council taking over the responsibility of the Independent Television Commission in this area. During the various debates which have taken place on the Broadcasting Standards Council since its establishment in May 1988, we have always sought to emphasise that its function is not to dictate terms to the broadcasters or to the regulatory bodies, or to cut across their regulatory responsibilities. It is there to assist them in determining what are, and what are not, acceptable standards in what everyone recognises is a sensitive and important area.
The main basis for the regulation of television advertising will be the ITC and its code of practice. In drawing up the code the ITC will have a duty to consult, among others, such bodies or persons who are concerned with standards of conduct in advertising, as it sees fit. We assume that this will include the BSC. We hope this will enable taste and decency standards on television advertising to be agreed upon, taking into account the advertisers' point of view. As a result, the code will make it clear to advertisers and to broadcasters what is expected of them. The code will act as a filter, which should ensure that very few advertisements are likely to slip through and cause such a degree of offence that they would be brought to the attention of the BSC.
It is not the intention of the BSC to work in isolation from the regulatory bodies, nor in contradiction to them. The council has already consulted those bodies on the practices and procedures which it plans to follow in handling complaints. If it receives complaints, we understand it envisages regular exchanges with the regulatory bodies and other interested parties so that its procedures may be modified in the light of experience.

1575
If the Broadcasting Standards Council entertains a complaint or complaints about programmes or advertisements, it will be required to send a copy of each complaint to the broadcaster and to the broadcasting regulatory body. This means that the regulatory bodies, as well as the licensees, will therefore have an opportunity to comment on a complaint. I also understand from the BSC that any action which the regulatory body or the licensee had taken, or proposed to take, over the matter would be taken carefully into account by the council in determining its findings, should that be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was worried about advance clearance for advertisements. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said he hoped we were moving away from excessive bureaucracy. I believe that is the case. The Independent Television Commission, unlike the Independent Broadcasting Authority, will not preview advertisements. The only previewing to take place will be carried out by the broadcasters themselves under a system of self-regulation. It is not right to argue that previewing is a necessary condition for adequate regulation.
Some concern has been expressed that the publication of an unfavourable BSC finding could lead to the abandonment of an expensive advertising campaign. The council has made it clear that it does not believe it will be necessary to investigate and publish a finding on every complaint made to it. In any event, the publication of findings will take different forms. The council envisages publishing its own regular summaries of findings. It may require publication of its findings in the press, or it may proceed by way of a broadcast announcement of its finding. The council has made it quite clear that it will use broadcast announcements only for the most serious of complaints—that is those invoking major principles about which there has been great public controversy. It seems unlikely, therefore, in the light of information that a licensee or regulatory body is publicly taking action about an advertisement which has been the subject of a complaint, that the council would wish to exercise this particular option for publicising its own findings.
I hope that these comments will reassure the Committee that there should be no overlap or conflict of duties between the BSC and the broadcasting regulatory bodies. I only wish to re-emphasise the point which I stated at the beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, who has now regrettably left his place, referred to this point. If you were to set up a broadcasting standards council—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, the committee has agreed to that—in order to try to find appropriate standards for broadcasting, those standards should apply equally to advertisements as to programmes.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the noble Earl sits down, has he considered Clause 142, which states
"it shall be the duty of the Council to consider complaints which are made to them … and to make findings on such complaints"?
1576
Once it is involved in advertising and members of the public complain, it will have that duty and it will be in it up to its neck.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps it will, but that should come about only if the advertisements are of such a nature as to cause complaint. If there are to be complaints and they are sent to the Broadcasting Standards Council, it must investigate them.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: With respect, that is exactly the point that we are seeking to make to the noble Earl. He knows as well as anyone else in public life knows that, once you provide a facility for making complaints, people make complaints. They are often not very wise or well-founded complaints, but the people do not believe that. Under Clause 142, however ill-founded a complaint may be, it shall be the statutory duty of the Broadcasting Standards Council to investigate it and to make findings. That will cut right across the work of the well-established, extremely efficient advertising control in this country.
Earl Ferrers: We are almost coming back to basic principles here. If there is to be a broadcasting standards council, it should have the right and option to criticise programmes. The whole philosophy behind that is that, if programmes are of a sufficiently controversial nature as to require the matter to be drawn to the public's attention, that can be done either, as I have said, by press release or press comment or eventually, if necessary, by asking the broadcasters to make it clear by broadcasting the findings of the Broadcasting Standards Council. That is inevitably part of the council's philosophy. However, if the council is to do that, I do not understand how it can do so if it cannot receive complaints from people. The right reverend Prelate said earlier that he wanted there to be discussion to enable people to give their views. That is the only basis on which the Broadcasting Standards Council is enabled to come to a conclusion.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am sorry to persist, but until now there has always been an easy distinction drawn in commercial television between programmes and broadcasting. I am not arguing against the Broadcasting Standards Council dealing with complaints against programmes. It is totally unnecessary for it to get into the business of dealing with complaints about advertising. It is an easy matter to set clear in the statute. I do not understand the Government's stubbornness on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I am not trying to be stubborn. Clause 142(5)(c) provides that the Broadcasting Standards Council is not obliged to pursue frivolous complaints. However, if the complaint is not frivolous and if there is some fearful programme that apparently contravenes various standards, it is inevitably right that people should be able to write to the council and that it should look into the matter.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I should like to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. There should be no question of his feeling a need to apologise to the Committee for intervening several times on this vital matter.

