Sitting of 20 June 1990

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

    SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL
    Lords amendments considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
    Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    HASMONEAN HIGH SCHOOL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Computer Components
    Mr. Leadbitter: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the components of computers assembled in the United Kingdom are of (a) British and (b) European Economic Community origin.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Official statistics do not show the end uses of electronic components produced in the United Kingdom or the European Community. It is not possible, therefore, to give the information requested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister's reply is not encouraging, bearing in mind the known fact that neither the United Kingdom nor the Common Market produces any major computer components. Our share of computer components production thus reveals our low skills and damages our balance of payments. What will the Minister do to redress and reverse that damaging situation, bearing in mind the fact that research and development, and its funding, is going on apace in both Japan and America?
    Mr. Forth: I regret that the hon. Gentleman wants to portray the industry in such a negative way. The House should know that the truth is that all the major countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, except Japan, have trade deficits in information technology. Another truth is that the United Kingdom has a large trade surplus in information technology with the rest of the European Community,
    908
    which amounted to £900 million last year. Therefore, although it is unreasonable to pick on any one sector of the economy and to identify the trade flows within that sector, I should like the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to see the industry for what it is—a successful and growing industry, which is attracting inward investment, creating employment and generally being a great success.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend will be aware that the aerospace industry is a major user of electronic and computer components. In the light of Monday's announcement about the cancellation of 33 Tornado aircraft, will my hon. Friend ensure that both the aerospace and electronics companies in Lancashire, which are so effective, are given the help of his Department's excellent enterprise scheme to support the workers who may lose their jobs?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct to identify that the task that now faces all of us is to ensure that the employment that was previously provided by defence sector work is switched as quickly and effectively as possible to alternative work. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that we manufacture, export and re-export considerable quantities of both defence and civil equipment that contains a significant element of electronics componentry and information technology. I am sure that we all want that to continue. I note that, as ever, my hon. Friend is active in those matters and I can assure him that the Department of Trade and Industry will be helping to discover every possible way in which we can switch our efforts from defence to civil activities.
    Dr. Moonie: I found the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) somewhat surprising because I am aware—and I thought that he would be—that his Department conducted a survey of computer manufacturers in this country over the past year, which identified a shortage of local suppliers for those components. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case and tell us what his Department wall do to improve that position?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman claims knowledge beyond that which I possess—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Forth.
    Mr. Forth: I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Department has commissioned and is undertaking the survey to which he referred. That work is as yet incomplete. The hon. Gentleman may be prepared to jump to conclusions on the basis of incomplete information, but neither I nor my colleages are prepared to do so. The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself, be a bit patient and wait for the full results to emerge before we jump to any conclusions.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that computer companies do not know what proportion of components are manufactured in the United Kingdom? The computer companies are keenly interested in what I sense is the underlying purpose of the question, which is to discover the quantity of components that come here from Japan. As yet there are no answers, and I do not believe that the Department will be able to find them at this stage.
    Will my hon. Friend confirm that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) may be inaccurate in his

    909
    statement that few hardware components are manufactured in the United Kingdom? I am delighted to say that hard disc manufacturing takes place in West Germany and in Denmark, for example. That is the central story of component manufacturing—
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is renowned for her knowledge of the industry. I am grateful to her for her assistance in clarification. An important point has been made and it is one of which we should not lose sight. We are talking of a global industry in which components move freely across international boundaries. Goods are assembled and manufactured in a variety of different ways. To seek to identify whether components flow one way or another is probably a futile exercise. I doubt whether we could base any policy initiatives on such information.

    British Steel
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to meet the British Steel board and shareholders at the annual general meeting of British Steel.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of Ravenscraig; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the Scottish steel industry.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to meet the British Steel board and shareholders at the annual general meeting of British Steel.
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has recently met the chairman of British Steel to discuss British Steel's plans for future capacity.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, I shall answer Question 2 together with Questions 5, 9, 10 and 19.
    Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Ridley: I met the chairman of British Steel—
    Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just heard the Secretary of State say that he is taking Question 19, which is in my name, with Question 2 and others. I must inform you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first that I have heard of this grouping. I might well not have been in my place at this stage—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for departmental Ministers to decide. I have often heard hon. Members complain that their questions have not been brought before us. I have never heard anyone complain that his question will be called.
    Mr. Ridley: I met the chairman of British Steel on 5 June and have no plans at this stage for a further meeting. Although I do not expect to attend British Steel's annual general meeting, I shall be represented.
    Mr. Salmond: Has the Secretary of State read the comments attributed to Sir Robert Scholey in The Guardian this morning? The report states that British Steel has invested £100 million in a German steel plant, because after 1992 the United Kingdom will no longer be the centre of gravity for manufacturing in the European Community. Where does the right hon. Gentleman think that the centre of gravity lies for supplying the millions of tonnes of steel products that will be required in the North sea market throughout the 1990s? If British Steel is unwilling to supply the products from Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman go to British Steel's annual general meeting and argue for those productive assets to be turned over to an international investor who would be willing to make a success of the Scottish operation?
    Mr. Ridley: I am a very small shareholder in British Steel. I do not think that any views that I should express at the annual general meeting would carry much weight. British Steel is becoming an international company of great repute and success. The fact that it is extending its activities into the Community is something that the hon. Gentleman should welcome. It is not my job to second-guess how best to go about improving the company's performance.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State condemn the chairman's failure to meet the trade union representatives at Ravenscraig and will he urge the chairman to do so now, instead of simply writing a secret letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland in a vain effort to try and justify the closure of the hot strip mill? Will the Government publish the contents of that letter, in view of the great public anxiety about what until recently was a publicly owned industry and British Steel's failure so far to give any public justification for the proposed closure, which would have a devastating effect on the whole Scottish economy?
    Mr. Ridley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have urged British Steel to discuss its proposals with and explain them to the work force and the trade unions, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend has requested British Steel to agree to the publication of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. No response has yet been received, but the request has been made.
    Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, is not it the case that recently a group of Scottish Labour Members briefed the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the devastating effect that the closure would have on the Scottish economy? Therefore, will he abandon this glaikit approach and adopt a more progressive approach? Will he say from the Dispatch Box whether he is prepared to line up fully with the Secretary of State for Scotland to lead the fight against British Steel and get it to reverse this scandalous, vandalous decision against the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Ridley: Indeed, a group of Labour Members came to visit me and at the end of the day they said that they were grateful for the support that I had offered the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is

    911
    wrong on that point. The more I hear about the matter, the less I can discover what the difference is between the Government and the Labour party. The Labour party does not appear to have the slightest intention of wanting to renationalise British Steel, nor to make subsidies to rescue the Ravenscraig plant, nor to take the power to issue directives to British Steel. Our position is exactly the same and I cannot see what the argument is about.
    Mrs. Ewing: Cannot the Secretary of State understand that his laissez faire approach is equated with a don't care approach in Scotland and that his hands-off philosophy means that he is washing his hands of the steel industry in Scotland? Given the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and the fact that British Steel is also considering an additional acquisition in Spain and joint ventures in France and West Germany, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether his Department ever takes Scotland into its consideration and whether the assets of British Steel in Scotland will be used to the advantage of the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady must direct her strictures at the Labour party in Scotland, which shares our view that the Government should seek only to examine carefully the arguments that British Steel advances, to respond to them and to discuss them with British Steel with a view, we hope, to winning British Steel over to our view. That is what the Government are doing and what the Labour party wants to do. The Labour party does not go anything like as far as the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). She should pursue her quarrel with the Labour party, not with us.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that British Steel should reverse its decision to close the Ravenscraig strip mill? Can we have a clear answer that the Secretary of State believes in demanding the reversal of that closure decision?
    Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that the parliamentary clerk in my Department rang the hon. Gentleman's secretary at 10.15 am with the information that his question was to be included in this group. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not get the message. On his substantive question, I have nothing to add to what the House decided in a debate. The motion was passed and the Government are busy, actively pursuing it. That is the right answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many Conservative Members believe that commercial decisions should properly be left to commercial managers? However, we also believe that in a modern, dynamic economy, management should consult the workers fully and adequately, particularly when their production records have never been achieved before and are beating those of foreign competitors. If British Steel has no place for its Scottish plants in its future plans—it is perfectly entitled not to—it should honour its promise and put them up for sale now as a going concern.
    Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this is ultimately a commercial decision for British Steel. I support his assertion that British Steel's efficiency is becoming formidable. It now produces 347 tonnes per man year, well above the EEC average of 330 tonnes. If it is to
    912
    remain at the head of the world league of steel producers, we must not unnecessarily fetter its commercial decision making. I have already agreed that it is a good principle that companies should consult their work forces and persuade them of the rightness of their decisions.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a long time since British Steel was taken out of the public sector, away from inept Ministers making inept decisions that cost taxpayers millions of pounds per day? The money is now redirected into social services, hospital building and other sectors, instead of being squandered and wasted. This year, British Steel has a record profit of £733 million and is the envy of steel makers throughout the world.
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that should be as inept as my predecessors in trying to judge the steel market or to run a steel industry. Those are not my skills.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend will hear continuously from the Labour party, especially Scottish Members, about the—as they term it—deindustrialisation of Scotland. Does he agree that if the Scots were not so bellicose towards management trying to make proper management decisions, people would be more inclined to invest and remain invested there?
    Mr. Ridley: As an English Borderer, I should not dare to express any views on the subject raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not it a most astonishing sign of the extraordinary turn-round that has taken place in British manufacturing industry in the past few years that British Steel, once regarded as the sick man of the international steel industry, should now be buying a venerable German company in what is traditionally regarded as the most sophisticated steel market in the world?
    Mr. Ridley: I believe that our industry needs excellence, leading to domination of world markets. The House will agree not only that British Steel has done remarkably well in the short time since it was released from the public sector, but that none of us wants to do anything to hamper it from doing even better in future.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that he has responsibility for both competition and trade policy? In those circumstances, can he be complacent about the fact that British Steel is a monopoly producer in the United Kingdom that can run down assets and deny them to a potential competitor that might service the market and keep down prices? Why does he stand by and allow British Steel to abandon markets in the North sea and Europe, which could be served by a Scottish-based competitor?
    Mr. Ridley: Neither of the hon. Gentleman's hypotheses has yet happened. He will know that various people have written to the Director General of Fair Trading about the proposed closure of the strip mill. The director general is considering those representations and will give me advice. If I receive advice from him—as I am sure I shall—I shall consider it carefully when making any decision. One cannot presume a decision about closure or refusal to supply markets in advance of its being taken.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Was not Ravenscraig originally built at the behest of politicians? Is not it also the case that

    913
    political meddling over the years has done a great deal of damage to the British steel industry? Bearing in mind the incredible record of British Steel's management over the past few years as opposed to the record of politicians, would not the best course be for the Government to let the management get on with its job?
    Mr. Ridley: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. The decision to build the steelworks at Ravenscraig was part of a policy of splitting the family silver in half, if I may put it that way. I also entirely agree with him that the reason for the recent success of British Steel has been the freeing of the management from constraints in order to allow it to get on with doing best what only it knows how.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister confirm precisely that the Government's policy is to deplore the closure and to ask for it to be reconsidered with a view to the decision being reversed? Will he tell us and list precisely what he has done to implement that objective? Will he and the Secretary of State for Scotland now meet the board of British Steel to discuss the letter that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has received and will he refer the matter to the Office of Fair Trading and ask it to look at monopoly and restrictive practices? Will he conduct an independent assessment within government of the strip mill's prospects and will he end the do nothing, care nothing, listen to nothing attitude that characterises the performance of the Department of Trade and Industry in this matter as in everything else?
    Mr. Ridley: Curiously enough, the hon. Gentleman must not have been listening because I have already answered all those questions. He has not answered my question, which I shall repeat. In what respect does the Government's policy differ from the policy of the Labour party—not that of the Scottish Nationalists? This is a row between the Scottish Nationalist party and the Scottish Labour party. Does he agree that Labour has no intention of renationalising British Steel, that it cannot subsidise it and does not have powers of direction? The Labour party should stop this discreditable conduct and end the pain that it is trying to inflict on the House.

    Trade Deficit
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his Japanese and United States counterparts to discuss the United Kingdom trade deficit; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: I have regular meetings with my Japanese and United States counterparts at which the full range of trade issues affecting our countries are discussed.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree, to paraphrase what the Leader of the Opposition said last week, that that question is even sillier than it seems because the inflow of capital from the United States and Japan far exceeds whatever the trade deficit figure is said to be? It is ridiculous for the House frequently to flagellate itself about trade deficits when more than 190 top European companies are based in Britain and operate in other countries remitting profits to Britain. The trade balance merely measures packets of salt going backwards and forwards across Customs.
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that Britain's massive investment in industrial and commercial assets overseas benefits probably more than 14 out of 15 people, if I may also quote the Leader of the Opposition. I must part company with her slightly on one matter because I should like to see the trade deficit reduced. It is important for us to regain our share of world trade, increase our exports and reduce our imports.
    Mr. Hoyle: Would not it be true to say that that complacent and lethargic approach basically matches the performance of the Department of Trade and Industry? I am not aware of the Secretary of State's desires in relation to flagellation. He would do far better to address himself to the ever-growing deficit with Japan, the United States and West Germany and to use the endeavours of his Department to ensure that there is more investment in British industry and that it is more competitive in relation to those countries.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must keep the facts in mind. We have a tiny deficit with the United States and over the past four years we have had a surplus in total. The Japanese deficit is relatively small and is improving; the German deficit is the real problem. One cannot put those problems entirely at the door of the Government, as some of them result from the fact that British unit labour costs are rising at 8·1 per cent. annually, whereas our competitors' unit labour costs are not.
    Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if reports that the BBC world service is to cut back on its service to Japan are true, that would have an unhelpful effect on our trading relationship with Japan?
    Mr. Ridley: I have no knowledge of those facts and that matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Textiles
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in textiles.
    Mr. Forth: Latest available figures show that imports of textiles exceeded exports by £1,564 million in the 12 months to March 1990.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that when I worked at the pit and we had our summer holidays, we brought the ponies out from the stables down in the pit and put them in a field for the holidays? Could I suggest that the Secretary of State should be farmed out with them, and that we should leave him there because of the response that I have just had from the Minister? Is he aware that 153,000 jobs have been lost in textiles and that the east midlands has really suffered? I want to know what is going to happen. The Secretary of State should pull his socks up. Let us do something for the textile industry.
    Mr. Forth: Everyone is painfully aware of the difficulties that have arisen in the textile sector, affecting many parts of the country for some years. On the other hand, we should also be aware that the overall trade gap, as I mentioned, is going down—in this context perhaps I should say "shrinking"—slightly year by year and that certain significant sectors of the industry—woollen, worsted, flax and soft furnishings—are in surplus. That

    915
    shows that it would be helpful if the industry directed itself towards high-quality, high-value-added manufacture, in which our excellence of design and quality of manufacture can he brought to bear in a world trading context. That would make a great difference to the future of the industry.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend welcome the continual growth of export manufactures, especially of woollen textiles, which are of high value, from Yorkshire and our part of the world over the past five years? We have many good examples of what is happening in Yorkshire. Does he think that that growth would continue under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Forth: I am well aware of the great interest and support that my hon. Friend gives to the industry in her part of the world. I have had the honour to visit parts of that industry. I suspect that were there ever to be a change of Government and a change of policy—if we knew what policies would emanate from the Opposition; that is still entirely unclear—the type of measures that could emanate from the Opposition would cripple the textile industry as well as all other industries by adding to costs and prejudicing their competitive position, which is showing some signs of improvement.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Under-Secretary not know that the textile industry in Leicester and the whole of the east midlands is in a state of catastrophic decline and depression, and that the Government are continuing to do nothing to assist it? What are the Government prepared to do now, before the industry practically disappears?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises another question in my mind—what would he or his party do about it? I am not aware of anything in the Labour party's latest convoluted policy document that deals with the industry in any way. If the Opposition are saying that they would put money into the textile industry, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consult his leader and ask where the money is to come from, since his leader seems to be totally confused about where it would come from and where it would go to.

    Industry (Grants)
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in his Department dealing with grants to industry; and what is their estimated annual cost.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The Department's main schemes involving grants to industry are regional selective assistance, regional development grants, regional enterprise grants, the consultancy initiative and support for R and D and innovation. Some 850 of the Department's staff work on the development of policy and administration of these schemes at an estimated annual cost of £19 million. That represents some 7 per cent. of the Department's total manpower.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that all the human and financial resources currently targeted at individual commercial projects would be better spent on infrastructure for the benefit of all taxpayers and that, in conjunction with the lower wage rates and property values in the regions, that would be the best way of stimulating permanent and sustainable employment in those areas?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes two valuable points. Most certainly the Government should invest in infrastructure and most certainly the regions can do a great deal for themselves. But regional assistance through Government grant is also important. I am glad to say that since April 1987 regional selective assistance is estimated to have created or safeguarded about 185,000 jobs in Great Britain.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the large number of people employed, do the British taxpayers of Northern Ireland contribute to their salaries?
    Mr. Hogg: I rather hope so.
    Mr. Ward: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it seems that an astonishingly large number of people distribute the money? Would not it be better to get rid of them and of the grant and cut taxes?
    Mr. Hogg: I am glad to say that the Government have an unequal record in cutting taxes. We have done better than any Government at any time. Regional selective assistance and regional policy are also important and should be pursued.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: On the question of grants to industry and the European Commission's extended consideration of industry grants given in the Rover deal, will the Minister admit to the House the extent of not only the hidden subsidies given in grants to British Aerospace but the hidden subsidies in the form of tax concessions, which Lord Young has admitted could be worth millions of pounds? Will the Minister take this opportunity to admit to the House, to which he should have reported months ago, that in offering hidden subsidies which should have been declared, the Government were guilty of not only incompetence but deception?
    Mr. Hogg: There are several unpleasant features about the hon. Gentleman. One of them is that he is doing his best to persuade the Commission to penalise British Aerospace more than it should. That is a disreputable policy of which he should be profoundly ashamed.

    Cars
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the treatment of cars manufactured in the United Kingdom by Japanese-owned companies.
    Mr. Ridley: I discussed the subject yesterday at the Foreign Affairs Council. I have insisted that cars manufactured in the European Commission by Japanese-owned companies should continue to enjoy unlimited free circulation throughout the Community, and I believe that that has now been accepted.
    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend continue to welcome investment by Japanese companies in Britain? Will he assure me that the European Commission will treat motor cars manufactured by those companies in this country in exactly the same way as they treat motor cars manufactured by Ford and General Motors in Germany?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir. I have insisted on that point, despite contrary views within the Community. In the meeting yesterday I discerned that it has now been firmly established that we are acting within the treaty of Rome in

    917
    demanding that that be the case. I am also happy to say that satisfactory progress has been made on the whole issue.
    Sir Hal Miller: In his discussions, has my right hon. Friend been able to discover the basis of the objection to British workers in British factories making vehicles from European components financed by British money? What possible basis can there be for objecting to the free circulation of those vehicles throughout the Common Market? Has my right hon. Friend taken note of joint ventures by Japanese companies with companies in the countries of our continental partners and of the joint ventures that they have established in third-world countries such as Brazil, Mexico and the far east—to say nothing of eastern Europe?
    Mr. Ridley: In my opinion, there can be no question but that cars manufactured in this country are part of Community production. I see no reason why any member state should think otherwise. On my hon. Friend's second point, there are more than 90 major Japanese investments in France, for example—and no one has suggested that the products of those factories should be treated as other than Community production. Nor do I believe for one moment than anyone could or should.
    Mr. Cryer: Has the Secretary of State studied yesterday's decision by the Luxembourg court and its potential effect on Government decisions—for example, in car manufacturing? Does that decision mean that a manufacturer anywhere in the world who is dissatisfied with the position and actions taken by the British Government—for example, in giving regional selective assistance to a car component manufacturer in Scotland, Yorkshire or elsewhere—could apply to a British court and have the Government's decision, and legislation passed by this Parliament, suspended? If it could do that, it would set the Government and Parliament at naught. Should not the Government and Parliament resist such action?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot claim to be a lawyer, who could pronounce on such matters. I have read the articles that appeared in this morning's press, and feel that the hon. Gentleman would be wiser to seek an interpretation from someone more skilled in the law. It was always implicit on our joining the Community that we should have control over our affairs from the centre as to where we yielded in that respect. That is the importance of the doctrine of subsidiarity in making clear where the boundary is.
    Mr. Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of the news that he has given the House this afternoon, that motor cars made in Great Britain by Japanese-owned firms will be freely allowed on to the continent? Will he make sure that that actually happens? Until those motor cars are seen to flow out of the factories in Britain and on to the continent, there will still be doubt about whether the free market of 1992 will really arrive.
    Mr. Ridley: I can only give my hon. Friend the assurance that I am confident that that result will prevail. Cars are already flowing out of at least one factory, in north-east England, and on to the continent without let or hindrance.
    As I said, that issue was raised a second time in discussions, and I am confident that it has been suitably
    918
    resolved. I cannot claim that the way in which the Community is moving will result in a totally free market for cars after 1992, but it will for British-made cars.

    Post Office
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the state of industrial relations.
    Mr. Forth: Industrial relations are a matter for the Post Office, its employees, and their trade unions.
    Miss Hoey: In view of the difficulty that the Post Office has both in recruiting and retaining postal workers, will the Minister meet the chairman of the Post Office urgently and make sure that the increased postal charges that have recently been announced are used not to prop up the profits of the Post Office but to improve the services to people—and particularly to improve the working conditions and pay of the many thousands of loyal postal workers in this country?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady will be delighted to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of the Post Office and his colleagues regularly to keep in touch with the efforts that the Post Office is making to do precisely what she asks—to maintain a consistent investment policy and ensure that pay rewards to employees are sufficient to attract and retain employees of a suitable quality to enable the Post Office to provide an acceptable level of service to the people of Britain. The Post Office can demonstrate considerable success in this matter, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in wishing it well in the continuation of that programme.
    Mr. Gow: As industrial relations in the privatised industries have been much better than those in the nationalised industries, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm that the Government are still considering the possibility of introducing a measure of privatisation and competition into the collection and delivery of letters?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows that the Department is constantly reviewing ways in which improvements can be brought about in organisations such as the Post Office. That is a continuing process. But in the short term, we must look to the management and employees of the Post Office to sustain improvements in their quality of service so that requests such as that made by my hon. Friend will be muted and can continue to be put in their place.
    Mr. Ewing: Can the Minister confirm that when he was a Back Bencher he supported privatisation of the royal mail, whereas now that he is Minister responsible for the Post Office, he has changed his mind and there is now no possibility—we are all grateful for this—of the privatisation of the royal mail?
    Mr. Forth: I shall share a secret with the hon. Gentleman: remarkable things happen when one is translated from the Back Benches to the Dispatch Box and if, from time to time, the hon. Gentleman has noticed the tiniest change in my demeanour, he should not be too surprised.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that no postal collections are taking place in my constituency today? He has frequently said that the Post office monopoly is a privilege, not a right. Does he accept that many Conservative Members believe that that privilege should be taken away?
    Mr. Forth: I am aware of the difficulties in my hon. Friend's constituency. I repeat what I said at the beginning: neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have—or will have—any responsibility for industrial relations. I must emphasise, however, that every time unofficial action is taken that prejudices the level of service given by the Post Office, it weakens the argument that most Opposition Members will wish to advance in favour of maintaining the present status of the Post Office. My hon. Friend knows that well. His argument, which he has pursued consistently, and which he will be pursuing again in an Adjournment debate on Monday, is strengthened every time unofficial industrial action reduces the level of service given by the Post Office.

    Juno Project
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the future funding of the Juno project; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The organisers of the Juno project have requested Government funding. Juno was conceived as a private sector venture to put a British astronaut into spece on the basis of commercial and media sponsorship. I could not justify diverting resources from the Government's own space programme which has quite different goals, notably Earth observation and telecommunications.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that the Juno project involves more than simply putting a woman from the Mars bars company or a service man from the British Army into space? Is he aware that microgravity experiments were to be conducted and that they would have had a bearing on both AIDS and arthritis? Would not the resultant savings to the health service amount to more than the £12 million for the want of which the project is in jeopardy?
    Mr. Hogg: I doubt the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. What I am certain about is that the Government are right to target our spending programme as we are targeting it at present — to use space for specific useful purposes. I do not think that Juno is a proper candidate for public money in that context.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that research in space is a vital ingredient of the high-tech industries of the future, where many important technologies will be field tested? As the cost of those experiments is so high, it is vital that Government funds are not diverted from matters that we deem to be of strategic importance to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Juno mission is not of strategic importance to the United Kingdom. What are of strategic importance are the polar platform and the Earth observation programme, to which we are subscribing, and the latest European Space Agency
    920
    telecommunications satellite programme, to which we are also subscribing. We are putting our money where it matters.

    Regional Assistance
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of regional development grants and regional selective assistance in (a) 1978–79 and (b) the last financial year.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: In 1978–79, expenditure in Great Britain on regional development grants and regional selective assistance was £416·9 million and £104·5 million respectively, while in 1989–90 expenditure was £203·9 million and £197·8 million respectively at current prices.
    Mr. Martlew: In the northern region, development grants have been cut in real terms by £118 million a year and selective assistance has been cut by 75 per cent. As unemployment in the north-west is still much higher than 1979, what justification can the Government give for that? With unemployment rising and industry being hit by high interest rates and inflation, will the Minister reconsider putting more money into the north-west to stimulate investment?
    Mr. Hogg: This is an interesting question because it points to two things: first, a lack of knowledge and, secondly, a change in the Labour party programme, as it is disclosed. The hon. Gentleman spoke of rising employment. In his constituency, which is an unassisted area, between March 1989 and March 1990 unemployment fell by 21·4 per cent.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What about 1979?
    Mr. Hogg: I said 1989 to 1990. In the adjoining constituency of Workington, which is an assisted area, between March 1989 and March 1990 unemployment fell by 28·3 per cent., so the policy is working. The hon. Gentleman has disclosed a new spending programme for the Labour party. If he looks at page 16 of his party's policy document he will find that it mentions only a reshaping of regional grants. He wants to bring back regional development grants, but that would cost £1 billion. I do not suppose that that has been provided for in the spending plans.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if anyone were to advocate an increase in development grants and selective assistance, to be paid for exclusively by extra taxes on one person in 15, the burden placed on those taxpayers would be crippling and the disincentive effects and the likely increase in unemployment would be substantial?
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree. The programme disclosed in the Labour party document is only a small part of its spending programmes. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has made it quite plain that he wants to bring back regional development grants, but it would cost £1 billion to reinstate them to 1978–79 figures. Is that included in the bill of £50 billion, which independent experts have assessed as the cost of the Labour party programme?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister looked quite pathetic in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). He completely misrepresented what my hon. Friend said.
    What discussions are going on between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment about West Cumbria's application for objective 2 assistance? Does he realise that we desperately need that assistance in West Cumbria because we face as many as 3,000 or 4,000 redundancies following the run down of the Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant construction project? We need the money and that help in West Cumbria. What will the Minister do?
    Mr. Hogg: That is an extraordinary question. I have had the pleasure of telling the House that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency fell by 28·3 per cent. between March 1989 and March 1990. For him to describe me as "pathetic" when I am giving good news represents a curious reversal of values.
    Mr. Sumberg: Instead of listening to the dismal Jimmies opposite, will my hon. and learned Friend pay a visit to the north-west of England, where he will see a revival of economic activity, a reversal of the north-south divide and a reduction in unemployment? The only threat to all that would be the election of the Labour party to government.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is manifestly right. If a Government try to introduce a spending programme that will cost £50 billion—according to independent assessments—it will lead to rampant inflation and massive taxation. However, that is the policy of the Labour party, and we shall remind the electorate of that fact until they are fed up with it.
    Mr. Caborn: In future, will the Minister obtain his briefings from the Department of Trade and Industry, and not from the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)? If he did, we might hear a little more sense. Does he agree that since the last Labour Government there have been cuts in regional grant amounting to £660 million a year? Such cuts lead to headlines such as
    "British cities struggle in prosperity league."
    The Government have excelled even themselves by relegating 15 of our great cities to the bottom of the European league: we now have the worst record in the European Community.
    Rather than attacking the Labour party's policy, the Minister should read the Audit Commission's report on the Government's performance in dispensing aid. The report calls it
    "a patchwork quilt of complexity which cannot be understood either by business or local authorities."
    Will the Minister arrange for a debate on the report?
    Mr. Hogg: I know that the Labour party is upset about the way in which the public are beginning to realise what is in its programme. Let me tell the House—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Order Paper refers to "Questions" to the Secretary of State: that means that Ministers must answer questions. This little arrogant shit has not answered a single question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that word immediately, and must not repeat it.
    Mr. Foulkes: Which word do you want me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker—little, arrogant or shit?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows which word: the last.
    Mr. Foulkes: I withdraw the last word.
    Mr. Hogg: All this whingeing and whining from Opposition Members is amusing and pathetic. We are now costing the Labour party's programme. Let me add that it was not my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) who attached a bill of £50 billion, but the independent experts Midland Montagu Research.

    West Germany
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with West Germany.
    Mr. Ridley: In the four months ended April 1990 the United Kingdom trade deficit in manufactured goods with West Germany was £3·1 billion.
    Mr. Thompson: You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, the reference by Ministers to the Labour party's policy document. At least we have a policy for trade and industry. The Secretary of State's figure of £3·1 billion for the first four months of this year suggests that the Government will match, if not exceed, last year's deficit of £9·6 billion, which was part of a deficit of f 14·5 billion with EEC countries. Has the Secretary of State learnt any lessons from the West German Government's attitude to industry? It supports industry with railway systems, infrastructure and support for training. There are significant lessons to be learnt from our European neighbours about trade and industry, but has the Secretary of State learnt any yet?
    Mr. Ridley: I have learnt one lesson: to impose a further burden on British industry of 0·5 per cent. payroll tax on its total labour costs, yielding £1 billion, would be crippling to its competitiveness and would make the deficit with West Germany worse. That is the policy contained in the Labour party's document, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Will he now formally denounce his Front Bench for suggesting imposing penalties on our industry which would make our trade deficit worse? Will he admit that it is time that the Labour party thought again?
    Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to beat countries such as Germany is to produce finer and better quality goods? Will he join me in congratulating Tom Walkinshaw Racing and Jaguar Cars on their magnificent Le Mans victory, when they came first and second, beating a West German Porsche well and truly into third place?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the way to improve our trade performance is to improve quality and our competitiveness so that we can sell in every market of the world. Of course, I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who won that victory. It is a great British success which I want to see translated into a dividend in terms of sales around the world.

European Court of Justice (Decision)
3.30 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, under Standing Order No. 20—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am taking the Standing Order No. 20 application in the hon. Member's name before points of order.
3.31 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave, under Standing Order No. 20, for an immediate debate on the following subject, namely,
"The consequences for the sovereignty of the House of Commons of the decision of the European Court of Justice on interim relief."
Although there has appeared to be an all-party conspiracy in the House not to discuss dramatic European developments which have consequences for our sovereignty, I believe that the events of yesterday are so specific and serious that we must consider them now as a free Parliament.
The issue is certainly specific. Until yesterday, it was always considered that the task of our Parliament was to make laws and the task of the courts was to interpret them. Following our accession to the EEC, we had to accept that, under article 2, if a European Court decided that any of our laws were in conflict with Euro-law, we had to consider its judgment and then draft alternative laws or amendments to change our laws, in due course and taking account of all the other laws of our land. However, yesterday's judgment on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 creates an entirely new situation. The European Court has taken upon itself the right to declare that an Act of this Parliament becomes null and void if it receives what it regards as a justifiable complaint of damage or loss until such time as the Court makes a decision. [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not think that this is a serious matter, let them remember that, until yesterday, no court has ever told this Parliament to suspend or nullify the law.
924
The seriousness of the matter is abundantly clear. Any law that we enacted last week, that we will consider today or that we enact next week can be repealed in a flash by the judges in Luxembourg, the moment they receive a complaint from anyone in Britain or elsewhere which they consider serious enough to investigate. The immediate issue is serious for our fishermen and trawler operators, who were led to believe by the Government and the Opposition that the modest quota of fish stocks allocated to the United Kingdom by Brussels belonged to them, but it now appears that those stocks can be eaten up by the Spanish or other operators who have no link with the United Kingdom. This serious issue is only one of what may be a substantial number of similar cases in the future.
This issue should certainly take precedence over all other business. There is no point in our going ahead with passing laws when we have no guarantee that those laws will prevail. We might be able to cope with or to plan for a new situation if Euro-laws were clear and precise, but we have a special problem in that the wording of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act is so general and so non-specific that it is almost impossible to anticipate what the European Court would say.
There are very few issues that deserve special priority, but this is surely one. It affects the sovereignty of this House, the rights of the people and, more importantly, the power of Parliament, which has always been to respond to the people, not to non-elected officials. We must have a debate. The issue is vital.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the implications for parliamentary sovereignty of the decision of the European Court of Justice yesterday on interim relief."
I have listened with great attention to what the hon. Member said about this matter. As he knows, I have a difficult decision to take: whether his application should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
In this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. Nevertheless, he has raised a vital matter concerning the sovereignty of Parliament. I hope that the House will address it in due time.

Points of Order
3.36 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) first.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your protection as a Back-Bench Member of this House. It is clear that, at Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) were deprived of the opportunity of putting a question because the Minister of State sought to hijack the proceedings. He did so in response to a question that was put to him by quoting figures on Labour party policy that had been provided to him by Conservative central office.
I seek your protection because, if called, we should have been able to put our questions at Question Time and contribute to the debate. I hope that you will request Ministers to reply to the questions on the Order Paper.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is really impossible to expect the Chair to monitor the answers given to questions. That is a matter for the Ministers concerned.
I must say that today I do not think that the length of answers to questions was the problem. I think the problem was that so many questions were linked. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] Those questions fell high on the Order Paper. Had they fallen a little lower down, it is just possible that we could have taken them at the end of Question Time.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the points of order, but I must remind the House that today we have a very important Report stage which is time-limited. The first guillotine falls at 7 o'clock. Points of order are bound to take time out of the speeches of those hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.
Mr. Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I will take it.
Mr. Conway: Can I ask Mr. Speaker, that, when you leave the Chamber today, you should study column 19 of the Official Report for 16 June 1983, and consider the words in that column said by you—that you,
"in your name and on your behalf, made claim by humble petition to Her Majesty to all your ancient and undoubted rights and privileges"—[Official Report, 16 June 1983: Vol. 44, c.19.]
Would you reflect upon that speech and consider whether the sovereignty of this House has been given away during this afternoon's proceedings and yesterday's ruling?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should do further homework and reflect upon the Single European Act, which was passed by this House. [Interruption.] Order. The difficult decision that I have had to take today is whether the submission by the hon. Member for
926
Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) under Standing Order No. 20 met the criteria of the Standing Order. I rejected it on that basis, but I went on to say that it was indeed a very important matter for the whole House of Commons and that I hoped that there would be opportunities to address it.
Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel sure that you and the House will join me in expressing sympathy to the families affected by the tragic British Rail accident south of Doncaster. In view of the Secretary of State's statement to the papers, has he told you that he intends to make a statement to the House on safety at level crossings?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request. I am sure that the whole House shares the concern of the hon. Gentleman about his constituents.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This ruling of the European Court sets aside our constitution as we have understood it for several hundred years. Two principles are of fundamental importance: one is the supremacy of Parliament, which represents the supremacy of the British people. For the first time in our national history, a ruling has been imposed that overrides the sovereignty of the British people. Therefore, to abdicate that is surely the most important issue that the House can discuss under any circumstances. Our deliberations this afternoon may be invalidated by this new constitutional principle. It is at the very heart of the business of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I entirely share the concern of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who no doubt will be rising on this matter. I repeat that the Leader of the House is here and I hope that he will have heard what has been said. [Interruption.] I am bound by the criteria of the Standing Order.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I return to the serious issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell)? Do you agree that Question Time today did the House of Commons no credit whatsoever? We reached only 13 questions. In the next 24 hours, will you reflect on what happened and possibly give your views tomorrow on the abuse of Question Time, not only from one side of the House? Rightly, you are quick enough to call some hon. Members to order, but others seem to get away with proverbial murder.
Mr. Speaker: That is a reprehensible statement from the hon. Gentleman. I cannot be held responsible for answers that are given from the Front Bench, provided that they are in order. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They were not."] They may have been lengthy, but the whole House knows that some rough things are said in this Chamber. That is what it is all about.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the European Communities Act 1972 was passed, all the White Papers and documents that were produced made it clear that there would not be any fundamental change in the position of the British constitution as regards legislation passed by the House, save where Acts of Parliament took into account the

927
obligations we had entered into under the European Communities Act. That did not include a repeal or an implied repeal of the Bill of Rights. It is well established that, under article 9 of the Bill of Rights, the courts do not give instructions to Parliament. Would you be good enough to consider that question in the light of what is written in "Erskine May" and the Bill of Rights?
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters which the hon. Gentleman should properly raise in a debate that I hope we shall have on the matter.
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised with you on question 2 the linking of those five questions on British Steel. Let me make it clear that I have received no letter on the board, which is the normal courtesy from the Department. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has very kindly showed me the letter that the Department of Trade and Industry sent her, and there is no mention of my name in that letter. Secondly, those five questions are not the same, so I received no answer to the question that I had on the Order Paper, which was totally different from the other four questions. The only common thing is that they are all about British Steel, but it is possible to ask a variety of different questions about British Steel.
I believe that those five questions were a deliberate abuse by the Department of Trade and Industry to exclude other hon. Members who have steel interests in their constituencies, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), from asking supplementary questions. I have to say—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a surprising point of order to put to me. The hon. Gentleman was actually called: he asked a question.
Mr. Maxton: That is not the point.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot say to the Department that I will not hear the questions that it has linked. The mark, I believe, is that questions may be linked up to 20. With any luck, if we had a straight run down the Order Paper, we might have got to 19. However, that did not happen today. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was very fortunate.
Mr. Maxton: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. I accept that my question might not have been reached, but that is not my point. The point is that the Department of Trade and Industry should not have linked together five questions on that subject. I intend to write to you, Mr. Speaker, to tell you that I believe that the procedures of the House should be changed, so that your approval must be gained before questions can be linked.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I understand that the parliamentary clerk in the DTI notified the Secretary of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
Mr. Maxton: That is irrelevant.
Mr. Hogg: Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in grouping the questions, did so in part at least to ensure that the hon. Member for Cathcart
928
would have an opportunity to get in at Question Time. His question was No.19, and it probably would not have been reached had the questions not been grouped.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very important debate today on which the first guillotine falls at 7 o'clock. There is a great deal of interest in that debate and I propose to take two more points of order, one from each side of the House, and then we shall move on.
Sir Dudley Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While appreciating your difficulties and of course totally accepting your decisions, as we always do on these occasions, do you not think that there is an awful danger that the public will not understand why we are not going to debate a matter which is of enormous importance—perhaps one of the most major issues to face this Parliament for the past 40 years?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at Standing Order No. 20 and consider the criteria. I have a very difficult decision to take on that matter. I must weigh whether the business is of such importance that it should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I hope that the public will understand that. I do not deny that it is a very important matter. However, I must judge whether it is of such urgency that it should take precedence over the business already set down. I hope very much that there will be a debate on this very important matter in parliamentary time.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take one more point of order. No waving of arms.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Are these questions on the European Court's decision really out of order? Surely the pass was sold on the sovereignty of this Parliament when Conservative Members voted for the Single European Act?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order. [Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Horse Racing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order. I have a duty to protect the business of this House.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

Motor Vehicle Excise Licence (Amendment)
3.48 pm
Mr. Roger King: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the issuing of excise licences for motor vehicles conditional on proof of valid insurance and roadworthiness for the period of the licence.
In essence, my Bill is quite straightforward. It seeks to co-ordinate the length of time a vehicle may be licensed for road use with the validity of that vehicle's insurance and relevant test certificate.
At the moment, anyone seeking to obtain an excise licence for a motor vehicle must upon application also present a valid insurance certificate and a valid test certificate. In terms of the validity of the two certificates, it is necessary that they are valid only on the day of the excise licence. Thus, it is quite permissible for a certificate of insurance to expire 48 hours after an excise licence has been issued.
It is estimated that, at present, 20 per cent. of motorists drive around uninsured. Some do so wilfully; some because they have forgotten to renew, despite reminders from their insurance companies; and others have difficulty meeting the premiums and never get around to renewing. That total represents not only 1·5 million lost premiums, and an added burden for the majority of motorists, but the risk of the law-abiding being involved in an accident with someone who is uninsured. The consequent heartache and anger at that growing problem are known to most of us.
The innocent party can, of course, seek compensation from the Motor Insurers Bureau in the event of being involved in an accident with someone who is uninsured, but that does not mask the fact that the premiums that are paid into the central fund come from motorists who do adequately insure. It therefore follows that premiums reflect a percentage contribution to the fund. With claims ever rising in value, that can only get worse.
The annual test certificate is another requirement that is open to exploitation. Let us suppose that one applies for an excise licence in January for, say, six months. The vehicle in question may have passed its annual check-up in August of the preceding year, but the certificate would be still valid for the issue of either a 12 or six-month excise licence in January. Let us also suppose that subsequent to the expiry of the six-month excise licence, the motorist then renews on 1 July for a further 12 months. He can still use the valid MOT certificate with just one month to run, but does not need to present his car for a further test until he needs to renew the excise licence a year later. That vehicle need not have been tested for 22 months.
Critics will say that more spot checks are needed by the police and that fines should be greater to deter those who are tempted to ignore the legal requirements. I absolutely agree that that would be welcome, but however hard the police crack down, the chances of being caught are very much in favour of the motorist—and the police surely have better things to do. Others might say that the concept of an excise licence is obsolete anyway and that it should be done away with, with the loss of income being made up by additional duty on motor fuel. I do not object to that either. Indeed, I would urge it—in which case, in the

931
absence of an excise licence, the current insurance disc should be displayed. Without such progress, I believe that my Bill represents a worthwhile step forward.
Both the AA and RAC have expressed interest in my proposals. However, it is only fair to tell the House that while understanding the reasons for my proposals, the Association of British Insurers can see some practical problems. Its view is that a conterminus system as envisaged might present difficulties when owners change cars. Ensuring that insurance is in phase with excise licences would possibly require a huge amount of cashing up of current policies so that new ones could be issued. Equally, no-claims bonus calculations and implementation would be affected by such chopping and changing, calculated as it is on an annualised basis.
Although I understand the practical difficulties of adapting current insurance company practices to my Bill's requirements, I believe that the prize of bringing in a large percentage of those currently uninsured would be worth the effort.
Annual insurance polices could normally be sold in monthly increments. Many policy holders already pay their premiums by monthly instalments anyway, so it would not be much of a departure from present practice. It would make cashing in and renewal relatively simple. Besides, whenever a change of car takes place a new insurance proposal must be made. The procedure for calculating credits should be quite straightforward.
When a new or used car is purchased from a dealer, a new vehicle excise licence is usually part of the deal. Indeed, most dealers cash in a used car's excise licence unless a quick sale is expected. The prospective purchaser should have no difficulty in obtaining the relevant insurance to cover the period of the new excise licence.
Insurers will point out that cover notes to cover the time needed between car purchase and the issue of a proper policy would no longer be possible, but it would still be permissible under my Bill so long as the vehicle in question did not require the issue of an immediate excise licence. Used car sales might well be covered in that way, as might pre-registered new cars.
Private sales would involve the purchaser in notifying his insurance company of the relevant details; a monthly premium adjustment would be made and a new policy established to cover the excise licence renewal when the time comes. No-claims bonuses could be introduced at the appropriate anniversary month.
Owners of car fleets that are registered as businesses and covered by corporate insurance would be exempt from
932
the requirements of my Bill. I estimate that at least five vehicles would comprise a fleet for the purpose of that requirement.
The Bill would extend to cars and light vans, but would exclude commercial vehicles, buses and coaches, for which existing practices can be maintained.
Although I said earlier that the annual test certificate is open to exploitation, it is not possible to organise a totally conterminus arrangement with the excise licence in the same way as for insurance. Therefore, my Bill proposes that a vehicle's annual test certificate should have a validity of at least six months when an application for an excise licence is made.
The Bill may seem simple enough in its aims, but initially it will create new systems. Given the opportunity of starting afresh on a clean sheet of paper, I believe that some of the obtacles, or all of them, can be overcome. I understand the reservations that some might have, but I believe that driving a vehicle on our highways is a responsible exercise and that we must ensure that legal requirements are met by everyone. It seems reasonable to ensure that, when a car owner seeks a vehicle excise licence, his vehicle is adequately insured for the appropriate period and that it is in a reasonable state of repair. At no other stage does the opportunity occur to make those checks. The display of a current excise licence should signify that the vehicle is properly insured and roadworthy.
Some will say that too many owners do not purchase an excise licence as things stand. That may be true but at least one can see whether a current licence is on display. If the licence were brighter and stood out more, monitoring display would be much easier.
The Bill outlines broad concepts that I believe are entirely feasible. It represents a useful step forward, and that is why I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger King, Sir Hal Miller, Sir Trevor Skeet, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Christopher Gill.