1577
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has done his best to utter reassuring words. However, those reassuring words are not compatible with the terms of Clause 142 which will become a statutory requirement and duty if that part of the Bill becomes law. One appreciates the Minister's attempt to reassure us with the words that he used. But they are simply not compatible with the terms of Clause 142. That duty will inevitably require the council to act in the way which has been suggested by all those Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of the amendment. If the noble Earl were to adhere to his reassuring words, then the clause could not continue in the Bill because of that incompatibility. For that reason alone, I submit to the noble Earl that there is a very good case indeed for the noble Earl and his fellow Ministers to have a further look at the matter at the very least, if he cannot accept the amendment tonight.
Lord Rees-Mogg: I had not intended to intervene in the debate for obvious reasons. I believe that there is a misapprehension here. Clause 142(5)(d) could give considerable comfort to those Members of the Committee who are anxious. Subsection (5) states:
"The Council shall not entertain, or proceed with … a complaint … if …
(c) the complaint is frivolous"—
that is obviously right; not all complaints would be frivolous, or—
"(d) that for any other reason it is inappropriate for them to entertain, or proceed with the consideration of, the complaint".
If we accept Clause 142(5)(d), we are not laying a statutory burden on the council which would be incompatible with the reasonable treatment of these advertising matters.
Lord McGregor of Durris: The difficulty with what the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has just said is that the council will certainly be able to say that that is inappropriate for it. However no regulatory body can face complainants with the mere statement that the complaint is inappropriate. Reasons will have to be given. Reasons cannot be given unless an inquiry is made into the complaint.
Lord Boston of Faversham: To add to that, the basic point which the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, makes is a fair point. But the difficulty is that the Committee has no idea whatever what will be considered to be appropriate. Therefore that particular ground, I am afraid, falls on that basis.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether we are making unduly heavy weather of this. So far as I can see—noble Lords shake their heads, but I have not even been able to get out what I was going to say. If Members of the Committee would be good enough to postpone the shaking of their heads a little longer, I should be grateful.
The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has put down makes only one proposal. It says that the Broadcasting Standards Council should apply to all programmes but not to advertisements. For the past quarter of an hour we have been arguing about how terrible it will be when
1578
all the complaints flood in to the Broadcasting Standards Council which has to deal with them. That is an argument for not allowing complaints about anything, whether programmes or advertisements, to come to the Broadcasting Standards Council. It is not an argument on this amendment. Even if the amendment were accepted, the Broadcasting Standards Council would still be able to receive complaints about programmes. Therefore the argument would go that it would have so many complaints that it would not be able to deal with them.
If the Broadcasting Standards Council is set up for a purpose, the point is should it apply to advertisements as well as to programmes? I honestly think that if the purpose of the Broadcasting Standards Council is to help to set levels of acceptability for those matters, if that is necessary and appropriate, that must surely apply to advertisements as well as to programmes. Advertisements are just as much part of what comes into the viewer's sitting room. Therefore I cannot see that we can say with any logic that it is right for one but not the other.
Lord McGregor of Durris: In my search for reassurance, I have listened with great care to what the Minister said. However, surely there is a fundamental difference between programmes and advertisements. It is that before the advertisements appear on the screen they have been subjected to precisely those standards, although not only those standards, which it is the purpose of the council to apply to ordinary programmes. The standards to which the existing regulatory machinery applies are also so tight that there are and have been no complaints about advertisements on the grounds of their sexual, violent or obscene content or their use of bad language. Therefore, there surely is a fundamental difference. I cannot see that it is part of the same concept.
I do not fear that the council will take over all the regulatory functions that are already discharged. My point is that it is not equipped in its personnel, in its machinery or, for that matter, in its finance to discharge any of those functions. What was missing from the noble Earl's reply was a recognition of the fact that a body like this council could cause considerable expense to advertisers—in some cases formidable expense—by commenting upon advertisements. It ought not to do so in justice to an advertiser, unless it has the means to prevent the screening of the advertisement. It ought not to expose an advertiser to such financial risks through its intervention. It seems to me to be a fundamental point.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, on this point. I think that he may be under a slight misapprehension, if I may put it that way. I agree with him that at present advertisers have to put their proposed advertisements before the IBA, which determines whether or not they will be acceptable. That is what happens now. However, that will not happen in the future. Advertisers will not have to put their advertisements to the ITC. Moreover, they will not be previewed. The only previewing will be

1579
carried out by the broadcasters. When the advertisements are screened, it will be the broadcasters who will be responsible for what goes out. The way in which they will be responsible for this will be outlined in the guidelines which the ITC will set up in conjunction with the Broadcasting Standards Council. That is the only previewing which will take place and those will be the standards to which the advertisers will be expected to keep.
Lord Boston of Faversham: There is a further point in this connection—one which has not as yet been mentioned. I refer Members of the Committee to Clause 142(7), which reads:
"If it appears to the Council to be appropriate to do so, they may of their own motion issue complaints relating to matters falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b)".