Motor Vehicle Excise Licence (Amendment)
  MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE LICENCE (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Roger King accordingly presented a Bill to make the issuing of excise licences for motor vehicles conditional on proof of valid insurance and roadworthiness for the period of the licence; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed [Bill 165.]

Points of Order
3.56 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. And it is very important.
Mr. Speaker: Is it? All points of order are very important.
Mr. Skinner: It is to do—
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order that relates to the Bill with which we are about to deal?
Mr. Skinner: Yes. It relates also to the Bill which has just been presented.
Mr. Speaker: No. I am not taking it.
Mr. Skinner: You are just giving in, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY BILL [LORDS] (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Ordered,
That the Reports [6 and 9 June] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
Reports considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolutions, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 [Business Committee] and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee [6
June, [as amended by the Committee's report [19 June]]:
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Business Committee),—The Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had come to a Resolution in respect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords], which it had directed him to report to the House:
That—

(1) The order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be that shown in the second column of the Table set out below;

(2) the allotted days which under the Order [2nd April] are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and

(3) subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Amendments to: Clauses Nos. 1 to 5, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 6 to 11, and Schedule No. 2

7 p.m.

Amendments to: Clause No. 12, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 13 to 29, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 30 to 33, and Clauses Nos. 35 to 42 and 44, Government new Clauses and new Schedules not relating to the termination of pregnancy, and other new Clauses and new Schedules not relating to the termination of pregnancy.

11 p.m.

Second day

New Clauses Nos. 1 and 6, amendment No. 31, new Clause No. 5, amendment No. 54, new Clause No. 7.

7 p.m.

Amendments Nos. 4, 30, 29, 28 and remaining proceedings on consideration.

10 p.m.

Third Reading

11 p.m.

Orders of the Day

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
  [IST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended [in Committee and in the Standing Committee], considered.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
    Clause 1

      MEANING OF "EMBRYO", "GAMETE" AND ASSOCIATED EXPRESSIONS
      Mr. Speaker: The first amendment today is No. 38.
      3.57 pm
      Ms. Jo Richardson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance, Sir, and I do not know whether this is the right time to do so. The Secretary of State for Health and the Solicitor-General have tabled some new clauses, which are to be discussed today. They were tabled only yesterday and we saw them only yesterday. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State has notes on clauses. We have no notes on the new clauses and the Library staff are trying to get their heads round the new clauses. We need to understand them. They may be perfectly all right but we would like some elaboration on what they are about.
      The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am right in saying that all the new clauses in question are unlikely to be debated before 7 o'clock. They are to be debated after the first guillotine falls. I shall make every effort to ensure that briefing is available to the hon. Lady and to any other right hon. or hon. Member. Notes on clauses will be made available at the first possible opportunity.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Bill that is before us has implications for the Common Market. There are people and countries in the Common Market that do not have the same abortion rights as those which have been recognised by this Parliament. If the Italians, for example, decided that they were not happy with the way in which abortion rights were being exercised in this country, they could, if they obtained a majority in the Common Market, decide to impose conditions upon Britain. That is very important for you, Mr. Speaker.
      Those on the Government Front Bench agree with the Common Market. The Opposition Front Bench now agrees with the Common Market and all that takes place within it. Liberals have long been defenders of Common Market; they are Euro-fanatics. The Scottish Nationalists believe in the Common Market. My point is that many Back Benchers do not agree with the Common Market.
      You will have representations from Back Benchers, Mr. Speaker, but you may not have representations from the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench. The net result is that the Front Benches will not ask for a debate on this important constitutional matter, so we Back Benchers have to rely on your decision that the matter is
      936
      important enough for Parliament, despite the collaboration between the Front Benches. That is why this is an important matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
      Previous Speakers of the House have had to stand up against the monarch and various interests. Now the Speaker of the House—yourself, Sir—must stand up against the mighty Common Market, which is beginning to do what it likes. As a result of the government's ruling, it will impose its rules, conditions and constitution on this Parliament. Somebody must speak out about it.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may be surprised to hear that I entirely share his anxiety, but he should have made that speech when we debated the Single European Act—
      Mr. Skinner: I voted against it.
      Mr. Speaker: But the House passed it. I will not go back on the decision which I have taken. We all agree that the matter is important. The question is whether it is so urgent that it must be debated immediately. [Interruption.] Order. Back Benchers also have time at their disposal and there will be opportunities for them to use that time on this important matter, even if the Front Benches do not find time, which I hope they will.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order—
      Mr. Speaker: No.
      Mr. Marlow: It is not about the timing of the debate.
      Mr. Speaker: Is it about this Bill?
      Mr. Marlow: It is about the Bill.
      Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Member put his hand on his heart and say that it is about this Bill?
      Mr. Marlow: I put my hand on my heart and say that this is about the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly said that, even if the House passed the Bill, the Act of Parliament could be as confetti as a result of the ruling made by the court yesterday. The ruling does as much potential damage to this House as was threatened by Guy Fawkes in his day. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for your assistance. You are the champion of this House. Even after the Single European Act, "Erskine May" says that the powers of the EC institutions—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman put the wrong hand on his heart. We must proceed with today's Bill.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: No. I call the Minister.
      The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'in vitro' to 'and' in line 18 and insert
      '(in their application to those where fertilisation is complete) are to those where fertilisation began outside the human body whether or not it was completed there'.
      This is a formal drafting amendment which follows from the change made to the definition of fertilisation in another place. It is important to make it clear when fertilisation begins, to inform the arrangements concerned

      937
      with consents. The amendment clarifies beyond any doubt where fertilisation begins—whether inside or outside the body.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: We now come to the next group of amendments.
      Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: No. I am not going back to this matter.
      Mr. Cryer: It has to do with the Bill.
      Mr. Speaker: I wonder which hand the hon. Gentleman will put on his heart.
      Mr. Cryer: I put my hand on my heart.
      We are dealing with several amendments to an important Bill and I share your concern, Mr. Speaker, that we should be debating them. Nevertheless, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that if, when the Bill is enacted, it is challenged, as the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has been challenged, in the court in Luxembourg, he will use the available path demonstrated in "Erskine May" which is that primary legislation can maintain the supremacy of Parliament? If the Bill is challenged, will the Secretary of State be prepared to consult his Cabinet colleagues about producing legislation to maintain our supremacy? If we do not get that assurance, we are not exactly occupying our time usefully.
      Mr. Speaker: That point will have been taken by the Secretary of State.

    Clause 3

      PROHIBITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH EMBRYOS
      Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
      '( ) bringing about the creation of an embryo other than in the course of providing treatment services,'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in schedule 2, page 29, line 32, leave out from 'authorise' to 'keeping' in line 34.
      No. 8, in line 41, leave out paragraph (d).
      No. 9, in page 29, leave out lines 44 and 45.
      No. 10, in page 30, line 1, after 'authorise,' insert—
      '(a) the administration of a substance to an embryo for the purpose of ascertaining the properties of that substance in relation to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease, or
      (b)'.
      No. 11, in page 30, line I, after 'authorise,' insert—
      `(aa) any activity designed to develop more effective techniques of contraception, or
      (b)'
      Mr. Field: The House has decided that it will allow research on embryos. When we voted last time, there was an option before us—we could either vote against or for research. The House gave a clear undertaking about what it wished. I wish to propose a third option that was not considered during that evening when we, as a Committee of the whole House, considered the Bill. That option is that there should be research, but embryos should not be created merely for the sake of research, but only, as they are now, for the treatment of patients.
      938
      The current law is that all embryos that are created belong to patients and that research can occur in two circumstances. First, it can take place on embryos that are not used in the current round of infertility treatment. Secondly, a much more rare opportunity arises for research on embryos that are not used in the current round of infertility treatment, but are frozen and used later.
      As I understand the law, in those circumstances the patient will have a major say about what happens to those embryos. The clinics that conduct such affairs in the best way include Bourne hall in Cambridgeshire. There, not only are patients and researchers consulted, but the clinic has an ethics committee that considers whether research should be allowed.
      Therefore, amendment No. 6 and the consequential amendment No. 7 are designed to put on the statute book what most of us understand to be the current and best treatment.
      When an amendment is moved, the mover is sometimes accused of trying to wreck a decision that the House has already made. Some people may have that as their motive, but I do not. If anyone says that mine is a wrecking amendment, they must answer two questions. First, if the amendment were passed, to what extent would what appeared on the statute book be different from current arrangements? Secondly, under the new arrangements, which authorities could not undertake research that they now undertake? If mine were a wrecking amendment, presumably one would be able to answer those two questions.
      I have tabled amendment Nos. 6 and 7 because although I accept that the House has made a decision about research, I want to ensure that what we understand by current practice and best behaviour is placed on the statute book. Therefore, the choice involves best practice or changing current procedures of linking the creation of embryos to the treatment of patients. If the amendment is not accepted I fear that we shall open up the possibility —I put it no higher than that—of creating embryo farms. That is a different decision, I think, from the one that we made in Committee.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I am happy to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). As the House knows, I have always been opposed to research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. I accept, as I think the hon. Gentleman accepts, the decision by the majority to allow research up to 14 days, even though I voted against it. The amendment is a reasonable compromise and I support it because it seeks to establish some limit on the research that we have already sanctioned. Therefore, it is not a repeat of what the majority decided in Committee.
      At the outset of one of the most important debates in the Session, I should like to make clear what I think the amendment will and will not do. It allows human embryos to be created only for the purpose of providing treatment for infertility. Therefore, it will not stop in vitro fertilisation. It does not put any limit on the number of embryos that may be created, to be used as part of a course of such treatment. Nor will it stop all experimentation on human embryos. Spare embryos which remain after IVF and which are destined, alas, to die can be used for experimentation.
      What the amendment will stop, however, is the creation of human embryos purely and solely for research. To allow

      939
      such research is totally unacceptable to many hon. Members and to many citizens. The amendment is not a ban but a compromise that does not give a free-for-all to the experimenters. The Bill cannot be allowed to stand in its present form.
      Mr. Frank Field: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "compromise". I tabled the amendment not as a compromise but as a clarification of what I understand the status quo to be in research. The amendment places no restrictions on research. If hon. Members want to place restrictions on such research, they must do so by supporting later amendments. I repeat that the amendment is not a compromise but seeks to place on the statute book what I understand to be current best practice.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I stand corrected, and accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. "Compromise" was not the best word to have chosen. However, under the Bill as it is presently drafted, doctors and scientists can deliberately create a human being who will have no chance of developing in its mother's womb or of being born. It will be experimented upon and destroyed within days. I find this one of the most repugnant aspects of these developments, because it means using a human being as a means to an end.
      At the start of our debate, we should stand back a little and ask ourselves, as I ask the Minister, where we are going. Have we given sufficient thought to developments that have been occurring in the field of human embryology or what is likely to happen in the years immediately ahead? For example, the Warnock report was published six years ago and the notion then of creating embryos purely for research horrified many people, including many hon. Members.
      I was told by British and French scientists only yesterday that developments in the freezing of female eggs which are not yet human beings have progressed so rapidly that the time could soon come when the freezing of embryos may become obsolete. There would then be no need to freeze an embryo, which has a totally different status from the gamete, which has no hope of life unless it is fertilised. That is an important distinction.
      I emphasise that there can be no doubt that we are dealing here with human life at its very earliest stage. In all our debates on the Bill, I have said—and I shall say again —that, with the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm, a completely new human being begins who, if that being is ensured an appropriate environment and nutrients, has all the potential to grow and develop to adulthood.
      Can we accept that it is permissible to create a new life only to destroy it? In my book, that would be flagrant abuse of the medical skills which have surely been developed to create and to uphold life, rather than to destroy it. Admittedly, the newly fertilised egg or embryo —he or she; the sex of the embryo is determined at that stage—will have to pass through many stages before adulthood. When we speak of an embryo, we are speaking of a human being at the beginning of that journey.
      Surely our intention must never be to start a life merely in order to deliberately destroy it. As I said earlier, the amendment concerns a limit on research—it is a question of degree. It seeks to set a limit on the purpose for which
      940
      a human embryo can be created. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, "What is the right use to make of a human embryo?"
      4.15 pm
      All lines of research are not permitted in other areas. Surely medical ethics requires us to draw the line at some point. I contend that the boundaries of research must be determined by the status of the subject. I call in aid the declaration of Helsinki, which clearly states:
      "in research on man the interests of science and society must never take precedence over considerations relating to the well-being of the subject."
      Therefore, one thing is crystal clear to me: it is unacceptable to treat the human embryo as experimental material.
      David Short, professor emeritus in clinical medicine at the university of Aberdeen, who is one of my advisers, has pointed out to me that there is a world of difference between experimenting with an embryo and with a blood cell. The human embryo is a complete individual with the potential to become a child, a young person and an adult —perhaps even a genius. A blood cell is no more than a replaceable part of a human body.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a member of the university of Aberdeen, does the emeritus professor speak with the authority of the existing department of biology there? The answer is no.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I am not going to answer for the professor. Advisers to the pro-life group in the House, which covers all political parties, are drawn from professors emeritus whose names are world famous. I shall not go into the qualifications of a distinguished figure from the medical world. I am as entitled to quote him as the hon. Gentleman is entitled to quote the authorities upon whom he places reliance.
      Without the amendment we would be creating a category of sub-humans purely for research, who can be destroyed with impunity in the course of such research. The pro-experimenters and the Government, too, are asking us for the right to create a sub-human category for experimentation, seemingly for the benefit of mankind. This Bill, unamended, would give them that right. So, in our arrogance, we would start down the slippery road of accepting that the end justifies the means. That may sound extreme, but it is what we will be doing with human embryos unless the amendment is accepted.
      It is prefectly true to say that the medical world is divided on the issue—I allow that. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists tells us that we should allow the creation of embryos which are intended purely for research purposes to continue. It does not say why, but merely tells us that such research
      "is an essential part of research on factors which influence the process of fertilisation".
      I have information to the contrary. The creation of embryos purely for research purposes is not necessary to improve IVF procedures. In Victoria and South Australia, where embryo research is banned, clinical practice has not been affected adversely. In Victoria, the take-home-baby rate is better than in any other centre in the world. It is not better by a large margin, but it is better. That suggests that what the Bill seeks to do is not strictly necessary. Indeed, it may not be necessary at all.
      So what are embryos wanted for? The House is made up of intelligent men and women. Surely they should not

      941
      only ask that question but press for an answer. The two main problematical areas in the development of IVF are the culture medium and methods of embryo transfer. That is a proper field for research.
      What is the real reason why a free-for-all in embryo research is required? Is not it true that embryos are wanted for drug testing and new contraceptives, not only for IVF treatment? In those activities, there are vast fortunes to be made. Let us face the reality of what lies behind the Bill. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House before it is too late and we start travelling down a road which we and our descendants will bitterly regret.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), will not be surprised that, once again, I have a different opinion from him on these matters. The words that he used showed where our differences lie. He believes that the pre-embryo at the one, two or three-day stage is a human being in its own right. I respect his opinion but he knows that I do not share it. As we start from different positions, we may be led to different conclusions, as at earlier stages.
      I suggest there are several reasons why we need to examine the matter carefully before incorporating the amendment into the Bill. I accept the reasons given by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and his rationale. I remind him that simply because Bourne hall, which we all respect for the work that it does, does not necessarily need the techniques does not mean that other reputable research establishments may not need them. It depends on the emphasis and type of research undertaken. It does not necessarily mean that valid, acceptable research —assuming that we do not ban all research—could benefit from using such techniques.
      I also wish to examine the wording of the amendment, especially the term "treatment services". The term is defined in clause 2 as
      "medical, surgical or obstetric services provided to the public or a section of the public for the purpose of assisting women to carry children."
      It is a general term. Such services are not intended to assist a specific woman to carry a specific child. Therefore, even if the amendment is passed and includes the words
      "bringing about the creation of an embryo other than in the course of providing treatment services",
      the term "treatment services" could mean services to help women in general to have children rather than to help a specific woman to have a specific child.
      Mr. Frank Field indicated assent.
      Mr. Wigley: I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Birkenhead agrees with that interpretation.
      That might mean that, if the wording of the amendment is incorporated in the Bill, it would not be as restricitve as some of us fear. My next few comments will apply in case the interpretation of the wording is restrictive. The House would benefit if the Minister could clarify the interpretation that the Government and their legal advisers would put on the wording.
      The Father of the House seeks a restrictive interpretation of the wording. I understand his way of looking at the matter, but we must agree to disagree. If the interpretation is restrictive, valuable research could be lost. The type of research that could be lost falls into
      942
      several categories. First, there is research on fertilisation for the benefit of those who have difficulty in conceiving. Those undertaking such research would seek to improve the level of knowledge in an area that is poorly understood at present. It is critical that, in improving the rate of fertilisation, the techniques employed do not lead to abnormality. For that reason, those undertaking such research will from time to time need to ascertain how the cells develop, at the four-cell and eight-cell stage, to identify any abnormality. That would involve the creation of embryos for the purpose of establishing whether there is likely to be an abnormality.
      If the meaning of the words in amendment No. 6 implies acceptance that that can be done, because it will in the generality help people to have children, that is a very different interpretation from that which the Father of the House placed on the wording of the amendment. If I understood his words correctly, he was seeking a restriction of the kind I described. Fertilisation research is important, as is maximising the help available to those affected. Such research would be undertaken on donated eggs during treatment.
      Mr. Frank Field: I understand the amendment in the way that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) interprets it. Therefore, the course of treatment that he describes would be safeguarded if it were passed. What would not be permitted would be the creation of embryos specifically for the purpose of furthering contraceptive techniques, for example. I was careful to ensure that no such riders were incorporated in the amendment. If restrictions are wanted, it will be for hon. Members to move amendments later, if they are lucky enough to have them called, and we may then vote separately on them. However, I am totally with the hon. Gentleman as he develops his argument.
      Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that helpful intervention and to know where the hon. Member for Birkenhead is leading the argument. We may not agree on some of the implications, but in the first step, he and I are in agreement that certain research would be allowed. However, I suspect that other hon. Members would not want to see even that research undertaken.
      Research is important in understanding, for example, why so many chromosomal abnormalities occur at or shortly after fertilisation. If it is possible to detect and better understand such abnormalities, that will clearly help the generality of women to have babies without some of the problems that might otherwise arise, which could lead to a child being handicapped or to the loss of the baby during pregnancy. I assume that such work is acceptable to the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
      Attempts are also being made to develop polar body biopsy—though I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman for Birkenhead finds that acceptable also—and to improve the sperm's ability to fertilise the egg in cases of male sub-fertility. I assume that the hon. Gentleman would certainly find that work acceptable. I imagine that a fourth category of research is not acceptable to the hon. Gentleman, judging from his earlier intervention. I refer to the development of contraceptive methods. Clearly, that is another issue that may divide the House—but in a different way from the basic divisions between right hon. and hon. Members regarding the Bill in general.

      943
      I personally believe that contraception is important and that it is for countless millions of people an essential part of life. If contraception has acceptance in theory and is permissible in our society—I believe that the majority of people in these islands wish it to be—it is important that it should be as effective as possible. If one accepts the concept of contraception and methods of contraception that may involve the termination of pregnancy in the case of an embryo that is only a few hours old, clearly there are plenty of arguments for allowing research into more effective ways of doing that.
      However, if one shares the view of the Father of the House, that in the embryo of only a few hours there is a human being, one would obviously take a different view of such research. If one does not accept contraception of that sort, one will not accept the case in favour of improving its effectiveness. I suggest that that question has to do with the acceptability or otherwise of contraception rather than the need to undertake research or the need to prevent it.
      4.30 pm
      Research is also concerned with the care and treatment of eggs before fertilisation. It is essential that eggs fertilised in vitro are then allowed to undergo several cell divisions to check that their later development is unimpaired. I imagine that the hon. Member for Birkenhead will accept such research as valid.
      Questions also arise in relation to the freezing of unfertilised eggs involving the creation of pre-embryos in the cause of the project. At present, only pre-embryos can be frozen successfully, so that pregnancies may result when they are thawed and replaced. It would often be more appropriate and convenient to store unfertilised eggs and then, following fertilisation, to replace them singly in the womb in subsequent cycles. This would avoid multiple pregnancies and their complications and would be more ethically acceptable to some.
      However, before fertilisation, the chromosomes are attached to a fragile spindle, which tends to disintegrate on cooling and rewarming. Research is under way to find freezing and cooling methods that will not result in chromosome abnormalities. That research is also needed, and I imagine that the hon. Member for Birkenhead would consider it valid, because it would help those with difficulties in having children.
      There appear to be three schools of thought: those of us who would accept research, including research into methods of contraception; those who want to restrict research, as I believe the hon. Member for Birkenhead intends; and those who do not want research at all and who want the amendment to be passed as a step in the direction of preventing research altogether. It is important that the House should have guidance on the interpretation and implications of the amendment should it become law. Whichever line of argument one follows, it is important that we should know what the amendment would do, and I hope that the Minister will give us a clear lead on that.
      Dame Jill Knight: I support the amendment, for a reason that has not yet been touched upon, although I believe that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred to a farm. I am troubled about the economic value of an embryo. There is no question but that embryos could have a good marketable value. They are extremely valuable pieces of human tissue
      944
      —even if that is all some people consider them to be—and there is no end to the ingenuity of the human being when it comes to making money.
      The better we understand the nature of the gates that we are opening, the better qualified we shall be to vote on the amendments and consider the implications of the Bill. Already, there is not the slightest doubt that some people outside this place want the doors to be opened. When it is seen that not much research can be carried out on such a tiny human being, they will push for a longer period of experimentation.
      If that happens, people will be able to find out more and more about handicap and the other matters that the House has discussed during the passage of the Bill, and the further we go, the more valuable these tiny human beings will become. I am sorry to say this, but it is true and we should understand it: if we are not careful, we shall give an easy way of making money to those who may need it and to those who certainly want it.
      Nowhere in the Bill is it forbidden to buy and sell embryos; indeed at this moment, the buying and selling of embryos is perfectly within the law. I thought that that was one of the matters which the Bill was designed to stop—the present legal trade in human flesh. If we permit the gratuitous creation of embryos in test tubes for no purpose other than research, I fear that we shall give many people a way of making a quick buck. We should understand how dangerous this research is, and no hon. Member should underestimate how valuable these tiny human beings could be on the open market.
      The House should not create such a market, which it will unless it is careful, and unless it accepts the amendment.
      Mr. David Alton: I am happy to support the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). Most hon. Members would be repelled by the idea of a human embryo of the smallest of our species being used for exploitative or speculative purposes. I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on that when he replies to the debate.
      I support the tone of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in moving the amendment. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, there will be differences in hon. Members' views. I freely admit that I am opposed to destructive experiments on human embryos. However valid research is said to be by those in favour of it and whatever achievements it might bring for humanity, it does not justify the destruction of the smallest of our species. We must be careful before sanctioning such experimentation.
      That is why the Bill is restrictive. Although I do not much like it, I recognise that in some parts it at least attempts to be restrictive. It is therefore in keeping with the existing restrictions. If we say that a line is to be drawn at 14 days, beyond which experiments will not be permitted, it is perfectly in keeping for the hon. Member for Birkenhead to clarify an issue that Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, raised in the other place—whether we should authorise the deliberate creation of spare, extra embryos merely for the purposes of experimentation.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon used the expression "pre-embryos". Depending upon which side of the argument they fall, hon. Members use different expressions. The word "pre-embryo" did not appear in the Warnock report, but it has been used as shorthand by

      945
      those who would rather not admit that it is the earliest form of life. There is no point, other than fertilisation, at which we can say, "That was me, that was the point from which I began." It is dangerous for Parliament to authorise any interference with that life from the moment of conception. That is why I believe that anything that we can do today to restrict the excesses of the Bill will be worth while.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon implied that hon. Members who hold a different view from his are luddite or antediluvian in their attitudes and against all research. I think that we know each other well enough to know that that is not the case. I am not opposed to research that does not involve the human subject as the guinea pig. But once one accepts that conception is the point from which life begins, it is impossible to countenance, in reason or logic, interference for any purposes, however supposedly justifiable people say they are.
      Mr. Wigley: I did not intend to call the hon. Gentleman antediluvian, although we disagree on this matter. I was saying that there is a difference of opinion among the Father of the House, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birkenhead who moved the amendment. The hon. Member for Birkenhead accepts certain destructive research, whereas I suspect from his comments that the hon. Gentleman does not.
      Mr. Alton: I am happy to accept that point. I support the hon. Member for Birkenhead because his amendment represents a restriction that I believe we would be wise to place in the Bill. However, the whole Bill is restrictive. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Caernarfon accepts that there should be destructive experiments or research beyond 14 days. The House has already said that there will be certain restrictions. It is therefore proper for the hon. Member for Birkenhead to argue his point and for me to support it, although I would prefer no destructive experiments to take place.
      Mr. Frank Field: While I am grateful to any hon. Member who speaks in favour of my amendment, and even more to those who will vote for it, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it may be confusing for some hon. Members if those supporting the amendment argue in absolutist terms against research? We had and lost that debate in Committee, and it is not the point of my amendment.
      Mr. Alton: That is absolutely true. The amendment attempts to isolate the issues. Although many of us felt that it was a tragedy when the House decided to allow experimentation in certain circumstances, today we have a chance to set to one side the emotionally loaded arguments about in vitro fertilisation and handicap. We have the opportunity to decide the specific question whether to create embryos merely for the purpose of destructive experimentation. Was that the wish of Parliament when it voted for something that did not give us the chance to vote for specific nuances or detail?
      Mr. Kevin Barron: I was not on the Committee, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that in passing schedule 2, the Committee agreed—not many Conservative Members spoke against it—that licences could be granted
      946
      "bringing about the creation of embryos in vitro"?
      The hon. Gentleman says that the House has not agreed to that, but it has.
      Mr. Alton: I accept that that is what the House voted for—I am sorry that it did. Now, I am glad to say, we have the chance to re-examine one aspect of that. At that early stage, we did not have the chance to distinguish between different forms of experimentation and research. However, we have that chance today. Before the hon. Gentleman suggests that all the arguments were put in Committee by all the hon. Members who take a pro-life view, let me remind him that, despite an assurance from the Leader of the House that the make-up of the Committee would be commensurate with the votes cast in the two-day debate, and although more than 30 per cent. of hon. Members supported the pro-life argument, only two of the 18 Committee members held pro-life views. Because the Committee was rigged—I use the word deliberately—I do not think that it was possible for all the points to be properly argued.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he wanted debate on the amendment to be stripped of the emotions that had divided hon. Members earlier. If he continues to speak as though "pro-life" meant his and no one else's point of view, his use of language is totally unjustified. He will not get my support if he pretends that he is being unemotional when in fact he is deliberately seeking to raise emotions and to distort the views of those who disagree with him.
      Mr. Alton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. I can only express to the House my profound misgivings about what Parliament is being asked to authorise. The hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind. I want the debate to be on record, so that, when future generations consider the inconsistencies and illogicalities that now exist in this country, they will know that not everyone sanctioned what Parliament is now agreeing.
      It is extremely distasteful that, in a country where people take violent action in opposing experiments on animals—I dissociate myself from such actions—we should sanction experiments on our own species. That cheapens human life, and treats it as no more than expendable raw material. That is at the heart of the Bill. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Birkenhead will not change all that, but he is trying—in line with the philosophy of the Bill—to incorporate reasonable safeguards and restrictions, so that excesses do not occur. I think that the majority of hon. Members would agree with that.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more safeguards exist in regard to animal experimentation —I refer to the formation of the governing body, which is the licensing authority—than are provided by the Bill in its present form? Should that not be a matter of grave concern to the House?
      Mr. Alton: I am certain that it should. If we debate the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman concerning accountability to Parliament—an issue on which even my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) would surely support him—I hope that the House will agree that, when we authorise action that concerns all humankind,

      947
      those who carry out the experiments should be accountable to Parliament. Without incorporating those safeguards, and those that the hon. Member for Birkenhead so rationally and calmly proposed, how would that be possible? It is with some enthusiasm that I support the amendment.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) tabled the amendment. If he had read the report of the debate in another place, he would have realised why their Lordships rejected the proposal so strongly. It does not stand up at all.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) gave six medical reasons why the research is necessary; I wish to add a seventh. I have a note from the Medical Research Council concerning the micro-injection of sperm, which is of use in treating oligospermic men. Apparently, that treatment should not be carried out without research. I believe that two patients had the treatment in Italy because the licensing authority in this country refused to sanction the work without research. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Birkenhead would rather allow experiments on women than allow the research, but I believe that the research should be allowed.
      Morally, the amendment does not stand up. The Rev. Professor Gordon Dunstan advanced the arguments very well. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) wants to rehearse all the old arguments. One is that, if we are to allow research, we should ration it to just a little research. That has no moral foundation. Another is that we should allow research on one class of embryos but not on another. That surely creates two types of human being. We should not discriminate.
      My strongest argument against the amendment, however, is that, if it had been in existence earlier, we would never had had test tube babies and all the research that was carried out before the birth of Louise Brown by Steptoe and Edwards. They were creating embryos to see the conditions that were necessary for them to survive and grow in a test tube.
      We should reject the amendment on moral as well as medical grounds. I am sorry that so far hon. Members who have spoken have failed to recognise that, because the arguments were put so well in the other place.
      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) suggested that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) had missed the point of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman himself missed the point. I am in favour of in vitro fertilisation and research on its behalf. I am opposed, however, to destructive research, which is the point behind the amendment.
      The basic position of many hon. Members and the uneasy position of others who could not join us in the debate a few weeks ago is that nothing should be done to the embryo except for its own good. Even the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East almost conceded that it was a human life, although he quickly qualified his position. I put that point to the Secretary of State in the debate on Monday 23 April.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Duffy: No.
      Mr. Wigley: I should just like to clarify a point.
      Mr. Duffy: I give way.
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of the amendment was to avoid destructive research. Is not it true, judging by the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that the mover of the amendment accepts destructive research for certain purposes? Therefore, that is not the point of the amendment.
      Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman's comments show why I was reluctant to give way. I put my point quietly and I hope that he will allow me to develop my argument. No one prevented him from developing his argument. We listened to him with great understanding and sympathy, as we always do.
      One fertility centre that understands the ethical problems well is the Sheffield fertility centre. It stated:
      "Here the emphasis is on IVF the natural way, using the one egg normally produced. Drugs are used only in rare cases, when women do not ovulate."
      The centre said that the latest results
      "show that one in four women who finally receive an embryo become pregnant, although not all run to term. There is no risk of multiple births, overstimulated ovaries, or spare embryos. With no drugs, the cost is considerably lower."
      Those are not my words, but the words of the Sheffield fertility centre.
      I understand that the university of Sheffield's infertility clinic at the Jessop hospital for women runs a natural cycle programme, with emphasis on developing a follicle without excessive stimulation so there is only one follicle and hence only one embryo to deal with. This does away with many of the ethical problems about "spare" embryos.
      The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) —the Father of the House—reminded us of a point that cannot be made too often. In earlier debates, those who hold a different view or who entertain the possibilities of research, but in a different way, got away with too much. The Father of the House reminded us that we can have all the benefits which even the pro-researchers claim they want without creating human embryos for use solely in destructive research. Human embryos were not, and are not, needed for developing or improving artificial fertilisation techniques. As with all medical research, all preliminary work can and should use non-human subjects. Human embryos are not needed for testing drugs. They have not been used in any recent discoveries in identifying and locating such diseases as Down's syndrome and cystic fibrosis. That point has been made in the House before, but it cannot be made too often.
      There is no reason to suppose that future progress will depend on human embryos. There is nothing to be learnt from experiments on human embryos which cannot be discovered from non-human material. We must ceaselessly try to conquer genetic diseases without human embryo abuse. Parents at risk of having disabled children can be fully "protected" without any destructive research using human material. The production and the use of human beings for research which is not for their own benefit—treating them as things to be exploited as laboratory material, which is my basic point—are morally objectionable and unnecessary.

      949
      Having said all that, I am prepared to move in the direction proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and to allow the creation of spare embryos which will die. The essential point is that embryos will not be created specifically for the purpose of destructive experimentation. Only spares will be used, and on that point I can move far enough to support amendment No. 6.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: I support the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and amendment No. 6, having voted against research. I share the view of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)—although I support IVF, I am totally opposed to destructive research.
      I shall set aside the matters with which the House has dealt. We must consider what is before us objectively, as one issue. The amendment would control the use of spare embryos for the purposes of research and nothing more. By limiting the amendment to "providing treatment services", the hon. Member for Birkenhead has provided a definition that will exclude many uses.
      I share the view of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), that when an embryo is fertilised, an individual is created. I do not subscribe to the view that there is a pre-embryo period of 14 days when, in effect, nothing exists but that, at the end of that period, there is an embryo capable of growing into a human being. The most offensive aspect of the Bill as it stands is that it means that embryos can be created, used and destroyed. That means destroying embryos which, if implanted in the mother's womb, would have grown into human beings. To destroy embryos is totally unacceptable to me, to my colleagues on both sides of the House and to those who share the view of the all-party pro-life group in the House.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has expressed one of our reservations: there is no effective control in the Bill over the creation for the purpose of research of embryos which can be sold on. A trade could develop and embryos would, in effect, be sold on for any purpose or any use. Those who share my view regard that as totally unacceptable and an insult to humankind.
      Mr. Robert Key: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hind: I should like to finish my argument and then I shall happily give way to my hon. Friend, who disagrees with my view. We can discuss this matter until we are blue in the face, but we will never agree on certain fundamental matters of principle that divide us.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston is valid. How would those who support the Bill in its entirety and oppose amendment No. 6 stop a trade in fertilised embryos? Where will it lead us? It will lead us down a slippery slope, down which many hon. Members will not logically want to go in any circumstances.
      Mr. Key: I think that it will do a lot of good. The very reason that we are enacting this legislation is that there are no controls. We are seeking to give a framework of control. My hon. Friend says that there might be a trade so that embryos could be used for any purpose anywhere,
      950
      but he is utterly wrong. It is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. I hope that we can agree that the legislation is designed to overcome that problem.
      5 pm
      Mr. Hind: I take my hon. Friend's point. He may be interested to know that in 1986 I introduced a private Member's Bill to protect the unborn child for the very reason that he put forward: that there was no legislative protection for the unborn child at that time. It is something that I believe in. Many hon. Members share that view. I am pleased that my hon. Friend shares it. It all depends on how far it is taken. Hon. Members who support the amendment feel that it should go further.
      Three major arguments are important to amendment No. 6. The first is that it will have no effect on in vitro fertilisation. That is very important. That has been put to me by parents who are infertile. Secondly, and most important, it will prevent the creation of embryos for research and ultimate destruction. Thirdly—to bury the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham)—it is my considered opinion that if this amendment had been in operation, the research that was carried out by Professor Steptoe and Professor Browne which led to the IVF implantation of fertilised embryos and consequently the birth of children would have continued. They were not thinking in terms other than the fact that they were providing children for infertile parents. Purely and simply, that was their aim. They took it no further. They were not thinking of research to further contraception which this amendment will prevent. That is a fundamental argument for the amendment.
      Mr. Alton: I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman, but is not it also the case that destructive experimentation is the cheapest and easiest way to proceed? Is not that the reason why many people favour that approach? The more complicated approach requires effort and time devoted by people such as Professor Lejeune to non-destructive forms of research.
      Mr. Hind: We are at risk of going down the same route as in the previous debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who cited Professor Lejeune on Down's syndrome. Effective research has been carried out in the area of handicap without the use of embryos. A large amount of research can be carried out without using embryos.
      The impression gained is that there is no other means of solving the problem of infertility other than the use of embryos. Many of us recognise that that is nonsense. Destructive research is something that I deplore and oppose. I fully support the amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
      Mr. Dalyell: I put two factual questions to the Minister. The first concerns money. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), referred to the vast fortunes that can be made. He talked about a free-for-all. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) spoke about a quick buck and tiny human beings on the market. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke about speculative purposes. Finally, the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) referred to the trade in embryos. Is not it a fact that that would be impossible under schedule 2 if the law were adhered to? Has the

      951
      Department any evidence of money changing hands in the purchase of embryos? Is there any evidence that this has ever happened?
      The Minister said that nothing could be learnt from research on human material that cannot be learnt from "non-human material". My understanding from some biologists is that that is not factually so. On account of the organic nature of the experimentation, some experiments really have to be done on human material. I ask the Minister to put on record, albeit briefly, the technical advice that she has received from the Department.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: I rise to oppose amendment No. 6 and to comment on amendment No. 11.
      I support the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who referred to the weakness of the moral arguments in support of amendment No. 6. It is illogical to support embryo research on a basis that would restrict the use of embryos specifically created for research so that one could not use embryos specifically created for research. The IVF programme would never have gone ahead had we not had the creation of embryos specifically for embryo research. It is also illogical to distinguish between embryos created for research and those which are the by-product of treatment.
      If one takes on board, as this House has done, the importance of the objectives that the research has, and if we are prepared, under very specific safeguards, to use embryos for the purpose of research, a distinction thereafter has to be drawn between those created specifically for research and those created as a by-product for treatment. There is, however, no moral, compelling basis for the distinction.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) invited the House to consider what the amendment actually means. How restrictive is it? I welcome the fact that the Minister of State has been invited to interpret the amendment. However, that is not good enough. If the amendment is not clear to the hon. Gentleman or to me, how can we include in the Bill an amendment which might or might not severely restrict the availability of embryos for research?
      Mr. Wigley: There has been a difference of interpretation in the speeches tonight. A number of hon. Members have said that the amendment would allow only spare embryos to be used for research. That was not the implication of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) when he responded to the earlier intervention. That will need to be clarified, or votes will be cast on different bases.
      Ms. Harman: My point is that it cannot be clarified, because the amendment is confusing, and therefore defective. We cannot leave it to be clarified by the Minister while it remains unclear on the face of the Bill and has to be sorted out in court. The House has a responsibility to make clear laws. Ministerial interpretations of what a Bill means are useful, but they are not the end of the matter, and they will not do. Therefore, I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says, but we cannot have a "We'll see you in court" attitude.
      Mr. Frank Field: I hope to deal with the substance of my hon. Friend's argument if the House allows me to respond to the points raised on the amendment. However, we should not omit to note that a lawyer is saying that it
      952
      is bad news if the Acts that we pass are taken to the courts for interpretation. I thought that that was the most fundamental part of our legal system.
      Ms. Harman: I do not want Parliament to pass a Bill which contains an ambiguity which creates work for lawyers and anxiety for researchers. We have to produce clear legislation and reduce the scope for ambiguity. Assuming that the Bill reads as it says, there is a scientific problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who moved the amendment, asked which authorities considered that there would be a problem for research if the amendment were accepted. The list is obvious: it includes the reproductive biology unit at Edinburgh, the assisted conception unit at King's College in my constituency, the Medical Research Council, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Robert Winston. The consensus of medical opinion among those involved in the research is that the amendment would prevent research which needs to go ahead.
      I am not suggesting that medical opinion is unanimous. We can all find someone who takes a different view. However, I hope that I am not misleading the House by saying that the overwhelming balance of medical and scientific opinion among those who are involved in the research is that the amendment would create a terrible restriction and frustrate the will of the House as expressed in its support for clause 11.
      Mr. Thurnham: Does the hon. Lady agree that the licensing authority would allow research to go ahead only if it considered that that research was necessary? Therefore, it is arrogant of people to assume that research is not necessary, when the people who examine it so carefully will allow it to go ahead only if they consider that it is necessary.
      Ms. Harman: I absolutely agree.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Harman: I shall, but I do not want to give way too often, because I do not want to take up too much time.
      Mrs. Winterton: Is it not true that the way in which the licensing authority is constituted will affect the number of licences and the reason for those licences being given? Does the hon. Lady agree that we are prepared to protect animals from research more than human beings? I served on the Committee which considered the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which provides much greater protection for animals.
      Ms. Harman: I remind the hon. Lady of the safeguards in the Bill. She seems to have no confidence in those safeguards or in the statutory licensing authority.
      Mrs. Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Harman: I shall not give way. The statutory licensing authority has a legal frame of reference that we have agreed, saying that research will not be allowed unless it cannot be carried out except on embryos. The statutory licensing authority has to satisfy itself that any research cannot be carried out on animal tissue and has to have one of several specific objectives. Therefore, to say, "They would, wouldn't they?" of the statutory licensing authority is unsatisfactory.

      953
      Let me identify the specific problems that the amendment would cause to research that should be allowed. Unless embryos are created for the purpose of research, research which centres on the process of fertilisation will not continue. Many chromosomal defects arise around the time of fertilisation. We need to learn more about the conditions in which that fertilisation takes place that lead to those chromosomal defects, so that we can understand how diet or other factors may be able to prevent chromosomal abnormalities arising on fertilisation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that research on embryos would not help prevent Down's syndrome, but some researchers take the view that research could be undertaken on the prevention of Down's syndrome if the process of fertilisation were better understood. Understanding the process of fertilisation is important in understanding subsequent miscarriage.
      Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      5.15 pm
      Ms. Harman: I shall not give way again, as the hon. Gentleman has made his speech. I might relent later, but I shall press on for the moment.
      Reference has been made to micro-injection, whereby the sperm is injected into the egg because it cannot fertilise the egg in the woman or in a test tube. The voluntary licensing authority will not allow the implantation of embryos fertilised in that way, because it wants to be sure through more research that the embryo is not damaged by being created by micro-injection. To avoid couples becoming involved in this procedure, there should be more research to find out how those embryos develop in the laboratory before they can be implanted to develop in the woman. Therefore, embryos need to be created for research into the important problem of male sub-fertility.
      The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) talked about the exciting new opportunities that are opened up by the ability to freeze and store eggs, making it unnecessary to store and freeze embryos. However, we will not know whether the eggs that are frozen and stored will develop normally unless they are used to create embryos.
      Polar body biopsy research has already been mentioned. We need to improve pre-implantation diagnosis, and the idea that one cell could be taken from the embryo to see whether it has a genetic defect before putting it back in the womb provides exciting opportunities. However, we do not want embryos which have been damaged by the process of polar body biopsy to be put back in the womb. We owe it to the women who are undergoing the treatment and to their husbands to make sure that we get it right so that they are not used as experiments.
      The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) suggested that the scientific community were opposed to the amendment because they were lazy and were looking for short cuts. That does scientists an injustice. I am sure that scientists are not looking for an easy solution or are not prepared to carry out research conscientiously. We should accept the argument that important research will not be able to continue if it is limited to spare embryos.
      954
      Once again, I remind the House of the safeguards in the Bill. The idea that there could be a farm for embryos has been put forward, but the statutory licensing authority will have to give licences for research. It will be an offence if research goes ahead and embryos are created without the approval, monitoring and supervision of the statutory licensing authority. Are we to believe that we are creating by statute a licensing authority which will turn a blind eye to embryology farming? That is absurd scaremongering, and I urge people to rule it out.
      Miss Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Harman: No.
      There will also be supervision by Members of Parliament. We will be able to ask the Secretary of State for Health questions about what is going on—[Interruption.] If my colleagues will allow me, I should like to move on.
      I want now to consider contraception, because there has not been much focus on amendment No. 11 so far in our debate. I seriously urge the House to reject amendment No. 11, because that would permit embryo research for the purposes of investigating miscarriages, for treating infertility and to investigate congenital diseases and genetic defects, but there cannot be embryo research into contraception.
      What are women to make of this House if we say that contraception is not sufficiently important to be included in the list permitting embryo research? What will they think if embryo research designed to find a contraceptive vaccine is to be stopped? I was very sad to read the report of the debate in the other place, in which the Chief Rabbi said that he was not concerned with the morality of contraception or even against contraception: he simply did not believe that it was a sufficiently urgent consideration.
      The Chief Rabbi might not think that contraception is a sufficiently urgent consideration. However, he should ask his wife or his daughters. Before hon. Members in this House vote to exclude the possibility of research to find a contraceptive vaccine, they should consult their wives and daughters as well. They should listen to women outside this place. The battle for safe, effective and convenient contraception has not yet been won. The shadow of the fear of unwanted pregnancy has existed through the ages, and it remains a problem in this country.
      Hon. Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead and for Attercliffe who are concerned about the abortion rate should be aware that, if we make contraception easier, we will prevent a high abortion rate. The idea that hon. Members should vote for an amendment tonight that undermines progress on contraception while tomorrow those same hon. Members will ask the House to restrict abortion is absolutely wrong.
      Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Harman: It will be a mistake, but I will give way.
      Mr. Alton: I hope from the hon. Lady's point of view that it will be a mistake. She referred to the contradictions. Does she not accept that it is also a contradiction that people like her who are arguing tonight that we should authorise destructive experiments for the purpose of curing infertility will, by a cruel paradox, be those same people tomorrow who will be arguing in favour of abortion? One in five pregnancies is ended through abortion, and 184,000 children are aborted each year.

      955
      Surely the paradox is that many families in this country would dearly love to adopt those children and provide homes for them. Is that not a paradox in the hon. Lady's argument?
      Ms. Harman: We will argue about that tomorrow; it would not be in order for me to pursue the hon. Gentleman's point now.
      Some hon. Members may believe that it is an attractive argument to stop embryo research on contraception because that is different from a woman's desire to have a baby. A woman's desire not to have a baby might be considered less important than a woman's desire to have a healthy baby. A view is still lurking around the House that contraception is somehow a third-world issue and that it is no longer an issue for women in this country. The idea is that contraception is all about population control in the third world. That is not the case. It is an issue now and it is an issue here. Unfortunately, it is not as much of an issue as it should be in the other place or in this House.
      I hope that the House will reject amendment No. 11, which would prevent embryo research to develop contraception. I hope also that the House will reject amendment No. 6, which would restrict research to spare embryos. In this House, we have agreed that the objectives of the research are important. We have agreed that we want to see the problems of contraception solved. We have agreed that we want to see an end to the misery of miscarriage. We have talked about the suffering of infertile couples and about the importance of research to help them. We have talked also about the devastation that hits families when they have a child with a serious genetic abnormality. We have agreed that all those issues are important and that we want to do something about them. Let us not vote for an amendment which prevents us from achieving those objectives.
      Mrs Ann Winterton: I shall speak to my amendments Nos. 10 and 11 and support amendment No. 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
      I believe that the creation of human life with its destruction pre-planned is the most repugnant aspect of the Bill. I believe that human life must never be used solely as a means to an end. In vitro fertilisation produces surplus embryos which cannot be transferred to a woman's womb and those spare embryos, although created with the possibility of continuing life, in practice cannot be given that chance. To use them for research beneficial to other human beings does them no additional injury. If we accept the production of possibly "spare" embryos, we should accept their use in research. However, that is no reason to create embryos specifically for research. That approach allows a degree of consensus between the opposing sides of the argument. It allows the benefits of embryo research without the need to cheapen human life in the way that opponents fear might happen.
      A law that alienates a large section of the community and offends their deeply held beliefs is a bad law even if the majority in Parliament are in favour of it. I believe that amendment No. 6 would minimise opposition and alienation. The production of embryos purely for research means the extraction of eggs from women purely for research. That is not a safe procedure and it can even result in death.
      956
      Experimentation on embryos necessarily means experimentation on women. The Helsinki declaration requires:
      "In the purely scientific application of medical research carried out on a human being, it is the duty of the doctor to remain the protector of the life and health of that person on whom biomedical research is being carried out … The investigator or investigating team should discontinue the research if in his/her or their judgement it may, if continued, be harmful to the individual."
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady said that the process could result in death. Has she any examples of that happening?
      Mrs. Winterton: I have a sheaf of papers from which I could quote at length, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said. There is much scientific data which I will give to him later if he likes.
      Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) might care to look at the reports of the debates in Committee. He will find that I gave full details of 11 women who had died as a result of that procedure. All the details can be found in the Committee stage reports.
      Mrs. Winterton: I am most grateful for that intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who served on the Standing Committee and who is much more knowledgeable about the point to which I had referred. My hon. Friend made a most helpful intervention.
      We must also worry about women being placed under undue pressure to donate eggs for research in order, for example, to receive treatment or to receive treatment faster or at a reduced cost. The "spares" only restriction would prevent that.
      Of course that would place an additional restriction on research. That is inevitable. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to place restrictions on research. The 14-day limit, for example, is a restriction that we have included for ethical reasons, but we accept that it might prevent some useful work from taking place.
      I should have liked to ask the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) how she thinks that research carried out on embryos under 14 days would be policed. I believe that it will be impossible to police such research and that we shall merely have to take on trust what the scientists are doing. I hope that the House will recognise the validity of that point.
      5.30 pm
      Embryo research would still be operating under fewer restraints than most medical research. Research on adults must either be therapeutic or on corpses, with the appropriate consent.
      Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend has used the word "therapeutic". Those of us who have delved into the question of ethical guidelines in the past four years or so since this issue first arose are aware that "therapeutic" is defined by doctors and scientists in their self-regulating capacity. Does my hon. Friend accept that that raises a serious and difficult question because the Bill is effectively handing over that responsibility to people who have an inbuilt desire to induce the difficulties that we are discussing, and that there is no opportunity—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Briefly please.
      Mr. Cash: —for Parliament or anyone else to intervene thereafter?
      Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend has made a valid point, which the House would do well to note.
      Embryo researchers would also be allowed a restricted class of live human embryos to test destructively. I am confident that most useful work could proceed under that constraint.
      We have already heard the argument that IVF could never have developed without creating the embryos for the initial research. Steptoe and Edwards began creating embryos long before they had the facility to transfer them to the womb. At that time, they were more concerned with studying embryos than with infertility. Clinically, it would have been far more responsible to attempt GIFT before IVF.
      Destructive research is the cheap and easy way to proceed. Non-destructive research is far more complicated and time consuming, but most people consider that it is more appropriate for work involving human beings. The fact that early IVF workers chose to proceed in a particular way does not prove that it could not have been done differently. Every other major medical advance in the 20th century has been achieved without destructive research. In any case, there is little doubt that current IVF research could proceed without deliberately creating embryos for the purpose. It would also be impossible or unethical to develop techniques of egg freezing or egg testing without using some of those eggs to create embryos that would not be transferred to the womb in order to make sure that the embryos developed normally.
      If that were true, it would have been impossible to develop sperm freezing, which was done long before IVF, and frozen sperm was not tested in this way. Nevertheless, children created from frozen sperm grow up perfectly normal. Frozen eggs can be tested for damage without being fertilised. In any case, 50 per cent. of eggs produced by IVF techniques are known to be abnormal. Damaged eggs simply fail to produce viable embryos. There is only a miniscule risk of producing an abnormal child. Extensive testing using animal eggs would allow these techniques to be verified safe. This is how all other new medical techniques are tested.
      It has also been argued that it would be impossible or unethical to create new forms of contraception without testing them in vitro, and embryos would be created in some cases. It would also be necessary to see if embryos accidentally created were abnormal. If that were true, it would have been impossible to develop any of the modern contraceptives now in use. How was the pill developed? There is no reason why new forms of contraception cannot be developed without embryo experiments. Drugs to block fertilisation would need clinical trials in any case. This cannot be bypassed by in vitro research.
      Responsible scientists develop new techniques in human medicine, first, by extensive testing on animals—as I said earlier, there is far more control over experimentation on animals than would be the case for human embryos—and, secondly, by controlled clinical trials with human beings. They do not use an intermediate stage of destructive testing on human beings. IVF scientists wish to dispense with that in favour of destructive testing on human embryos.
      958
      The hon. Member for Peckham spoke at some length against amendment No. 10, which places a specific prohibition on
      "the administration of a substance to an embryo for the purpose of ascertaining the properties of that substance in relation to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease".
      In other words, the amendment seeks to prevent the use of human embryos for the testing of drugs.
      Destructive research on human embryos has been agreed to on the basis that it will be used for the most urgent therapeutic needs. We wish to ensure that it is not used for a much wider range of less urgent purposes for which we do not feel it can be right to use human embryos. Page 64 of the Warnock report stated:
      "We do not want to see a situation in which human embryos are frivolously or unnecessarily used in research."
      Much has been said about the alleviation of infertility and the application of embryo research to genetic diseases. We are not attempting to restrict that, but we do not want a situation in which it becomes commonplace for pharmaceutical companies to test drugs on human embryos because they are cheaper than rats and mice. Surely that would not be right. Anyone who knows anything about experimentation on animals knows how costly such experimentation is, not only financially, but, for example, in terms of the numbers of staff who need to be employed.
      It is pertinent to the debate to note that RU486, the French abortion drug, has already been tested on human embryos. It might also be relevant to note that Bourne hall, the first IVF clinic, which was much hailed, has been bought by a pharmaceutical company. Perhaps that piece of news will cause hon. Members to make some connections.
      Amendment No. 11 seeks to prevent the use of human embryos in research projects to develop more effective techniques of contraception. As the hon. Member for Peckham said, it was moved originally on Report in the other place by the Chief Rabbi. I hasten to add that the amendment is not based on any opposition in principle to contraception, any more than the similar amendment relating to drugs testing is based on an opposition to medical drugs. However, I do not feel that the development of contraception is the sort of work for which human embryos should be used.
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend agree that one major argument against the destructive use of embryos for contraceptive purposes is that there are so many alternatives for research on contraception and such research does not offer anything unique? Unlike the argument of possible long-term future benefits for people suffering from cystic fibrosis, this case offers nothing unique—nothing that is not offered by other research.
      Mrs. Winterton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that all present forms of contraception have been developed successfully without the use of the human embryo. That being so, how necessary is the use of human embryos for these purposes?
      During a debate in the other place on 6 March the Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, said:
      "It would be both ironic and morally offensive to destroy the most basic substance of life for research to prevent the generation of life."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 6 March 1990; Vol. 516, c. 1061.]

      959
      I agree with those sentiments. That view is borne out by those who took part in a Gallup poll which was conducted between 13 and 18 September. The results suggested that public opinion supported the Chief Rabbi's view because 57 per cent. said that they would not support the use of human embryos to develop new techniques of contraception, with only 32 per cent. supporting that use. The remaining 11 per cent. did not know.
      I do not wish to give the impression that I am knocking pharmaceutical companies or accusing them of wanting to do anything unethical. I shall quote from a document of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly of 4 March 1986. It is the product of a joint hearing of the legal affairs committee, the sub-committee on bio-ethics of the committee on social and health questions, and the committee on science and technology. During an evidence session a contribution was made by Professor Hess of Ciba-Geigy, which is an excellent pharmaceutical company. Its headquarters happen to be based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). My hon. Friend attended its opening recently and I know precisely how good a local company it is. Professor Hess, in representing the company, had much to say in answer to various questions. I shall quote what he said because I think that his remarks are pertinent to the arguments that are being advanced. He said:
      "In my own company, scientific experiments with human embryos are not performed. To my knowledge, the same applies to the other main pharmaceutical firms in Western Europe. Human embryos and tissues are neither used for the production of medicaments, nor is their use an issue of industrial biotechnology."
      He continued by saying in summary that
      "the use of human embryos or fetuses is no purpose of industry."
      He later said:
      "I cannot easily imagine a situation of, say, drug-induced damage in which human embryos could be expected to yield information which is not obtained from animal models. The architecture and development potency of early embryos of most mammalian species are very similar."
      In the next paragraph, he added:
      "I see no need or justification for the production and subsequent use of human embryos for drug research and development."
      That says it all.
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The House will be aware that, when the Bill was considered in Committee of the whole House, we had the opportunity to vote on the basic principle of whether human embryos up to 14 days should be used for research for certain specified purposes, under the strict control of a statutory licensing authority. I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that he is not seeking to deny the clear wish of the House, which was signalled by a clear majority, that research on human embryos should be permitted. The hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 6 seeks to ensure that embryos should be created only for treatment purposes. I recognise that, although many of those who have contributed to the debate are opposed to embryo research, they have sought to concentrate on the issues that arise from the hon. Gentleman's amendment and others rather than to re-run an earlier and lengthier debate.
      If embryos can be created only for treatment purposes, a restriction will be placed on the embryos that are available for research. That would mean that various
      960
      research activities on th embryo would not be possible. I refer the hon. Member for Birkenhead to the definition of treatment in clause 2(1). It is defined as
      "medical, surgical or obstetric services. … for the purpose of assisting women to carry children."
      In those terms, the women who chose to donate their eggs when being sterilised, for example, could not possibly come within the terms of providing embryos in the course of treatment. The amendment would mean that many embryos and gametes would no longer be available. Does that matter, and what would the implications be?
      5.45 pm
      The concern that has been expressed is that, if embryos could not be specifically created for research purposes, there would be a danger that the quality of embryos being used for research would deteriorate. There would he a scarcity of embryos. Rather than the present situation, where the embryos that look the healthiest and are flourishing and developing best are liable to be implanted in the woman, there would be a danger that the boundary would move. It is clear that for treatment purposes and for following on from the implications of research, it is important to have high-quality, properly supervised treatment. It has been made clear also that there are areas of research that could not be permitted if amendment No. 6 were accepted.
      Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for being sceptical. I wish to clear up an issue of fact that relates to remarks made by the hon. Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). On 8 May, the hon. Member for Edgbaston said:
      "We already have details of dangers on the record: at least 11 women have died during the course of IVF programmes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 8 May 1990, c. 57]
      Does the Department have any knowledge of those 11 cases? It is a matter of considerable importance to the debate whether the hon. Lady's claim can be substantiated.
      Mrs. Bottomley: We have no information about such cases within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) provided information but, as I have said, we have no information about such cases within this country. When these techniques are practised under proper supervision there is no undue risk to the woman. We are talking of fairly recent techniques, and one of the purposes of establishing a licensing authority is to ensure that best practice is properly supervised and that proper guidance is available.
      Mr. Frank Field: I take the Minister back to the phrase which she used when talking about the decline in the quality of embryos in the furtherance of treatment. Even on the hon. Lady's reading of my amendment, I am not seeking any restrictions on the creation of embryos for the furtherance of treatment. I could not understand the Minister's argument. Even if the amendment were agreed to, further embryos would be created until we had embryos of the quality required for the furtherance of treatment.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The point is well put by Professor the Rev. Gordon Dunstan and others. It is that if there is a scarcity of embryos there may be a tendency to want to use

      961
      embryos for treatment purposes in all possible circumstances, whereas if there is not such a scarcity that is less likely to be the position.
      Mr. Field: I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope that I shall not have to intervene again. I shall try to avoid doing so.
      The Minister talks about a possible scarcity of embryos. Experience in my constituency suggests that scarcity arises because those women who wish to follow treatment for their infertility are unable to do so because of budgetary restrictions. If we had more resources, there would be more women seeking an end to their infertility, and that would result in the greater creation of embryos. The circle would be squared for the Minister. Is that not the answer?
      Mrs. Bottomley: I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman in that line of argument. The Bill is about establishing a framework of law properly to control and regulate relatively new areas of treatment and research. That should be done before discussing national health service resources. I am standing next to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has managed to achieve record levels for the health service. He has had unprecedented success in that area. Far be it from me to add to the debate on resources.
      Dame Jill Knight: I noted how carefully my hon. Friend chose her words when she said that there was no such evidence "in this country". She will agree that in Committee I gave her the information that 11 women had died in other countries. I find it appalling that Opposition Members seek to keep that under wraps—I certainly absolve the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) from that charge. It is important for all of us that it is made clear when there is a danger connected with a certain health procedure. It does not matter whether the women have died here or elsewhere; they have died, and there is no doubt about it.
      Mrs. Bottomley: Our primary concern must be for the welfare of women in this country, which has a health service to which unprecedented resources are allocated and in which we can have confidence in the quality and standard of care. Obviously, it is primarily in that area that we shall make a judgment. My hon. Friend's point must be considered, but hon. Members would be right to give more weight to the experience of this country.
      Mr. Raison: It is important to know whether, in those 11 cases, death occurred as a result of the extraction of ovaries for research purposes or for treatment. I suspect that the reason for their extraction is immaterial. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the debate is that it is meant to be about a particular category, but that those who support amendment No. 6 are against all research on embryos and are using this as a device to advance their view?
      Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Although the hon. Member for Birkenhead and others acknowledge their deep reservations about, and in some cases hostility to, the principle of research, during the debate they have tried to distinguish between that principle and the amendments that we are debating.
      962
      The key question is whether, with appropriate consents, embryos could continue to be created specifically for research purposes, provided that the research establishments were properly licensed under the Bill, or whether the Bill should provide that the research should be carried out only on spare embryos from IVF treatment programmes, which would otherwise be left to perish. That is a matter for the judgment of hon. Members.
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend knows of my deep opposition to these proposals, which I have expressed for at least four years. Am I right in thinking that she has considered the dangers of patenting the procedures involved in research in this area, and the vast sums involved in the commercial exploitation of the procedures?
      Mrs. Bottomley: This may be the moment for me to lay to rest a myth about great commercial exploitation and the vast resources available. Great sums do not change hands. There is no suggestion of any money changing hands. Clause 12(e) makes it clear that no benefit or payment may be made for embryos or gametes without the authorisation of the licensing authority. It imposes clear legislative controls in this area. Nor is there any evidence that drug companies have any particular interest in embryo research. Nor do they use embryo research on animals for testing drugs because, before 14 days are up, there is little validation or assistance that they can get from it. It is important to lay to rest that alarmist myth which is being perpetrated, because it is unhelpful to the debate to have such comments passed.
      The Bill permits research licences to be granted for five main purposes: promoting advances in the treatment of infertility, increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease, increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage, developing more effective techniques of contraception and developing methods of detecting the presence of gene and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation.
      In her amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) seeks to remove the ability to provide research for developing effective techniques of contraception. That point was ably answered by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). Many hon. Members may take the view that there is as yet no thoroughly satisfactory and effective method of contraception. Population questions worldwide make it only too clear that, if an effective method of contraception without undue or long-term risks to women became available, it might well be a force for good. I recognise that some hon. Members would be implacably opposed to any form of contraception but they do not speak for most hon. Members or for most of the country. Work on the development of a vaccine is being undertaken. It must involve embryo research in order to establish its effectiveness. I find it difficult to come to terms with my hon. Friend's amendment.
      My right hon. Friend the Father of the House spoke to amendment No. 10 about drugs. As I made it clear in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), it is not the case that drug companies make particular use of embryos. The Bill provides a power to prohibit the use of embryos, were they to be used in a way in which the authority and the Government found unsatisfactory. Clause 3(3)(c) gives the Secretary of State

      963
      a power to make regulations, which will be subject to an affirmative resolution to prohibit such activities, were the need to arise.
      Mr. Wigley: Earlier, I asked whether the Minister had Government legal advice on the interpretation of amendment No. 6. If it were passed, could only spare embryos be used for research? Clearly, hon. Members interpret amendment No. 6 differently and it is important for us to understand it.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that that is the case. I told the House the definition of "treatment", under which such embryos will be created, and that only spare embryos would be available.
      Mr. Field: Is the distinction not slightly different? Did the Minister not say that the number of embryos available for research would be smaller? She did not comment on erecting gates against forms of treatment.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that I made it clear that embryos would be made available only in the course of treatment, and I gave the definition of treatment. Embryos which are not necessary for treatment could still be used for research purposes. The hon. Gentleman made it clear —this is also my interpretation of his amendment—that the amendment would not prohibit, but would greatly limit, research.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others have suggested that the amendment would mean that research in some areas could not continue. There would be areas in which research could continue on those spare embryos, but it would not be possible to undertake research in the areas identified by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, such as contraceptive vaccines, research influencing the process of fertilisation, research on some origins of chromosome disorders, research on freezing and thawing unfertilised eggs, research on freezing and thawing eggs in the process of fertilisation, research on the fertilisation of eggs by a single sperm and the best culture medium for fertilisation. All those forms of research would require that an embryo was subsequently created and allowed to develop in order to ensure that such research had no long-term adverse effect. It would be unsatisfactory to undertake such research and then use the gamete to conceive a child. Clearly, we could not satisfy ourselves as to the outcome of that research in any other way.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: On Second Reading, I asked my hon. Friend if she could say how many embryos had been used in research up to that date. How many embryos are expected to be required to allow the treatments that she has outlined?
      6 pm
      Mrs. Bottomley: Would my hon. Friend repeat the beginning of his question?
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: How many embryos does my hon. Friend think will be required annually to meet the needs that she has just outlined?
      Mrs. Bottomley: Clearly, it is impossible to give a forecast of the kind that my hon. Friend seeks. The Bill is about establishing a clear framework of law, a licensing authority, to regulate such activities properly. We need proper arrangements for informed consent for the donors
      964
      of gametes and embryos. We must also ensure that the activities take place in strictly licensed premises that are properly inspected and that there are proper safeguards.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Surely somebody has some idea of how many embryos are being used in embryo research, which has been going on for four, nearly five, years. I cannot believe that that figure is unknown to the Department.
      Mrs. Bottomley: It is impossible to provide such information for my hon. Friend. A great many authoritative sources and individuals are involved in the treatment of disease and the promotion of well-being who are profoundly committed to the development of embryo research. That was the view of the House when the issue was debated and a conclusion reached some time ago.
      Dame Jill Knight rose—
      Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I must make some headway.
      Dame Jill Knight: I have an important question. Earlier, the Minister referred to clause 12(e), under which she said that it would be impossible for money to change hands. Surely that clause makes it impossible for money to change hands if it is authorised by directions. What form of authorisation would be given and in what circumstances would it be given?
      Mrs. Bottomley: We debated that issue at some length in Committee, when it was made clear that the authority would be able to issue directions. The interim authority has recently made it clear that it is possible for those who donate their eggs for research or treatment purposes, depending on their wishes, to be sterilised. It has been made clear that no inducement is envisaged. If my hon. Friend consults the Hansard report of our Committee, she will see that we made it clear that the only type of benefit considered for those involved in such treatment were expenses. There is no intention of starting a market in embryos or eggs, or any such alarmist talk.
      Government amendment No. 48 covers a subject similar to that in amendment No. 9, but it has a different conclusion. It arises from a point raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the Bishop of Leeds, that schedule 2 contains a clear contradiction between the last two lines of paragraph 3(2) and the earlier suggestion in the schedule that the authority could extend the areas in which research would be justified. It is clear from amendment No. 9, and it is our view, that the last two lines of paragraph 3(2) are too widely drawn.
      Mr. Vivian Bendall: Does Government amendment No. 48 mean that the list cannot be extended without reference to Parliament and the Secretary of State? It is important that the last points should not open things up in a way that the House would not want.
      Mrs. Bottomley: That is precisely the position. If my hon. Friend consults the Bill, he will notice that, in schedule 2, paragraph (1)(g) states that a licence may authorise
      "other practices as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations."
      However, paragraph 3(2)(e) refers to other purposes

      965
      "of increasing knowledge about the creation and development of embryos and enabling such knowledge to be applied."
      Government amendment No. 48 seeks to ensure that, should further purposes be envisaged apart from those that I have already specified where research would be justified, they could be introduced only by affirmative resolution, following a debate in the House.
      For example, at present, one of the purposes is congenital disease. A time may come when research into embryos could greatly assist the treatment of other diseases, such as cancer. If amendment No. 9 were passed, that would be impossible without recourse to primary legislation. I hope that the House will agree that, should any extension of the areas in which research could legitimately be undertaken be envisaged, that should be subject to affirmative resolution, as outlined in Government amendment No. 48.
      This is a new and important Bill that sets up an authority that will police activities, have powers of entry and ensure that research is undertaken in a carefully supervised and regulatory way. I hope that I have clarified some of the amendments and explained why Government amendment No. 48 is particularly important to give additional strength to, and to safeguard, the Bill.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) asked whether the Government would make available the notes on the Government new clauses likely to be discussed after 7 pm. I hope that it will be helpful to say that we are putting notes on new clauses in the Vote Office and the Library about now, so that those interested in the debates after 7 pm can begin their studies.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: I made my position on the Bill and its attendant factors pretty clear on Second Reading. I shall not repeat my views, except to draw the same conclusion now as I did then.
      One fact that has been noticeable during this debate and the previous two is that when debating such issues we try to mobilise other people's opinions. It is right to do so because we need to inform ourselves. But the more we listen to the debates, the more we mobilise those opinions that happen to coincide with our own beliefs and prejudices, or whatever one chooses to call them. I accept that we listen to scientific opinions. But, as lay people, we make value judgments, based on scientific opinions, that are governed by our own views. It is akin to the definition of freedom of the press as being the freedom to publish news that coincides with the prejudices of the proprietor of the newspaper.
      Two matters are crucial. It was said earlier in the debate that moral arguments did not stand up because those who opposed experimentation had conceded the argument by supporting the amendment. That is a fallacious argument although it was put responsibly, unlike some of the accusations about some of us who were described as anachronistic, mediaevalist, misogynistic and jesuitical. When the opinions in the North of Ireland are coupled in that way, it gives many of us reason for amusement.
      Is it right to end the life of a human being, which is how I regard an embryo? If it is right, all the other arguments about the scientific facts that we have rightly been
      966
      marshalling for so long should be taken into account. If it is wrong to take the life of a human being, it is doubly wrong to create life so that we can end it.
      No matter how scientific or valid the argument or how eminent the person who advances it, and no matter what interpretation is placed on research by scientists, the House will decide not on the basis of the scientific arguments, but on the simple question whether it is right to take the life of a human being. In terms of the amendment, is it wrong—I believe that it is—to create embryos so that research can be carried out on them and because of which they will be destroyed?
      By its very nature, research has to go beyond the bounds of constraint. That is what it is all about. Research that is carried out within clearly defined limits will not be successful. There is no doubt that people involved in research will automatically always look for more scope. In terms of the legislation that means two things. The first is that, rightly from their professional point of view but wrongly from the point of view of the legislation, people will naturally look for more embryos upon which to experiment. Secondly, it is, therefore, a matter not of dealing with spare embryos but of the creation of embryos for a specific purpose. As I said on Second Reading, that will inevitably lead to clear demands for an extension of the 14-day rule. As research develops, the need for more time and more subjects will develop and at some time in the future the Government will have to take a decision about an extension of the 14-day rule.
      I hope that I shall be forgiven for widening the debate. It is wrong to kill a human being, but it is even more wrong to create human beings so that we can kill them for research. If such research is allowed, we will not be able to restrain it. Future generations will look back at this legislation and say that it was the beginning of a problem which will have become enormous in moral, ethical and scientific terms.
      6.15 pm
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made an extremely important speech. I support the amendment because, while it is one thing to use spare embryos that may result from a treatment such as IVF, which is a life-giving treatment, it is another to create embryos simply for research.
      I asked the Minister how many embryos were used annually because I did not know the figure and hoped that she would. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has said, when dealing with embryos we are dealing with human beings in the making. It is appalling that we do not know how many human beings in the making are being destroyed each year in embryo research.
      To reduce human embryos to a lesser level than the white mice used in laboratories suggests that we no longer place any ethical or moral value on life, although I may be told that at the embryo stage life is so diminutive that we do not need to place on it the value that we place on a grown human being.
      Following my question to the Minister, I was told that approximately 5,000 embryos are being used every year in this country. I understand that that figure comes from Oxford university. If it is correct, it means that approximately 25,000 embryos have been used in the past five years. How soon will it be before we are using healthy embryos in research to cure illnesses in fewer people than

      967
      those healthy embryos would represent if they became human beings in their own right? Can we justify putting certain congenital conditions above the possibility of those embryos growing into normal human beings with all the potential that is in a human being for his or her life and what he or she may or may not do with that life?
      We have to decide where our values lie in this matter. We must limit the amount of embryo research that can be carried out rather than allow science to demand the sacrifice of embryos in the name of progress without recognising that we are creating an imbalance between what we are doing with the embryos, which we know will be destroyed, and the cures that they might bring to all the illnesses and handicaps that we are told about.
      The Minister will know that at no time during this debate or on Second Reading has anyone been able to establish that embryo research has produced any of the curses that are always held out to us like an illusion or a mirage. No one can yet say categorically that those cures will be found through this research. In spite of that, we are prepared to say that the human embryo is less than life simply to enable scientists to continue with work that they have decided they would like to do. That is all with the intention of increasing the knowledge of human beings and their disorders, but no one has yet been able to tell the House that the 5,000 embryos which will be sacrificed this year—and how many more next year? —will have died to any purpose whatever.
      The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is right. He is saying that if, as a result of treatment such as IVF, which brings a positive result, there are spare embryos, we may use them, but beyond that we should not go. I whole-heartedly support him.
      Mr. Raison: I have not previously participated in the debates on the Bill, but, like all hon. Members, I have thought hard about the fundamental question whether it is right to conduct research on embryos. After much thought, I came to support the view that we should conduct such research.
      Amendment No. 6 is a refinement of that question. I have been struck by the fact that hon. Members who support the amendment seem to be fundamentally basing their arguments on the fact that they are against all research on embryos. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that that was not the point. He clearly said that he was merely arguing a specific case about a particular way of creating embryos, but the fact remains —I stand to be corrected—that every hon. Member who has supported amendment No. 6 has done so on the basis that they are against all research on embryos. If anyone wishes to tell me that I am wrong, I shall give way.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: If the research was not destructive I would support it.
      Mr. Raison: That is as may be, but it does not answer my point, which was that those hon. Members who support amendment No. 6 are, without exception, against any research on embryos. However, that is not what the debate is about. It is about whether we can legitimately draw distinctions between research in which embryos have been created for use in a treatment, and research in which the embryo has been created specifically for that research. How and why the embryos have been created should not dominate our decisions.
      968
      The argument has been set out with more elegance and clarity than I could summon by Canon Professor Dunstan in a paper from the Medical Research Council which has been widely circulated. I hope that the House witl forgive me if I quote a sentence or two from it. He says:
      "if the future Statutory Licensing Authority is to be permitted to grant licences for research as well as for treatment and storage, it must be because a strong moral justification is perceived, for example, the recognition that the research will contribute to the alleviation of infertility and to a decrease in the number of handicapped babies born.
      Once it has been granted that such purposes and potential benefits are of sufficient moral worth to justify using the early human conceptus for research, no moral distinction seems sustainable between those conceptuses that are 'spare' from a therapeutic attempt, and those that are 'specially created', ie generated as part of a research project. What may he justified for one may also be justified for the other."
      To my mind, that exactly sums up the position. Either we believe that research on embryos is permissible, or we do not. The purpose for which embryos are created is secondary and irrelevant. Therefore, although I have great respect for what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said in support of amendment No. 6, after listening carefully to their arguments, they appear to be against all research on embryos, and I think that the House will recognise that.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I did not intervene on the first occasion that my right hon. Friend made that charge, but it will be within the recollection of the House that, when supporting the amendment, I said no such thing. I made it absolutely clear that spare embryos might well be used for research because they were destined to die anyway. Also, I made it absolutely clear that to create embryos for the purpose of research—this lies at the heart of all the arguments advanced by hon. Members who support the amendment—which would end in their destruction is totally unacceptable, because the embryo is the beginning of human life.
      Mr. Raison: I understand and respect the stance of my right hon. Friend, the Father of the House, but it does not alter what I said.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Of course it does.
      Mr. Raison: My understanding is that those hon. Members who support amendment No. 6 are, without exception, against all research on embryos.
      Mr. David Wilshire: Hon. Members will be greatly relieved to hear that I do not have the slightest intention of repeating the speech that I made when we considered the Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House, or of repeating all that I said in Standing Committee.
      One basic point has been overlooked in the debate. It is perfectly possible to be anti-abuse and pro-life while supporting all forms of research. The two are not incompatible.
      I am a little weary—and I suspect that one or two other hon. Members are too—of listening to the anti-research lobby seeking to take the moral high ground, and demanding that we somehow or other prove that research is absolutely essential so that they can tolerate it as a necessary evil. I find that unacceptable and unpalatable.
      I have no doubt that research is both good and moral in principle. I am sure that all hon. Members present will accept that abuse can happen, but I have no doubt that the

      969
      Bill will take care of that without the need for any more refinements. I reject the claim, which I heard earlier, that I should feel disgusted at the notion of deliberately creating embryos and then using them for research. I do not feel in the least bit disgusted at that because I realise that there is a fundamental difference between a potential person and an actual human being. I am clear in my mind that research does not take place on human beings, and I say that not for the convenience of scientists, but because I believe that it is so, and it should be on the record that some hon. Members believe that.
      Research should take the moral high ground because, in principle, research can help all mankind and it can help a huge number of future individuals. We should be proud of that. We should vote in favour of making that help available to all our constituents. Therefore, I urge the House not to entertain the amendments, but to leave the Bill as it stands. An overwhelming majority of hon. Members previously voted for it as it stands
      Mr. Frank Field: I must pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). For once, I cross swords with him, and I do so to caution the House about the wisdom of putting one's sticky fingers into other people's souls and trying to suggest what their motives might be.
      I have changed my position in the debate and shall briefly explain that change. In the debates on embryo research and abortion I held an absolutist position. I hoped that the objectives that I could achieve, and that I wished to advance, could be furthered by that stance. In Committee, the House seemed to make two resounding comments about my stance First, while there may be minor changes to the Abortion Act 1967, this House—and probably any House in my lifetime—will not make major changes to it, and certainly not wrecking changes. Secondly, the House unequivocally supported the newer subject of embryo research.
      I could have continued to maintain my old absolutist stance, and to feel that by pushing that line I might be able to sway the debate in the House, or I could desert that position and take a more compromised one—muckier, less clear and non-absolutist—in an attempt to sway the House's decision. Therefore, I have deserted my previous stance. If we have a debate and a Division on abortion tomorrow, although I previously believed that the rules should be tightened up, I should vote for an amendment to make abortion easier under 12 weeks, and I should want that firmly linked to urgent reinforcement and care for family planning, which we have not seen. We would not be able to guarantee that tomorrow because the House does not often allow us to decide matters in such a sensible way. I have fundamentally changed my position.
      Similarly, I made clear my position on embryo research in the Division in the previous debate. To my heart's content I could make a speech similar to that which I made then as if we had not voted then. I might go out of the Chamber feeling better for it, but I doubt that I should influence the way in which many hon. Members voted. Perhaps I should change that statement. I may influence many hon. Members, because they would be so annoyed at listening to a speech that had nothing to do with the amendment that they would vote in the opposite Lobby.
      970
      6.30 pm
      By tabling the amendment, I have signified in the most public way that a Member of Parliament can that I have changed my stance, not because my gut feeling is that I was wrong to vote as I did but because, while I respect those who take the absolutist position, I want to influence the decision of the House. Therefore, I tabled the amendment and sought support for it. As I wished to maximise support for the amendment I refused to allow other hon. Members to attach other measures to it, such as a statement that we believe in research but want to qualify the provision and specify that research should not be allowed on contraception. If hon. Members wish to include such a limit they must vote for it in another amendment. It is not part of amendment No. 6 or the consequential amendment.
      I intended to pick up many of the points made in the debate, but I sense that the House is not in the mood for it. I shall stay on the ground that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) called the moral high ground. Everyone wants to occupy the moral high ground—and why not?
      Ms. Harman: It is full up.
      Mr. Field: There might even be room for my hon. Friend, so I invite her to join us on it.
      The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham)—tonight I have his constituency right—presented his argument. For once I could not follow it. It takes more than to quote the research of Professor Rev. Dunstan, say that there is a high moral argument and make the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) give a powerful grunt of "Hear, hear" to persuade us that that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East has a good enough argument. It is a good debating point in the House, but surely the House wishes to be persuaded by the arguments, not by the trick of a good theatregoer.
      The argument of the hon. Member for Spelthorne takes us back to that of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury. It may be that many of those who support the amendment hold the absolutist position that I held. So what? Surely the House will be convinced by the weight of the argument, not by guilt by association. Hon. Members will not say, "They are the people whom we voted against last time, so we had better vote against them this time."
      I can bring my reasons for moving the amendment to a head by centring on the distinction presented by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East and—we thank the right hon. Member for Aylesbury for drawing our attention to it—the argument used by Professor Rev. Dunstan. It is legitimate for Professor Rev. Dunstan to argue that his view is logical and his moral position correct. That does not make every other position immoral, amoral or non-moral. We must put our various positions before the House and let the House choose.
      One distinction is fundamental and crucial to the debate. There is all the difference in the world between creating an embryo, which some of us would say is life but others would say has the potential for life, in an attempt to allow couples who are infertile to have children and using the embryos that are not required for other purposes, and saying that we are so mesmerised by the wonders of science and the blank cheque that we shall give to science that scientific activity itself is the moral stance while the creation of embryos is a secondary consideration. To

      971
      create embryos for research simply to destroy them is different from using embryos to further fertility and using spare embryos that would otherwise die. The distinction seems so clear and powerful that I am surprised that some hon. Members cannot see or support it.
      The amendment does not seek to limit research. The number of experiments that can be carried out may be limited because there will be a limited number of embryos, but as the Minister would not or could not answer the question put to her by the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) about how many embryos will be needed, none of us knows whether that is a real possibility.
      The amendment seeks, to use a phrase from another debate, to ring-fence the research.
      Mr. Barron: It seeks to restrict it.
      Mr. Field: No, it does not seek to restrict research. The amendment contains no restriction on research. There may be a restriction on the number of experiments that can be carried out as a result of the number of embryos available, but amendment No. 6 and its consequential amendment contain no such restriction. Other amendments such as that on contraception would restrict research, but that is not what this amendment is about.
      Mr. Barron: I disagree on that. It is likely that if the amendment is accepted more embryos will be created when people receive what my hon. Friend would term direct treatment so that research can continue. The amendment will do nothing except alter the Bill, which has the support of a large majority in the House.
      Mr. Field: That is the point of this stage of the Bill. That is why we have parliamentary procedures that allow us to amend legislation. We have heard two arguments tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) argues that we should not table amendments to the Bill because we would change the Bill. But that is why we have this opportunity to table amendments. The other argument is the Pontius Pilate view that we should not give instructions to outside bodies, in this case the licensing authority. We are the supreme body that lays down guidelines about what should be done. The licensing authority will be the receptive organisation. While those arguments are good debating points, they are separate from and inferior to the major issue that we must decide.
      I hope that I have convinced at least some hon. Members that by tabling the amendment I do not take the absolutist position that I held previously. If I have the chance, I shall vote accordingly tomorrow. I accept that there is a clear difference of opinion on whether embryos should be created for research or whether only spare embryos not used for fertilisation should be used. I beg the House to believe that in tabling the amendment I did not wish to restrict the nature of research that can be carried out. If the House wishes to place restrictions on research it must vote on other amendments.
      Tonight, we are not deciding to undo the substance of the debates on Second Reading a few weeks ago, which received overwhelming support. Tonight, we are deciding a different issue.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 246.