Therefore we have the additional difficulty that the council may initiate complaints on such matters, as it may on programme matters. One would also look for some reassurance in this respect. In my view, it is a further complication.
Earl Ferrers: If I may say so, that is a different matter. However, it still comes under the same consideration; namely, that if the Broadcasting Standards Council is to have the right to initiate its own findings on programmes it is not unreasonable that it should initiate its own findings on the advertising which is shown between the programmes. I do not wish to be obstinate on the matter. Members of the Committee have expressed much concern. I should like to consider what has been said, without commitment.
My fundamental feeling is that if the Broadcasting Standards Council is to operate it must be responsible both for the programmes and the advertisements that slot between the programmes. I can understand that some noble Lords do not like the Broadcasting Standard s Council. That is a tenable argument. However, my view is that logically if the council exists it should cover advertisements as well as programmes. However, I shall consider what Members of the Committee have said, without commitment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will consider what has been said. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 149 agreed to.
Clause 150 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 151 agreed to.
Clause 152 [Inclusion in programme services in Great Britain of racially inflammatory material]:
Lord Havers Lord Havers moved Amendment No. 316AZA:
Page 115, line 22, at end insert:
("(b) after "thereby" in subsection (1) insert, "provided that no person shall be guilty of an offence if the programme deals in good faith with public affairs or other matters of general public concern and the risk of stirring up racial hatred is merely incidental to the purpose of the programme".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I can get through my speech on this amendment and those being discussed with it, Amendments Nos. 316BZA, 316CZA and 316DZA without once mentioning the Broadcasting Standards Council. That will be a relief at least to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg.
This series of amendments deals with two separate but related issues concerning the application of the Public Order Act 1986 to broadcasting. I say at the outset that as I understand it the broadcasters do not object to their programmes being subject to the provisions of that Act. However, the way it is applied by Clauses 152 and 153 fails in my view to recognise the practicalities of broadcasting.
The first amendment deals with broadcasting programmes which address racially inflammatory issues in a responsible way. Serious programmes should be able to tackle sensitive subjects because public understanding and awareness depend on them. As it stands, Clause 152 could well prevent sensible and responsible programmes from being made. Broadcasters need a defence to permit programmes which discuss public affairs.
There is a well-established precedent in Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. I know that well because as Attorney-General I took the Bill through the other place. Section 5 of that Act provides that a publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith in public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion. The first amendment, which is modelled closely on that section, will enable sensible programmes to be made without the people responsible running the risk of committing criminal offences.
The second amendment concerns the possession of racially inflammatory material. My concern is that the Bill has created a new strict liability offence for broadcasters. Section 23(1) of the Public Order Act, which is applied by Clause 152 to broadcasters, makes it an offence to hold racially inflammatory material with a view to its being included in a broadcast programme. Broadcasters obviously hold a large amount of material for programme-making purposes. All their material is held with a view to its being included in broadcasts. That is why they hold it. However, not all such material is used in programmes. If it is used it might well be edited to avoid inflammatory effect. If it is recorded at a time of racial tension it may be used in a calmer period.
As the Bill stands a person is guilty of an offence for holding material which may not be used and which if it is used may not be inflammatory because of the way it is treated and edited. That is the creation of a brand new criminal offence against responsible broadcasting authorities. Even if used in a raw form, it might well be justified because the material informs people on an important matter.
I am sure that we are all against the creation of new strict liability offences. That is something at which we

1581
ought to look very carefully indeed. The second amendment will ensure that individuals are not punished for possessing material which might never get into the public domain or which ought not to be exposed to public gaze.
Let us go back for a while to Glasgow. A raid by the police on a broadcasting studio might disclose video tapes taken by a reporter employed by that company who had been operating with various tapes perhaps over the whole day. Included somewhere in that material might be something which could be inflammatory and which then makes the broadcasters guilty under strict liability of a criminal offence. So although it is rather technical, this is in fact a very serious amendment. They are both very serious amendments.
The two remaining amendments, amendments to Clause 153, are designed to ensure that there is consistency between the Public Order Act and the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions. I ask the Minister to look very seriously indeed at these amendments which sound so technical. This concerns the creation of new criminal offences, one of them by means of strict liability, which not only lawyers but practically every Member of this House will find he is very much against and very distasteful. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I support the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, who explained them clearly for the non-lawyers in the House. It is interesting that in the Standing Committee in the other place the Minister agreed that the defence should be amended to take account of the particular needs and duties of broadcasting. It is that point to which the noble and learned Lord addressed himself in his amendments.
In this context to leave the question of public good, as the Minister suggested earlier this year, to be covered by the Attorney General's discretion in assisting the attention of the broadcasters is—I believe this to be shared legal opinion—not sufficient.
I recognise the existence of a need for legal decisions. But this approach fails to provide the Attorney General with a basis on which to make such decisions. I believe, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, that in this case damaging uncertainty will result. With his amendments the noble and learned Lord has attempted to remove that danger.
Lord Havers: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way for one moment. That was the alternative method of proceeding: the public good. But the position with the Attorney General was such that it convinced me that it was a way which was not satisfactory. That is why I used Section 5 of the Criminal Contempt Act.