      Division No. 237]

      [6.39 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Allason, Rupert

      French, Douglas

      Alton, David

      Galloway, George

      Amess, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Amos, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Anderson, Donald

      Graham, Thomas

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Ashby, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Atkins, Robert

      Gregory, Conal

      Atkinson, David

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Ground, Patrick

      Baldry, Tony

      Grylls, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hague, William

      Beggs, Roy

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Beith, A. J.

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bell, Stuart

      Hardy, Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

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

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Benyon, W.

      Harris, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hayward, Robert

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Bowis, John

      Hill, James

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hind, Kenneth

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Holt, Richard

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Brazier, Julian

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Bright, Graham

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Burt, Alistair

      Janman, Tim

      Butler, Chris

      Jessel, Toby

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Cash, William

      Kennedy, Charles

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Kilfedder, James

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Chope, Christopher

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Churchill, Mr

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Latham, Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Conway, Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cormack, Patrick

      McFall, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cummings, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Day, Stephen

      Maginnis, Ken

      Devlin, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dixon, Don

      Mans, Keith

      Douglas, Dick

      Marlow, Tony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Dover, Den

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunn, Bob

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Moate, Roger

      Durant, Tony

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Evennett, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fallon, Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Favell, Tony

      Mudd, David

      Fearn, Ronald

      Murphy, Paul

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Neubert, Michael

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Norris, Steve

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      973

      O'Brien, William

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Stokes, Sir John

      Paice, James

      Sumberg, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Summerson, Hugo

      Parry, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Pendry, Tom

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Thorne, Neil

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tracey, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Trimble, David

      Redmond, Martin

      Trippier, David

      Reid, Dr John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Robertson, George

      Walden, George

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Watts, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wells, Bowen

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shelton, Sir William

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Speed, Keith

      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy and

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mrs. Ann Winterton.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cousins, Jim

      Adley, Robert

      Cox, Tom

      Allen, Graham

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arbuthnot, James

      Curry, David

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dalyell, Tam

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Darling, Alistair

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dewar, Donald

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dobson, Frank

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Doran, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Beckett, Margaret

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Blunkett, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Farr, Sir John

      Boyes, Roland

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

      Bradley, Keith

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Flannery, Martin

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

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Forman, Nigel

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Forth, Eric

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foster, Derek

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Foulkes, George

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Franks, Cecil

      Caborn, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gale, Roger

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gardiner, George

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      George, Bruce

      Carr, Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Cartwright, John

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Clay, Bob

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Clelland, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hannam, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Colvin, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Haynes, Frank

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Couchman, James

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      974

      Hinchliffe, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Page, Richard

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Patchett, Terry

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

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

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Prescott, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Howells, Geraint

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Radice, Giles

      Hoyle, Doug

      Raffan, Keith

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Illsley, Eric

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Ingram, Adam

      Richardson, Jo

      Irvine, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Jack, Michael

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Rogers, Allan

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Knowles, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Knox, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lambie, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lewis, Terry

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Litherland, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Livingstone, Ken

      Short, Clare

      Livsey, Richard

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Snape, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Soley, Clive

      McAllion, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      McCrindle, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Squire, Robin

      McKelvey, William

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McLeish, Henry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Madden, Max

      Stevens, Lewis

      Madel, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Marek, Dr John

      Strang, Gavin

      Marland, Paul

      Straw, Jack

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Martlew, Eric

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Mates, Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maxton, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Meacher, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Meale, Alan

      Turner, Dennis

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wallace, James

      Michael, Alun

      Walley, Joan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Morley, Elliot

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Wilshire, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Winnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Worthington, Tony

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Yeo, Tim

      Mullin, Chris

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Needham, Richard

      Nellist, Dave

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nelson, Anthony

      Mrs. Maria Fyfe and

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Mr. Robert Key.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 4

      PROHIBITION IN CONNECTION WITH GAMETES
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 3, line 10, at end insert —
      '(2A) No person shall place sperm and eggs in a woman in any circumstances specified in regulations except in pursuance of a licence.
      (2B) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2A) above may provide that, in relation to licences only to place sperm and eggs in a woman in such circumstances, sections 12 to 22 of this Act shall have effect with such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 10, at end insert —
      '(2A) No person shall provide gamete intra fallopian transfer treatment services unless and until —

      (a) notification of such provision has been given to the Authority, and

      (b) a written undertaking has been given to provide annually to the Authority such information concerning the provision of the treatment services as the Authority may specify in directions.'.

      Amendment No. 24, in schedule 2, page 29, line 22, at
      end insert —
      '(6) In the case of gamete intra fallopian transfer, if it appears to the Authority that there is cause for concern about the provision of treatment services in any centre, the Authority may require that an application be made for that centre to be licensed, and may further require that no new patients be treated at that centre until a licence has been granted.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 41 and 51.
      Mrs. Bottomley: In Committee, considerable attention was given to gamete intra-fallopian transfer. Government amendments Nos. 39, 41 and 51 seek to provide redress for those who have been concerned about the technique. The statutory control of any medical technique is an unprecedented measure and, following the debates in the other place—[interruption.]
      Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so sorry, but I am directly behind my hon. Friend and I cannot hear a word that she is saying.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right. I am directly in front of the Minister, but I can hardly hear her either. Please may we have order while the Minister speaks to the amendment.
      Mrs. Bottomley: Government amendments Nos. 39, 41 and 51 cover a matter that caused considerable concern in Committee.
      The Bill is primarily concerned to control fertility treatments that consist of the creation of an embryo outside the body and those which involve donated gametes or embryos. However, the technique of gamete intra-fallopian transfer and a number of other treatments that involve the use of super-ovulatory drugs caused concern in Committee, and reservations have been expressed by many in the field. We took advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and others, which felt strongly that it was not right for the full controls of the Bill to cover GIFT.
      The amendments seek to ensure that powers are available so that we can bring forward regulations—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) would take his seat. Mrs. Bottomley.
      Mrs. Bottomley: The amendments would ensure that it was possible for us to bring forward regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to ensure that the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman fell within the licensing system should the Government consider that necessary in future.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am anxious to ask my hon. Friend for one clear assurance before she concludes her remarks. Can we please be assured that, if GIFT is to be brought within the control of the Bill, those who do not wish to practise other methods and who only wish to practise GIFT will not, under any circumstances, be discriminated against for that reason?
      Mrs. Bottomley: That is certainly the case. As my hon. Friend will know, one of the purposes of the counselling techniques is to ensure that people are properly advised in other techniques that will not come within the purview of the authority.
      In addition to introducing a regulation-making power to bring GIFT within the control of the authority if necessary, we have tabled Government amendment No. 51, which would ensure that, should any activity take place in breach of those regulations, it would then be an offence.
      Government amendment No. 41 would ensure that the authority could give guidance in its code of practice on the use of any technique involving the placing of sperm and eggs in women, whether or not the technique is covered by the Bill by virtue of regulations.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) suggested that we might exert pressure on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to ensure that it provided further guidance and encouragement to its members—which had already expressed views on this subject—to ensure that they adhered strictly to the guidelines that are already available from the licensing authorities. I wrote to the president, Sir George Pinker, and took up the Committee's concerns. He replied to me by making it clear that the royal college continues to think it right that GIFT should not be subject to the full regulation procedure under the Bill. It is more than happy to write to its members to reinforce the advice given by the authority on counselling, the use of super-ovulatory drugs, the number of embryos or eggs to be transferred and other matters relating to the practice of GIFT. The advantage of our amendments is that it could also cover other techniques such as post-peritoneal oocyte and sperm tranfer. I hope that hon. Members will feel that that satisfies the understandable concern and that we are taking the necessary steps, and that they will support the Government amendments.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Minister will recall Labour Members raising their concerns about these matters because of their anxiety about the risks to the mother and to any resulting children. We are glad to accept the Minister's assurance—
      It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [2 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment moved by a member of the Government to the end of schedule 2. Will the Secretary of State make clear the amendments that he is moving?
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I propose to move amendments Nos. 14, 8, 48 and 10. I wish to make it clear that, to facilitate a vote, there will be a free vote for Conservative Members on the non-Government amendments.
      Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

    Schedule I

      THE AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 26, line 21, after `informed' insert
      'by the views of persons having wide knowledge or experience in the fields of law, social work, philosophy and religion as well as medicine or science and'. —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 236.

      Division No. 238]

      [7.01 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Alton, David

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amos, Alan

      Cormack, Patrick

      Anderson, Donald

      Cryer, Bob

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Cummings, John

      Atkins, Robert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Beggs, Roy

      Day, Stephen

      Beith, A. J.

      Dixon, Don

      Bell, Stuart

      Douglas, Dick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dover, Den

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dunn, Bob

      Benyon, W.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fallon, Michael

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Favell, Tony

      Bowis, John

      Fearn, Ronald

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brazier, Julian

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bright, Graham

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Freeman, Roger

      Buckley, George J.

      French, Douglas

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Galloway, George

      Burns, Simon

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Burt, Alistair

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Butler, Chris

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Butterfill, John

      Gow, Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Cash, William

      Gregory, Conal

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chope, Christopher

      Ground, Patrick

      Churchill, Mr

      Grylls, Michael

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

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hague, William

      978

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      O'Brien, William

      Hardy, Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

      Page, Richard

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Paice, James

      Harris, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Parry, Robert

      Hayward, Robert

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hind, Kenneth

      Pawsey, James

      Holt, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Price, Sir David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robertson, George

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jack, Michael

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Janman, Tim

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jessel, Toby

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kennedy, Charles

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Kilfedder, James

      Speed, Keith

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Latham, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stokes, Sir John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sumberg, David

      Ligntbown, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      McFall, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thorne, Neil

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Thornton, Malcolm

      McNamara, Kevin

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Tracey, Richard

      Malins, Humfrey

      Trimble, David

      Marek, Dr John

      Trippier, David

      Marlow, Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Moate, Roger

      Wallace, James

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Waller, Gary

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Watts, John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Whitney, Ray

      Moss, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mudd, David

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Murphy, Paul

      Worthington, Tony

      Neubert, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.

      Norris, Steve

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Blunkett, David

      Adley, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Allason, Rupert

      Boswell, Tim

      Allen, Graham

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Boyes, Roland

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bradley, Keith

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ashby, David

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Baldry, Tony

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Caborn, Richard

      Barron, Kevin

      Callaghan, Jim

      Beckett, Margaret

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      979

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Illsley, Eric

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ingram, Adam

      Carr, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jackson, Robert

      Cartwright, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Knapman, Roger

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitte)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Clay, Bob

      Knowles, Michael

      Clelland, David

      Knox, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lambie, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Coleman, Donald

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Colvin, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lewis, Terry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Litherland, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cousins, Jim

      Livsey, Richard

      Cox, Tom

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Loyden, Eddie

      Curry, David

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Darling, Alistair

      McAllion, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McCrindle, Robert

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

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dobson, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Doran, Frank

      Maclean, David

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McLeish, Henry

      Durant, Tony

      Madden, Max

      Dykes, Hugh

      Madel, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Marland, Paul

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Mates, Michael

      Farr, Sir John

      Maxton, John

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Meale, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Flannery, Martin

      Michael, Alun

      Flynn, Paul

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Forman, Nigel

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Forth, Eric

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Foster, Derek

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Foulkes, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Franks, Cecil

      Morley, Elliot

      Fraser, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gale, Roger

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Gardiner, George

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Mullin, Chris

      George, Bruce

      Needham, Richard

      Gill, Christopher

      Nellist, Dave

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Patchett, Terry

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Patnick, Irvine

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hannam, John

      Prescott, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Haynes, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Raffan, Keith

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Redmond, Martin

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

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

      Richardson, Jo

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Howells. Geraint

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Ryder, Richard

      980

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Townend, John (Bridlington,

      Sheerman, Barry

      Trotter, Neville

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Turner, Dennis

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Walley, Joan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Short, Clare

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wells, Bowen

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

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Snape, Peter

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Soley, Clive

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Squire, Robin

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wilshire, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winnick, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Yeo, Tim

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Strang, Gavin

      Straw, Jack

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. Robert Key.

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 2

      ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH LICENCES MAY BE GRANTED
      Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 29, line. 41, leave out paragraph (d).—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 271.

      Division No. 239]

      [7.13 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Conway, Derek

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Alton, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Amess, David

      Cummings, John

      Amos, Alan

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkins, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dixon, Don

      Baldry, Tony

      Douglas, Dick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dover, Den

      Beggs, Roy

      Dunn, Bob

      Beith, A. J.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bell, Stuart

      Evennett, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fallon, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Favell, Tony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Benyon, W.

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bowis, John

      Freeman, Roger

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      French, Douglas

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gale, Roger

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Brazier, Julian

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gregory, Conal

      Burns, Simon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Grylls, Michael

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hague, William

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Harris, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hill, James

      981

      Hind, Kenneth

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Holt, Richard

      Parry, Robert

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Pendry, Tom

      Janman, Tim

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jessel, Toby

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Price, Sir David

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Reid, Dr John

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Kilfedder, James

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shelton, Sir William

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lightbown, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speed, Keith

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McCrea, Rev William

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      McFall, John

      Stokes, Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Summerson, Hugo

      Maginnis, Ken

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Thorne, Neil

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Tracey, Richard

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Trimble, David

      Moate, Roger

      Trippier, David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mudd, David

      Watts, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Whitney, Ray

      Neubert. Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      O'Brien, William

      Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Paice, James

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Butler, Chris

      Adley, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Allason, Rupert

      Callaghan, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Carr, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cartwright, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Chapman, Sydney

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clay, Bob

      Beckett, Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Blunkett, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Coleman, Donald

      Boswell, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Boyes, Roland

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradley, Keith

      Couchman, James

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Cox, Tom

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Curry, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Darling, Alistair

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Buckley, George J.

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

      982

      Dewar, Donald

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dobson, Frank

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Doran, Frank

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Durant, Tony

      Lewis, Terry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Litherland, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Livingstone, Ken

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Livsey, Richard

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Farr, Sir John

      McAllion, John

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

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      McKelvey, William

      Fisher, Mark

      Maclean, David

      Flannery, Martin

      McLeish, Henry

      Flynn, Paul

      Maclennan, Robert

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Madden, Max

      Forman, Nigel

      Madel, David

      Forth, Eric

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Foster, Derek

      Marek, Dr John

      Foulkes, George

      Marland, Paul

      Franks, Cecil

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fraser, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mates, Michael

      Gardiner, George

      Maxton, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Meacher, Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Meale, Alan

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Graham, Thomas

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hardy, Peter

      Needham, Richard

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Nelson, Anthony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haynes, Frank

      Norris, Steve

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Page, Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Patchett, Terry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Pike, Peter L.

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Prescott, John

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

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Radice, Giles

      Howells, Geraint

      Raffan, Keith

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Redmond, Martin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Richardson, Jo

      Illsley, Eric

      Riddick, Graham

      Ingram, Adam

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Irvine, Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jack, Michael

      Rogers, Allan

      Jackson, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Ryder, Richard

      Kennedy, Charles

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Knowles, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knox, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lambie, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Short, Clare

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Skinner, Dennis

      983

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Trotter, Neville

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

      Turner, Dennis

      Snape, Peter

      Wallace, James

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walley, Joan

      Soley, Clive

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wells, Bowen

      Squire, Robin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Stevens, Lewis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wilshire, David

      Straw, Jack

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Thurnham, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. Robert Key.

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 48, in page 29, line 44, leave out from 'or' to 'such' in line 45 and insert
      `for such other purposes as may be specified in regulations.
      (2A) Purposes may only be so specified with a view to the authorisation of projects of research which increase knowledge about the creation and development of embryos, or about disease, or enable.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 30, line 1, after
      `authorise,' insert—
      '(a) the administration of a substance to an embryo for the purpose of ascertaining the properties of that substance in relation to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease, or
      (b) '.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 254.

      Division No. 240]

      [7.26 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cash, William

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Alton, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Amess, David

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

      Amos, Alan

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Anderson, Donald

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Conway, Derek

      Atkins, Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Atkinson, David

      Cummings, John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Batiste, Spencer

      Day, Stephen

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dixon, Don

      Beggs, Roy

      Douglas, Dick

      Beith, A. J.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bell, Stuart

      Dover, Den

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dunn, Bob

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Evennett, David

      Benyon, W.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Favell, Tony

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Bowis, John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bright, Graham

      Freeman, Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Burns, Simon

      Galloway, George

      Burt, Alistair

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Gill, Christopher

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gregory, Conal

      984

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Grylls, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hague, William

      O'Brien, William

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Paice, James

      Harris, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Parry, Robert

      Hayward, Robert

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James

      Pawsey, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Holt, Richard

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Price, Sir David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Reid, Dr John

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Robertson, George

      Janman, Tim

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jessel, Toby

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Shelton, Sir William

      Kilfedder, James

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Speed, Keith

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Latham, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stokes, Sir John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sumberg, David

      Lightbown, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lilley, Peter

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Thorne, Neil

      McFall, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tracey, Richard

      McNamara, Kevin

      Trimble, David

      Maginnis, Ken

      Trippier, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marlow, Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Moate, Roger

      Watts, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Whitney, Ray

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Moss, Malcolm

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mudd, David

      Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.

      Murphy, Paul

      Neubert, Michael

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Adley, Robert

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Allason, Rupert

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Allen, Graham

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Arbuthnot, James

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Butler, Chris

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Butterfill, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Caborn, Richard

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Callaghan, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Carr, Michael

      Barron, Kevin

      Carrington, Matthew

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cartwright, John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Blunkett, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Boswell, Tim

      Clay, Bob

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Clelland, David

      Boyes, Roland

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bradley, Keith

      Cohen, Harry

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Coleman, Donald

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

      Colvin, Michael

      985

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knapman, Roger

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Couchman, James

      Knowles, Michael

      Cousins, Jim

      Knox, David

      Cox, Tom

      Lambie, David

      Cryer, Bob

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Curry, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Darling, Alistair

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Livsey, Richard

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

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dobson, Frank

      Loyden, Eddie

      Doran, Frank

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      McAllion, John

      Eggar, Tim

      McKelvey, William

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Maclean, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McLeish, Henry

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Madden, Max

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Farr, Sir John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Marland, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Flannery, Martin

      Martlew, Eric

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Maxton, John

      Forth, Eric

      Meacher, Michael

      Foster, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Foulkes, George

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Franks, Cecil

      Michael, Alun

      Fraser, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gale, Roger

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gardiner, George

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      George, Bruce

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Morley, Elliot

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mullin, Chris

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Needham, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Nellist, Dave

      Graham, Thomas

      Nelson, Anthony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Page, Richard

      Hannam, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Hardy, Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

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

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Pike, Peter L.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Prescott, John

      Haynes, Frank

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hinchliffe, David

      Radice, Giles

      Hood, Jimmy

      Raffan, Keith

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Richardson, Jo

      Howells, Geraint

      Riddick, Graham

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hoyle, Doug

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Ryder, Richard

      Ingram, Adam

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Irvine, Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jackson, Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      986

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Short, Clare

      Turner, Dennis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Walley, Joan

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

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Snape, Peter

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Soley, Clive

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wells, Bowen

      Squire, Robin

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Steen, Anthony

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stevens, Lewis

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Strang, Gavin

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. Robert Key.

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    SCHEDULE 3

      CONSENTS TO USE OF GAMETES OR EMBRYOS.
      Amendment made: No. 49, in page 32, line 8, at end insert—
      '(4) Any consent required by this paragraph is in addition to any consent that may be required by paragraph 5 above.'.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

    Clause 13

      CONDITIONS OF LICENCES FOR TREATMENT
      Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 6, line 31, at end add
      'including information about their physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests and health history.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 57, in page 7, line 14, at end add
      "including information recorded under subsection (2)(c) above.'.
      No. 33, in clause 30, page 17, line 17, at end insert—
      '(aa) giving the applicant all information including identifying information relating to the person concerned, if the applicant, the person treated by virtue of sections 27 to 29 of this Act as the parents of the applicant and, before the information was recorded, the person concerned, have all recorded in writing their consent to the identity of the person concerned being made known to the applicant.'.
      Government amendment No. 60.
      No. 31A, in page 17, line 21, at end insert —
      '( ) A person who has attained the age of eighteen ("the applicant") and who has received the opportunity for proper counselling required to be provided under section 30(3)(b) may by notice to the Authority require the Authority to comply with a request to give the applicant all the information relating to the applicant which is held by the Authority."
      Government amendments Nos. 59 and 58.
      Government new clause 11—Civil liability to child with disability.
      Government new clause 12—Disclosure in interests of justice.
      Government new clause 13—Disclosure in interests of justice: congenital disabilities, etc.
      Mr. Thurnham: It is not my intention to divide the House on this amendment, but I take this opportunity to

      987
      raise the point at issue: the very difficult question of anonymity and striking a balance when talking about personal secrets. Should a mother tell her child that her apparent father is not her father? This is an area of family secrets for which it is most difficult to decide how the House should legislate. Apart from the issue of donor children, I understand that between 5 and 20 per cent. of the population have a father who is not their true father. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that those hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will carry on their conversations elsewhere.
      Mr. Thurnham: Approximately 60 per cent. of donor parents do not tell anyone—the child or their relatives and friends —that the child is a donor child, but some 40 per cent. of donor parents are happy to tell their families and friends, and, in due course, the child that the child is a donor child.
      The Swedish Government decided that it was wrong to allow such secrets to be kept and legislated that donor children must be told the identity of their true fathers and mothers, but in Britain there is a strong weight of feeling that we should allow anonymity to continue. Some people feel that we should not force a family to burden a child —as they see it—with the details of his or her parents. So the Government are in a dilemma as to how to legislate to allow anonymity to continue but to allow for possible changes in future as has happened with the adoption laws which allowed it retrospectively.
      We have to consider whether donors who donated anonymously could retrospectively lose that anonymity. Some people in the medical world believe that the supply of donors would dry up without anonymity, but others tell me that that is not the case. King's College hospital in London carried out a survey among donors. Only one third of the donors were opposed to identification. The other two thirds were either in favour of it or reserved their position on any disclosure of identity. I understand that Hammersmith hospital is also in favour of the identification of donors on the basis that dark secrets within the family are not the best way to bring up a child. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the British Association of Social Workers, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Infertility Counselling Association are all in favour of moving away from anonymity and towards identification.
      I tabled amendment No. 33 with a view to finding out whether any middle ground exists. If donors are agreeable to identification at the time of donation and the parents agree to identification at the time of treatment and, in due course, the child is in favour of identification, the child could discover the identity of his or her true genetic mother or father. That is not always clear, and no doubt one would have to have a DNA genetic blood test to establish a sure identification. Although I put forward amendment No. 33 to establish whether there is any middle ground, I feel that people are on one side or the other.
      I should like the Government to make it clear whether they consider that there is any possibility of a retrospective change in the law and, if they wanted to change the law to allow identification, how they would go about it and how they would assess what people's feelings really were. If they do not want to accept amendment No. 33 as part of the Bill, perhaps they will accept the wording as part of
      988
      regulations so that we could have regulations now to allow children to be born who would be able to identify their genetic parents at a later date.
      There is an argument that that might create two classes of children, but later tonight we shall discuss an amendment that concerns another place dealing with whether donor children should be allowed to inherit titles and sit in another place. If we are to allow two classes of children in those circumstances, surely it cannot be wrong to enable at least some children to have a legal right to establish the identity of their father or mother.
      Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 do not go quite as far as amendment No. 33. Amendment No. 57 seeks to ensure that information about donors is given to prospective parents at the time of treatment. There may be good reasons not to disclose the identity of the donor to the parents, but the rest of the information about the donor needs to be given to them so that they can pass it on to the child when he or she is ready to receive it. Children's curiosity about their genetic origins may arise at any time and the best people to attempt to satisfy it are likely to be their parents. The information may also help the parents in bringing up the child.
      7.45 pm
      It is worth noting that the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 require adoption agencies to give prospective adopters details of the child's personal history and background before placement and, as the Government's circular accompanying the regulations points out:
      "it should be explained to the adopters that the information is provided not only to help them to bring up the child but also on behalf of the child himself."
      Counsellors working with couples receiving infertility treatment have found that the lack of information about donors is frequently the cause of much disquiet and distress to their clients.
      Amendment No. 56 seeks to ensure that where gametes or embryos are provided by donors to be used for treatment services, sufficient information about the donor is obtained at the time of donation and recorded. The purpose of recording such information is chiefly to enable any child born as a result of the treatment services to have some knowledge about his or her genetic parents.
      Although, without the amendment, it would be open to the licensing authority to specify in regulations that such information should be recorded, it is too important a matter to be left to directions. The Warnock committee talked only of recording particulars of the ethnic origin and genetic health of donors. There are problems concerning the ethnic community involving infertility treatment and attention should be paid to helping ethnic minorities in that connection.
      The Warnock committee also spoke of a view among some of its members that there should be a move towards gathering more information and making it available to prospective parents. In the six years since the Warnock committee reported, there has been a considerable shift in views among those with experience in these matters, and it seems important to ensure that as much information as it is reasonable to seek should be gathered from the donors. Even if the current legislation does not make provision for that information to be made available in its entirety to any resulting child, it is more likely that well within the lifetime of such a child there will be a change in the law which will permit children access to further information about their

      989
      genetic parents. It is important therefore that the information should be recorded now to allow for that future possibility.
      Other points have been put to me by people working with these issues. I understand that there is a legal case which may have some relevance. My attention was drawn to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Gaskin v. The United Kingdom in 1989. That case centred on Graham Gaskin's demand for access to records held by Liverpool city council in whose care he had been as a child. The court, finding in favour of Gaskin, held that
      "respect for his private … life",
      as outlined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, requires that
      "everyone should be able to establish details of their identity as individual human beings".
      I have covered the main points that I wish to raise. I do not wish to push the amendments to a Division, but I should like the Government to consider them, answer fully and, if they intend to leave it to regulations, to make sure that those regulations cover the points that I have raised.
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: This group of amendments is concerned with anonymity, and there are two competing arguments about anonymity of the donor. The first argument is that put forward by the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services. Their argument is compelling in that it advocates that the identity of the donor should be revealed, including characteristics, and they draw a direct analogy with adopted children. While we accept the strength of their case in respect of adopted children, only 5 per cent. of those children, when they reach the age of 18, take the opportunity of finding out the identity of their natural mothers. Obviously it is impossible for many of them to discover the identity of their natural fathers. We do not accept that there is a direct and fair comparison with the possibility of young adults, created as a result of infertility treatments, seeking the identity of their natural parents. It is not a sensible comparison.
      We accept and understand that the clinics, and the licensing authority eventually, will collect information and know the identity of donors. If, for medical reasons, it is necessary to identify a donor at a subsequent stage, that will be possible. However, we do not believe that it is necessary for a person on reaching the age of 18 to be given information identifying the donor.
      Those of us who are parents and who care for children and understand their needs, and those of us who wish to create a caring and supporting environment in which children are valued, would not want to create circumstances in the Bill that would allow children to be distinguished or separated from each other on the basis of whether they were adopted children, the issue of their natural parents or children produced as the result of infertility treatments. We should aim to create an environment in which all children are loved, supported, cared for and respected. To try to develop divisions and to distinguish between types of children because of infertility treatments is unacceptable.
      The information and views of those who put forward the opposite argument—for the non-identification of the donor—stem from the experience in Sweden. We received submissions, which we discussed in Committee, to the effect that identifying the donor will restrict the number of donors who come forward to take part in research
      990
      programmes. It is also argued that the parents of children produced as the result of IVF do not want the donor to be identified.
      I do not believe that children's curiosity about themselves and their attributes extends to them wanting to know about their genetic origins or the characteristics of their donor mother or father. Amendment No. 56 suggests that the information that should be made available to children is
      "physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests".
      Those are very emotive characteristics and we could have long debates about the definitions of those characteristics.
      Who would want to discover that one's donor was dull and uninteresting, but well meaning? Who would want to discover that the family background of one's donor was that he was the only son of a family that was now deceased? Who would want to learn that one's donor's education amounted to five GCSEs at grade D? What if the donor's skills were clerical and his interests were bird keeping and being a wireless ham?
      While I have nothing against those interests, I believe that people would rather see the following attributes about the donor: physical characteristicstall, slim, blond and blue-eyed; family background—athlete and astronaut; education—Cambridge PhD; skills—astrophysicist; interests—opera, theatre and sport.
      I do not mean to be flippant; I just want to show that providing such information would be exceedingly difficult and would not be in the best interests of the child. It would not help the child to understand himself or herself or to develop in society. The Bill should do nothing to threaten the possibility of people coming forward as donors. It should do nothing to undermine the programmes.
      There is evidence that those seeking treatment are opposed to any possibility of a child having access to information about the donor. We believe that at this stage the donor should remain anonymous and no information about the donor should be available.
      In that sense, the Bill as it is currently drafted makes no commitment to either camp. It does not commit itself to making the identity available, nor does it commit itself to not making that information available eventually. We believe that perhaps there is no other way to satisfy both views and we support the view expressed in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 56 relates to clause 13 and in no other part of the Bill is the tension between biological and social more explicit. None of us can honestly say that we know the effects of the Bill on children who are born as a result of donated gametes. We cannot say whether it will matter to those children to know that they have been born as a result of that process. Although the approach of the Department of Health will not satisfy the competing arguments, we believe that the Bill advances the best way to proceed bearing in mind the Swedish experience.
      According to the notes on clauses, new clauses 11, 12 and 13 provide for the suing of the donor parent and the parents who have undertaken the infertility treatment by a child who has suffered a disability as a result of the treatment. Those provisions refer to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liabilities) Act 1976, which is
      "An Act to make provision as to civil liability in the case of children born disabled in consequence of some person's fault".
      We are surprised, indeed stunned, that such a serious addition to the Bill should be produced at this late stage,

      991
      making it impossible for hon. Members adequately to consider the proposal. We are not happy about the new clauses because they open up dangerous questions. Unless the Minister can give us various assurances, we believe that the House would be making a dreadful mistake if it were to include that material in the legislation. We shall vote against the new clauses.
      Mr. Alton: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I very much welcome her statement and can assure her that many of us will be in the Lobby with her on that matter. Does she accept that the provisions would do two undesirable things? First, they would place pressures on doctors who would then feel unable to carry out IVF, and they would place on doctors the pressure to destroy an embryo that they think might in any way result in a disabled person. Both those things are highly undesirable and unacceptable. It is appalling that at this late stage—at the very fag end of our deliberations on the Bill—such provisions, involving enormously important principles, should be introduced so cavalierly.
      Ms. Primarolo: I am in some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's reply on this matter—as I am sure the whole House will be.
      8 pm
      It is ludicrous to include in the Bill such highly emotive and contentious words as
      "information about their physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests and health history."
      We are pleased that amendment No. 56 will not be pushed to a Division. We believe that anonymity must remain to protect both the donor service and the possibility of infertility treatment. Any changes to the legislation must be made by the House only after a full debate, if that is what the House subsequently decides to do. As currently drafted, the new clauses give rise to considerable concern and we look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's justification for them.
      Mr. Key: I wish to speak to amendment No. 60. It was a pleasant surprise to find, on coming to the House early this morning, that my amendment had been hijacked by none other than the Secretary of State himself.
      I agree with much of what has been said about anonymity by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). We had a good debate about that in Committee when it was debated with great care and not a little feeling on both sides of the argument. My hon. Friend the Minister restated the Government's position, which had been set out in paragraph 83 of the White Paper, which stated:
      "all adults over the age of 18 should have a legal right to find out whether they were born following gamete or embryo donation and that those who were should have a right of access to certain non-identifying information about the donor to be prescribed in regulations."
      I am sure that the Government were right. That position.reflects the way in which the majority of those involved see the situation.
      The Government were also right to leave open the possibility that the public perception of what is right may change over the years. It may, in future, be right to take advantage of the regulatory provision in the Bill to make available information that will identify the donor to they
      992
      young person. However, that presents a real difficulty here and now for clinicians, donors and potential donors. Up to now, clinicians have told donors that donations are given on the clear and categorical understanding that their identity will not be made known to any young person who might subsequently be born as a result of the donation. Now, clinicians will have to say to donors, "At present your identity will not be disclosed"—the new legislation makes that clear—"but a future Government may change the rules".
      I draw the attention of the House yet again to the Swedish experience. Legislation introduced in Sweden in 1985 stated that when a child is of "sufficient maturity"—in practice that means around the age of 18—he or she has the right to know the identity of the donor. There were some beneficial and some damaging consequences of that move. As I understand it, the number of donors fell, donations had to be sought from a wider recruitment base—this may have been beneficial—partly in the hope of securing donations from men in stable relationships for whom later identification would not prove an embarrassment, and the number of couples seeking help fell. That was because of the overwhelming desire of the prospective parents to feel that the child would be fully theirs, and because of the social stigma that still attaches to infertility.
      The Government's intention to provide legislation that will be responsive to future changes is wholly admirable. However, as the Bill stands, the effect will be the same as if they had legislated not to retain the anonymity of the donor—hence my amendment, which is designed 10 make it as sure as possible that all who donate under the present rules are protected if the rules change in the future. My amendment seeks to outlaw the retrospective identification of donors. It is in line with the Government's express intent and would enhance the viability of their approach in this sensitive area.
      Mr. Alton: I do not intend to pursue the points made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
      I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said about Graham Gaskin case. I raised that case in the House at the time because Graham Gaskin lived in Liverpool and his family had been my constituents. I was, therefore, well aware of the case which raised the issue of a person's identity and right to know about decisions that are made concerning his or her life. It was partly as a result of that case that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) introduced his Bill about the right of access to medical records.
      It is vital that people should know how and why decisions about their lives have been made, and that they should know about the people who created them. I believe that we face great dangers subsequently in life if we are unaware of the identity of our parents. If that knowledge is not made available, its absence can cause complex problems in the life of the person concerned. It is far better to be as honest, open and up-front as we possibly can.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) referred to new clause 11. I register my concern that such provisions have been tabled at such a late stage. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General will reconsider whether it is right to press the matter tonight or whether they should take the provisions away for further consideration. The new clause raises important new

      993
      questions, which were not debated in the Lords, in Committee or on Second Reading. It has been brought in with only 24 hours notice.
      Only a few hon. Members spotted that it introduces a wholly new principle into our law. It means that if a doctor fails to remove and discard an embryo that may in some way be disabled, the doctor can subsequently be sued. That will place pressure on the medical profession to destroy embryos and to incorporate eugenics into medical ethics. That is wholly unacceptable.
      The new clause will also result in the wrong kind of pressures on IVF treatment. Obviously, some doctors will feel great fear about proceeding with such methods if they think that they might be open to prosecution subsequently. It is hard to read the provisions in any other way. New clause 11(1)(1A)(1) states:
      "(b) the disability results from an act or omission in the course of the selection, or the keeping or use outside the body,"—
      presumably, that means the freezing of embryos—
      "of the embryo carried by her or of the gametes used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and
      (c) a person is under this section answerable to the child in respect of the act or omission,
      the child's disabilities are to be regarded as damage resulting from the wrongful act of that person and actionable accordingly at the suit of the child."
      The House should note the words, "the wrongful act".
      If during the delivery of a child in a maternity unit a mistake was made—we are all familiar with disabilities caused as a result of the use of forceps, for example—and there was an accident, we would all accept that there would be a case to answer in court. However, to build into the Bill at this stage in its consideration the provisions that are set out in the new clauses is to send out all the wrong signals.
      Many disabled people are left wondering. Serious handicap is not specified. The doctor may have doubts about cosmetic disability. I have in mind a cleft palate, a club foot or a hare lip. As the clause is drawn, that will be a reason why the doctor will have to remove and discard the embryo. If the doctor fails to do that, he will be open to prosecution. The House is being asked to follow a repugnant course and I hope that more thought will be given to it. The introduction of provisions with profound moral implications at such a late stage in our consideration of the Bill needs to be given much more thought before we can enact them.
      There are many hon. Members present with whom I do not necessarily agree on all occasions, and that can be said of their response to my arguments. There is, however, unanimity among many Opposition Members on this issue, and I suspect that that is the position on the Government Benches. I hope that the Secretary of State will feel able to give much more consideration to the provisions that he has presented to us and, if necessary, to bring them back in the form of Lords amendments.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I did not rise at the beginning of the debate because my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) had tabled the first amendment in the group and because I did not anticipate any serious controversy on the Government's three new clauses. I intervene at this stage because it is clear that hon. Members are anxious for an explanation of the new clauses. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that he
      994
      has misunderstod the purport of them. New clause 11 is the only one that appears to be arousing controversy, but it is designed to afford protection to the children in question. It presents no threat to them and it does not raise the great moral issues with which, as we all know, the hon. Gentleman is consistenly concerned.
      The selection of amendments and new clauses turns on the nature of the information about the donors of sperm that is to be kept on the authority's register and on the circumstances in which certain information might or might not be released to certain people. We should remind ourselves that clause 30 requires the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to keep a register of information if it relates, first, to the provision of treatment services for any identifiable individual or, secondly, the keeping or use of the gametes of identifiable individuals, or if it is shown that an identifiable individual was or may have been born as a result of treatment services. Treatment services for these purposes really mean infertility treatment involving donations of sperm, eggs or embryos.
      That information is confidential, and it must be. Clause 32 provides that save in certain specified circumstances it will be a criminal offence for a member or an employee of the authority to disclose information kept on the register.
      The new clauses are all designed to cover three circumstances where the Government, including my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, have upon reflection thought that there should be cases where the courts must have access to the information in the interests of the child concerned and in the interests of justice. Amendment No. 59 provides an exception to the normal rule where the courts may order disclosure of information on the register in specified circumstances.
      I shall deal first with the two new clauses that I think will not cause a great deal of trouble. New clause 12 deals with the position where a question arises in a court of law whether a person is or is not to be treated as a parent by virtue of clauses 27 or 28. There are various circumstances in which that might arise, such as certain orders under the Children Act 1989 and declarations of parentage under the Family Law Act 1986. A good example might be an application for a maintenance order for the child where paternity is disputed. I am talking about a situation where a man and a woman have gone together for infertility treatment, in circumstances where the man should thereafter carry the legal liabilities of a father for maintenance. Let us suppose that subsequently an argument arises about whether the man was a party to the treatment. The court might have no evidence upon which to base its decision other than the word of the parties. Those circumstances would contrast rather sharply with an ordinary case where the child has been conceived naturally.
      8.15 pm
      The best evidence of the legal relationship between the persons concerned may be contained in the authority's register. The information held may show, for example, that the two named persons did receive treatment together. Without that information, the court may have insufficient evidence to reach a decision. The result may be the making of no maintenance order where the man was, in fact, the legal father. That would be an injustice to the mother and to the child. We believe that it would be wrong to deny courts access to that information.
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Mr. Clarke: I shall finish my explanation and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
      We must ensure that the only information that is released under a court order is that which is relevant to the issue before the court. New clause 12 cases would involve facts relevant to the question whether a person is or is not the parent. In none of these cases will the court require information about donors. What is needed to determine who is to be treated as the parent is information about the persons who receive treatment services and persons who were born as a result. New clause 12(1) expressly prevents information about donors being disclosed because the physical characteristics of the donor are irrelevant. It is necessary only to know whether it was an AID case in which the man was a party to the treatment being received.
      Mrs. Currie rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend after I have completed my explanation of the new clause.
      There are two further safeguards. First, subsection (2) provides that a court must not make such an order unless it is satisfied that the interests of justice require it. Secondly. it gives a court dealing with a civil case where such disclosure has been made the power to sit in camera. In common with other matrimonial proceedings, this is not something that should be on public record.
      I would not anticipate that anyone would be opposed to new clause 12. At this stage, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
      Mrs. Currie: It would help those of us who have struggled to understand at short notice the principle of the new clauses if my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that they are not intended to create a situation in which claims can be made by the child against the donor. We wish to be assured that donors can donate freely, as we would want them to do, and to be sure that in years to come they will not have someone appear out of the blue and say. "I am after your house, your property and your name".
      Mr. Clarke: That issue arises under new clause 11. It is the one which has alarmed the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The answer is that those circumstances will not arise. There is no intention to give the child any general right of action against the donor.
      New clause 13 is non-controversial but I shall deal with new clause 11 first before turning to it. New clause 11 is designed essentially to give children born as a result of these treatments the same rights against people who have caused him or her injury as a result of some default or negligence as those that have been given to children born naturally. The rights of children born naturally were given to them by the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976. That measure was passed to give children legal remedies in respect of wrongful action or omissions that took place before the child was born or, perhaps, even conceived. It deals with wrongful acts or omissions where the negligence of those carrying out the treatment has led to the child being born disabled.
      The Act was not required to give the parents a remedy. If parents suffer injury, under common law they can sue those who gave the treatment for the injury from which
      996
      they suffer. Before the 1976 Act, there was serious doubt whether, in cases where the parents could not demonstrate that they had suffered from an injury, the child had a right of action in respect of acts that took place before birth or even conception. Clearly, in 1976 the House thought it right to extend to a child the right to take civil action in those circumstances. New clause 11 is merely trying to ensure that that protection is given to children born as a result of AID. It would put them on the same footing as children born naturally.
      Ms. Primarolo: As the Secretary of State outlined the new clause as giving the same protection to children born by IVF as exists for those born naturally, we accept the principle. Clause 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 states:
      "If a child is born disabled as the result of such an occurrence before its birth as is mentioned in subsection (2) below…a person (other than the child's own mother) is under this subsection answerable to the child."
      Who could perform the wrongful act?
      Mr. Clarke: The people administering the treatment. If someone responsible for IVF was negligent with the result that injury was caused to the child, the new clause would give the child a legal remedy. The action would be similar to that which a child would have against an obstetrician in natural childbirth. Nobody would wish to take away the remedies provided in the 1976 Act to a child who is damaged during a natural delivery by negligence, which, inevitably, occasionally occurs.
      Ms. Primarolo: What about the donor?
      Mr. Clarke: I can conceive of no circumstances in which the donor of sperm for the treatment could conceivably be accused of a wrongful act which gives rise to injury to the child, unless there were a deliberate failure or refusal to disclose a transmittable disease. If a donor wilfully donates what he knows to be contaminated or genetically defective sperm, such an action could possibly arise, but that is to go into the realms of fantasy. [Interruption.] If somebody willingly donates sperm which he knows to be HIV positive, I am not sure why he should be protected from an action brought by the child. On the other hand, I do not think that a child would do that because those who administered the treatment who had failed to screen for HIV positive or to detect that the embryo was not developing normally through some other congenital abnormality would be the obvious choice.
      I am in danger of speaking off the cuff and I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is sitting behind me because he has been in practice more recently. One reason for having a properly licensed and regulated treatment is that a responsible treatment centre should screen for HIV positive sperm and should take steps to ensure that there is no genetic defect in the embryo in the early stages of development.
      I do not believe that we are giving any extra incentive to doctors to abort children or anything of that sort. There is no difference between these cases and cases of natural childbirth. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill presupposes that anybody who is responsible for the supervision of a case and who discovers that something is wrong will kill his or her mistakes. That is not likely to happen. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is to get the wrong end of the stick.