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I was trying to explain that that was the alternative and why the noble and learned Lord found that not satisfactory and therefore tabled the amendments that he has just moved. The examples he gave explained very clearly—the amendments themselves are selfexplanatory—the position in which a person quite innocently could find himself. It is a great risk. It
1582
seems a pity and quite wrong in a new piece of legislation that this matter should not be put right at this stage.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: The noble and learned Lord made a very convincing case for these amendments. There is practically no element of news or current affairs which is not capable of stirring up a certain amount of hatred of one group by another group or an individual. If one were to to repeat the showing of the well-known film on Belsen in 1945, showing piles of emaciated corpses, it would be bound to start hatred of Germans among part of the population in this country. If one were to show the aftermath of a massacre of Singhalese and Moslem villagers by Tamil Tigers, that might well start hatred against Tamils. If one were to show in detail the bloody aftermath of an IRA car bomb, it is bound to stir up a certain amount of hatred of the Republican Irish among a segment of the population of this country. But that is a risk that one has to run if one is not to emasculate totally news, current affairs and history programmes.
Earl Ferrers: My noble and learned friend has introduced an important subject. He said that it sounds technical. Indeed it is fairly technical, but it is nevertheless important for that.
Perhaps I may reassure my noble and learned friend that it is no part of the Government's intention that a responsible programme which tackles or refers to racially sensitive matters should be adversely affected by the Bill. Racial issues are certainly a legitimate and important area for public debate. However, I am bound to tell him that I consider that these amendments would cause us a number of difficulties. I shall explain why.
The Government's intention is to bring the broadcasters within the scope of the legislation covering incitement to racial hatred. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that this is essential. We have always said that in doing so we do not intend to disturb any of the substance of that legislation. There is no public good defence in the legislation at the moment. We question whether one is needed and we do not think we could justify introducing such a defence in respect of broadcasting alone in this Bill. We fully recognise that the BBC and IBA have always accepted higher programme standards than those required under the criminal law, making it unlikely that the broadcasters would fall foul of the legislation. But that is no justification for not bringing them within its scope.
But perhaps I may reassure my noble and learned friend about the effect of Clause 152. First, as he is no doubt aware, newspapers and cable programmes are caught by the legislation, and there has been no suggestion that this additional defence is needed. Responsible reporting of racially sensitive issues has not diminished as a result of this legislation.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that under the 1986 Act, an offence is committed under Section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986 only if there is intent to stir up racial hatred or if, given all the

1583
circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. Under Section 23, an offence is committed only if racially inflammatory material is held with a view to broadcasting it and with the intention thereby of stirring up racial hatred, or in the likelihood that racial hatred will be stirred up having regard to all the circumstances.
In other words, I believe that I can comfort my noble and learned friend that considerably more than the mere gathering of material for possible inclusion in a programme is needed. Any question of an offence will arise not by holding the material, which might or might not be used in a programme, but when the first edited version has emerged. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel content with that.
My noble and learned friend mentioned Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act. I question whether that is a close parallel. As he said, the context is that of strict liability which does not apply in the case of the relevant offences of incitement to racial hatred. I have outlined the intent requirement in relation to incitement offences. These do not apply under the Contempt of Court Act.
Furthermore, the statutory defences in Sections 22 and 23 would be retained. These would provide a range of safeguards against the possibility of broadcasters falling foul of the legislation. For instance, in the case of live programmes it is a defence if it is not reasonably practical to secure the removal of the material. It is also a defence if a producer or director has no reason to suspect that the circumstances in which the programme will be broadcast will be such that racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.
There is of course one other major safeguard. My noble and learned friend Lord Havers does not need me to remind him that prosecutions under the Public Order Act 1986 for incitement to racial hatred can be instituted only by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General. Consequently, personal consideration of the case by the Attorney-General, or, in circumstances covered by the Law Officers' Act 1944, the Solicitor-General is a prerequisite to any proceedings. My noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I am advised that the Attorney-General does not give his consent unless he is satisfied that the evidence is such as to afford a realistic prospect of convictions. Furthermore, he would want to be satisfied that the circumstances of the particular case are such as to require the institution of criminal proceedings in the public interest. I suggest that if the programme's general approach is responsible there should be no reason to suppose any offence ad been committed. As my noble and learned friend will appreciate, this is subject to the inevitable caveat that no one could commit the Attorney-General of the day as to how his powers would be used in a particular case.
My noble and learned friend's amendment covers the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. This order covers incitement to hatred generally to cover the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. The specific defences that I have mentioned in respect of
1584
the mainland apply equally to Northern Ireland. hope this provides some reassurance about the intended effect of the proposals.
Lord Havers: I am grateful to the Minister. I am disappointed that he has not accepted either of the amendments. I should like time to consider his reply and to discuss it with members of the BBC whom I have consulted. I may wish to return to the matter, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 316BZA not moved.]
Clause 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Inclusion in programme services in Northern Ireland of material likely to stir up hatred etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 316CZA and 316DZA not moved.]
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clause 154 [Defamatory material]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 316ZA:
Page 117, line 11, leave out from ("service") to end of line 12.
The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting amendment. As programme service is defined in Clause 180 it is not necessary to define it again in this clause. The amendment removes the unnecessary words. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 155 to 158 agreed to.
Clause 159 [Amendments of the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967]:
On Question, Whether Clause 159 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: Clause 159 and its associated schedule, Schedule 14, were introduced into the Bill at a late stage in the other place. Honourable Members had little time to absorb or debate its full and alarming implications. It is an open secret that the purpose of Clause 159 is to smash Radio Caroline. This is a so-called pirate radio station which has been harmlessly operating for 26 years. The material it broadcasts may not be my cup of tea nor that of most Members of the Committee. However, it is perfectly innocuous and gives enormous pleasure to a large number of people in London and south-east England. They are mainly respectable, middle-aged people who tend to have listened to the station since it opened in the mid 1960s.
Clause 159 has alarming implications both for international law—in particular, maritime law—and for civil liberties. The powers which Her Majesty's Government are seeking against Radio Caroline, astonishingly, are very much greater than the powers which they have, in the past, sought and obtained against hijackers, smugglers and drug traffickers. I am not qualified to talk about the implications for maritime law or the extra-territorial implications. However, my noble and learned friend Lord

1585
Wilberforce, with his enormous legal experience, is extremely unhappy about the clause and about Schedule 14. He would have been here this evening to support a number of these amendments were it not for a long-standing prior engagement.
Apart from the legal international implications, the practical international implications are also extremely alarming. For example, let us suppose that an Albanian ship were to be boarded by elements of our armed forces or police. Albania has ruined already the medium-wave reception of what I still think of as the Third Programme, but that is perhaps incidental. More realistically, let us suppose that a Chinese, Iranian or Iraqi ship were to be boarded. The consequences do not bear thinking about.
Therefore, this is a worrying clause and the implications of the schedule are equally worrying when examined in detail. I look forward to hearing the comments of other Members of the Committee on this clause.
Lord Annan: These proposals which are brought forward for deliberation are so extraordinary that learned counsel said about them:
"the proposed new powers are draconian and unprecedented in their extra-territorial effect … they offend against international comity in particular by their generalised assault on the principle of territoriality and create a most dangerous precedent for interference by foreign states with the legitimate rights of British shipping".
The conventional way of dealing with an unauthorised broadcast from a foreign registered ship on the high seas would be for the British Government to make the appropriate representation through diplomatic channels to the flag state of the vessel. In the past it is noteworthy that Parliament has stopped short of giving extra-territorial effect to statutes designed to prevent offences committed on foreign flag ships and which must, on any view, be categorised as far more serious; for example, smuggling or drug trafficking.
Section 7A goes far beyond any other statute such as the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 in infringing the principle of extra-territoriality. However, there is much more to it than that. Section 7A empowers servants of the Crown to seize property and detain persons, to require the crew to produce documents and—this is most extraordinary and reprehensible—to grant officials immunity who are engaged in search and seizure.
What is so surprising about the proposed powers of search and seizure is that in contrast to other statutes conferring similar powers, they are given to such a wide category of persons. There must be some question as to whether it is necessary to extend the powers beyond police and customs officers. It is certainly unclear why there is any necessity for the catch-all Section 7A(1)(a) which states:
"persons authorised by the Secretary of State to exercise the powers conferred"
by subsection (5). That could mean anyone at all. It could mean the enforcement agencies of other foreign states being pressed into service.
1586
The immunity clause is iniquitous. If I come home, find a burglar in the house, pick up a poker and bash his brains in, I shall be guilty of manslaughter. The noble Earl will remember the recent case of an assault on the Tube in London, where a wretched victim who was assaulted by a gang of thugs was badly beaten about the head and body; nevertheless, in self-defence he drew a swordstick and managed to pink one of the thugs. He was arrested for carrying a weapon illegally, although that weapon may have saved his life. He was found guilty of a criminal offence. I do not know what happened to the thugs and perhaps the noble Earl can tell us.
I want to apply that case to what could happen on a vessel boarded in the way now to be permitted under this section. A member of the crew resists and is knocked overboard into the water and drowns. His family will have no case in damages; there will be no case of manslaughter brought against the officer who did this. It is a licence for official thuggery.
The noble Earl will be aware that I am not soft on terrorism. I applauded the storming of the Iranian Embassy by the SAS and what the SAS did to those terrorists who occupied that Embassy. I rejoiced when I heard that the terrorists in Gibraltar were shot dead like rats. But broadcasters are not terrorists. What is Radio Caroline but a lot of crickets chirping in the grate?
I do not pretend to be an expert on international law. However I did look up O'Connell, Vol. I, page 654. There it states:
"No State may assume, without the consent of the offender's State or the flag state, jurisdiction over aliens with respect to criminal acts on board foreign ships on the high seas".
As I understand it, the 1958 Geneva Convention is still in force. It gives no legal justification for boarding private radio ships and arresting their crews.
When I raised this point at Second Reading the noble Earl said:
"The provisions in the Bill are in accordance with international law. The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention allows states to act against ships on the high seas of any nationality, or none, if broadcasts from them can be received on their territory or cause interference".—[Official Report, 5/6/90; col. 1355.]