      997
      The new clause is designed to give these children the same legal remedies as those that are available to children born as a result of natural childbirth. I know perfectly well that the hon. Gentleman would not intend to put children born as a result of IVF in a weaker legal position than those born as a result of natural childbirth.
      Mr. Alton: Obviously, the Secretary of State accepts that because this involves establishing new principles and and a new birth procedure—not natural childbirth—the law must be considered differently. Presumably, once a child is born, whether through natural childbirth or IVF, the same remedies will exist in law, so the opportunities that he has just described would all be available. What happens if a child is born HIV positive? The parents may not know of the possibility because not everyone is screened in advance. What happens where some congenital disorder occurs subsequently, which the parents did not know about—perhaps caused by a strain which appears from time to time in the family? What happens if a disability occurs after freezing embryos? Everybody knows that the risks of disability in those circumstances are far greater, according to Professor Ronald Taylor and others. If that is true, what remedies will be open to a disabled person in those circumstances?
      Mr. Clarke: I see no negligence or cause of action that could arise in any of those circumstances. I am not sure about the failure to screen for HIV. I understand that it is usual regularly to screen the donors of sperm to make sure that sperm is not being taken from an HIV-positive individual. It almost certainly would be negligent to do so. Certainly the other circumstances do not give rise to a cause of action.
      Mr. Alton: What about freezing embryos?
      Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman accepts the opinion of those who say that frozen sperm are more liable to have defects, he should appreciate that the new clause could give a child possible cause of action against the person who uses frozen sperm. It may give rise to litigation which the hon. Gentleman, presumably, would welcome, although, personally, I think that it would fail.
      This possibility arises in few cases. It was an obscure change of the law in 1976. The parents in such circumstances always have the right to sue, but sometimes parents can demonstrate no particular damage, for example in financial terms, to themselves. Until 1976 the child was in an ambiguous position, not so much that he or she definitely had no right to sue as that it was unclear that the child had a right to sue for damages, relying on facts that occurred before he or she was born or even conceived. The law was changed for natural childbirth. If the new clause is accepted, the law will be changed for those born as a result of IVF. I imagine that the number of cases that would occur would be about the same. If the new clause is not accepted, the old legal problem would arise if a child conceived through IVF brought an action.
      I accept that the provision is being introduced at a late stage. The point was not noticed previously. The House will recall that the Bill started in another place. If we do not introduce this provision on Report, we shall not be able to do so ever. If the Bill were at an earlier stage, I should probably undertake to withdraw the new clause
      998
      and give hon. Members more time for reflection, confident that they would accept it. If I do that this evening, we shall end up with a gap in the law and will deprive these children of a protection which other children have.
      Mr. Wigley: I understand that if this provision is to be included, it must be inserted now and that it cannot be introduced in another place, unless as an amendment from this House. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether we shall have some opportunity to return to this matter, if the Bill is amended in another place? If so, could that opportunity be used to give hon. Members a chance to get into the guts of this a little more? Many of us feel that, although the Government may be right, we have not had an opportunity to take advice as we should like to do. We should be happier if we knew that the House of Lords could be encouraged to make amendments to allow us to return to this later.
      Mr. Clarke: If the House carries the new clause, it will return to another place and their Lordships will have to decide whether they agree with it. I have no doubt that the case I am arguing will be argued with greater eloquence by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, whose amendment it is in origin, I am assured by the Solicitor-General. I imagine that the Lord Chancellor has a fair chance of persuading their Lordships. Unlike me, he has an audience of Law Lords who will doubtless take an interest in the subject as well.
      8.30 pm
      I am speaking off the cuff, but I think that it is true that if their Lordships agree with the new clause it will not return here. However, it means that there will be an interval within which hon. Members can make representations to the Lord Chancellor while the new clause is returning to another place and being debated there.
      The Government are not proposing to impose on the House something that, in our opinion, raises serious ethical issues of the sort that we normally expect to concern the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and members of the pro-life group—or members of the pro-women's choice group such as the hon. Member for Bristol, South. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor believes that he is merely filling a gap in the law that had been overlooked at an earlier stage of drafting.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Secretary of State was saying categorically that he could not think of any circumstances in which there could be a cause of action against the donor with relation to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability ) Act 1976. Will he assure the House that there will be no cause of action running on the following lines. The child would say that the donor clearly had a duty of care towards the child. The donor may not have known that the sperm was defective, but his duty of care would have run to having had all the tests and personally satisfying himself that he knew that the sperm was not defective. Why could not a cause of action in negligence run against the donor, operated partly by taking on those giving the treatment, who would then join the donor? By an act of omission, could an action for negligence be taken out against the donor?
      Mr. Clarke: This debate is becoming closer to a moot than a debate on the Floor of the House. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but I am out of practice at

      999
      moots. My instant reaction would be that, unless the donor knew that he was carrying a transmittable disease —in which case, he could be liable—he could ordinarily say that he had discharged his reasonable duty of care by relying on the expertise and precautions of the medical staff at the centre where the IVF treatment was given. He would expect something of which he was unaware to be detected by people with much more expertise to whom he gave the sperm that was to be donated.
      It would be most unlikely for there to be a claim against the donor. I can think of no circumstances in which the child could have a claim against the parents—a point that was raised earlier. The wording of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act, which looked alarming to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, already exists for children born naturally. It covers the range of causes of action that might arise before a child is born and for which a child might wish to bring an action.
      Ms. Harman: I wish to follow up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about the duty of care. We must do everything we can to reassure donors, who provide a helpful service, that they will not be liable, because that would be a major deterrent for people donating sperm. They could sue the people responsible for treatment—the clinic. The clinic staff could look up the files to identify the donor and fish around to discover that he had worked at Sellafield but had not disclosed that. The position is not as clear as somebody knowing that they have AIDS. They might know that they had unprotected intercourse with someone who might have had other partners. Possibilities are opened up, and it is not necessarily good enough for the Secretary of State to say that he cannot, at present, think of any likely scenario. We have clearly identified that the possibility is very much there.
      Mr. Clarke: It strikes me in retrospect that the possibility is exceedingly remote. I am prepared to concede that it is arguable that the donor owes the normal duty of care towards the child who is eventually born. However, he is only expected to take reasonable care and disclose the facts that he would expect an ordinary layman or medical student to have to give to those in the clinic giving the treatment, who have all the expertise and facilities at their disposal.
      The primary duty is on the clinic staff to satisfy themselves, by questions of the donor and medical tests and screening of the semen, that the semen used is satisfactory. If a genetic abnormality is occurring it is in the nature of IVF that observation of the embryo's development and proper handling of the case is an important part of the treatment. Causes of action—I do not think that there will be many of them—are far more likely to arise against the clinic. There are only remote circumstances in which the donor could be at risk. He would be at risk only if there had been negligence on his part.
      Mr. Alton: Is the Secretary of State saying that it would be a matter of negligence and the clinic would be open to be sued if it had failed to detect an embryo that went on to become a Down's syndrome child, and that failure to destroy that embryo would open the way for an action?
      Mr. Clarke: It would do so no more than the failure to destroy a foetus carrying Down's syndrome could be the cause of action with natural childbirth. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman returned to that point, because I did not deal with it fully before. The hon. Gentleman believes that there will be a cause of action against doctors for failing to terminate a pregnancy likely to produce a disabled child, but I do not believe that. There is no distinction between an IVF pregnancy and a natural pregnancy for the purpose. It can happen with a natural pregnancy and, conceivably—although it is slightly less likely—happen with an IVF pregnancy.
      We have not reached the position in this country—I hope that we never will—where a failure on the part of the doctor to pressurise a mother, against her will, to abort a handicapped child would be a cause of action. That is not the case. There is absolutely no difference between an IVF case and a natural childbirth case. Nothing new is being created here.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: New clause 11(3) states:
      "The defendant is not under this section answerable to the child if at the time the embryo, or the sperm and eggs, are placed in the woman or the time of her insemination (as the case may he) either or both of the parents knew the risk of their child being born disabled."
      The clinic, to cover the possibility of an action for damages being brought against it, might wish to make a blanket statement about any possible risks as a result of the treatment. It could be argued in future that the parent knew of the risk of his or her child being born disabled. Would not it be a way of insulating the clinic and the doctor against the possibility of damages if the clinic gave a general statement of the risks that might arise from such treatment?
      Mr. Clarke: I did not completely follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I think that the answer is no. No action arises automatically because a child it; born disabled, whether it is born as a result of IVF or natural birth. It does not automatically follow that anyone has been negligent or liable for a civil cause of action because a disabled child has been born. The only cause of action that arises under either circumstances is if the disability arises as a result of somebody's negligence.
      We are all accustomed to the cases where the parents, and, under the 1976 Act, the child, have an action brought on their behalf against the obstetrician in natural childbirth because the obstetrician's actions have, through negligence, unfortunately caused the disability. The same action would arise against the clinic. All that the I-louse will ensure by rejecting the new clause is that, whereas a child born naturally can sue the obstetrician for negligence, a child born as a result of IVF cannot sue the people who run the clinic and the doctors there for negligence. For that reason my noble Friend is correct to say that the logic of the 1976 Act means that we should put IVF children on all fours with those born naturally.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am getting more confused as the minutes roll by. Is not it true that a child conceived and born naturally will not be screened in the first part of its life? However, a child conceived by IVF will be screened because no gynaecologist or doctor would want to reimplant a woman with an embryo that was not perfect.

      1001
      If by any mischance a disabled child was born, would it have the right to sue the clinic or the doctor for having been born?
      Mr. Clarke: I query the beginning of my hon. Friend's statement because, at least nowadays, in natural childbirth screening is carried out for handicap. Amniocentesis is becoming a regular practice. Nobody claims that an action for negligence could be brought by the child because the child was not aborted, presumably on the decision of the mother. I cannot imagine an action being brought because a child was allowed to be born when screening showed that it was disabled. If the child is not born because the defective embryo has been removed, no question of this kind arises. The parents might sue, but I cannot see how on earth a child would bring an action to obtain compensation for the fact that it was not destroyed at the embryonic stage. I could not put together a claim for loss or damages in such circumstances.
      I do not think that we can take the matter much further. I have done my best to explain the new clause. We have not had long to look at the matter and it is understandable that some hon. Members are worried and suspicious and trying to find circumstances that might give rise to problems. They are mistaken to object to new clause 11 because, by doing so, they will be putting a child born as a result of IVF in an inferior position in law to a child born naturally. No doubt the other place will return to that.
      Ms. Primarolo rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall give way just twice more and then move to new clause 13 in the fond belief that it will present no difficulties.
      Ms. Primarolo: I understand the Minister's arguments, but there are still difficulties about clarification. As the Solicitor-General has entered the Chamber, perhaps he could give us a legal clarification. That could help us because, while we have much sympathy with the Secretary of State's argument and support it in principle, we are worried about the drafting of the new clause.
      Mr. Clarke: I should be glad to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General whether he would be interested in taking part in the debate. I trust that he will deploy the same arguments. I think that I took silk on the same day as my right hon. and learned Friend, but by that time I had ceased practising and he has practised regularly ever since. He has heard the hon. Lady and may consider having a second go on new clause 11.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State. There are two solutions. I understand the logic of wanting to make sure that children born as a result of one procedure have the same rights as children born as a result of another. We could have amending legislation later if the matter is controversial. It might be better to proceed down that road if it is not possible to resolve the problems now. New clause 11(1)1A(1)(a) and (b) must, as a matter of drafting and logic, leave open a course of action by the child in relation to an argument that the selection process at the beginning of the child's gestation was in some way defective. The Secretary of State put an extreme case, but
      1002
      I am arguing not that the option is that the child would not have been born but that it would have been born able bodied rather than disabled. There must be that cause of action and I agree that it would be taken by the parents. Perhaps it would be better to take this matter separately and remedy the law soon.
      Mr. Clarke: An action could arise in such circumstances. An action could arise in a case where a child would have been born able bodied if someone had not been negligent. It would arise where the embryo was healthy and developing normally, but, as a result of some default on the part of someone responsible for the care of that child, it was damaged and the child was born disabled. In precisely such a case new clause 11 could give rise to an action. I do not think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is worried about that.
      If a child is born disabled because the embryo was naturally damaged from the beginning and everybody behaved properly, no cause of action arises. I am not sure whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is persuaded to intervene. He may intervene later. He and I are perfectly prepared to undertake to ask the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers to look at all this between now and the Bill going to the House of Lords to consider the points that have been made and to consider again whether the Government are unintentionally introducing an amendment that gives rise to the kind of moral and ethical issues that worry hon. Members. I do not think that that is the case, but no doubt after the debate the matter will be canvassed thoroughly and carefully in another place.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister says that he is trying to ensure that children born under these procedures would have the same rights under the 1976 Act as children born naturally. There is a distinction. Under the 1976 Act, as it has been explained by the Minister, a child would be able to sue back to the point of fertilisation and responsibility would be placed on the doctor during the period from fertilisation to birth. However, under what we are now discussing children would have an additional right to sue for procedures that were carried out to the embryo prior to fertilisation.
      Mr. Clarke: I am subject to correction by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but my understanding is that under the 1976 Act the law merely gives the child a right of action based on facts that have occurred before birth or before conception. I have already mentioned cases of negligence by the obstetrician with which we are all familiar. Other circumstances are where a car accident occurs and a pregnant woman is one of those injured and the foetus is damaged by a negligent driver. I can think of cases where a woman has been injured by the negligence of someone before conception and the nature of the injury is such that, when she conceives, the child is damaged. The 1976 Act is designed for such cases.
      New clause 11 merely says that the same remedies are available to an IVF child so that where there is fault on the part of some person that causes injury to the child, and the fault occurs as a result of facts that occurred before the child's birth or conception and injures the parents, the child will have a cause of action.

      1003
      I hope that the House and another place are satisfied that all we are doing is putting the law on all fours for children. however they may be born.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Secretary of State for his patience. What would happen in a case in which no clinic was involved, but a woman had simply come to an informal arrangement with a man and inserted the sperm herself? That is perfectly possible, and I hear that it is being done already. Obviously, it is an unsafe and undesirable procedure, but it happens.
      Mr. Clarke: I do not think that anything arises from such a case because the provisions in new clause 11 affect those responsible for
      "the keeping or use outside the body, of the embryo…or of the gametes used"
      to create the child—usually the licence holders. The 1976 Act gives no right of action to the child against a parent. I cannot conceive of any action arising in the circumstances that the hon. Lady has described, which would he included in the provisions of new clause 11, and which would give rise to any action.
      I suggest to the House that I proceed to new clause 13. If my advisers and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solictor-General believe that I have gone off the rails and have misled the House, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to collect their thoughts and for them to intervene and to correct me. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is with me so far. We cannot continue this viva voce on new clause 11 this evening.
      I shall read a note, which has been passed to me, concerning the issue raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). It says that it is not possible to sue the mother, except when she injured herself, for example in a motor accident, as a result of her own negligent driving. That is the provision of the 1976 Act. Therefore, except when the mother has injured herself by her own negligent act, and as a result has injured the child that she is carrying, the child cannot sue.
      New clause 12 deals with the disclosure of information about donors or gametes to the courts, and it will not allow the disclosure of information about donors, because it is more sensitive than information about people who receive treatment. All hon. Members who have spoken have said that the anonymity of the donor should be preserved in all cases in present circumstances, which I shall return to in a moment.
      New clause 13 contains the only case in which we propose that the courts should have the power to order disclosure of information about donors. Section 1 of the 1976 Act, which we have just been describing, provides a remedy for a child against a person who caused harm to his or her parent, which affected the parent's ability to have a normal, healthy child. An example might be the wrongful exposure of the parent to radiation or to a genetic disease which might be passed on to the offspring. When a child is born as a result of natural conception, the 1976 Act would enable the child to seek redress directly againt the third party who caused the injury to the parent, which was one of the issues raised in an intervention. When a child is born as a result of donation, the person whose injury led to the child's disability must be the genetic parent—the donor. Unless the child has the means of knowing who the donor is, in practice, it would be impossible for him to start such an action.
      1004
      We have given careful consideration to whether we should allow disclosure of identifying information about the donor in that case. We have decided that the main guide to policy must in principle be that children born by donation must have the same legal rights as children conceived in the usual way. Therefore, in that one case the privacy of the donor must take second place to the rights of disabled children to seek compensation against those people whom the law provides must be answerable to them. Under the 1976 Act that person is not the donor, but the person who injured the donor.
      Mr. Wigley: Clearly, there is a danger that the donor's identity will become known when it otherwise would not be known. Is not there a possibility that the donor's identity will become known, but the donor may not be guilty of any trespass? Although he may not have done anything to warrant disclosure, he may find that his identity has been disclosed because an action has started, and the confidentiality, which we originally thought would exist, would therefore be taken away from him through no fault of his own.
      Mr. Clarke: Yes, that is the case. In the circumstances that I have just described, which new clause 13 is designed to provide for, the donor would be innocent. He would have been injured before he donated the sperm—for example, by exposure to radiation—in such a way that his natural child, born later as a result of IVF, was injured.
      The Government have decided that the right of the child, suffering as a result of the exposure of the natural parent, to bring an action should justify the courts making such an order. The extent to which information is disclosed would be restricted, but obviously it would be important to know who the person is before the child can have the chance to take any action.
      I shall deal briefly with the other amendments, although I expected to speak about them more fully, but I cannot speak for much longer.
      Ms. Harman: I presume that the Secretary of State meant that it would be for the court to decide the extent to which information was disclosed. Does he envisage some protection to prevent the publication of the name of a donor whose identity is revealed to the court? Would there be a prohibition on the name of the donor being given to the press? Would the information be given to the court, where there would be a barrier, and it would then leapfrog over the barrier of the person who has committed negligence to the donor? Or would the information be disclosed and be completely open from then on? For example, could we have the case of, "The Infant W v. Sellafield and Mr. Y," or would more information be given? What would be the procedure?
      Mr. Clarke: The identity of the donor would have to be disclosed to all those people taking part in the action because the defendant would obviously have to know the name and identity of the person that the defendant is accused of having injured. At the moment, there is no express provision in the new clause for hearing in camera —[Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General assures me that the court could sit in camera if the anonymity of the donor in the case might otherwise be threatened, and the court could restrict reporting.

      1005
      Before I rose to answer the attacks on new clause 11 we were debating—at some length—the nature of information recorded about a donor and a donor's anonymity.
      I am not surprised to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East has abandoned the Chamber during discussions of the Government new clauses, but I am sure that he will be back. I must answer his comments about amendments Nos. 56 and 57, which I think he said that he was not proposing to press if the Government prefer to rely on regulations to determine the exact nature of the information to be kept. We must rely on regulations if only to keep the arrangements flexible and change them in the light of evolving opinion.
      It seems undesirable to include in the Bill the type of information suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East in amendments Nos. 56 and 57. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South rightly said, if such information were available to those seeking treatment, people could select or join a waiting list for particularly desirable donors.
      9 pm
      I shall deal more briefly than I intended with amendments Nos. 33, 31(A) and 60. They deal with the extent to which the information available to applicants might be changed in future. The Bill provides that the authority must give applicants certain information which will be specified in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. It is the firm intention of the Government that the information given will tell the applicant something about the genetic parent, but not enough for him or her to be identified. The information given might include that which might be important for medical purposes or, where an applicant intends to marry, that which enables the authority to tell the applicant whether he or she is genetically related to the fiance or fiancee.
      We strongly support the anonymity of donors for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Bristol, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We have no intention of introducing regulations to allow that anonymity to be breached. It is true that circumstances may alter, so the Bill provides that the regulations can be changed. A later amendment provides that any regulations under clause 30 should be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution. That will mean that both Houses of Parliament will have to give the matter thorough debate before regulations are made.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has yet to speak to his amendment. I apologise to him. I intended to wait until he had made his speech before I made mine. I thought that I had better stop the debate on new clause 11 before it went much further. My hon. Friend's amendment deals with the argument about whether people born as a result of IVF should have the right to know who their genetic parents are. To give them that right entails giving them information to enable them to identify the donor father. I have already said that we do not propose to provide that right in the regulations.
      Although attitudes may change, I believe that it would be wrong to give people born as a result of IVF the right to know their genetic parents. In order to be brief, I shall not be repeating the arguments used by the hon. Member for Bristol, South and my hon. Friend the Member for
      1006
      Salisbury. I strongly agree with both of them. I do not believe that it would be right to provide that right, although we shall leave it open to future alteration.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South that the circumstances of adoption, in which the House has agreed to allow access to information, are different from those of IVF. The relationship between someone who has been adopted and the natural parents who had to request that the child be adopted is different from the relationship, which in emotional terms is non-existent, between a child and a donor of sperm where the child was born by IVF.
      I strongly believe that in the present climate most people accept that anonymity should be preserved. I emphasise that the House will decide the matter by a free vote. However, I believe that, although we are leaving the matter open to be changed in future, it would be wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, to leave everyone who acts as a donor to proceed on the basis that the law might eventually be changed retrospectively.
      Reference has already been made to the Swedish experience. It has been said that donors will be deterred by the possibility that at some time in future their names will be disclosed. I accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East said, there is evidence that some donors would not be deterred. However, that does not alter the position. It is not just a practical matter of whether one could persuade people to become donors. One must consider the interests of all the parties. I understand that some children may feel a compelling desire to know the man who donated the sperm. But that cannot be conclusive. One must visualise the position of the donor. Whatever he said when he donated the sperm, 20 years later he may have a family of his own. He may not wish to have a child, about whom he knows nothing, present himself or herself to him.
      We must also consider the parents of the child. The mother probably did not want to have another man's child or to have any emotional relationship with some unknown medical student who donated the sperm. It could create fraught situations if a child who for some reason becomes excessively worried about his or her parentage in teenage or adult years is suddenly enabled to obtain information about the identity of the donor of the sperm many years before to the acute distress of parents, donor and everyone else involved.
      For that reason, I am happy for the Bill to be drafted in such a way that if my opinion is rejected or the House changes its opinion by affirmative resolution, the anonymity of donors could be lifted. However, if we do not pass the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, to which I added my name last night, there will be an element of doubt from now on. Everyone will have to be told that it is possible that a future Government could change the law by regulations or by primary law. I should feel happier if a Government were obliged to go through that hoop, but that is only my view.
      I intervened at an earlier stage than I intended, and I shall now listen to other contributions, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne who appears from his amendment to take a flatly contrary view. In the end, the House will have to make up its mind by, I am sure, a free vote on both sides.
      Mr. Wigley: I am glad that the Secretary of State made his intervention before my brief contribution because he clarified the new clauses, yet I should have been happier if

      1007
      there had been an opportunity to study certain aspects of them more fully. It is unfortunate that the new clauses come before us at a late point in the proceedings, denying us the opportunity to take advice, and that they have been grouped with amendment No. 56. That led to the Secretary of State having to make two speeches. I understand the difficulty that he is in, and I understand also the objectives of the new clauses. One can sympathise with them while at the same time being uncertain about how they will work out in practice.
      Perhaps the Secretary of State will at least nod if I am right in saying that in no way do new clauses 11 and 12 mean that someone who has been inseminated to avoid giving birth to a disabled child, but whose embryo is then found to carry a disability that the recipient did not imagine it would carry by virtue of the screening, will be able to bring an action.
      Mr. Clarke: While my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General applies his mind to that point, perhaps I may ascertain whether I have understood the hon. Gentleman's argument. Perhaps he is contemplating a case in which a carrier of haemophilia undergoes fertilisation treatment to ensure the selection of an embryo that is not carrying haemophilia. We discussed earlier the situation in which only female embryos are reimplanted. If a mistake were made, a male embryo was reimplanted and a child having haemophilia was born, I suspect that the parents would have a right of action. That is my off-the-cuff reaction. I do not think that the child would have a case. We are up against the same problem that was discussed earlier, of the child bringing an action to the effect that it should not have been allowed to be born.
      Mr. Alton: That is what the Bill says.
      Mr. Clarke: That is not what it says, with respect.
      I cannot perceive of any action that could be brought on that basis. If the hon. Gentleman will proceed with his speech, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will take a hand.
      Mr. Wigley: I am sorry for raising such a difficult point so early, but perhaps it helps to do so. It appears that the clauses do not concern actions to be brought by the parents in respect of negligence against them but relate to negligence against the child itself. We are talking about different children—the handicapped and the non-handicapped foetus. Presumably they would be different entities in law, and would therefore involve different possibilities for action.
      Mr. Clarke: We are dealing with actions brought by the child against the licence holders and the others named in the clause in respect of actions that they took which injured the parents and which in turn damaged the child.
      Mr. Wigley: Quite so. Therefore, action can be taken only on behalf of a child who has had the opportunity to grow and develop from the early embryo or pre-embryo —a different child from the child who might have been born had a different embryo been selected in those early stages. An embryo that has not been selected clearly has no rights in law. That leads us to a fraught state of affairs in which it would appear that some embryos have rights in law, and we need to think the matter through carefully before we legislate. I am sure that the Government are introducing the proposals with the best of intentions, but
      1008
      I wonder whether they have thought them through properly. Perhaps at a later stage we may be given the assurance that, by virtue of other provisions, parents will have a remedy in law if a mistake has been made in the selection of an embryo.
      Mr. Clarke: Parents have all sorts of common law remedies against anybody who causes them injury, and the Bill does not affect that. Parents will certainly have the common law right of action against anyone who gives them medical treatment that causes them damage. There is no need for legislation to clarify that.
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised another matter connected with new clause 11. He asked about the interpretation of the words:
      "the parents knew the risk of their child being born disabled".
      I suggest that knowledge of a risk is difficult to establish, and difficult to make the basis of action in law. Two questions arise. The first concerns the degree of risk; parents may have been led to believe that there is only an outside chance, for example. The second has to do with whether the parents understand the implications of the risk to which they are open. In the difficult world of medicine and disability, doctors may point out to parents, perhaps using a technical term of which they may never have heard, that there is a risk that their child may contract a certain condition—perhaps a fairly small risk, which may not have far-reaching implications. Suppose that the parents do not take that on board. In their desperate enthusiasm to have the child, they may not fully evaluate the risk, and that fact may exclude the possibility of an action later on.
      Mr. Alton: I am following the argument closely and I strongly support much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Suppose that parents are told that they run a risk of having a disabled child following IVF and subsequently refuse to have an amniocentesis test, because they know that that, too, might endanger the unborn child. Where does the negligence lie if the parents refuse to have that test?
      Mr. Wigley: That raises interesting questions, not least because the amniocentesis test can, of course, endanger the mother as well as the child. The various factors will have to be balanced against each other. I hope that the Lords will be able to pursue those matters in considerable depth; we are clearly in difficulties tonight.
      I had intended to refer mainly to rights of information —one of the most difficult questions that we have dealt with so far. Two important and conflicting interests arise and we cannot meet both fully: the first is the right of the child and the second is the right of the donor. I suspect that most people's instinct would be that we should give the child all the rights that we can. But if we try to give the child all possible rights, that child may not come into existence because the donor might be frightened away. We know of that from the experience in Sweden and it has been suggested in much of the correspondence that we have received. As the Secretary of State said, we must strike a balance. At what point do we accept that there is a limit, and up to what limit should we give information to the child about his or her background?
      The Secretary of State tried to address a question that worries the House, although I must say that I am still not absolutely clear about it. Suppose that we leave the door open, by way of the regulations on which the Secretary of

      1009
      State proposes to rely, for further action to be taken on this matter in future. Is my interpretation of the Secretary of State's remarks correct? Am I right in thinking that if there is a change—by way of affirmative resolution or in primary legislation—there is no way in which we shall be able to guarantee that it will not have a retrospective effect? After all, if such backdating occurred, it could affect those who have already acted as donors or those who might act as donors between now and the time at which that change is made. The Secretary of State would say that the House cannot bind itself, so there will always be a risk. But I hope that he will find means of giving the maximum assurance to donors that they will not find themselves in a retroactive position, whereby their identity is made known.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Clarke: Amendment No. 60 gives the maximum assurance because it provides that regulations cannot be retrospective. For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given, we simply cannot say that no subsequent House will not pass retrospective primary legislation. We cannot guarantee that a future House will not pass legislation saying that one red-headed man in three should be beheaded, but it is highly unlikely. By passing the amendment, we are making it clear that we do not contemplate regulations under the Bill being retrospective; indeed, we shall rule that out. If a future Parliament wanted to make the Bill retrospective, it would have to start from square one.
      Mr. Wigley: I hope that it will be understood that the maximum safeguard is being given.
      I revert to new clause 12 and the courts dealing with cases in which identification may be necessary to a limited extent. I hope that potential donors can be assured that, although it may be necessary for their identity to be known to certain people within the courts, there will be provision for hearings in camera and for reporting restrictions to safeguard their identity. This is a difficult issue—I suspect that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) will put an opposite viewpoint in a moment—in which the interests of the child must be paramount to the interests of the donor.
      I rest on the point that I made a moment ago: unless we have donors we shall not have children. We must be careful not to allow this matter to start drying up, if that is not an unfortunate phrase, to ensure that those who want children can have them and that, in our anxiety to safeguard the rights of the child to information, we do not, inadvertently perhaps, lead to fewer children being born and fewer parents being helped by IVF treatment.
      Mr. Wilshire: As you have been elsewhere on your duties, Mr. Speaker, when you read Hansard in the morning you will discover that you have missed one of the better seminars on the more obscure parts of legal liability. Whether you will find it helpful I leave you to judge when you read it.
      Hon. Members who are mere mortals rather than lawyers tend to stick to things that we think we understand. I therefore have nothing to say about the niceties of the new clauses. I want to speak to the amendment that I tabled—amendment No. 31A—which,
      1010
      as the Secretary of State rightly predicted, seeks to give those who have reached the age of 18, once they have been given a chance to receive counselling, the absolute right to all the information held about them on a register.
      I find myself in an unfortunate position. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), and having spent about an hour in the same Lobby as her earlier, that grieves me somewhat. I also disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and that upsets me equally because I spent much time helping him with the admirable work that he has done on other parts of the Bill.
      It is probably foolhardy of me to disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, but nevertheless I shall. My case is essentially simple: I cannot accept that it is right to withhold from people information about themselves that others know, especially when that information concerns the unique genetic identity of the seeker.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South said that people's curiosity did not go that far, but, if the amendment were accepted, I believe that there would be ample evidence that it does—and such curiosity should be satisfied. People seeking information about themselves will quickly discover that the information is obtainable—after all, others will know. In certain circumstances, the Bill will give people the right to ask whether they have been produced as a result of treatment, and whether they are related to someone whom they are going to marry. Ergo, they will know that there is information about their genetic parents.
      If I understood the seminar correctly, new clause 12 confirms the argument that I am making: that it may be necessary—albeit in only one case—to tell one group of people who are their genetic parents. If it is good for one person, in my book it is good enough for everyone.
      Ms. Harman: How far would the hon. Gentleman take that argument? If a child were the result of incest, one group of people would know that. In those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman think that that child should be told? Let us suppose that the child was not the child of its apparent father, and that the mother knew but the "father" did not. Should the child be told? It is a complicated issue. The way in which the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question makes it seem simpler than it is.
      Mr. Wilshire: I believe that all children should be told the truth, whatever that may be.
      Mrs. Currie: No, you do not.
      Mr. Wilshire: Yes, I do.
      Mrs. Currie: What my hon. Friend is suggesting is horrendous: that, whatever the truth about a child—however grievous and whatever the pain that it might cause to the child—he child should still be told the truth. Does not that elevate the truth above everything else in society, including people's happiness?
      Mr. WilshireMy hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but not a good one. The problem is that, if people choose not to tell a child the truth, some may assume that that is the end of the matter. If one does not tell a child the truth, and it then finds out, one compounds the lie when the child asks why it was deceived in the first place
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is not it sufficient, from the point of view of truthfulness, to be told that one's birth was the result of a donation by an unknown man who—for humanitarian reasons—never had a relationship with one's mother, and who then vanished from the scene? I find it impossible to argue that the child has a compelling right to know more than that and to trace the anonymous figure who carried out that humanitarian act many years before.
      Mr. Wilshire: I do not think that that is adequate. We are referring to the origins of the unique genetic characteristics of a person. Simply to be told that there is someone who was one's genetic mother or father does not go far enough.
      I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East because the information that I want disclosed is that which is already provided for. I should be unhappy if additional information were put into the register. It is sufficient to say that a child can find out who its genetic parents are and leave that child to make its own inquiries if it wants. My hon. Friend's amendment does not appeal to me.
      I should like to face up to the objections, which are coming thick and fast. There might have been a legal seminar before, but I now think that I am perhaps in the dock being examined with a view to being found innocent, or guilty, of being naive. If I have a chance to force my amendment to a Division, no doubt the House will tell me its judgment.
      The objection that harm will be caused to the child has been raised already. What are we saying will cause that harm? The truth? The child will know easily enough that its social parents are not its genetic parents. Knowing one's social parents is only half the equation. The experience with adoption has been cited. I accept the comment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that there are some significant differences between adoption and being born as a result of donation. But the experience of the child who is adopted is relevant.
      Not many children who have been adopted want to know about their parents, so we are not necessarily saying that everyone's curiosity will be aroused. To that extent, the hon. Member for Bristol, South is correct. However, a significant minority of children who are adopted wish to know about their parents. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that the children who seek that information are not harmed by knowing more about themselves, but would appear to benefit from it. What evidence there is is a plus to my argument, not a minus.
      Mr. Alton: I hope that I do not do the hon. Gentleman's case too much harm by saying that I, for one, certainly agree with much of what he said. Does he accept that it is important that those who donate the sperm accept that they are entering into something other than the type of irresponsible relationship that some have suggested? The Secretary of State talked about a medical student being able to clear off for the rest of his life and never thinking about what he did. Does not that reduce the position of parenthood?
      Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is not harming my case; he is just stealing part of my speech. I totally agree with him.
      1012
      It has been suggested that children might not know what they are doing when they ask about their parents. That is why my amendment states that they should be offered counselling first. The potential risk would be explained. That is exactly the position taken with adopted children who seek more information. I believe that that is how the risk should be approached.
      Another objection that has been voiced concerns the wishes of the parents. It was suggested that if parents knew that the genetic origins of the child were known, the numbers of parents seeking this treatment might fall. I do not believe that that is sufficient justification. People have a choice. If we elevate the wishes and preferences of parents above those of the child, we have the whole matter out of balance.
      I said earlier that the child should know the truth. What would parents be afraid of in allowing the child to have the information? Would they be afraid of a child's knowing the truth? Would parents wish the state to help them live a lie?
      Mrs. Currie: It happens all the time.
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend says that it happens all the time. Yes, but it is not a function of the state to legislate to help that happen. If individual families want to do that, I should defend their right to do so, while disagreeing with them. But we in the House should not be legislating to enable people to live lies and withhold information from children. It is as straightforward as that.
      Mr. Thurnham: There is a very real difficulty in that. The National Association for the Childless has said that many of its members would not wish to have a child if they had to divulge the fact that the child was a donor child and reveal its identity, as my hon. Friend's amendment provides. Does not he feel that that is a factor and that it might lead to some couples going abroad to obtain treatment and then returning to this country so as to avoid being caught by this legislation?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: Happily, we do not legislate for what happens elsewhere. If people decide to leave the country for treatment, I defend their right to do so. The fact that others may have legislation that I do not like is no reason for allowing that to occur here. Points of order were raised in the House this afternoon in a different context— on the sovereignty of the House and the right of this nation to have its own laws.
      Would fewer parents take advantage of this? As for myself, due to certain events, I have had cause in my family life to regret what has happened to me. I should not wish that on anyone else. It is a rough world in which we live. Some people cannot have children unless they take advantage of this treatment. It has physical, social, moral and theological implications. We cannot escape from them. We should not allow people to escape from facing up to the responsibilities of the treatment. If couples decide that the only way to have a child is to have treatment but they are unable to face up to the child knowing about it, then—in the rough old world in which we live—I fear that they have to live with it. I say that, having had a rough time myself, not out of callousness for other people. It is a matter of fact.
      The other argument that parents may advance is that children may feel that they are unwanted and unloved,