I wonder whether the noble Lord was then referring to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. He may have had in mind Articles 109 and 110 of that convention, but those provisions are not yet law. Indeed the United Kingdom is not one of the 41 states which have ratified that convention. On what grounds therefore do the Government assert that this schedule is already in accordance with international law?
I shall not bore the Committee with the five cases since the Geneva convention on boarding illegal broadcasting ships. I shall certainly spare the Committee those details. But it is clear that nowhere in the 1958 Geneva convention, on which international law is based, is the power given or measures included which would entitle states to board such vessels on the high seas.

1587
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. In Germany in 1945 General Horrocks, who was commanding 30 Corps, gave an order, which appeared in corps orders, that if any German youths were found mocking, interfering or sneering at any members of the British Army, they were to be taken summarily to the guard room and there given six of the best. Mr. Wilberforce, as he then was, and who was head of the legal division in Berlin in the British Control Commission, thereupon sent a rasping order down to 30 Corps, instructing the corps commander to withdraw the order at once. We had come to Germany to imbue that country with respect for the rule of law and that was no way to do it.
The noble Earl knows well that I am not much given to indignation or impassioned denunciations of Government policy. "Mr. Milquetoast" is really my middle name! I know that Radio Caroline is an irritant. I know that it is illegal; but is it not beneath the dignity of Her Majesty's Government to make such a proposal? That is high-handed and bullying. It reminds one of other instances in which the Government use power when those it is used against have no power to resist it. Homosexuals and disc jockeys are not likely to make much of a comeback.
What was the result of Clause 28, which was a totally unnecessary and ham-handed measure? I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his most assured manner telling the Chamber that, of course, it would never be employed against genuine artistic products such as "The Importance of Being Earnest". What happened? Kent County Council banned Benjamin Brittan's opera "Death in Venice".
I have a feeling that the Government will regret passing a measure of this kind. They are trying to bring down a mosquito with artillery fire. I know also that they are trying to bring it down by illegal means. There is no point in asking the noble Earl to reconsider this matter but I ask him to believe that I am not pleading for an illegal radio station. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, from the voluminous mail I receive I am in no doubt that there are many people who listen to and enjoy that radio station. No doubt it is popular, but that is not my purpose. My purpose is to bring home to the Government and to the public that the Government are about to pass a clause which is illegal in international law and an affront to those who care about the principles of justice.
I only hope that if this clause becomes law the crew of Radio Caroline will seek to obtain a craft under the flag of the United States. If they do that and the Government board and sequester that vessel, the Government will find themselves faced with the prospect of war, as in 1812, and later having to pay an indemnity, just as they did in the case of the "Alabama" in the American civil war.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right to raise this serious question by seeking to cast in doubt the whole of Clause 159; not that Clause 159 says anything; it is all said in Schedule 14.
1588
The law about the control of radio stations of this kind is already comprehensive. The 1967 Act, which is to be amended by Schedule 14, prohibits any unauthorised broadcasts in UK external waters. It prohibits broadcasts by UK registered ships. It prohibits broadcasts by UK nationals. It prohibits acts facilitating broadcasts. It prohibits advertising or the supply of records for the purpose of broadcasting. It provides penalties against anybody who infringes any of those provisions. Indeed, it provides for search by police officers, although certainly not with the use of force or the use of officers authorised by the Secretary of State. That Act is perfectly in accordance with international convention.
The European convention on broadcasts of this kind is satisfied by the 1967 Act. In order to fulfil our international obligations there is no need for us to go any further. What is now proposed goes very much further, as Members of the Committee have already said. It breaches the fundamental principle of territoriality. It breaches the principle that no state can pass a law which creates an offence carried on outside its own jurisdiction—in other words, on the high seas and even outside its external waters—by citizens other than its own.
There are exceptions to the principle of territoriality. The Hijacking Act 1971 and the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 both provide for breaches of the rule on territoriality. There have been international agreements that have recognised that, in certain extreme circumstances such as hijacking and the prevention of terrorism, it is necessary to breach the rule of territoriality. With other offences such as drug trafficking where we have the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, we have not thought to breach territoriality. Why are we seeking to breach it now in the case of Radio Caroline?
We are proposing that not just our police but any person authorised by the Secretary of State shall have the right to go outside our own territory, board, and if necessary, use force against the crew of a vessel flying a foreign flag in order to prevent not merely interference by a broadcasting station but the reception of that station by the citizens of this country. I suggest to the Minister that if he insists on keeping Clause 159 in the Bill—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would be wise to pursue his Motion against clause stand part—at the very least he should pay serious attention to the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and replace it with one which provides that an offence shall only be created if there is interference with airwaves rather than simply with reception. The arguments have been very well put and we are coming close to the time when we should not be considering these matters any further. However, it is necessary to complete the argument and to give the Minister a chance to reply.
Viscount Caldecote: I have no wish to discomfit my noble friend on the Front Bench, but this is really taking a steam-hammer to crack a nut. Radio Caroline may be annoying, but this issue is not of such moment as to require the draconian measures that are being proposed. When a steam-hammer is used

1589
irresponsibly it can do a lot of damage by mistake. This is a very good example. This clause sets a very bad example to others on the high seas. For example, someone like Colonel Gadaffi might well find passing near but outside his territorial waters a ship which he does not approve of for some reason. He could use this as an excuse to board it and commit piracy on the high seas, which this measure is legalising.