      1013
      should they discover the truth. The exact opposite would be the case. If one's social parents have gone to all the trouble, expense, pain and anguish to have a child, what greater demonstration could there be of being wanted and loved than that? That is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. One could be proud to be able to tell one's child about his or her background.
      As for the donors, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that it all comes down to the question of the rights of the donor as against the rights of the child. It is not as simple as that. The donor can choose to be a donor. However, the resulting child has no choice. When there is choice on one side but not on the other, I come down firmly on the side of the person who has no choice: the child.
      The question of whether there will be fewer or no donors does not stand up to critical examination. I have seen both sides of the case deduced from the experience in Sweden and New Zealand. I do not know what to make of that. What is relevant is research that has been done by King's College hospital. In 1989 that hospital received 100 inquiries from would-be sperm donors. Of the 100, 30 were accepted on clinical grounds. Of those accepted, 12 were happy to be identified and eight felt that they would be willing to consider it further, if a request were made.
      That does not suggest to me that it would be impossible to maintain a sperm bank if my amendment were passed. If there were fewer donors, the important question to ask is: why? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) made that point. Is it that people do not want publicity? Do they want it to be a secret? If so, it might be thought that they are ashamed of what they are doing. Should we legislate for that? It also means that those people do not want the consequences of their action turning up on the doorstep 20 years later. However, that is admitting that there are consequences. We are talking not about blood donation, but about the donation of the unique individuality of a child.
      Donors cannot say, "I do not want to know anything about that", because it is there for the future. If that child were to find out—even if we legislated against it—there could still be a knock on the door, so the person who is the source of the gametes should be proud enough to say, "I was not ashamed of what I was doing. I knew what I was doing and I would do it again. I am in no way socially involved, but I am your genetic parent." If someone cannot face up to that, he should not be encouraged to become involved in the process.
      Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend may recall that the House gave adopted children that right, whether or not their parents cared about them turning up on the doorstep. It seems odd to force parents who have given up their child for adoption to face the fact that that child might one day turn up, yet we do not give a child produced by artificial medical means the same right. Surely that is a strange thing for the House to fail to do.
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend and I have had many discussions about why we keep voting in different Lobbies. Therefore, it is a pleasure to say that I agree 100 per cent. with the point that she is making. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should not make such a distinction because in both cases we are dealing with an individual
      1014
      child who should have the right to know. Whether parents are giving up a child for adoption or donating gametes, some of those people will one day have to face the consequences of that, whether they like it or not. I do not believe that we should be legislating for those people to live a lie.
      I heard again the argument that several years later a donor may have a partner and may not wish that partner to know. If we allowed for that we should be legislating for that donor to live a lie and conceal information. If someone is planning to become a donor, he should be counselled that that might happen and then he should take a positive decision one way or the other. If he is prepared for a partner to know, he should go ahead, and if he does not feel that he could share that knowledge with a partner, he should not become involved in donation. The donors should have to make that choice and we should not legislate to help people live a lie.
      Having gone through all the arguments, I fall back on my first point, which clinches it for me whatever other people may say—how would I feel if I discovered that people somewhere had information about me which the state said I was not entitled to have? I should feel a deep sense of outrage, that information which is personal and unique to me was not available to me. What right have doctors or Members of Parliament to withhold such information?
      Mrs. Currie: First, let me express my unease about the amendments on the anonymity of donors tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and my approval of amendment No. 60 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), which would be an excellent improvement to the Bill. The amendments that have been debated would change the Bill quite radically. I consider that the parts of the Bill dealing with the anonymity of donors are extremely good, and emerged from Committee unchanged.
      In my view, only limited information should be recorded and made available to satisfy one important problem which overrides the issue of anonymity— the question of possible genetic linkage between future potential partners. It seems sensible, therefore, that a person should be able to ask the authorities which are holding that information in future two questions: "Am I the product of assisted fertilisation under the provisions of this Bill?— answer yes or no"; and: "Am I related to the person whom I wish to marry or have as my partner? — answer yes or no." That means that the information must be kept, and of course it is possible that the procedure might be changed in future. That is why amendment No. 60 should be accepted, because it protects the people operating under the law as it stands.
      However, there are serious practical considerations which we must bear in mind if we are to change the law in the way proposed by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Bolton, North-East. The number of donors would be cut. If anonymity is not guaranteed and is not the norm, many people will simply not come forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was right to talk about accepting responsibility and facing consequences. If we were to insist that donors had to accept responsibility and face

      1015
      consequences, large numbers of donors would say, "Thank you very much, but no thank you." They would not be available.
      I accept that the hospitals are rather divided on the issue of anonymity. I know that at least one of our most senior advanced and experienced hospitals in the area has said that at least as many as a dozen of its donors would be perfectly content to have details recorded. However, I feel uneasy at the thought that we might then be relying on a much smaller donor bank or a smaller group of people who would be prepared to act as donors.
      As IVF becomes more successful, as I am sure it will be now that research will be permitted under the Bill, so many thousands more people will come forward requiring that care and treatment. Perhaps as many as 4,000 patients passing through two or three major clinics might take their gametes from only a handful of donors—who we must remember will include women donors as well as men—and that is what we are trying to avoid by encouraging and enabling assisted fertilisation, particularly for families who have problems with handicap. We should not amend the Bill in that way, because that would be a great risk.
      Mr. Thurnham: It is accepted practice that no donor should be used for the creation of more than 10 children, and no one is suggesting that that should change. In practice, King's College hospital and Hammersmith hospital have found that the kind of donors who would come forward if identification were allowed would be middle-aged married people who had already had children, rather than medical students. I do not believe that there are fewer middle-aged, married people than medical students. In fact, there are probably more of them.
      Mrs. Currie: I read the correspondence that was offered to members of the Committee. However, I do not believe that we should do anything that would reduce the number of donors who would come forward. If there was a well publicised case in which a donor was identified and appeared on the front page of The Sun and everywhere else, the number of donors would drop sharply. That would reduce the assistance to infertile families that the Bill is designed to create. I do not believe that that is a good idea.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, when speaking to amendment No. 31A, was kind enough to allow me to intervene and put the case for harmony rather than absolute truth. We are bound to disagree on that point. However, one of the essences of the argument about the anonymity of donors is the question of what the child would do with the information. Why does the child want that information? The state should take a view that a child should not go on a fishing expedition. The child should simply not be allowed to satisfy its curiosity. That is not in the public interest. It may not be in the child's interest either, or in the interests of the donor. It is not in the public interest for a child to embark on that type of curiosity-satisfying exercise.
      Mr. Wilshire: I suggest that my hon. Friend and I might just fundamentally disagree on my next point: I do not accept that it is for people like me to prove that a child should have the information; it is for my hon. Friend to prove that the child should not have it. If she is going to argue that the House knows best what is good for a child, we will be pursuing the nanny state avenue once more
      9.45 pm
      Mrs. Currie: That is what we are elected to decide; that is what we are here to vote on, and it places a great burden on us all.
      Another point leads me to think that my hon. 'Friend's amendment would open up another minefield of difficulties. There are people who would seek that information for reasons that none of us would find palatable. Let us suppose that the amendment is accepted and that a child born as a result of a donation finds that his father or mother is very wealthy. That may lead to financial and moral blackmail for the donor.
      There are people who wish to perform humanitarian acts, but to do so anonymously. They do not wish to see news of what they have done spread all over the front pages—for very good reasons. That applies especially to women who may donate eggs at a time of great distress. If, for example, a woman is being sterilised, she may wish to donate her remaining eggs. However, that does not mean that, 20 years on, she wants somebody rolling up on the doorstep saying, "I know all about what happened and I am going to tell everybody."
      Sir Hugh Rossi: I wish to raise a small legal point which I hope is not facetious. The identity of the natural parent— the donor—can be important in certain circumstances. The Bill deals clearly with inheritance, stating that there is no legal right against the estate of the donor, whoever that donor may be. However, perhaps my hon. Friend will consider what happens with life insurance. An applicant has to answer whether there is any history of heart disease or of other diseases on either his father's or mother's side of the family. That has nothing to do with the inheritance of the legal estate; it relates to the inheritance of one's genes. How, eventually, does such a child—in adulthood—answer such questions directly and honestly so as to receive the right cover?
      Mrs. Currie: Given that one third of all men in this country have heart attacks before the age of 65, the odds are that the answer is "yes" without the applicant having to look up the identity of his or her father.
      Sir Hugh Rossi: It was not a facetious question, but that is a facetious answer.
      Mrs. Currie: It is not a facetious answer.
      However, that point brings me to the new clauses. My hon. Friend is right that there are circumstances in which a child may wish to know about his birth, over and above questions 1 and 2 that I outlined earlier. That principle —anonymity—is breached in the new clauses. Broadly speaking, the House has already accepted that it is entirely appropriate that such a child should have the same rights as other children to sue negligent doctors. The circumstances are covered by new clauses 11 and 12 and seem entirely sensible.
      The provisions mean that doctors involved in IVF are not protected by anonymity from any case of negligence that is brought against them. I would not wish those doctors to receive that protection, any more than I want other doctors to receive such protection. I am content with that. In such cases, there is a higher obligation than absolute anonymity. However, if the current legislation is so obscure, one wonders how many times it has been used since 1976 and whether it is worth all this hassle tonight.

      1017
      New clause 13 also opens up difficult questions. I was glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that the provisions will be considered in some detail and that more comments may be made in another place. New clause 13 presents the possibility of the donor being sued by a disabled child. I heard what my right hon. and learned Friend said about not being able to conceive of any circumstances in which that might happen, but in that case, why bother with new clause 13? If something cannot happen, do not include a new clause about it.
      However, this could happen under new clause 13—I can think of several circumstances. We now know that alcoholism can produce handicap in an unborn child. Supposing the questions asked by the clinic relate to genetic defects and the donor does not realise that he or she is an alcoholic, under new clause 13 would it be possible at some point in the future for the handicapped child to sue the donor? I believe that it might. That issue needs to be clarified.
      As far as I understand it, there is no principle in English law—I cannot speak for Scottish law, but there is no principle in the law that covers my constituency—that a child can sue his ordinary parents for the genes passed on to him. None of us are responsible for our genes, but the act of donation is a different matter because it is a conscious decision. As I understand new clause 13, there might be grounds for regarding that as a case where suing would be possible.
      It may be that there are good grounds for new clause 13, and I think that there are. It will mean that there is a tremendous obligation on donors not to donate unless they are sure that they carry no genetic problems. That is probably a very good thing. It may push IVF families to go to good licensed premises where donors are screened. That too is a good thing. It will certainly mean that clinics must have excellent procedures for screening and asking the right sort of questions. That is also a good thing.
      I can see that there may be circumstances in which it may be appropriate to ask questions where a genetic defect has turned up much later which is not life-threatening. There are many examples, and perhaps glaucoma is a good one. The defect may be present in other related members of the genetic family, and it might be appropriate for that information to be made available. It is right that that information should be available through the courts, and it is right that there should be circumstances in which we can put on record our slight uneasiness that the clause could leave open the possibility of other types of case arising that are not so much in the public interest.
      The tragedy of proving or disproving negligence in such cases is that the facts and information would have to be produced in court. When that happens, the damage is done. Even in cases which are thrown out because there is no case, the damage is done and anonymity is breached. That is the position even if the case is heard in camera and there are reporting restrictions. Although I am content with new clauses 11 and 12, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will take a careful look at new clause 13 to decide whether it does what the Government want it to do in precisely the circumstances that they have in mind.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley
      1018
      Hill (Mr. Alton), who is no longer in the Chamber, talked about whether doctors would be deterred from implanting damaged embryos. I offer the House my personal view. I hope that doctors do not implant damaged embryos—
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
      Mrs. Currie: I shall finish my sentence first.
      I hope that doctors do not implant damaged embryos, precisely because many families that come for IVF have been through the misery of having handicapped children already. One of the reasons that they come for IVF is to try to ensure that they have the chance of a healthy child in future. To say that we should encourage doctors to implant damaged embryos is something that most people would find difficult to accept.
      Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it is plain that what I said in an intervention was not clear. My hon. Friend has misread the point that I was trying to make.
      I appreciate that, because of IVF, no one will implant a damaged embryo that will grow to become a handicapped child. That part of the screening-out process is obvious for one and all. What happens, however, if the foetus develops a handicap naturally, and it is not possible to prove or disprove where it came from? Will that child, when it is born or later in life, not have the right to sue the doctor who, by the technique of IVF, gave it life in the first place? I think that my hon. Friend will find that it is a difficult question to answer and that the issue is unclear.
      Mrs. Currie: That is not what I understood my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill to be saying. I reiterate that it seems that, to have a sound and successful IVF service, which many of us want, there must be really good screening of donors, excellent keeping of records—that is entirely right and appropriate—and the taking of every aspect of care.
      Mrs. Winterton indicated dissent.
      Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend shakes her head at me, but I am offering my point of view, as she offered the House hers.
      It seems that damaged children at some stage in the future should, by the new clauses, have the right to sue those who were responsible in the clinics for their creation, and would have to prove that there was some negligence. I do not think that chance would give the right to sue in the way that my hon. Friend has described. I am not a lawyer, and I am not introducing the new clauses. I am content to make comments on the amendments and new clauses.
      I am reluctant to do anything which makes life harder for donors or for families needing donation. That should be the principle behind the Bill and the way in which we vote tonight.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: This has been an absolutely fascinating debate. There have been some good speeches representing both sides of the argument. Because the hour is late and I hope to speak on another of my amendments, I shall be brief. I shall comment on some of the amendments tabled, but not on the new clauses on which I have already said enough.
      It gives me great pleasure to gallop down the aisle on my bright charger to the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and to share the

      1019
      high moral ground with him on his amendment about divulging information to children who are conceived by the medical technique of artificial insemination. I agree with the line taken in amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 33.
      The child should have the right to the information recorded by the authority. The child should have a right to know its genetic background for insurance or health reasons. The child should have the right to know that when he or she marries it will not be to his half sister or her half brother. The child should have the right to know the identity of its donor father, just as an adoptive child does. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) made a pertinent intervention on just that matter.
      All those good arguments fall on stony ground because of one pertinent omission: how is the child conceived by artificial insemination to know that it has been conceived in that way? There is no reason whatever why the parents should tell the child. An adopted child knows that it is adopted. The best advice given to adoptive parents is to tell the child as soon as possible that it has been adopted. The child accepts that and all is well. In the fullness of time he or she may wish to trace the natural parents, but few do because most accept the parents with whom they have grown up as their parents.
      The child conceived by artificial insemination will never know that, for the simple reason that the name of his or her social father will appear on the birth certificate under the heading "Father", whereas the words "By donor" should appear. Therefore, there is no reason why parents should tell the child. That is wrong. Yet in its wisdom or otherwise, the Committee rejected the proposition that that should be on the birth certificate.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said in his powerful speech, that means that the child is living a lie. All the amendments are as of nothing because they cannot be sprung into life for the simple reason that the child will not necessarily be told how it was brought into the world. That is a sad omission.
      Miss Widdecombe: This is not a speech so much as a request to the Secretary of State for clarification. May I please have a verbal communication from him about whether I have understood his position on new clause 11 correctly? I understand that he believes that the new clause does not mean that if a defective embryo is implanted, that, per se, means that the child can sue if it is born disabled. There must be some compounding act of negligence.
      Secondly, will the Secretary of State look again at the clause, and if there is the slightest chance of ambiguity —bearing in mind that it is not Parliament's intentions but the wording of the law that is taken into account in the courts—will it be put right in another place? Have I correctly understood those two points?
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My answer to the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is yes, that is my belief, which I think is shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who sat through the debate. If, on reflection, we discover that we are wrong, we shall write and tell my hon. Friend immediately. I also give the undertaking she calls for that we shall readdress ourselves
      1020
      to the drafting with an open mind. I give that undertaking on behalf of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who will handle the matter when it returns to the other place.
      Amendment negatived.
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, the Motion relating to Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2) and the Ways and Means Motions relating to Gifts to charity, Paired shares and Levy on port privatisations may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour —[Mr. Wood.]

      Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords.]
      Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 43, at end insert
      'but the person responsible for maintaining the records may apply to the Authority for records maintained in pursuance of a licence to be lodged with the Authority before the expiry of such period'.
      I shall comment only briefly on the amendment, and I do not wish to press it to a Division. We raised the issue in Committee. People involved in running clinics have raised with me the problems that might arise if their clinics had to go out of business or they had problems with keeping records for a long period. The Bill places the responsibility for keeping records on the individual clinic, but there could be circumstances in which the clinic found that it was unable to carry out that duty and was fearful of being liable for large financial and other consequences.
      This is an administrative item that could be dealt with in regulations. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Health could state that this will be satisfactorily dealt with in regulations, it would allay the fears of those people running clinics. They are worried that they would face responsibilities that they could not easily fulfil if the licensing authority were to adhere strictly to the words of the Bill. It would be better if we could keep the Bill simple and leave those points to be dealt with in regulations.
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend. Clause 13(4) states:
      "No information shall be removed from any records maintained in pursuance of the licence before the expiry of such period as may be specified"
      by the authority. The amendment seeks to ensure that the person responsible for maintaining the records may apply to the authority for the records to be lodged with it before the expiry of the period stated in the direction.
      I understand that clinics seeking licences may be concerned lest they are required physically to retain records about patients who have received licensed treatments for an unreasonably long time. When a centre wishes to close, that may pose problems. When considering the amendment it will be helpful to draw a distinction between the physical records and information contained in them. The authority will not necessarily wish to receive the physical records, but it will wish to receive the information contained in them. The Bill makes it clear that it is necessary for the authority to be provided with information about treatment. It can also issue directions about the information about storage and research that must be retained.

      1021
      Under clause 24(2) it is a condition of every licence that information should be recorded and given to the authority about each of the matters listed in clause 13(2)(a) to (e). It will be for the authority to decide how frequently it wishes to receive the information. The fact that information is passed to the authority will not mean that the information ceases to exist at a licensed centre. We envisage that a centre will keep its physical records and pass the information contained in them to the authority. Therefore, the information would continue to exist in two places unless the centre were to close. That is what concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).
      The provisions of the Bill are already sufficient to ensure that the authority can obtain all the information that it needs. If a centre wishes to apply to the authority for information before the time laid down in directions, perhaps because the centre is having difficulty with the storage of its records, it will be free to do so.
      There is no need for an amendment on this matter. It will be dealt with through administrative arrangements between the authority and the various centres. If a centre were to close there would be no difficulty about passing the physical records to another centre or to the authority itself. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend and those who have raised this matter with me. We do not think that further safeguards are necessary.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 6, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert—

      '(a) any child who may be born as a result of the treatment will have a father by virtue of section 28 of this Act, and

      (b) account has been taken of the welfare of any such child, and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.'.

      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 18, in page 6, line 46, after 'treatment', insert '(including the need of that child for a father).
      No. 19, in clause 25, page 14, line 19, after 'services', insert '(including a child's need for a father)'.
      Mrs. Winterton: I shall not delay the House for long because there is still much business before us. I have tabled the amendment because the interests of the child in matters of artificial insemination should be paramount. That term has been used most successfully in the Children Act 1989.
      I welcome the possible initiatives that have been announced by the Government to ensure that divorced fathers or fathers who have deserted the family are made responsible for supporting their children. It is right that fathers should pay towards the support of the children they have sired.
      A child who is born as a result of a technique such as artificial insemination will obviously have the benefit of a mother, but should also have the benefit of a father. In my heart of hearts, I should prefer it if those coming forward for this treatment were married couples or couples in a long-standing stable relationship. However, I understand that the definition is extremely difficult. Single women who present themselves for artificial insemination by donor
      1022
      should not be allowed to be inseminated unless they are prepared to bring forward a man who will stand as the social father.
      At the time of the treatment, that social father would enter into an agreement by saying that throughout the life of the child he would be responsible for it in financial and other ways in the same way as a natural father. That would be right for the child and would give it a home and stability when it was growing up. It is extremely important that a child's sense of security and identity are assured when it has been conceived by an artificial medical technique.
      For those reasons and many others which I am sure will emerge in the debate, I ask the House to support the amendment.
      Mr. David Blunkett: I am speaking to amendments Nos. 18 and 19: I want to make that clear so that there is no misunderstanding.
      First, I must pick up some of the words used by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and correct a misunderstanding which appears to be prevalent throughout the country. Many single parents have been deserted by the father, who for a variety of reasons has not taken responsibility for his fatherhood. However, that does not include the vast majority of people who are separated or divorced, whatever the circumstances, but are not a single parent family—according to my definition—but a family which is separated. The father and the mother, each hopefully in the best circumstances, endeavour to provide a loving home for the children.
      I want to put that on record because the hon. Lady, perhaps inadvertently, referred to them in a way that hon. Members have referred to them this week when talking about modest Government changes in the provision of maintenance. I also put it on record because, when debating amendments 18 and 19 and the associated issues, it is important to separate out what some people have said in the past on social and sexual issues—including hon. Members who tabled amendments 18, 19 and 20.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I do not want to cast aspersions on the role of single parents bringing up families, and if I have given that impression I wish to correct it. Many single parents, as the hon. Gentleman has hinted, have been left in circumstances that they would never have wished upon themselves. They are doing a splendid job of bringing up their families. The point that I was seeking to make was that, when using technique like artificial insemination, a father should present himself along with the mother, so that a social father is provided for the child.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's clarification, which leads me to my next point. I accept that fathers have a direct responsibility for the maintenance, well-being and love of their children, and that that should be achieved whenever possible. That is why I want to be absolutely sure that we avoid language or attitudes which foster discrimination or inflame hurt or prejudice.
      Also, we must consider the frontiers that we are extending in the Bill, and recognise the enormous responsibility that we have for children. We must consider them as much as we consider the wishes of adults. There is also the responsibility for the stability of society and the impact that our choices will have on future generations. Those are difficult and profound issues, which cannot be dealt with by prejudiced or political stances which dub

      1023
      those people who have doubts and questions as antagonistic to other rights and issues concerning relationships, sexuality or public policy.
      There is nothing wrong with not having children. No stain or ignominy is involved. They are a product of love, not of science. When we are considering the issue, we have to be clear about the situation in which children are brought into the world. It is clear that, when the egg is fertilised by the husband's sperm, either by IVF or directly in the woman—that would apply also to the partner of the woman concerned—and, despite my difficulties in coming to terms with it, it is also true when there is a properly regulated and controlled fertilisation through a donor in a loving relationship, where it is the wish of both partners.
      That is not the same as when past abuse by men of women as a convenience is translated by some women into the same use of men as a convenience. Reproduction is not a cold, clinical, scientific operation—nor are children the property or goods of someone for their convenience or satisfaction.
      People have an absolute right to be themselves, to reject contact with men or to shun any physical contact with them. That is their choice. But that is not the same as accepting that there is some automatic or inalienable right to child bearing. Child bearing is not a right. It is part of the unfathomable life force. That is why man and woman together must take responsibility for the well-being and love of the child. In so saying, I believe that that right cannot be extended in a way that suggests to people that as individuals they can make that choice without understanding those deep, often dangerous, but difficult choices.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I rise with some trepidation to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Indeed, I am the person in whose name amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are tabled. The hon. Gentleman was right to make two basic points before coming to the substance of his speech. I shall deal with both of them first so that, I hope, we can agree.
      I made it clear in Committee that my heart goes out to people who find themselves bringing up children as single parents through no fault of their own. I intend nothing that will hurt them and I hope that I shall say nothing that will cause offence to people who find themselves in that predicament. Equally, the hon. Gentleman was right to caution against language and attitudes that cause hurt. It was for that reason that I tabled amendments Nos. 18 and 19 and that is why I believe and hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) will understand why I could not vote for amendment No. 20.
      Amendment No. 20 covers ground that we went over in Committee. I tabled an amendment along much the same lines. I wish that the Committee had accepted it, but it did not. I am prepared to accept that that was the decision of the House and I do not seek to reopen that debate. I tabled my two amendments to do something different. I tabled them not to add anything new to the Bill, which is what amendment No. 20 would do and what I attempted to do in Committee, but simply to clarify the legislation so that there is no doubt whatever about the real meaning, as claimed by the Government, of clause 13(5). That part of
      1024
      clause 13 was added to the Bill in another place in response to a great deal of pressure to take account of the rights and welfare of a child who will result from treatment.
      As the Bill has progressed through both Houses we have heard a great deal, quite properly, about the rights of women. I fully support that. My two amendments would not automatically bar anyone from seeking treatment or being given treatment. It is important that we see the difference between these amendments and amendment No. 20 and what has been suggested elsewhere. On this occasion I seek to clarify clause 13. Before we go any further, let us be clear exactly what clause 13(5) says:
      "A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment".
      I stress the words "account has been taken". We need to go slightly further than that to understand what amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are all about. We need not only to understand what we think is the meaning of the clause but to consider what my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said that it meant when he was seeking to add it to the Bill in another place:
      "Among the factors that clinicians should take into account will be the material circumstances in which the child is likely to be brought up and also the stability and love which he or she is likely to enjoy. Such stability is clearly linked to the material position of the woman and in particular whether a husband or long-term partner can play a full role in providing the child with a permanent family setting in the fullest sense of that term, including financial provision."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 1990; Vol. 516, c. 1098.]
      He was rightly identifying that stability and love are key considerations when considering how best to protect the welfare of the child. He equally rightly pointed out that the family unit is at the heart of that source of stability and love. We must be clear beyond all doubt—and this is the purpose of my amendment—what is meant by "family" in that context.
      For me, the word "family" means three things. It means the family as a social unit, a financial unit, and a biological unit. As to the family being a social unit, I repeat the warning that I gave in Commitee that, when we talk about social units and social issues in such a context, we all need to be careful not to foist our theological views on others. When speaking of the family as a social unit, we must not drag our personal theologies into that line of thought.
      When speaking of the family in this context, we are seeking to speak up for the traditional values and standards of society that have stood us in good stead for a long time. It is clear to me that the traditional social family unit in this country is, for better or worse, a unit of a mother and a father in a stable, long-term relationship. That value and standard is deeply embedded in our culture. It is not a coincidence that it is deeply embedded. It is a tried and tested way of giving a child the best possible start in his or her life. We tinker with that social unit at our peril.
      As to the family being a financial unit, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear that it is proper to consider financial background when deciding the welfare of a child. It is clear also that looking after a young child requires the combined efforts of two people. If one refers to the evidence provided by those who are often referred to as the new poor, figuring largely among them are the single mums with their young children who look desperately to the state to provide the financial security that they need to be able to cope. That should serve as a

      1025
      warning if we are tempted to tinker with the family unit as we know it, and not take account of the financial arguments.
      Again, the involvement of two adults is a tried and tested way of bringing up a child. I hope that no one disputes that one of the key responsibilities of a family is to provide for the child's material welfare. Again, we tinker at our peril with the concept of a family as a financial unit that needs two people.
      As to the family being a biological unit, whatever else we may say, however clever we might become, and however much science might advance, we cannot avoid the facts of life. They are blindingly clear. We as a species are social animals. We require social structures in order to survive. To reproduce, we still need mothers and fathers—
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Particularly mothers.
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend says, "Particularly mothers," but, fortunately, fathers still have a role to play in the process somewhere. It is important that we should make it clear that the father's role does not begin and end at conception. Both biologically and socially, it goes further than that. In the human species, motherhood places a tremendous restriction on the freedom of action and freedom of movement of the mother because the child takes a long time to become independent. However much we may advance, we cannot get away from that. The father has a continuing role to play, and that must be integral to the decision about what is best for the welfare of any child who may result from one of the processes dealt with by the Bill.
      The amendment seeks only to clarify what the Bill says. The Bill says that the child's welfare must be considered and it says that a father is an essential part of that consideration. What the Bill does not say, however, is what the outcome of that consideration must be. My amendments seek to make it crystal clear that a father is socially and financially desirable, that he is biologically essential at the beginning and that he remains biologically desirable for a long time after conception. The Bill should recognise that fact, as the Lord Chancellor tells us it is intended to. My amendments seek to spell it out, and I hope that they will have the full support of the whole House.
      Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Having listened carefully to the debate, I feel that the problem is that hon. Members are trying to legislate for their own ideal worlds. But we have to legislate and know that our legislation can be implemented. It is not possible for us to lay down in law the arguments advanced by hon. Members in favour of the premise and to say, "This will happen." Some hon. Members may want it to happen but there is no way in which we could police such a law. It is not our job to put rhetoric—however nice and good we may think it is —at the centre of the law, because we could not deliver the goods and enforce such a law. It is misleading to pretend that we could achieve that in the Bill.
      The structure and organisation of many families today is very different from that described by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). We have to legislate for families as they are and give those families the support and
      1026
      encouragement that they need to bring up their children as well as possible. We could say, "There ought to be a father around." But what would happen if the father disappeared before the birth—perhaps two months after conception? Where would that leave the Bill? In such circumstances, it would be wrong of us to accept the amendments. We know that we simply could not make the matters dealt with in them a serious legislative issue.
      Mr. Thurnham: I am pleased to have this opportunity to intervene briefly on a subject that arose in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has changed his original wording to make matters a little easier. But we still have a difficulty with the wording. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. I am not sure that we shall succeed if we seek to go further and stipulate the precise need for a father; indeed we might achieve the reverse. We may place the woman in such a position that she says that a certain man is her partner —they might conceivably even say that they are married —just for sake of fulfilling the stipulation in my hon. Friend's amendment.
      I know that the amendment does not refer to someone being married, but it places the woman in a position where she may be tempted to have a pseudo-father for her child. If the Bill were seen to be restrictive, there is the possibility of children being fathered by men with AIDS and women indulging in self-insemination rather than going for treatment.
      A widow whose husband had left her some sperm may better come to terms with the loss of her husband by having the child that they both wanted and she still wants. The fact that she has lost her husband should not be a technical reason for preventing her from having treatment.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I wanted to raise this point before the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) sat down. My hon. Friend is raising the same point, so I obviously did not make myself sufficiently clear. I am not suggesting a variation of what was discussed in Committee. Nothing that I have said about amendments Nos. 18 or 19 suggests that there is any compulsion or necessity or that a father is essential. That is why I went out of my way to distance myself from amendment No. 20, which provides compulsion. I am advancing an entirely new argument—that the welfare of the child at least requires that we give some thought to the need for a father, not legislate for compulsion.
      Mr. Thurnham: I am glad that my hon. Friend is saying that he wants to distance himself from amendment No. 20, which goes further than we could accept. I am advised that it is defective and that in certain circumstances the wording could be self-defeating. We must leave amendment No. 20 to one side and stick with the amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
      It was said in Committee that there are good single mothers and couples who are the worst possible parents. Deciding whether treatment should be offered on the basis of someone presenting himself as the father is not the right way to proceed. It would be better to leave it to the people concerned, bearing in mind the welfare of the child, to decide whether treatment should be offered rather than to

      1027
      get into arguments about whether there is a father. A widow should not feel that she should terminate her pregnancy because she will be left as a single mother.
      Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) or myself suggested that, in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, there would be any objection or concern. He should distinguish between what he has just said and what he said earlier about a widow seeking artificial insemination following the death of her husband. I shall be corrected if I have misconstrued the hon. Gentleman's words, but he said that if the sperm were still available it could help her to get over her bereavement to have a child. No one, even in those tragic circumstances, should have a child to overcome their despair or emotional problems.
      Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman put his point well earlier. A widow, bearing in mind that her husband may have wished them to have a child, may feel that it helps her to come to terms with her bereavement to go through with the wishes of herself and her late husband. Obviously, those who are giving the treatment will bear in mind whether that is in the interests or the welfare of the child. The Bill says that the welfare of the child is paramount.
      Mrs. Peacock: Are not we considering the welfare of the family as well as that of the child? Is not it better for a child to have a father, as part of the family unit?
      Mr. Thurnham: We all want the "ideal" family, and are considering the welfare of the child with that in mind. What we are discussing, however, is the wording of the Bill, which suggests that the child's welfare should be a matter for those giving the treatment to consider. The question is whether we should go further and try to specify the presence of a father, and what wording we should use to do so.
      I think that we must provide that those giving the treatment can make a judgment, without any stipulation in the Bill that the father must be married or the relationship must be stable. Obviously I am not suggesting that a widow should have a child solely to come to terms with her bereavement, but, if it is deemed right for her to do so, it may well help. The rightness of the action must be the first consideration.
      Mr. Wilshire: I fear that my hon. Friend has still not realised the essential difference between my amendments and what has been discussed before. My quote from the Lord Chancellor mentioned the factors that a clinician should take into account when reaching his judgment. If my hon. Friend reads the Bill and earlier speeches in detail, I think that he will grasp the fact that the intention of the Bill—and that of my amendments—is not to lay down hard-and-fast rules, but to give some guidance to the clinicians, who will make individual judgments about individual cases.
      Mr. Thurnham: I think that, in many respects, my hon. Friend and I agree; all that we have to decide is the words that we want to see in the Bill. I should be content for it to provide that the welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration of those deciding whether to give treatment. My hon. Friend wants to go further, and insert words about the father.
      Ms. Richardson: We intend to vote against amendments 18, 19 and 20, as we did in Committee.
      1028
      It seems to me— particularly on the basis of the speeches of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—that the one person who is not being considered is the woman. As clause 13 is now framed—we realise that it was drafted on the advice of the Lord Chancellor—the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. Now, the hon. Member for Spelthorne —going much further, I acknowledge, than his hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who is much more implacable—wants to insert the provision that clinicians should be given "guidance", a nod or a wink, in regard to the existence of a father. There is no mention of the wishes, views and emotions of the mother.
      I freely acknowledge that, in some circumstances, a woman may simply want to have a child. I say that with special reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said that child bearing was not a right. It is not a right, but I believe that most women would agree that, if they wanted a child, they would do everything possible to achieve that objective. I know many women—single, divorced or separated—who would go to inordinate lengths to have a child, because that is their overwhelming wish.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, the system proposed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is totally unworkable. If we insert
      "(including the need of that child for a father)",
      we are ready to say that the clinician should take account of the size of that father's income and house and all sorts of other considerations which sound laughable but are not. We are inviting the clinician to act as a kind of god and to say that he must look at the whole background, instead of discussing with the patient or client her wishes and needs and then taking into account the child's welfare in the long run.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I have been present throughout the debate on the Cross Benches, although I have only just come to my place. The hon. Lady's comments, especially her last sentence, make it clear that she sees the position of the "patient", the prospective mother, as of central importance. Surely the point, which has been stated by her hon. Friends and my hon. Friends in various amendments, is that, in asserting that the welfare of the child is paramount, we must take account of a child's need to have two parents where possible. That is not to detract from the actions of many men. A friend of mine struggles strongly to fill the part of both parties because of a tragedy—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member must come to the point of his intervention and not make a speech.
      Mr. Brazier: I was just about to finish, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I put it to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) that, if she wants to stand by what she said at the beginning of her speech about the welfare of the child being paramount, she cannot aver that the patient's views must be paramount.
      Ms. Richardson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. In taking account of the welfare of the child, the authority will consider the mother's circumstances.
      We all acknowledge that we are feeling our way in new territory. My problem lies with the idea that we are making

      1029
      the clinician the one who will judge. When looking at the position of the client—let us call her that—the clinician must make a decision on her needs and the welfare of the child that she wants to bear.
      Obviously, doctors and all of us would like to see a situation in which there was a mother and a father and other members of an extended family. That is the ideal, but, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) acknowledged, life is not always like that. Some women who want a child and could provide a good background and home for a child do not want to have a man around because they have had a particularly bad experience with a former partner. That has often happened.
      The hon. Member for Canterbury looks puzzled. He must, however, have come across cases in his constituency of women being victims of domestic violence. That does not necessarily mean that those women do not want to have more children. Why should they not be allowed to have them, even if they want to have nothing further to do with men? Therefore, I shall invite my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.
      10.45 pm
      In Committee, I raised another substantial point with the Minister: whether the clause, as drafted, is likely to breach the European convention on human rights. That point was put to me by the National Council for Civil Liberties. The Minister should ask the Lord Chancellor to consider the briefing commissioned by the National Council for Civil Liberties. It was written by Mr. Michael Beloff, a lawyer of renown who has won many cases in the European Court. He maintains:
      "a law which either specifically or, in practice, has the effect of restricting the access of certain categories of women to have a child … may well be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights under:
      Article 8: the unjustified interference with a person's right to a private and family life …
      Article 12: the denial of the right to found a family. This right is not conditional upon marriage, or being in a heterosexual relationship.
      Article 14: the differentiation in treatment of certain categories of women to enjoy the rights and freedoms under the Convention without discrimination on the grounds of their status."
      I accept that the Minister had had no opportunity to study the brief when she gave her reply in Committee, but it was not good enough for her just to say, "We'll have to wait and see what happens." The Government may find that they are in serious trouble. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter, as well as with the other points that have been made. I invite my hon. Friends to vote against amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20.
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Once again, we have had a detailed and thoughtful debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) made a strong speech about the interests of the child. She has strong reservations about some of the techniques for reproduction that have a bearing on lesbian couples and the lack of both a father and a mother in family units.
      Other views have been advanced in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke at length in Committee about the subject. Tonight he has developed further many of the points that he made at that time.
      1030
      It is a complex and difficult matter and each hon. Member has to decide according to his or her own conscience. It is right and proper that the House should take a view in such special circumstances. After all, it is unprecedented for statutory controls to be made over the provision of treatment. We are debating special circumstances in which a life is being created. The Bill concerns the information, the licensing and the inspection of the premises. It seems right and proper that we should consider carefully the addition to the Bill that was incorporated in another place that the welfare of the child should be taken into consideration.
      Some argue that it is wrong to permit the creation of a fatherless child. Clause 28 takes special steps to clarify the role of the father and that the husband of a woman who bears the child is the father unless he can show that he did not consent to the treatment and that if a man and a woman are treated together, the man is the father.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton rightly stressed the importance of fathers. [Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but a number of meetings are taking place throughout the Chamber. I can barely hear the Minister and she is entitled to be heard.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I have to tell my hon. Friend that her amendment is defective where it refers to clause 28. By prescribing that any child born as a result of the treatment is required to have a father by virtue of that clause, married couples or partners presenting for treatment where the sperm has not been donated by a third party would be prevented from obtaining treatment.
      The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne does not involve a prohibition so does not mean that unmarried couples or those not in a stable partnership shall be refused treatment. It spells out and elaborates all the factors that should be considered when the child's welfare is taken into account. That is rather a different matter. There is concern that a prohibition would encourage women who were determined to have a child not to go through the authorised treatment centres but to use unauthorised treatment centres, with all the inherent dangers in that approach.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have often said that we have the delusion that somehow we can control human behaviour, but a young woman who wants a baby does not have to go to a treatment centre. Throughout history young women have become pregnant without the intervention of the state. Is it not the case that if a woman is determined to become pregnant she can do so whether or not we agree to this particular structure?
      Mrs. Bottomley: That view was also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) in Committee when she said,
      "It is not for the state to decide who should or should not have children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 May 1990; c.151.]
      I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks of Lord Hailsham who said:
      "I am sorry to say that there will always be an intelligent minority who prefers what I might call the good old-fashioned version of procreation."
      We cannot regulate such matters in the general population, but there is an argument that in such special circumstances, where great care and attention is given to

      1031
      create an embryo and implant that embryo to secure a life, often in extremely adverse circumstances, it must be right and proper for consideration to be given to the welfare of that child.
      My hon. Friend's amendment, which refers to the need for a father, adds to our definition. He referred to the comments by the Lord Chancellor about the nature of the concept of welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) tabled an amendment in Committee on whether the concept of welfare should be paramount. It is a complex concept, particularly in circumstances which involve the option of whether the child in question is born. That adds difficulties. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the remarks of Judge Hardie Boyce of New Zealand who defined welfare most effectively. He said:
      "Welfare is an all encompassing word. It includes material welfare, both in the sense of adequacy of resources to provide a pleasant home and comfortable standard of living and in the sense of adequacy of care to ensure that good health and due personal pride are maintained. However, while material considerations have their place, they are secondary matters. More important are the stability and security, the loving and understanding care and guidance, the warm compassionate relationship, that are essential for the full development of the child's own character, personality and talents."
      The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) advanced a different argument which has merit, although it is not one that I personally support. She asked specifically about the status of the European convention on human rights. I have considered carefully the concerns expressed by the National Council for Civil Liberties and my advice is that the essential object of article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities with their private and family life.
      Our legal advice is that it is unlikely that the European Court of Human Rights would consider that article 8 would impose a positive duty on the Government to ensure that single women had the same rights of access to treatment as married women. I am also advised that article 14 would not be breached if article 8 was not and that article 12 has no application in the case of single women who want to have children by means of AID or IVF.
      Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister saying that it is her interpretation that, if the amendment were accepted, only married couples would be able to opt for that treatment?
      Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased to be able to clarify precisely what the amendment means. According to amendment No. 20, a woman shall not be provided with treatment unless
      "account has been taken of the welfare of any such child"
      who may be born and the need of that child for a father. There is no requirement or prohibition. The licensing authority would have to consider that properly.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that if the amendment were passed it would create a presumption in favour of the presence of a father, a presumption which in the great majority of cases might well be sensible, but which might not be sensible in some cases?
      Mrs. Bottomley: Clause 25 identifies the role of the code of practice within which it will be important for the authority to spell out in more detail the way in which the concept of the welfare of the child and, if the amendment is accepted, the child's need for a father should be implemented. It will set out how the authority should consider, with respect to treatment centres, their undertaking that task. As I said, there would not be a prohibition. There would be a recognition that children need stability, continuity and the concepts that I identified earlier in my comments about welfare and the Lord Chancellor's comments in that respect.
      Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend spoke earlier about the need for a warm and loving relationship. I remind her of an example in my constituency when a single woman was rightly allowed to have a child. Mrs. Annie Gibson was a widow and battled against many committees to be allowed to adopt a severely handicapped child. I cannot think of anyone who could be a better parent for that child, who had previously been without a family. Is not that an example of a single woman having a child and bringing it up most successfully?
      Mrs. Bottomley: I am impressed to hear about my hon. Friend's constituent and her clear commitment to that child. However, when a child is in need of a home, the circumstances are rather different from the circumstances that are envisaged in the Bill when one is bringing about the creation of a life.
      Although I share hon. Members' reservations about laying down precise arrangements under which children should be brought up, I feel that my hon. Friend's amendment has a sufficient level of generality, while protecting the welfare of the children, to commend it to the House for its support.
      It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [2 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 20 because I wish to seek to divide the House on amendment No. 18.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments and new clauses, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
      Amendment proposed: No. 18, in page 6, line 46, after `treatment', insert
      '(including the need of that child for a father).—[Mr. Wilshire.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 174.

      Division No. 241]

      [11 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dixon, Don

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas, Dick

      Allason, Rupert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Alton, David

      Dover, Den

      Amess, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Amos, Alan

      Dunn, Bob

      Arbuthnot, James

      Durant, Tony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Eggar, Tim

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Ashby, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Favell, Tony

      Atkins, Robert

      Fearn, Ronald

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Beggs, Roy

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Beith, A. J.

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bell, Stuart

      Freeman, Roger

      Bellingham, Henry

      French, Douglas

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gale, Roger

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gardiner, George

      Benyon, W.

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Blunkett, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gregory, Conal

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bowis, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Ground, Patrick

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Grylls, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bright, Graham

      Hague, William

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hannam, John

      Burns, Simon

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

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Butcher, John

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Butterfill, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hill, James

      Cartwright, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hind, Kenneth

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

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

      Chope, Christopher

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Churchill, Mr

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howells, Geraint

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cormack, Patrick

      Irvine, Michael

      Cummings, John

      Jack, Michael

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Janman, Tim

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

      Jessel, Toby

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      1034

      Kennedy, Charles

      Reid, Dr John

      Key, Robert

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Kilfedder, James

      Riddick, Graham

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Knapman, Roger

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lilley, Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Livsey, Richard

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony

      McCrea, Rev William

      Stevens, Lewis

      McFall, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Stokes, Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sumberg, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Summerson, Hugo

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thorne, Neil

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tracey, Richard

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Trimble, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trippier, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Trotter, Neville

      Mudd, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Murphy, Paul

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Neubert, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Norris, Steve

      Wallace, James

      O'Brien, William

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Watts, John

      Parry, Robert

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Whitney, Ray

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wood, Timothy

      Pawsey, James

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Yeo, Tim

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. David Wilshire.

      Redmond, Martin

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Carrington, Matthew

      Adley, Robert

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Allen, Graham

      Clay, Bob

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clelland, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Coleman, Donald

      Barron, Kevin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Boswell, Tim

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Boyes, Roland

      Couchman, James

      Bradley, Keith

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Cox, Tom

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Curry, David

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Darling, Alistair

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Caborn, Richard

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Callaghan, Jim

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

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Dewar, Donald

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Dobson, Frank

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Carr, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      1035

      Eastham, Ken

      Martlew, Eric

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maxton, John

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Meacher, Michael

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Fisher, Mark

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Flannery, Martin

      Morley, Elliot

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Forman, Nigel

      Mullin, Chris

      Forth, Eric

      Nellist, Dave

      Foster, Derek

      Nelson, Anthony

      Foulkes, George

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Franks, Cecil

      Page, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Fyfe, Maria

      Pike, Peter L.

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      George, Bruce

      Prescott, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Radice, Giles

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Richardson, Jo

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Graham, Thomas

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hardy, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Ryder, Richard

      Harris, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Haynes, Frank

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Short, Clare

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hoyle, Doug

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

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Snape, Peter

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Soley, Clive

      Illsley, Eric

      Squire, Robin

      Ingram, Adam

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Jackson, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Turner, Dennis

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Walley, Joan

      Knox, David

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Lambie, David

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Lewis, Terry

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Litherland, Robert

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Wilkinson, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McAllion, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McKelvey, William

      Winnick, David

      McLeish, Henry

      Worthington, Tony

      Madden, Max

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Marek, Dr John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Marland, Paul

      Mr. Frank Doran and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Questions accordingly agreed to.
      11.15 pm
      Madam Deputy Speaker: We now have to consider all the Government amendments to the end of clause 44.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to offer the House a Division on amendment No. 19, which raises the same issue as amendment No. 18, on which we have just voted.

    Clause 24

      DIRECTIONS AS TO PARTICULAR MATTERS
      Amendment made: No. 40, in page 13, line 14, at end insert—
      '(2A) Directions may authorise, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the directions, the keeping, by or on behalf of a person to whom a licence applies, of gametes or embryos in the course of their carriage to or from any premises.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 25

      CODE OF PRACTICE
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 14, line 19, after `services', insert
      '(including a child's need for a father)'.
      No. 41, in page 14, line 20, at end insert—
      '(2A) The code may also give guidance about the use of any technique involving the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman.' —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 28

      MEANING OF "FATHER"
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 16, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
      '(a) are to the parties to a marriage subsisting at that time, unless a judicial separation was then in force, but'.
      No. 43, in page 16, line 22, at end insert—
      '(9) In subsection (7)(a) above, "judicial separation" includes a legal separation obtained in a country outside the British Islands and recognised in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 29

      EFFECT OF SECTIONS 27 AND 28
      Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 16, line 34, at end insert—
      '(4) In relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, nothing in the provisions of section 27(1) or 28(2) to (4), read with this section, affects—

      (a) the succession to any dignity or title of honour or renders any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title, or

      (b) the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any dignity or title of honour.

      (5) In relation to Scotland—

      (a) those provisions do not apply to any title, coat of arms, honour or dignity transmissible on the death of the holder thereof or affect the succession thereto or the devolution thereof, and

      (b) where the terms of any deed provide that any property or interest in property shall devolve along with a title, coat of arms, honour or dignity, nothing in those provisions shall prevent that property or interest from so devolving.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 167.

      Division No. 242]

      [11.15 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Allason, Rupert

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amess, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Amos, Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arbuthnot, James

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Beggs, Roy

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bellingham, Henry

      1037

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hill, James

      Benyon, W.

      Hind, Kenneth

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Bowis, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Irvine, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Jack, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Jackson, Robert

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

      Janman, Tim

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Jessel, Toby

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Burns, Simon

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Burt, Alistair

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Butcher, John

      Key, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lightbown, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Conway, Derek

      Maclean, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Couchman, James

      Maginnis, Ken

      Curry, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davies, Q. (Stamfd & Spald'g)

      Marland, Paul

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Day, Stephen

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Devlin, Tim

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Dover, Den

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dunn, Bob

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Durant, Tony

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Eggar, Tim

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Favell, Tony

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mudd, David

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Nelson, Anthony

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Neubert, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Franks, Cecil

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Freeman, Roger

      Norris, Steve

      French, Douglas

      Page, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Paice, James

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gill, Christopher

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Pawsey, James

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gregory, Conal

      Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Ground, Patrick

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Grylls, Michael

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Hague, William

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sackville, Hon Tom

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Harris, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Shelton, Sir William

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hayward, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      1038

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Steen, Anthony

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Waller, Gary

      Stokes, Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wells, Bowen

      Sumberg, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Summerson, Hugo

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wilkinson, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Thorne, Neil

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Yeo, Tim

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tracey, Richard

      Trimble, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trippier, David

      Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Trotter, Neville

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Adley, Robert

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Allen, Graham

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

      Alton, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Flannery, Martin

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Flynn, Paul

      Ashton, Joe

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foster, Derek

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Fraser, John

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Barron, Kevin

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Beckett, Margaret

      George, Bruce

      Beith, A. J.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Blunkett, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Boyes, Roland

      Graham, Thomas

      Bradley, Keith

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hardy, Peter

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Haynes, Frank

      Buckley, George J.

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Caborn, Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Howells, Geraint

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Can, Michael

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clay, Bob

      Ingram, Adam

      Clelland, David

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cousins, Jim

      Lambie, David

      Cox, Tom

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cryer, Bob

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lewis, Terry

      Dalyell, Tam

      Litherland, Robert

      Darling, Alistair

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Livsey, Richard

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

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dixon, Don

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dobson, Frank

      McAllion, John

      Douglas, Dick

      McFall, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McKelvey, William

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McLeish, Henry

      Eastham, Ken

      Maclennan, Robert

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Marek, Dr John

      1039

      Martlew, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mates, Michael

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Meale, Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Gavin

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Nellist, Dave

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Brien, William

      Vaz, Keith

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wallace, James

      Patchett, Terry

      Walley, Joan

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Prescott, John

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Redmond, Martin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Reid, Dr John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Richardson, Jo

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Robertson, George

      Winnick, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mr. Frank Doran and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Short, Clare

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 45, in page 16, leave out line 35. —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Schedule 4
      STATUS: AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 50, in page 32, line 35, at end insert—
      STATUS: AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

        'Social Security Act 1975 (c. 14)
        1A. In section 25(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 (widowed mother's allowance), for the words from "or" after paragraph (b) to the end there is substituted "or
        (c) if the woman and her late husband were residing together immediately before the time of his death, the woman is pregnant as the result of being artificially inseminated before that time with the semen of some person other than her husband, or as the result of the placing in her before that time of an embryo, of an egg in the process of fertilisation, or of sperm and eggs."

        Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 (c. 15)
        1B. In section 25(1) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 (widowed mother's allowance), at the end there is inserted "or
        (c) if the woman and her late husband were residing together immediately before the time of his death, the woman is pregnant as the result of being artificially inseminated before that time with the semen of some person other than her husband, or as the result of the placing in her before that time of an embryo, of an egg in the process of fertilisation, or of sperm and eggs.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Ckarke.]

    Clause 30

      THE AUTHORITY'S REGISTER OF INFORMATION
      Amendment made: No. 60, in page 17, line 21, at end insert—
      '(4A) Regulations cannot require the Authority to give any information as to the identity of a person whose gametes have been used or from whom an embryo has been taken if a person to whom a licence applied was provided with the information at a time when the Authority could not have been required to give information of the kind in question.'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 31

      INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO REGISTRAR GENERAL
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 17, line 38, after 'man', insert 'is or'.
      No. 47, in page 17, line 42, leave out from 'disclose' to end of line 44 and insert
      'whether any information on the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act tends to show that the man may be the father of the child by virtue of section 28 of this Act and, if it does, disclose that information'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 32

      RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      Amendments made: No. 59, in page 18, line 16, at end insert—
      '(cc) in pursuance of an order of a court under section [Disclosure in interests of justice] or [Disclosure in interests of justice: congenital disabilities, etc.] of this Act,'.
      No. 58, in page 18, line 35, at end insert—
      `(bb) so far as it identifies a person who, but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, would or might be a parent of a person who instituted proceedings under section 1A of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, but only for the purpose of defending such proceedings, or instituting connected proceedings for compensation against that parent.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 38

      OFFENCES
      Amendment made: No. 51, in page 21, line 47, after 'Act' insert—
      '(bb) contravenes section 4(2A) of this Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 40

      REGULATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 52, in page 23, line 26, leave out second '(3)'.
      No. 53, in page 23, line 26, leave out 'or 4(2)' and insert
      '4(2) or (2A), (parental orders in favour of gamete donors), 30(4)(a), or (keeping and examining gametes and embryos in connection with crime, etc.)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 44

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 55, in page 25, line 11, at end insert—
      '(4A) Schedule 4 to this Act (which makes minor and consequential amendments) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    New clause 8

      KEEPING AND EXAMINING GAMETES AND EMBRYOS IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME, ETC.
      '(1) Regulations may provide—

      (a) for the keeping and examination of gametes or embryos, in such manner and on such conditions (if any) as may be specified in regulations, in connection with the investigation of, or proceedings for an offence (wherever committed), or

      (b) for the storage of gametes, in such manner and on such conditions (if any) as may be specified in

      1041
      regulations, where they are to be used only for such purposes, other than treatment services, as may be specified in regulations.

      (2) Nothing in this Act makes unlawful the keeping or examination of any gametes or embryos in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of this section.
      (3) In this section "examination" includes use for the purposes of any test.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 9

      PARENTAL ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF GAMETE DONORS
      '(1) The court may make an order providing for a child to be treated in law as the child of the parties to a marriage (referred to in this section as "the husband" and "the wife") if—

      (a) the child has been carried by a woman other than the wife as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination,

      (b) the gametes of the husband or the wife, or both, were used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and

      (c) the conditions in subsections (2) to (7) below are satisfied.

      (2) The husband and the wife must apply for the order within six months of the birth of the child.
      (3) At the time of the application and of the making of the order—

      (a) the child's home must be with the husband and the wife, and

      (b) the husband or the wife, or both of them, must be domiciled in a part of the United Kingdom or in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

      (4) At the time of the making of the order both the husband and the wife must have attained the age of eighteen.
      (5) The court must be satisfied that both the father of the child (including a person who is the father by virtue of section 28 of this Act), where he is not the husband, and the woman who carried the child have freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed unconditionally to the making of the order.
      (6) Subsection (5) above does not require the agreement of a person who cannot be found or is incapable of giving agreement and the agreement of the woman who carried the child is ineffective for the purposes of that subsection if given by her less than six weeks after the child's birth.
      (7) The court must be satisfied that no money or other benefit (other than for expenses reasonably incurred) has been given or received by the husband or the wife for or in consideration of—

      (a) the making of the order,

      (b) any agreement required by subsection (5) above,

      (c) the handing over of the child to the husband and the wife, or

      (d) the making of any arrangements with a view to the making of the order, unless authorised by the court.

      (8) For the purposes of an application under this section—

      (a) in relation to England and Wales, section 92(7) to (10) of, and Part I of Schedule 11 to, the Children Act 1989 (jurisdiction of courts) shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine the meaning of "the court" as they apply for the purposes of that Act and proceedings on the application shall be "family proceedings" for the purposes of that Act,

      (b) in relation to Scotland, "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff court of the sheriffdom within which the child is, and

      1042

      (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, "the court" means the High Court or any county court within whose division the child is.

      (9) Regulations may provide—

      (a) for any provision of the enactments about adoption to have effect, with such modifications (if any) as may be specified in the regulations, in relation to orders under this section, and applications for such orders, as it has effect in relation to adoption, and applications for adoption orders, and

      (b) for references in any enactment to adoption, an adopted child or an adoptive relationship to be read (respectively) as references to the effect of an order under this section, a child to whom such an order applies and a relationship arising by virtue of the enactments about adoption, as applied by the regulations, and for similar expressions in connection with adoption to be read accordingly,

      and the regulations may include such incidental or supplemental provision as appears to the Secretary of State necessary or desirable in consequence of any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above.
      (10) In this section "the enactments about adoption" means the Adoption Act 1976, the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 and the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
      (11) Subsection (1)(a) above applies whether the woman was in the United Kingdom or elsewhere at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 130.

      Division No. 243]

      [11.28 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Allason, Rupert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Amess, David

      Cartwright, John

      Amos, Alan

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Arbuthnot, James

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Chope, Christopher

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Atkins, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Baldry, Tony

      Couchman, James

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Batiste, Spencer

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Curry, David

      Beggs, Roy

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

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Benyon, W.

      Day, Stephen

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Devlin, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boswell, Tim

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Durant, Tony

      Bowis, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fallon, Michael

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Favell, Tony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fearn, Ronald

      Brazier, Julian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bright, Graham

      Forman, Nigel

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Forth, Eric

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Franks, Cecil

      Burns, Simon

      Freeman, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      French, Douglas

      Butcher, John

      Gale, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      Gardiner, George

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      1043

      Gill, Christopher

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Moss, Malcolm

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mudd, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gregory, Conal

      Neubert, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Ground, Patrick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Grylls, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Norris, Steve

      Hague, William

      Page, Richard

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Paice, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Pawsey, James

      Hannam, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Harris, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hayward, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hill, James

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Ryder, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Irvine, Michael

      Squire, Robin

      Jack, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jackson, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Janman, Tim

      Stevens, Lewis

      Jessel, Toby

      Stokes, Sir John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sumberg, David

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kilfedder, James

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Tracey, Richard

      Knox, David

      Trimble, David

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Trippier, David

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Trotter, Neville

      Lightbown, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lilley, Peter

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Livsey, Richard

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Wallace, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Maclean, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Maginnis, Ken

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Marland, Paul

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wilshire, David

      Mates, Michael

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Yeo, Tim

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      1044

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Allen, Graham

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Illsley, Eric

      Ashton, Joe

      Ingram, Adam

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Barron, Kevin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Beith, A. J.

      Lambie, David

      Blunkett, David

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Boyes, Roland

      Lewis, Terry

      Bradley, Keith

      Litherland, Robert

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Buckley, George J.

      McAllion, John

      Caborn, Richard

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Callaghan, Jim

      McKelvey, William

      Carr, Michael

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Marek, Dr John

      Clay, Bob

      Martlew, Eric

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Meacher, Michael

      Cohen, Harry

      Meale, Alan

      Coleman, Donald

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Mullin, Chris

      Cousins, Jim

      Nellist, Dave

      Cox, Tom

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cryer, Bob

      Patchett, Terry

      Dalyell, Tam

      Pike, Peter L.

      Darling, Alistair

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Prescott, John

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

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Dixon, Don

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Dobson, Frank

      Redmond, Martin

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Reid, Dr John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Richardson, Jo

      Eastham, Ken

      Rogers, Allan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Short, Clare

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

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fisher, Mark

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Flannery, Martin

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

      Flynn, Paul

      Snape, Peter

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Foster, Derek

      Strang, Gavin

      Fraser, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Vaz, Keith

      George, Bruce

      Walley, Joan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Graham, Thomas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Hardy, Peter

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaater N)

      Haynes, Frank

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Hinchliffe, David

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Winnick, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Mr. Frank Doran and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

      Hoyle, Doug

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      Amendment made: (a), in line 10, at end insert
      'or in the case of a child born before the coming into force of this Act, within six months of such coming into force.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    New clause 11
      CIVIL LIABILITY TO CHILD WITH DISABILITY
      '.—(1) After section 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (civil liability to child born disabled) there is inserted—
      CIVIL LIABILITY TO CHILD WITH DISABILITY

        Extension of section 1 to cover infertility treatments
        1A. (1) In any case where—

        (a) a child carried by a woman as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination is born disabled,

        (b) the disability results from an act or omission in the course of the selection, or the keeping or use outside the body, of the embryo carried by her or of the gametes used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and

        (c) a person is under this section answerable to the child in respect of the act or omission,

        the child's disabilities are to be regarded as damage resulting from the wrongful act of that person and actionable accordingly at the suit of the child.
        (2) Subject to subsection (3) below and the applied provisions of section 1 of this Act, a person (here referred to as "the defendant") is answerable to the child if he was liable in tort to one or both of the parents (here referred to as "the parent or parents concerned") or would, if sued in due time, have been so; and it is no answer that there could not have been such liability because the parent or parents concerned suffered no actionable injury, if there was a breach of legal duty which, accompanied by injury, would have given rise to the liability.
        (3) The defendant is not under this section answerable to the child if at the time the embryo, or the sperm and eggs, are placed in the woman or the time of her insemination (as the case may be) either or both of the parents knew the risk of their child being born disabled (that is to say, the particular risk created by the act or omission).
        (4) Subsections (5) to (7) of section 1 of this Act apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that but as if references to the parent or the parent affected were references to the parent or parents concerned."
        (2) In section 4 of that Act (interpretation, etc)—

        (a) at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted—
        "and references to embryos shall be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990"

        (b) in subsection (3), after "section 1" there is inserted "1A", and

        (c) in subsection (4), for "either" there is substituted "any".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

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

    New clause 12

      DISCLOSURE IN INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
      '(1) Where in any proceedings before a court the question whether a person is or is not the parent of a child by virtue of sections 27 to 29 of this Act falls to be determined, the court may on the application of any party to the proceedings make an order requiring the Authority—

      (a) to disclose whether or not any information relevant to that question is contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act, and

      (b) if it is, to disclose so much of it as is specified in the order,

      but such an order may not require the Authority to disclose any information falling within section 30(2)(b) of this Act.
      (2) The court must not make an order under subsection (1) above unless it is satisfied that the interests of justice require it to do so, taking into account—

      (a) any representations made by any individual who may be affected by the disclosure, and

      (b) the welfare of the child, if under 18 years old, and of any other person under that age who may be affected by the disclosure.

      (3) If the proceedings before the court are civil proceedings, it—

      (a) may direct that the whole or any part of the proceedings on the application for an order under subsection (2) above shall be heard in camera, and

      (b) if it makes such an order, may then or later direct that the whole or any part of any later stage of the proceedings shall be heard in camera.

      (4) An application for a direction under subsection (3) above shall be heard in camera unless the court otherwise directs.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 13

      DISCLOSURE IN INTERESTS OF JUSTICE: CONGENITAL DISABILITIES, ETC.
      '(1) Where for the purpose of instituting proceedings under section 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (civil liability to child born disabled) it is necessary to identify a person who would or might be the parent of a child but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, the court may, on the application of the child, make an order requiring the Authority to disclose any information contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act identifying that person.
      (2) Where, for the purposes of any action for damages in Scotland (including any such action which is likely to be brought) in which the damages claimed consist of or include damages or solatium in respect of personal injury (including any disease and any impairment of physical or mental condition), it is necessary to identify a person who would or might be the parent of a child but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, the court may, on the application of any party to the action or, if the proceedings have not been commenced, the prospective pursuer, make an order requiring the Authority to disclose any information contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act identifying that person.
      (3) Subsections (2) to (4) of section [Disclosure in interests of justice] of this Act apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that.
      (4) After section 4(4) of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 there is inserted—
      "(4A) In any case where a child carried by a woman as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination is born disabled, any reference in section 1 of this Act to a parent includes a reference to a person who would be a parent but for sections 27 to 29 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
      Bill, as amended ( in Committee and in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

    Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
    Lords amendments considered.
    Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
      Clause 2

        EXTENSION OF POWER TO REQUIRE PROMOTION OF SEARCHES
        Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 5, after "if" insert "without reasonable excuse".
        11.40 pm
        The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr.Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2, 14, 17 to 19, 23, 36 to 38.
        Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do I understand that the Minister is seeking the leave of the House to move amendments Nos. 1 to 38 collectively?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: No. The Minister is moving Lords amendment No. 1 and, by the leave of the House, speaking to the amendments on the Amendment Paper.
        Mr. Redmond: I am in order, because some of the amendments do not go far enough. May we vote against the amendments that do not go far enough?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may divide the House on any Lords amendment he wishes. Some may go too far, some not far enough; it is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments provide for the defence of reasonable excuse for continuing failure to comply with a direction or with an enforcement notice after initial conviction for failure to comply. A person charged with failing to comply with a direction or enforcement notice can call on the defence of reasonable excuse. It therefore seems logical that a reasonable excuse defence in respect of continuing offences should be available. A person may have reasonable excuse for continuing not to comply with a direction or enforcement notice even though he had no excuse at the time when he first failed to comply. An example of that is where an aerodrome manager is convicted of not operating an automatic pass reading system. When charged subsequently with continued failure to comply he could possibly cite as a reasonable excuse defence the inability of the manufacturer to produce equipment without which he could not comply with the direction.
        The amendment received support in the other place and I urge the House to support it.
        Mr. Peter Snape: As the Minister said, the matter was debated extensively in the other place and in Committee. It appeared to Labour Members to be only reasonable that these words should be added and we agree wholeheartedly with the explanation given by the Minister.
        Mr. Peter Hardy: I am not absolutely sure that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), particularly given the
        1048
        illustration that the Minister gave the House. He said it is a reasonable excuse for an airport manager to say that some piece of essential equipment was not working. If that were so, it might be his duty to cancel all flights until the safety of the passengers and aircraft were guaranteed.
        I support the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). Why must the words "with reasonable excuse" be inserted in the Bill? The House did not see fit to include those words in other legislation of equal importance. I had understood that the courts would decide whether an excuse was reasonable, and that the words would not necessarily be required to be inserted in the statute.
        Mr. Bob Cryer: During a recent dispute involving aircraft engineers, British Airways management allowed the use of smaller-than-usual bolts around the window fixing on a BAC 111, which led to a weakening of the window. The management could cite "industrial relations difficulties" as a reasonable excuse, which would not be acceptable. There was nearly a tragic end to the story. The bolts were supplied from Heathrow, although the window was fitted in Birmingham.
        11.45 pm
        Mr. Hardy: That is a very good illustration of the problem. It is right for such matters to be brought to the House's attention.
        Mr. Snape: I am, as ever, reluctant to intervene in such a fascinating diversion from the Bill, but I must tell my hon. Friend that, after a fairly extensive debate in Committee, I fear that not even he—with his characteristic ingenuity—can convince me that the security duties at any airport in the United Kingdom include checking the windscreens of airliners. Perhaps he—or my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who has an even more distinguished record in regard to revealing such cases—can convince me after all, but, with the best will in the world, I cannot see the relevance of that example.
        Mr. Hardy: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the sterling record of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in the whole sphere of security. I spent part of the morning meeting members of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, whose current experience—as the Minister will be well aware—does not convince me that the Government are particularly committed to the cause of safety. If my hon. Friend is right, and they are concerned about safety at airports, I can only regret that that deep concern does not extend further. But I do not want to strain your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This not in the Bill.
        Mr. Hardy: Indeed, it is not; I was merely making a passing reference.
        Mr. Cryer: During industrial disputes, all sorts of reasons can be adduced. Although there is no direct connection, the fact that the Bill is connected with security would not prevent the actions of security men from being invoked as being perfectly proper—even if, during an industrial dispute, there was no reasonable excuse for those actions.
        Mr. Hardy: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend. Although I have no wish to detain the House, I shall give way again—to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley.
        Mr. Redmond: The question of security could arise in relation to the maintenance of spare parts. As the recent incident involving the aircraft window demonstrates, aircraft work to fine tolerances. Let us suppose that someone gained access to the stores where material and spare parts are kept, and deliberately changed the bolts around. Every fitter assumes that the dimensions of a bolt—five-eights of an inch, for instance—are as they should be, and therefore will not bother to measure it.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a nice tour, but I think that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) should now return to the amendment.
        Mr. Hardy: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley is relevant—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not.
        Mr. Hardy: We are talking about the phrase "without reasonable excuse". If someone interferes with the stores and the wrong screw, nut, bolt or attachment is used, many people could be maimed or killed; however, it could provide someone with an excuse which is not acceptable and which does not apply under a vast proportion of the laws of the land.
        I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to take a relaxed view by seeking to maintain the view adopted in the other place that the words "without reasonable excuse" can be added to the Bill. I am amazed that the Government should want to allow such superfluity to be part of the legislation.
        Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is getting to a serious point. The inquiries into the recent near crash of the British Airways plane, when the wrong bolts were inserted in the window fittings, may reveal that the matter comes within the parameters of security. Clearly the fitting of the wrong bolts resulted in the screen blowing out and serious injury to the pilot and could have caused serious injury to many passengers.
        Mr. Hardy: This is a serious matter. It was a serious matter for the pilot and it could have been serious for a large number of passengers. It is not a matter which we should treat lightly or about which we should make frivolous speeches. I do not wish to detain the House long.
        Mr. Bowen Wells: Hear, hear.
        Mr. Hardy: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are being frivolous in referring to these matters, he should have another think. We are not detaining the House long. I asked the Minister why these words should be added to the Bill when they are not added to many pieces of statute which may be of equal or greater importance. I am sure that the House would be grateful if the Minister could give the reasons, without again quoting the example which destroyed his case and which led me to join the debate rather than simply vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. If the hon. Gentleman cannot offer a convincing and better reason, I suggest that my hon. Friend should maintain his determination to divide the House.
        Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friends have raised the issue of safety, linked to security, because of a fair argument. Recently, British Airways decided to impose a 12-hour shift. In doing so, it was endangering not only safety but security. Anyone would understand that, once the decision was made to tell the 7,000 workers that they had to work 12 hours, their output would not be the same as it would be over six, seven or eight hours.
        This matter brings into focus what the amendment is about. The Government are saying that not only can British Airways impose a 12-hour shift but they will give it the opportunity to say that it has a reasonable excuse. Let us not beat about the bush on this matter. Can anyone say that the two aspects are not interrelated? My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should make a much longer explanation because he has not convinced me.
        Mr. Snape: I realise that convincing my hon. Friend of anything, particularly at 11.53 in the evening, is no easy task—
        Mr. Skinner: I do not go in the bar—you do.
        Hon. Members: Oh!
        Mr. Snape: I think that I can treat that remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with the contempt that it deserves.
        Mr. Skinner: That is what "late at night" means.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
        Mr. Snape: All I am saying to my hon. Friend, if I can retain his attention for a few more seconds before he goes out to wherever he is going, is that during the debates in Committee and in another place, these amendments referred purely to those matters that directly impinge on airport security. I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in raising these matters, but they do not arise directly out of our debates, or those in another place.
        Mr. Skinner: But they do arise, because some people may not be wide awake after 12 hours, or at 11.53 pm. But I am. British Airways' decision to impose a 12-hour shift brings more clearly into focus what the Bill is about. Therefore, it is right to ask questions about the imposition of 12-hour shifts, which have a bearing on security. The management at Heathrow, doing somebody else's job, had to send the bolts to Birmingham. Management was trying to do the job of 7,000 people, so safety and security at Heathrow were jeopardised. The wrong bolts were sent to Birmingham and fitted to the windscreen. Somebody nearly lost his life when the windscreen blew out. The Minister must explain why it is necessary to give the power in the amendment—that of "without reasonable excuse"—when management is prepared, without reasonable excuse, to trample on the rights and conditions of workers at Heathrow and elsewhere. It is bound to affect safety and security.
        We are right to draw the matter to the Minister's attention. We do not want Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box when the next industrial dispute arises and say that people should work a 12-hour shift at Heathrow, thereby putting people's lives at risk, or that management should be allowed to do the jobs of 7,000 engineers.
        Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend referred to the Government's double standards. They claim that the

        1051
        amendment will improve safety. However, the Leader of the House said that the industrial dispute to which my hon. Friend referred had not put anyone in danger. We all know of the near-tragic consequences of the Government's indifference, due to their support of and collaboration with the management of British Airways.
        Mr. Skinner: Let us suppose that in the event of another industrial dispute—British Airways doing what it did the other week, with a few hundred management staff carrying out the work of 7,000 engineers—some of the management staff are connected with security. If they do the engineers' job in order to break the strike, what will happen to security? The Minister must answer that question. Is he prepared to say that in those circumstances the defence of "without reasonable excuse" will not apply? British Airways' arrogant management might be prepared to do the same again. It should not be allowed to refer to the words "without reasonable excuse" and get away with what is literally murder.
        Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend is making a valid and important point. Can he interpret the words, "reasonable excuse" as they relate to strike breaking? Is he suggesting that those words would be intepreted by a judge to mean that if management became involved in strike breaking that would represent a reasonable excuse? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an industrial relations matter that should not be dealt with in such a Bill?
        Mr. Skinner: Of course I do. That is why the Government put it in. It would allow the management of British Airways or any other company to say, "We did not really want an incident involving security to occur, but we had reasonable excuse."
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a long run now. I refer him to the clause that we are discussing which deals with the extension of power to require promotion of searches. I am sure that with his ingenuity he can return to the amendments before us.
        12 midnight
        Mr. Skinner: It is not a matter of needing ingenuity. I am trying to explain that in the event of an industrial dispute, if the management does what it did the other week, it can say to those working in security who are engaged in searches, "We are short of people here. We have 7,000 people on strike because we have tried to impose a 12-hour day. We have 400 management trying to do the jobs of those engineers, so we are asking you security people to come off your jobs, forget your searches and get involved in strike breaking." If the management can do that in one respect, as it did the other week, it can do it in another respect.
        The amendment gives the nod and the wink to the judges so that in the event of an incident occurring the management would be able to say, "We had a reasonable excuse because we had to transfer security workers to do the engineers' work." That is what could happen in those circumstances. That is why we need an assurance from the Minister that those words would not apply in the event of an industrial dispute.
        Mr. Redmond: It is becoming quite clear that we need to examine the amendment in a little more depth. We are all aware that when Bills are considered in Committee the
        1052
        Government will tolerate only a certain amount of discussion before they impose a guillotine. I listened intently to what the Minister said when he moved the amendment, but it was the usual civil service legal gobbledegook. The examples and explanations that he gave did not fill me with any confidence.
        The amendment is crucial to the Bill and needs to be examined closely. I am concerned about the safety of my constituents. There is no doubt that security has been lax at our aerodromes through which people travel all over the world.
        I take great objection to the argument relating to a "reasonable excuse". It gives management a blank cheque and enables managers to commit any misdemeanour or laxity in their duties and endanger security. A manager would be able to say to himself, "I shall not do it all. I shall not bother with my inspection. I shall get back to my tower and scan round the airport" because 12-hour shifts make people tired.
        It is dangerous for the manager to do his job knowing that he can fall back on the "reasonable excuse". If workers do not do their jobs properly, they cannot fall back on a "reasonable excuse"; it is their problem. The management can pass the buck down the chain of command, but it stops at the poor lad on the shop floor when it could well be that the management is at fault. Over the years I have met many managers; there have been good managers and bad ones. I would not tolerate bad management and I hope that the Minister would not tolerate it either. He should remove the blank cheque—the reasonable excuse—provision in the amendment. We must make management accountable.
        Much legislation since 1979 has made workers and trade unions accountable for what happens within their structure. Now, because of major accidents that have occurred for a variety of reasons, including terrorism and negligence, the Government are trying to improve security through this Bill. They have taken a tiny step instead of a gigantic leap. If they had taken a gigantic leap, this amendment, all the other amendments and the Bill itself would have fallen flat on the floor.
        I shall gladly give way to the Minister if he wants to respond to me. I am not willing to accept an amendment that gives bad or slack management the opportunity to slip through the net. Management should be as accountable as anyone else and that applies to managers and blue collar workers. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will consider what we have said tonight.
        The Minister spoke for only about 60 seconds about the important matter of security. That was not good enough. He should give a detailed explanation of why the amendment should be passed. I care about my constituents and I will not tolerate the blank cheque approach and the Government's reasonable excuse provision. No civilised society would accept such a blank cheque on security. When the folly of the amendment becomes apparent the Opposition will be pressing for statements on incidents that will arise as a result of the reasonable excuse provision.
        No doubt the Government will fetch out the troops to ensure that the amendment is passed, but the Minister should study seriously whether we are making any progress as a result of the amendment. The people who travel from or to British airports have a right to expect first-class security. They will not get that with the amendment, because it gives management, which is

        1053
        supposed to supervise and ensure that regulations and legislation such as this measure are carried out, a blank cheque. It is unacceptable for the House to pass a lowering of standards.
        The reasonable excuse defence lets the management and the Government off the hook. If an incident occurred and the management invoked the reasonable excuse provision the Government would behave like Pontius Pilate. They would say that the Opposition accepted the situation that gave management a reasonable excuse. The management is there to manage according to the law.
        The Minister cannot claim that the worker at the bottom of the ladder must accept every tiny piece of legislation that passes through the House. The worker is accountable and can be sacked or hauled before the courts for breaching the laws of this land. It will be a case of one law operating for the lad at the bottom and another for the people at the top. We should not have double standards. We should treat everyone the same. If the "reasonable excuse" provision is included, it gives the impression—
        Mr. Cohen: I should like to hear my hon. Friend's interpretation of the phrase "reasonable excuse". As a result of the Government's high interest rate policy, for example, many people may not have the money to go on trips and to fly and there might not be enough bums on seats. In those circumstances, the aircraft company might not be making enough profit and might therefore cut the numbers of staff who do the security searches. Does my hon. Friend think that those not unlikely circumstances come within the "reasonable excuse" get-out?
        Mr. Redmond: I am conscious of what you said previously, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. The first duty of any company is to ensure that a dividend is paid to the shareholders. Regrettably, in the past, industry has been allowed to decline and there has not been any investment. My hon. Friend's point is therefore valid because if people are frightened to use those airports and aeroplanes, financial factors begin to come into play. One of the first things that a company will do is to get shot of some staff at the bottom end to save wages. To save money, managements always say, "Let's get rid of some of the lads at the bottom." Of course, that also means that management salaries can increase as a result of that cost-efficiency exercise.
        Regrettably, history shows many examples of managements refusing to invest in safety—safety comes a very poor second to profit. However, because of legislation that the House is about to pass—I am certain that the Government will not withdraw the Lords amendment—there are added implications for the future. I hope that the Minister will give a more detailed explanation of the other amendments that we are to consider and the Government's view of them. I did not serve on the Standing Committee and should like an explanation now. Perhaps if we received that, we could avoid a number of Divisions tonight, although we shall certainly seek to divide the House on this amendment.
        Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to make two brief points only. First, the "without reasonable excuse" provision appears in this bunch of amendments no fewer than 10 times. The Bill is therefore shot through with it.
        1054
        However—this is my second point—it has already appeared earlier in the Bill and is of particular significance to the first amendment. It is possible that in court the "reasonable excuse" defence could be used in connection with the offences that are referred to in this clause. On summary conviction, someone could therefore be fined, in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(3). However, subsection (4) to which Lords amendment No. 1 relates, which seeks to add the "without reasonable excuse" provision, deals with further offences. That means that a person could have been convicted by a court despite using the defence that there was a "reasonable excuse" for what had been done. But that has been overturned. Following conviction, however, the same defence is available for similar occurrences. That enables excuses to be built upon excuses. There would be a serious problem where there was found to be danger, someone was convicted and the offence was repeated. These considerations apply to 10 amendments that extend throughout the Bill. As I have said, the excuse can be built upon and multiplied. This worries my hon. Friends and I a great deal.
        2.15 am
        Mr. McLoughlin: I find it deplorable that Opposition Members seek to link a tragic accident that is under investigation by the air accident investigation branch with a lack of care by the management about its staff and the way in which it operates. I find that approach deplorable but not surprising, because of some of the quarters that have adopted it. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the accident as it is under investigation. Anyone with close links with the aviation industry would not contemplate that management would put crew—its employees—and passengers at risk at any stage. Any suggestion to the contrary is deplorable and I dissociate myself from it. I am sure that when Opposition spokesmen think about it they will take the same view as I do.
        It is ludicrous that an attempt is being made to circumvent enforcement notice legislation. I must give some praise to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for drawing attention to current legislative provisions. It would be nonsensical for such provisions not to apply in later parts of the Bill.
        At the beginning of the debate I gave the example of an aerodrome manager who is convicted of not operating an automatic reading system. If his defence is that manufacturers were unable to produce the piece of equipment that he required, I think that that would be a reasonable excuse. It is not for me, however, to say what is a reasonable excuse. That is a matter for the courts to decide once a charge is brought against an operator for failing to comply with a direction. The courts could decide that there was a reasonable excuse even if it did not apply to statute law.
        I am surprised by some of the comments that have been made this evening. Until our consideration of Lords amendments there was agreement throughout the Chamber about the nature of the Bill. The House did not divide on Second Reading. Until this evening there has been a reasonable approach and agreement between both sides of the House. The Bill is vital and I deplore the way in which some hon. Members are trying to sabotage it at this late stage of its consideration.
        Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
        The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 23.

        Division No. 244]

        [12.18 am

        AYES

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Irvine, Michael

        Amess, David

        Jack, Michael

        Amos, Alan

        Jackson, Robert

        Arbuthnot, James

        Janman, Tim

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Ashby, David

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Lightbown, David

        Beith, A. J.

        Lilley, Peter

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Livsey, Richard

        Boswell, Tim

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Bowis, John

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Mates, Michael

        Brazier, Julian

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Bright, Graham

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Mitchell, Sir David

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

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Burns, Simon

        Neubert, Michael

        Burt, Alistair

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Butterfill, John

        Norris, Steve

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Page, Richard

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Paice, James

        Carrington, Matthew

        Patnick, Irvine

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Chope, Christopher

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Day, Stephen

        Shelton, Sir William

        Devlin, Tim

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Dover, Den

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Durant, Tony

        Summerson, Hugo

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Favell, Tony

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Fearn, Ronald

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Forth, Eric

        Thurnham, Peter

        Franks, Cecil

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Freeman, Roger

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Gill, Christopher

        Wallace, James

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Waller, Gary

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Gregory, Conal

        Watts, John

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Wells, Bowen

        Ground, Patrick

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Hague, William

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Wilkinson, John

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Harris, David

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Hayward, Robert

        Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. John M. Taylor.

        Hind, Kenneth

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        NOES

        Ashton, Joe

        Meale, Alan

        Buckley, George J.

        Nellist, Dave

        Canavan, Dennis

        Patchett, Terry

        Cohen, Harry

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Cryer, Bob

        Redmond, Martin

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Skinner, Dennis

        Fyfe, Maria

        Vaz, Keith

        Hardy, Peter

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Haynes, Frank

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Illsley, Eric

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        12.30 am
        Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister declared that for the House to scrutinise Lords amendments was sabotage. He claimed that there was agreement between the two sides of the House over the Bill in this place. Surely we cannot be accused of any such behaviour, when we are deeply concerned about safety and security at airports at all times. We are dealing with Lords amendments, and it is part of our duty to scrutinise them and to express our views on them. To regard that as sabotage is an outrageous attack on our democratic procedures.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. As the hon. Member knows, every right hon. and hon. Member in the House is responsible for his or her comments.