In the past, piracy on the high seas has always been a heinous crime against which the masters of ships have been protected by the strongest laws. It is very bad to give this example which others might take advantage of for piracy on the high seas. Other reasons have been given, such as the view that broadcasting from Radio Caroline interferes with distress signals on the high seas. The fact is that the frequency used is well away from any of the distress frequencies used on the high seas and that argument cannot be sustained.
I understand that Spectrum Radio in the United Kingdom was allocated the same frequency as Radio Caroline. There was interference and very soon another frequency was found. The fact that there are not enough frequencies available appears to be a somewhat spurious argument. That is not to say that we condone illegal broadcasting and pirate broadcasting of this kind. Therefore, I shall not support the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to delete Clause 159. That would indicate that we do not want to take any action against pirate radio. I urge and implore Her Majesty's Government to withdraw this clause and to look at it again very carefully. I hope that they will give an undertaking to look at it and to bring back some better way of dealing with Radio Caroline than this draconian measure.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: We are talking here about pirate radio stations. Offshore broadcasters have a colourful and romantic image. They are popularly known as pirates, conjuring up images of swashbuckling characters wearing black hats and scarves, out to tweak the tail of the authorities. They are seen by their supporters, as we have heard this evening, as harmless providers of a type of broadcasting which is not available elsewhere. On that view, the authorities who try to enforce the law against them are seen, as my noble friend Lord Caldecote said, as the sledgehammer to crack a nut, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said earlier on, bureaucratic killjoys out to break butterflies on wheels.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that what pirate stations do is innocuous. I totally disagree. I do not think that it is innocuous. The reality is quite different. The radio spectrum is a valuable natural resource. Its use has to be carefully planned and regulated, especially with the explosive growth in the use of radio for communications and for broadcasting. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that this provision will offend against international comity. I say to the noble Lord that pirate radio stations offend against and infringe the law of the country. Why do
1590
they position themselves just outside territorial waters and use British frequencies if it is not to avoid British law?
Unauthorised transmissions, because of their unplanned nature, are damaging to authorised broadcasters and other radio users. Even the safety-of-life services can be affected. That is not fanciful. Offshore broadcasters have used a frequency very close to, and capable of interfering with, a channel used for ship-to-shore communications and have threatened aeronautical radio navigation beacons upon which helicopters rely. The consequences in such cases are potentially extremely serious. Interference in a complicated phenomenon and radio use needs careful planning in order to minimise the risks while making maximum effective use of the spectrum available. For example, two transmissions can combine to interfere with a third even though neither of the first two individually causes interference.
There is no longer any justification for the pirates to claim that they have been driven offshore because they are being excluded by the "establishment" and have no alternative. Our policy is to cater for the widest possible range of tastes, and this is already being put into effect through the licensing of the first batch of community radio stations. It is open to anyone to apply for a broadcasting franchise and licence under the new system; and, as long as he has not been convicted of an unauthorised broadcasting offence since 1st January 1989, he stands an excellent chance. Some erstwhile pirates have taken this path. The circumstances that gave rise to pirate radio in the 1960s no longer exist.
I am not too good at remembering songs, stories and sea shanties but I do remember one. It was about Captain Kidd. It went something like this:
"My name is Captain Kidd, as I sail, as I sail".
It ended:
"To the execution block, I must go, I must go".
I wonder whether pirate radio stations might not feel the same. By grabbing frequencies and interfering with legitimate broadcasts, pirate stations restrict choice. They do not extend it. They also have an unfair commercial advantage since they do not pay licence or performance fees. I find it astonishing that a good many Members of the Committee seek to defend the operation of some broadcasters who, however popular they may be, are broadcasting against the law, against the interests of other broadcasters and sometimes at the risk of safety-of-life services.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, and others complained about Schedule 14 being incompatible with the law and being excessive. All states have a duty to co-operate in the suppression of unauthorised broadcasting from the high seas. Such broadcasting contravenes worldwide independent telecommunication union radio regulations. The Government are satisfied that the exercise of the powers provided for in the Bill relating to ships on the high seas will be in accordance with international law.

1591
As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, rightly said, the powers we are taking are modelled on Articles 109 and 110 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea. These provide for a state to take action against broadcasters on ships of any nationality or of none which are on the high seas, if their broadcasts, which are contrary to international regulations, can either be received in that state's territory or cause interference there. We do not anticipate objection from other states, although we will normally consult the flag state.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that that convention had not been ratified. It is true that Her Majesty's Government have not yet acceded to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. I have explained the justification for the schedule in international law. Our view is that the exercise of the powers will be in accordance with international law. That is not dependent on the convention. The convention is a model for the provision. This is the basis in international law for paragraph 2 of the schedule. Paragraph 1, which deals with broadcasts from structures on the UK's area of the continental shelf, is based on states' well-established jurisdiction over their adjacent continental shelf.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that the powers were excessive in comparison with those used against drug smuggling and other serious crimes. This is an important matter. Comparisons with the enforcement powers used against drug smuggling and other serious offences are oversimplified. The powers given to fight an offence are not a good reflection of its seriousness. The severity of the sentence is a far better indicator of the view taken by society of a crime. The penalties for drug smuggling far outweigh those for offshore broadcasting, and rightly so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hesitate to interrupt at this hour. Surely the point about drug smuggling is that greater powers are needed in order to catch drug smugglers, whereas pirate radio ships are just sitting there waiting to be caught if the law is extended to penalise them.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is always a little hasty in getting to his feet. If he had waited a little longer, I could have told him that the powers against drug traffickers onshore are far greater than those which we propose to use against pirate stations outside territorial waters. Enforcement powers have to reflect other factors. They have to be sufficient to enable the authorities to prevent the criminal activity in question, to obtain the evidence for a conviction and to bring offenders to book. A law which cannot be enforced will not be effective. The powers against offshore broadcasting reflect these practical points. It will be necessary to board vessels, search them and to bring them into port and arrest persons from time to time.
Viscount Caldecote: Before the noble Earl sits down, will he comment on the point I made about the bad example that this provision will set to governments who are less responsible than Her Majesty's Government?
Earl Ferrers: I do not see that there is any connection. This measure permits a state to take action against people on the high seas whose frequencies affect the frequencies of that state, when an action is being taken against the international convention.
Lord Annan: Before the noble Earl sits down, I hope that he will deal with one further point which concerns immunity. I referred to immunity, but I do not think that the noble Earl has dealt with it. I wish to emphasise that I am not holding a brief for Radio Caroline.
Earl Ferrers: I am conscious of the fact that it is after the witching hour of 11 o'clock. I hope that I may write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Monson: I wish to reply, if I may. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for his powerful support and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for his powerful and detailed support. He made only one error, but it was a significant one. Radio Caroline is not illegal, because it is operated from a foreign vessel with a foreign crew in international waters. Her Majesty's Government have at present no jurisdiction over it. It would take more time than we are allowed to reply in detail to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but he mentioned that the penalties against drug smugglers are greater than the penalties that are likely to be imposed on radio disc jockeys. I suppose that we must be thankful for small mercies. We are talking about overkill and about a wholly disproportionate reaction to a minor irritance, rather like sentencing someone to 14 years' imprisonment for parking on a double yellow line.
I suspect that, if I were to persist in my original intention of opposing the inclusion of Clause 159 in the Bill, I would inconvenience the Committee and, furthermore, would be accused of jumping the gun and not giving the Committee a chance to examine the full implications of Schedule 14, some of which have been touched upon by my noble friend in all their alarming detail. I do not intend to divide the Committee on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but my noble friend and I will reserve all our fire for Schedule 14 which, I trust, will be dealt with tomorrow. I withdraw my opposition.
Clause 159 agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I call Amendment No. 316A in Schedule 14.
Lord Monson: I understood that we were running out of time.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt to help the Committee. On these occasions we stop at 11 o'clock. It is already 10 minutes past. If the noble Lord wishes to move his amendments quickly, that might be acceptable. On the other hand, if he wishes to have a more lengthy debate, we should have to take them tomorrow.
Lord Monson: I am afraid that it will have to be a more lengthy debate because these matters cannot be rushed.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
British Railways Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Penzance South Pier Extension Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments consdiered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past 11 o'clock.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SCHEME
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SCHEME
  BROADLEAVED WOODLAND: POLICY
  BROADLEAVED WOODLAND: POLICY
  WASTE HOLDERS: CODE OF PRACTICE AND DUTY OF CARE
  WASTE HOLDERS: CODE OF PRACTICE AND DUTY OF CARE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: COLLECTION COSTS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: COLLECTION COSTS
  COMMON LAND
  COMMON LAND
  POSTAL CHARGE COMPARISONS
  POSTAL CHARGE COMPARISONS
  SPACE STATION
  SPACE STATION
  INSURANCE CONTRACTS: GOOD FAITH
  INSURANCE CONTRACTS: GOOD FAITH
  PATRIOT MISSILE SYSTEM
  PATRIOT MISSILE SYSTEM
  TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
  TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
  MEPs: PAY AND EMOLUMENTS
  MEPs: PAY AND EMOLUMENTS
  INLAND REVENUE AND CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: NEXT STEPS
  INLAND REVENUE AND CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: NEXT STEPS
  COMMUNITY CARE: PHASING IN
  COMMUNITY CARE: PHASING IN
  EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: US SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
  EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: US SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
  PRISONERS' TRANSFER REQUESTS: REFUSALS
  PRISONERS' TRANSFER REQUESTS: REFUSALS
  ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REPORT
  ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REPORT
  FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE: REPORT
  FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE: REPORT
  ARCHANGEL: DEATH OF MARINE ANIMALS
  ARCHANGEL: DEATH OF MARINE ANIMALS
  ARMS CONTROL POLICY DECISIONS
  ARMS CONTROL POLICY DECISIONS
  CHILDHOOD BLINDNESS IN AFRICA
  CHILDHOOD BLINDNESS IN AFRICA
  REFUGEES: UK SUPPORT FOR RELIEF AGENCIES
  REFUGEES: UK SUPPORT FOR RELIEF AGENCIES