      Clause 4

        ENFORCEMENT NOTICES IN RESPECT OF DIRECTIONS UNDER PART II OF AVIATION SECURITY ACT 1982
        Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 14, after "if" insert "without reasonable excuse".
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
        Question put:
        The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 17.

        Division No. 245]

        [12.32 pm

        AYES

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Amess, David

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Amos, Alan

        Forth, Eric

        Arbuthnot, James

        Franks, Cecil

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Freeman, Roger

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Ashby, David

        Gill, Christopher

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Batiste, Spencer

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Beith, A. J.

        Gregory, Conal

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Ground, Patrick

        Boswell, Tim

        Hague, William

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Bowis, John

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Brazier, Julian

        Harris, David

        Bright, Graham

        Hayward, Robert

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Hind, Kenneth

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

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Irvine, Michael

        Burns, Simon

        Jack, Michael

        Burt, Alistair

        Jackson, Robert

        Butterfill, John

        Janman, Tim

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Carrington, Matthew

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Lightbown, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Lilley, Peter

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Livsey, Richard

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Day, Stephen

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Devlin, Tim

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Dover, Den

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Durant, Tony

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Favell, Tony

        Moss, Malcolm

        Fearn, Ronald

        Neubert, Michael

        1057

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Norris, Steve

        Thurnham, Peter

        Page, Richard

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Paice, James

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Wallace, James

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Waller, Gary

        Raffan, Keith

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Watts, John

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Wells, Bowen

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Shelton, Sir William

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wilkinson, John

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Summerson, Hugo

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. John M. Taylor.

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        NOES

        Ashton, Joe

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Meale, Alan

        Buckley, George J.

        Nellist, Dave

        Cohen, Harry

        Patchett, Terry

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Cryer, Bob

        Skinner, Dennis

        Graham, Thomas

        Hardy, Peter

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Haynes, Frank

        Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.

        Hood, Jimmy

        Illsley, Eric

        Question accordingly agreed to.

      Clause 5

        OFFENCES RELATING TO SECURITY AT AERODROMES ETC. I982 C. 36
        Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 9, line 37, leave out "or".
        Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 25, 26 and 29 to 30.
        Mr. McLoughlin: The purpose of the amendments is to add the police to the list of persons to whom it would be an offence under section 21A of the Aviation Security Act 1982 and clause 37 of the Bill to make a false statement in answer to questions relating to baggage, cargo or stores intended for carriage by a civil aircraft or by sea.
        The amendments also make it an offence under section 21 A—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I had to shout, but the Minister was in full flow. Do I take it that the Minister is attempting to shove all the Lords amendments through in one go, or will we be able to deal separately with those that are perhaps not strong enough or acceptable to the Opposition? I should be grateful if you would enlighten us.
        12.45 am
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the amendments together, as suggested by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The Minister has moved Lords amendment No. 3 and is explaining the other Lords amendment grouped with it. That is the customary procedure when we deal with Lords amendments to a Bill.
        Mr. Redmond: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I take it, then, that the Minister is speaking to Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 32?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing Lords amendment No. 3 together with the other Lords amendments grouped with it.
        Mr. Redmond: Up to Lords amendment No. 32.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: As on the selection list; that is right.
        Mr. McLoughlin: As I was saying, the amendments also make it an offence under new section 21 B of the Aviation Security Act 1982 and clause 38 of the Bill to give false information to a constable in connection with the continued holding of an identity document.
        The amendments would tidy up the Bill and make it clear that it would be an offence for any person travelling through our airports to give false information to those in a position to ask for information. The amendment is wholly sensible, and the House should give it the go-ahead.
        Mr. Hardy: I had not anticipated speaking again, and I should not have done so had the Minister given way in his reply to our previous debate. In any case, my point is relevant to the present group of amendments.
        The Minister appeared to pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for working together to produce a splendid Bill. In many respects, the Bill is acceptable, sound and worth while. But if, as a result of the co-operation of hon. Members, the Bill was as good as the Minister claims it was when it left this House, why was it necessary for the House of Lords to table a whole lot of amendments, some of which seem to me absurd and none of which appears to be very helpful?
        I am worried about the previous group of amendments, on which further votes may well be called if the Government's attitude does not improve. As far as I can see, the amendments that were carried in the other place may well persuade the Crown prosecution service that it will be virtually impossible to bring a prosecution for an offence under the Bill. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know whether that suspicion is well founded, but I have heard nothing from the Government Benches to alleviate it.
        Lords amendments Nos. 3, 7 and 9 would delete the word "or". Lords amendment No. 5 would insert the word "constable", and Lords amendment No. 8 also refers to a constable. Why do we have to delete the word "or" when hon. Members on both sides of the House were firmly of the view, before the Bill went to the other place, that that word was necessary? Why did the House of Lords decide that that word should be removed, and why have the Government accepted the omission of the word without giving this House an explanation?
        I am also concerned about the reference to "a person or constable". I am raising that now so as not to have to address the House on another amendment, but my point is relevant because the amendments are grouped. I see no reason why we have to use the word "constable" and the word "person" when either would suffice. A policeman is a human being, is he not? Or perhaps the Government have changed their approach to the constabulary. Do we need to insert the word "constable" when hon. Members decided that it was not necessary?
        The Minister has not persuaded us at all; he has given no explanation, but he calls us saboteurs for seeking to

        1059
        defend a decision that the House enthusiastically and unanimously endorsed. That is a foolish and ill-advised approach. He should consider his position a little more carefully.
        Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
        The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 18.

        Division No. 246]

        [12.50 am

        AYES

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Hind, Kenneth

        Amess, David

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Amos, Alan

        Irvine, Michael

        Arbuthnot, James

        Jack, Michael

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Jackson, Robert

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Janman, Tim

        Ashby, David

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Beith, A. J.

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Boswell, Tim

        Lightbown, David

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Lilley, Peter

        Bowis, John

        Livsey, Richard

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Brazier, Julian

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Bright, Graham

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Burns, Simon

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Burt, Alistair

        Moss, Malcolm

        Butterfill, John

        Neubert, Michael

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Norris, Steve

        Carrington, Matthew

        Page, Richard

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Paice, James

        Chapman, Sydney

        Patnick, Irvine

        Chope, Christopher

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Raffan, Keith

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Day, Stephen

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Devlin, Tim

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Shelton, Sir William

        Dover, Den

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Durant, Tony

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Summerson, Hugo

        Fallon, Michael

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Favell, Tony

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Fearn, Ronald

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Forth, Eric

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Franks, Cecil

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Freeman, Roger

        Wallace, James

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Waller, Gary

        Gill, Christopher

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Watts, John

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Wells, Bowen

        Gregory, Conal

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Ground, Patrick

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Hague, William

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Wilkinson, John

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Harris, David

        Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.

        Hayward, Robert

        NOES

        Ashton, Joe

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Buckley, George J.

        Meale, Alan

        Cohen, Harry

        Nellist, Dave

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Patchett, Terry

        Cryer, Bob

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Graham, Thomas

        Redmond, Martin

        Hardy, Peter

        Skinner, Dennis

        Haynes, Frank

        Hood, Jimmy

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Illsley, Eric

        Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Michael Welsh.

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 9, line 39, at end insert
        "or
        (iii) by a constable,"
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
        Question put:—
        The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 17.

        Division No. 247]

        [1.02 am

        AYES

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Amess, David

        Irvine, Michael

        Amos, Alan

        Jack, Michael

        Arbuthnot, James

        Jackson, Robert

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Janman, Tim

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Ashby, David

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Batiste, Spencer

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Beith, A. J.

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Lightbown, David

        Boswell, Tim

        Lilley, Peter

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Livsey, Richard

        Bowis, John

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Bright, Graham

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Burns, Simon

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Burt, Alistair

        Moss, Malcolm

        Butterfill, John

        Neubert, Michael

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Norris, Steve

        Carrington, Matthew

        Page, Richard

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Paice, James

        Chapman, Sydney

        Patnick, Irvine

        Chope, Christopher

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Raffan, Keith

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Day, Stephen

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Devlin, Tim

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Dover, Den

        Shelton, Sir William

        Durant, Tony

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Fallon, Michael

        Summerson, Hugo

        Favell, Tony

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Fearn, Ronald

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Forth, Eric

        Thurnham, Peter

        Franks, Cecil

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Freeman, Roger

        Wallace, James

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Waller, Gary

        Gill, Christopher

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Watts, John

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Wells, Bowen

        Gregory, Conal

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Ground, Patrick

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Hague, William

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Wilkinson, John

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Harris, David

        Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.

        Hayward, Robert

        Hind, Kenneth

        NOES

        Ashton, Joe

        Haynes, Frank

        Buckley, George J.

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cohen, Harry

        Illsley, Eric

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Meale, Alan

        Cryer, Bob

        Nellist, Dave

        Graham, Thomas

        Patchett, Terry

        Hardy, Peter

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        1061

        Redmond, Martin

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Skinner, Dennis

        Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mr. Harry Barnes.

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was unable to raise this matter previously. When I was teller in the Ayes Lobby three votes ago, I noticed that an hon. Member that went through the Aye Lobby was carrying a dagger. Is it in order for an hon. Member to carry a dagger when he is going through a voting Lobby?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Offensive weapons are not allowed, but it may well have been a ceremonial one.
        Mr. Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept what you say, but whether it was for decoration or for another purpose, it could still be used to inflict a wound. I am concerned that an hon. Member went through a Lobby carrying a decorative dagger: if he was ill, he might be tempted to use it. Whether for decoration or for some other reason, is it correct for an hon. Member to carry a dagger?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well able to look after himself. However, I assure him that the Chair will always look after him.
        1.15 am
        Mr. Jimmy Hood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that the Standing Committee to consider the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill held its first sitting on Tuesday. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the hon. Member who was carrying the dagger in question, was accused on Tuesday of stabbing his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) in the back. Therefore, it might be dangerous for the hon. Member for Tayside, North to be allowed to carry such a weapon in the House.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we had better proceed with the business before the House.
        Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. What happens in a Standing Committee is a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee, not for me.
        Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you consider further the advice that you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) about the wearing of ceremonial or non-ceremonial items that could be described as weapons, such as the dagger in question? I know of a case in the past few days in which a Sikh lady was dismissed from work for wearing a ceremonial Sikh dagger. If there is to be a definitive ruling about what is or is not permissible in terms of decoration and the wearing of ceremonial weapons in this Chamber, I would be grateful for a considered ruling because it may assist in other areas of employment legislation.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of anything that is likely to cause any danger to any hon. Member. We should now proceed to consider Lords amendment No. 5 and the others grouped with it.
        Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 10, line 10, leave out "course of his duty" and insert
        "exercise of the power conferred by section 20(2)(aa) of this Act"
        Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6, 11, 24, 27, 28, 33, and 41.
        Mr. McLoughlin: This group of amendments would confer statutory authority on authorised persons to investigate and test the security practices and procedures operated by those to whom a direction can be given. It is important that those investigations and tests can be carried out, because they play a very important and necessary role in improving aviation and maritime security.
        Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would ask the Minister to speak slower instead of gabbling through his speech. I am having great difficulty in hearing what he is saying. If I cannot hear what he is saying, I am suspicious. Will you ask the Minister to speak a little more slowly and clearly?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Minister will have noted the hon. Gentleman's request.
        Mr. McLoughlin: However, we cannot afford to ignore the fact that they might, in exceptional circumstances, have a harmful effect on commercial operations. Therefore, the Government consider it necessary to have statutory authority so that checks to secure adherence to security procedures are not inhibited. Anyone who votes against this amendment would be putting profit before security—something that the Government would not contemplate.
        Although the tests will be planned to avoid causing delays at airports and ports, it is not beyond the realms of possibility, for example, that an inspector carrying out a test on baggage reconciliation might cause delay to the aircraft and its passengers. That might lead to those affected claiming for damages for financial loss against those carrying out the tests, or against the Department of Transport for negligence or interference with contractual relations. It therefore seems a sensible precaution to have explicit statutory powers relating to the investigation and testing of security practices and procedures. Such powers should avoid claims being laid, provided the tests or the investigations were properly carried out for the purposes described in the enabling provision.
        I repeat that hon. Members who vote against the Lords amendments will be putting profit before security, which is something that Conservative Members will not do.
        Mr. Snape: The House listened to the Minister with interest, but we might have been slightly more impressed if he had made that speech at an earlier stage of our proceedings, when it was tentatively suggested that in its then form the Bill might well give rise to accusations that the Government were putting profit before safety—
        Mr. McLoughlin indicated dissent.
        Mr. Snape: The Minister shakes his head, but if he reads the Official Report of our previous deliberations, he will see that that was pointed out. We are grateful at least that, even at the 11th hour, the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) described as "perfect" when it left this place on its mission to another, has been amended in the way that it has. We have always felt that the Bill should make statutory provision for security checks at Britain's air and sea ports. No one would suggest that, in the Bill as it now stands, the Government would put profit before safety. Indeed, they have now established the principle that that is the last thing in their mind. We look forward to them allowing that principle to be extended so that it can embrace the other forms of transport over which the Department of Transport is charged with statutory responsibilities, because many of my hon. Friends feel that the Department has put profit before safety all too tragically often for other modes of transport.
        Mr. Hardy: I am sure that the Minister will recall what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has just said, when he quoted me saying that when the Bill left this House it was perfect.
        Lords amendment No. 5 presents an interesting situation. It relates to clause 5, which states:
        "a person commits an offence if, in answer to a question … he makes a statement which he knows to be false".
        However, if someone makes a false statement under the provisions of subsection (3), which is covered by the amendment, he does not commit an offence if he makes that false statement as an "authorised person". Therefore, if a man is an "authorised person", he can make as many false statements as he likes.
        I am glad to hear that the Government are today more concerned about safety than about profit, but their record suggests that they have a great deal of sympathy with people who make false statements. That is beyond all doubt.
        I want to know under what circumstances a person in an authorised position would be required to tell lies, to make false statements and—presumably—to be relieved of responsibility in the course of his duty. I note that the House of Lords wants to remove the words, "course of his duty", and to replace them with
        "exercise of the power conferred by section 20(2)(aa)",
        but for the life of me I cannot see why we have to legislate to allow people to tell lies. Yet that is clearly what the amendment seeks to provide. The Minister must explain that, otherwise my earlier assessment of the Bill as commendable will have to be dramatically reviewed.
        Mr. McLoughlin rose—
        Mr. Hardy: I have finished.
        Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear whether the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is giving way to the Minister.
        Mr. Hardy: I was sitting down and had concluded, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall give way.
        Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment is simple. It means that those who are required to test the security measures have the power to do so. If they were not allowed to give
        1064
        false information, they could not check the procedures. The provisions relate only to someone authorised under subsection (1). I am sure that that makes logical sense.
        Mr. Hardy: Obviously I shall have to resume my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        One is well aware that people operating in defence of society and of the consumer will require such protection, but if the Minister reads clause 5, he will see that a person commits an offence if he makes such a statement
        "in answer to a question".
        If the question is asked by a suspect or a terrorist, fair enough, the individual charged with protecting society will clearly give a false statement, but that is not the offence that would be committed. The offence would be committed if the authorised person gave a false answer to someone who was authorised to ask him the question. He would not be charged with committing an offence if he misled a terrorist. The Bill will give him the power to be protected if he makes a false statement to an authorised person what was entitled to ask him the question. The Minister needs to reconsider that part of the Bill, or at least to ensure that the amendment which stood before the other place when it interfered with the Bill receives the disapproval of the Government rather than their approval..
        Mr. Cryer: The House is exercising its right and its duty to examine legislation. The fact that the Government have brought the Bill before us at a late hour—they have been overloading the legislature with a great deal of legislation—is not the fault of Opposition Members who are in their place tonight. The fault lies with the Government, whom the Minister was so eager to join. It does not add lustre to the House if the Minister, after gabbling through a speech written and typed out for him by civil servants, sits down with a smirk on his face to an organised chorus of assent from Tory Members who want the Lords amendments to go through on the nod so that the Government are not subject to any inconvenience such as explaining what the Bill is about.
        We have before us a curious amendment. It removes the final six words from:
        "subsection (1) above does not apply … to any statement made by an authorised person in the course of his duty."
        That is done to relate to the Aviation Security Act 1982. The deletion of those words removes the offence committed by a person who answers a question levelled at him or her by an authorised person, if the person who responds provides information about baggage, cargo or stores in a reckless way, or knowingly in such a manner that the statement
        "is false in a material particular."
        In what circumstances would any person in an airport, carrying out his duty under section 22A of the Aviation Security Act 1982—it relates to the inspection of aeroplanes—be authorised to have removed from him the obligation of providing truthful information in relation to baggage, cargo or stores?
        The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is muttering that the Minister will have the information. That is all well and good. If he has, it would have been prudent for him to provide it, without gabbling, when he introduced the amendment.
        There is no merit in saying that the House is being inconvenienced. I remind the House that we are being inconvenienced not because Opposition Members are

        1065
        raising issues but because the Government are abusing the legislature to the extent that they cannot get this stage of the consideration of the Bill through the House in 24 hours unless they have hon. Members nodding in assent. It is disgraceful that the Government should adopt a complacent attitude and decide to keep about 100 of their troops in the House. It is deplorable that they mutter and grumble because we are spending more than the five or 10 minutes that the Government Whips expected would be the time spent considering the Lords amendments to the Bill. That is what it boils down to, and the Whips even had the effrontry to table other motions following that long list of complicated amendments, knowing full well that we started debating a complicated piece of legislation in the middle of the afternoon and finished discussing it at 11 pm.
        Let us not have any more little smirks from the Minister after he has concluded his gabbling and got through his speeches in record time in order to justify his presence at the Dispatch Box. He is there to provide the House with some sort of explanation, which, by common consent, he has failed to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am wrong, I am sure that Conservative Members will be only too eager to spring to their feet and give an explanation to back up the Minister.
        1.30 am
        When I started my brief comments, not a single Tory was rising, so I find it remarkable that they make muttered comments, as they sit on their backside, nodding their heads in eager anticipation that this legislation will slide through. They have not been leaping to their feet in order to give the Minister the help that he so clearly needs.
        It worries me that, under the Aviation Security Act 1982, section 20(2)(aa) states:
        "An authorised person inspecting an aircraft or any part of an aerodrome under subsection (1) above"—
        —a direction given by the Secretary of State—
        (a) Shall have power—to subject any property found by him in the aircraft (but not the aircraft itself or any apparatus or equipment installed in it) or, as the case may be, to subject that part of the aerodrome or any property found by him there, to such tests".
        That person is clearly taking part in the organised security operation of the airport, which we welcome and encourage by this legislation.
        What are the circumstances in which a person, engaged in a security operation, should fail to give information that, according to clause 5 of the Bill
        "relates to any baggage, cargo or stores (whether belonging to him or to another) that is or are intended for carriage by a civil aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom"'?
        The effect of the amendment is to remove that obligation. That leads to a reasonable amount of questioning.
        I do not suppose that the civil servants who drafted the Minister's speeches, and probably the amendments, are trying to produce confused legislation. It will be used by people and refers to another Act that has to be brought into operation. People must understand the legislation to enforce it, but it is not the clearest, and it will help if the Minister gives a clear—not necessarily lengthy, but not gabbled—explanation to the House of what the legislation means.
        If the Minister does that, our deliberations are on record, and it assists people in the operation of legislation if there is a clear explanation so that they can refer to other legislation before employing the services of a solicitor or
        1066
        barrister. We legislate for the common use of ordinary citizens. We should bear it in mind that the legislation that goes out from this place should be as simple, comprehensive and comprehensible as we can make it.
        I make a plea to the Minister to give an explanation that the citizen can read, learn, inwardly digest and of which we can take advantage. By common consent, certainly of Opposition Members, and, I suspect, of Conservative Members, that has not, so far, been provided tonight.
        Mr. Redmond: Earlier I raised a point of order about the way in which the Minister for Aviation and Shipping delivered his speech on the amendments. I asked that he be requested to speak a little more slowly and clearly so that we could understand what he was saying. Unfortunately, his arrogance and conceit prohibited him from doing that.
        I oppose the amendment because it would authorise people to lie. One should tell the truth and fear nowt. The Bill contains ways to promote security at aerodromes without telling lies. Airport security is breached many times. Some lads invaded Heathrow airport and tried to board a plane and took photographs to show how easy it was. This is not a good Bill. If the Minister had introduced a good Bill all these Lords amendments would not be needed. He is saying that airport security cannot be tested without lying. I do not accept that, nor do I accept that by voting against the amendment we will be voting for profit rather than safety. That is no way to proceed.
        The Minister engaged in bombast in trying to push through the amendment and that showed his arrogance. The amendments should be discussed in depth and explained in a rational and logical way. The fact that we are here at this time is perhaps the fault of the Minister. If he had behaved in a proper manner, perhaps we would understand a little more clearly what is going on. The Minister is trying to stampede us into accepting the amendment.
        I will not endorse any legislation that permits people to lie. Someone could sneak in somewhere, tell great lies, and point the finger of suspicion at some poor person who works in the establishment. Regretfully, cases are now before the courts because people have told lies and other people have been sent to prison. I cannot understand why the Minister supports the principle of people telling lies, but unfortunately the Government appear to be quite happy about that. They have misled the House and have been economical with the truth on many occasions since 1979. I cannot say that the Government tell lies because that would not be in order, but they have certainly misled the House. They may be used to that sort of practice, but I do not condone lying.
        As I have said, without making the amendment, the Government could easily introduce practices which would tighten up security and which are so desperately needed if we are to guard the citizens residing in these islands. Obviously it is important when tourists come to this country that they know that security is good and tight. What will people in America and Europe think that we are doing if we pass legislation saying that we endorse people who tell lies? They will laugh us out of court. In view of the recent EC legislation, I feel sure that the Bill would be challenged to see whether it was acceptable under EC legislation. The Government have already accepted EC regulations.
        So the Minister, no matter how he wraps it up, or how he sneers and smirks at the Dispatch Box, means that he

        1067
        is condoning people telling lies. What would he do if the court said, "I'm sorry, Joe Bloggs, there's nowt we can do, the Minister condones it and we're only here to interpret the law"? That is unfortunate. I shall give some credit to the Government, because they have learnt some lessons since 1979 about how to tighten up. There is an old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not suggest for one minute that the Government are corrupt—far from it. I am not saying that —although I might well think it. Power means that one can tell lies and get away with it. It is not on for us to pass legislation which says that people can tell lies to test security because people are too idle to think of alternative systems to test it.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has said a good deal in his preamble. I am sure that he will now address his remarks to the amendments that we are discussing.
        Mr. Redmond: I am trying to make my point. If it is correct, why did the Government wait until the Lords put the amendment in? Why did not the vast array of civil servants that the Minister has at his beck and call or all the alleged brains on the Conservative Benches think of the amendment? Why leave it to the other place to table amendments, which have such a deep effect on society? How can we expect people to tell the truth if we condone lies?
        If we vote against the amendment it is not a question of our supporting profit against safety. As far as I am concerned, one has to tell the truth. I am happy to inform the Minister that if he continues in the same arrogant and conceited manner when he speaks on the other amendments before us tonight, we shall vote against every one. I cannot understand what he is saying when he rattles off ten to the dozen—
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the debate be now adjourned. Those of that opinion, say Aye.
        Hon. Members: Aye.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, No.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobbies.
        Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have put the Question. I shall hear the point of order afterwards.
        Mr. Nellist: The point of order is about the Division. You are not deaf, Sir Paul. You could hear me when I shouted. The Minister was on his feet. It is no good you looking the other way and trying to ignore people.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said that I shall take the hon. Gentleman's question after the Division has taken place.
        Mr. Nellist: On a point of order. I do not want a stupid hat on—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I want to be quite clear that the House knows what we are doing. There was a certain
        1068
        amount of noise. I shall put the Question once more. The Question is, That the debate be now adjourned—[Interruption.]
        1.45 am
        Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This motion is debatable and we demand the right to debate it.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct. This motion is debatable.
        Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we assume that as you have now recognised me we can open the debate on the motion that you called? The motion is about whether we should terminate the debate on this group of amendments at this point.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak to the motion, he may do so.
        Mr. Nellist: It is unfortunate that sometimes tempers have to rise in order to reach the point that we have now reached. It is a perfectly correct procedural point—
        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): The hon. Gentleman should have spoken earlier.
        Mr. Nellist: You may have heard the deputy Chief Whip remark from beside the Chair that I should have risen to speak. That was precisely what I was trying to do when I shouted, "On a point of order", at the top of my voice. I wanted to draw to your attention and that of the House what we now know to be correct—the motion is debatable. I am speaking to the motion on whether we should curtail the debate. My hon. Friends may have other reasons, but I have a couple of pertinent reasons why I do not want the debate on this group of amendments to finish now.
        The first reason is the simple one that, when the Minister introduced the eight-strong group of amendments, I attempted to intervene to ask him a particular question. He refused, so I am left with no choice but to make a speech to ask my question. In future, the Minister might like to remember the lesson that he could save himself and his colleagues a great deal of time if occasionally he gave way.
        The first point that I want to raise is that the group of amendments contains eight amendments, three of which —Nos. 5, 27 and 33—refer to earlier legislation. They refer to the Aviation Security Act 1982. While my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was on his feet, I went to the Vote Office to obtain a copy of that Act. It occurred to me, as it may have occurred to other hon. Members, that it is a little difficult to decide whether a group of amendments should be allowed to go through on the nod or whether we should vote on each one if we do not know exactly how they relate to other legislation which is not readily available.
        My point to the Minister—if I may have his attention; he might like to think about it—is that amendments Nos. 5, 27 and 33 seek to remove the words
        "in the course of his duties"
        and insert
        "exercise the power conferred by"

        1069
        in the amendment No. 5—section 20(2)(aa)—and in amendments Nos. 27 and 33—section 36(2)(aa). I have a reasonable question to put to the Minister. What is the difference between a general instruction such as
        "in the course of his duties"
        and the specific powers mentioned in the sections of the Act to which I referred?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now debating the amendments. I must remind him that we are debating whether the debate should be adjourned. His remarks must be restricted to that comparatively narrow motion before the House.
        Mr. Nellist: I do not accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My problem is that, unless I tell you why I wanted the Minister to continue the debate and give me answers, I cannot make my case for allowing the debate to continue. I have questions on that group of amendments that I want the Minister to answer. I should have thought that that was reasonably in order.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot answer to amendments on a debate about whether or not the House should adjourn. I repeat, the hon. Gentleman must restrict his remarks to the motion that is now before the House.
        Mr. Nellist: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion we are debating is whether or not we should pack up and go home. That is what it means in layman's language. If we pack up and go home, my hon. Friends and I will be unable to ask the Minister questions about the Bill. I have a particular question to ask the Minister, which is why I want the debate to continue.
        I also want it to continue so that we can discuss an issue that was mentioned in passing by the Minister in his rapid opening speech. The accusation has been made that, if we vote against the amendments, we will be putting profit before safety. I would happily stay here until four or five o'clock in the morning debating that aspect.
        Mr. Harry Barnes: I am not sure that it is correct to say that the motion is about whether or not we should pack up and go home. Even if the House agrees to it, there remain many other items on the Order Paper to be dealt with, including a very important measure concerning the Finance Act 1990, on which many right hon. and hon. Members may wish to speak. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that, if the motion is carried, it will destroy debate on the Bill, so we would have to return to it on another occasion.
        Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend is right to pull me up, but when I referred to packing up, I meant that in respect of the current debate, not the whole evening's business. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that there is plenty of meat left on the Order Paper, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends have much of value to say in respect of those other items.
        If the debate concludes now, we will be unable to discuss a number of important safety matters. I take particular umbrage at the suggestion that we are uninterested in such matters, as would my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford,
        1070
        South (Mr. Cryer), because only 13 days ago we demanded during business questions more debates on transport safety.
        I refer also to the dispute lasting two or three weeks at Heathrow airport, involving British Airways maintenance and repair engineers and members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Transport and General Workers Union and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. Right hon. and hon. Members might also wish to raise the question of the aircraft repaired in the midlands, the windscreen of which blew out on a subsequent flight. That plane had to be landed on the south coast, and the heroic air crew hung on to the pilot's legs to make sure he was kept alive to tell the tale.
        The afternoon after that incident, I watched an American television programme called "They Walked Away". It was all about horrific car crashes at formula 1 race meetings and the like. Apparently racing cars can be reduced to 4 ft square and the driver can still get out and walk away. When one sees such programmes, one thinks, "Obviously it happened. It has been filmed." But it is amazing then to turn on the news and hear of an equally astonishing event that has happened on the same day—in this case, of the pilot being held by the legs for all those miles and living to tell the tale.
        I do not want to prejudge investigations or inquiries that may take place into that incident, but I must emphasise that there was a link with Heathrow. The bolts that came to the midlands for use in the window were sent from somewhere. Somebody made the decision to send them, and that decision was made when those who would normally have made it were out on strike. These are matters of transport safety, and they are germane to the Bill.
        I know that a number of my hon Friends will have comments to make in the debate so let me make one final point. If we do not continue our deliberations on the Bill this evening, I shall be unable to ask the Minister a question arising from his opening remarks. He said that, if anybody wanted to discuss, or even vote against, the amendments that we were debating before the motion, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accepted, was moved, that would destroy the possibility for statutory authority to be conferred on an authorised person to tell lies in the course of his duties or, if the amendments were carried, in the course of implementing sections of other Acts.
        I am completely unclear as to who is doing the authorising. Numerous statutory bodies, such as security defence establishments, are being given out to cowboy private security firms, whose employees are on a couple of quid an hour. I wonder whether airports will follow suit. We know what has happened in one or two instances when lax security in defence establishments has caused almost tragic consequences. We must ask who is doing the authorisation.
        The Minister gabbled his way through his opening remarks, trying to get through a few scrappy bits of paper as fast as he possibly could because he and the Whips had promised the troops, "We'll have this lot through in 10 minutes and then we'll go home." But there are questions that we must ask. Many of our constituents travel on planes, both to work and during their holidays. They want to know that, every time they get on a plane, they are in safe hands. They want to know that the airport is secure and that they are travelling on an aeroplane that has been well maintained and properly repaired.

        1071
        All those questions are germane to the Bill, and if we are not allowed to continue to discuss them tonight, many of our constituents will not think that we earn the high salaries that many Members of Parliament are paid to scrutinise legislation. We should not go home until we have discussed those points fully.
        Mr. Hardy: I shall not take long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I remind the Minister that when we began debates on the Bill we were not making long speeches and that he may have been responsible for extending the length of Opposition Members' speeches tonight.
        I believe that we should stay here and finish discussing the Bill, and I want to put two arguments in support of my case. First, the Minister told us that the Bill was urgently needed and that it was very important from the point of view of passenger safety. If it is so important, the Government should ensure that it completes its passage through the House before we adjourn. It may well be our duty to consider the safety of passengers, and therefore to ensure that the Bill completes its passage and it would have been completed by now had the Government taken a more conciliatory and courteous view.
        The second reason why I want us to complete our proceedings on the Bill is that I am extremely anxious that the House should thoroughly debate a number of other major issues. I know that my hon. Friends from the Barnsley and Doncaster areas, as well as those from the Rotherham metropolitan borough, are most anxious to have a proper debate about the appalling, dishonourable and corrupt action of the Government in poll tax capping our local authorities. I want the Bill out of the way so that we can deal with that matter properly. Now the Government have run for cover. They have offended the House and insulted the Opposition. They have treated the House with a degree of contempt to annoy us into making speeches so that they could come up with an excuse to adjourn the House. No doubt they will now say, "Because you delayed matters on 20 June we do not want to give you time to debate the dishonest and corrupt decision to poll tax cap at least four authorities in Yorkshire."
        If the Government had been fair and reasonable, they would have given us guarantees that there would be opportunities for us to put the powerful cases that can be advanced in support of our constituencies. Unfortunately, we have seen no evidence from the Government that that proper consideration will apply. That shows that we should scrutinise the Government's legislation carefully. I am glad that we did so tonight because we have had a preposterous example of lying, to the point where we could call the Bill the Aviation, Maritime Security and Falsehoods Bill. That would be appropriate to clause 5.
        I said that I did not want to speak for long, and I made short contributions to the earlier debates. I deeply regret that the Government are so careless about the security of passengers on ships and aircraft that they want to rush away without fulfilling their responsibilities.
        2 am
        Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend referred briefly to the Government's undemocratic decision to poll tax cap councils. Is he aware that they based their criteria for capping on information that they received from authorities? They sought information about Calderdale, and we have evidence that they received it in two parts. First, the Tory manifesto—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot think that that intervention has anything to do with the motion before the House.
        Mr. Hardy: I extracted from the Government—and it was published in the Official Report the other day—
        Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Hardy: May I finish the point, after which I shall give way?
        I extracted from the Government the other day—and it was published in the Official Report—a statement that listed the deprived areas of Britain in order of deprivation. Right at the bottom of the list are the metropolitan boroughs of Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster, which have suffered from the economic policies of this Government more than most parts of Britain. Given the danger that my hon. Friends and I see in that corrupt and unjust act, I hope that we shall subject every jot, tittle, comma, i and t in the Government's legislative programme to the scrutiny that we have given the Bill.
        Mrs. Mahon: As I was saying, the Government obtained their information on poll tax capping in two parts—first, from a Tory manifesto in a local election, which clearly stated to the people of Calderdale that the Tories would reduce the poll tax by 50 per cent. The second source was a letter in the Halifax Evening Courier. The Government accepted that as information by which to set the poll tax cap.
        Mr. Hardy: If we get time to debate those serious matters, I hope that the House will give them the same attention as it has given the Bill in the little time with which we have been provided to consider it.
        I do not think that we should rise; the House should go on. It would have been possible for the Opposition to be persuaded to be a little more helpful and succinct, but we were not given that encouragement and the Government have run for cover at an excessively early hour. I am sorry that we have had to have this debate. We could have finished the Bill before now, but this simply illustrates the careless, arrogant and corrupt approach that the Government demonstrate almost every day.
        Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesborough): I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the House will appreciate your decision to allow us to continue this debate.
        First, we should understand how today's business was decided. We all know that the Cabinet meets on Thursdays to decide the business; we all know that, earlier tonight, we had a long debate—which was guillotined, and therefore ended at 11 pm—on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The Government knew that that debate would finish at 11 pm, leaving time for a full debate on Lords amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill. They also provided time for a debate on a motion entitled "Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2)", and another entitled "Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2)".
        When the Government ordered tonight's business, they were well aware that both debates were open, with no time limit. They also knew that a series of amendments had been tabled to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, and that each amendment was likely to prompt Labour opposition and consequent votes. They must have known

        1073
        —particularly given that the motion entitled "Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2)" is a departure from the practice of the House, referring as it does to
        "anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters which may be included in Finance Bills"—
        that, if the Opposition were doing their job, they would question Ministers. The Government must have been prepared for a lengthy debate, and it does not seem reasonable for the Opposition to be told at this time of night that the Minister proposes to move to adjourn the debate.
        I have some sympathy with the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. He was very honest when he led the House on Second Reading of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill—a privatisation Bill. He gave specific reasons for the separation between the public Bill that should have been considered by the House and the private Bill that was considered, and about the fact that the House would have to meet to discuss a money resolution concerning why the Government would seek to claw back some of the assets by way of a measure in the Finance Bill.
        I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in his place. The right hon. Gentleman began the proceedings that led to the Tees and Hartlepool Bill: in a 1988 speech, he suggested that the ports should privatise themselves. Although he did not tell them that we should be sitting here at this time of the morning to discuss a money resolution whereby 50 per cent. of their assets would be taken from them, he has played an indirect part in tonight's proceedings.
        Many Opposition Members—certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) have come here, notwithstanding the early hour, to debate the Finance Bill money resolution. But we cannot debate it until we complete the debate on the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill. There is a series of wider considerations: the two motions are part and parcel of the Finance Bill, which must go back into Committee. A variety of new clauses are on the agenda, which would be debated as part of the money resolution and can only proceed if the resolution is passed tonight.
        The Finance Bill motion has important ramifications which must not have escaped the Government or their business managers. Later today, the Leader of the House will make a business statement and deal with private Bill procedures. He will do so having studied reports on how to treat private legislation. By then, he should be aware of the mood of the House, as expressed in the debate on the money motion, of the fact that a private Bill is being used to privatise the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. By means of the motion, some 50 per cent. of the port's assets will be taken. It will be interesting to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether that legislation should proceed. If we do not continue the debate on the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, we will not be able to put our points to him. Unless the Government rearrange the business of the House for tomorrow or other days, they will face difficulties in continuing with the proceedings on the Finance Bill.
        A number of hon. Members are in the Chamber. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East is back, because I know that he wants to contribute. When there are Opposition Members who are
        1074
        prepared, ready and willing to speak, why are we deprived of that opportunity because of the Minister's motion? It is worrying that the Government seem to feel that they can ride roughshod over the Opposition. After 11 years of Conservative government, we have seen a certain subversion of the rules of the House.
        In relation to the Tees and Hartlepool privatisation, the Government used a private Bill route for public legislation. They used the Finance Bill to prevent legislation being hybrid. The Government are using the House of Commons for its convenience in relation to public Bills and hybrid Bills. Because of the difficulties with the Lords amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, we end up with aggravation and short tempers.
        The Government show a lack of consideration for the Opposition, who seek to do their constitutional duty in checking and challenging the Government and holding the Executive accountable.
        Mr. Ray Powell: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will elaborate. He criticised the Minister for moving the adjournment motion. On checking the times, I found that the Minister spoke for two minutes on Lords amendment No. 5 and allowed only four hon. Members to speak before standing up to move that the debate be adjourned. Has my hon. Friend ever seen that happen before? It was rather dramatic of the Minister to speak for two minutes and allow only four speakers to contribute before he moved the motion. Some pressure must have been put on him.
        Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Last night, when speaking to an amendment, the Secretary of State for Health spoke for 45 minutes. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping spoke for two minutes on the Lords amendment. We can therefore see the contrast between the approaches to this important subject. I was not present for that debate, but I wanted to refer to the Minister's honesty in an earlier debate, when he fully accepted that the Government were using the private Bill route to carry out public policy.
        The result of that offhand treatment is that, later today, the Leader of the House is to explain how in future the Government intend to handle private Bills. However, we shall be unable to discuss the matter properly unless the Minister withdraws his motion and allows the House to continue the debate. I referred to the Minister's honesty when he accepted that the Government were using the private Bill route to carry out public policy, and that, in order to prevent the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill from becoming a hybrid Bill, 50 per cent. of the port authority's assets would be taken by the Treasury and added to the Finance Bill.
        2.15 am
        After 11 years in power, the Government have become offhand, with the result that, in the early hours of the morning, the Minister moves that consideration of Lords amendments should be adjourned. Hon. Members should be treated with greater courtesy. This is an open-ended debate. The House is entitled to hold a full debate on each amendment, to question the Minister and to elicit responses that last longer than the two minutes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred.

        1075
        The Opposition are ready to participate in the debate in an attempt to improve the Bill. It passed through all its stages in this House, went to the other place and has returned with amendments. It is now stranded on the beach. That amounts to further subversion of the House and to further offhand treatment by the Government of the conduct of business in the House. In a democracy, that cannot be right. The Chamber of the House of Commons is part of the legislature. We hold the Executive accountable, but we cannot do that if the Executive seek to use their powers arbitrarily.
        The House of Commons evolved over many years, first by resisting the arbitrary powers of monarchs and, secondly, by resisting the arbitrary power of Governments. If the debate is not to be allowed to continue, that will be yet another arbitrary use of power by the Executive. The Government will be put to great inconvenience. They will have to arrange a date for the continuation of consideration of the Lords amendments and for debates on the two motions relating to finance. The entire legislative process will be slowed up.
        Those hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate on the Bill ought to be allowed to do so. Those hon. Members who wish to take part in the debates on the Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2) and the Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2) motions should also be allowed to do so. If we were allowed to complete our business, we should be able to put questions later today to the Leader of the House on the private Bill routes that have been adopted by the Government. Everything would be in perspective. Such an arbitrary manner of bringing the debate to an end when hon. Members are anxious to speak is not in the best interests of the House.
        Mr. Michael Welsh: I speak against the motion for two reasons. First, I should like to get the measure through, so we shall be asking for one and a half hours' debate for each of the poll tax measures. That will take up a tremendous amount of Government time. It is vital that we should finish discussing the Bill tonight, so that we have plenty of time to discuss the poll tax. That is reasonable, as it involves a tremendous number of people in our constituencies and we are asking for only one and a half hours for each authority. That is a fair and reasonable request. It shows how sincere we are about trying to help the Government fill their time.
        I shall be brief, so my second and final point relates to amendment No. 5. The Minister, on behalf of the Government, is promoting legislation that will allow people to tell lies. I was under the impression that only a totalitarian state could give the power to tell lies. Under the rule of law, I do not consider that this Chamber can possibly pass an Act that allowed anybody to tell lies in the name of the Government. I do not think that that is allowed. It would not stand up in any British court, let alone the European Court.
        I do not suppose that any hon. Member from either side of the House would choose to pass legislation allowing people to tell untruths under the umbrella of the House. It is immoral, and it is wrong: I should like the debate to continue so that the Minister can justify trying to pass legislation enabling individuals to tell untruths on behalf of the Government. If he is, he is in the wrong country —he is not in a democratic society but a totalitarian state.
        1076
        Therefore, it is vital that the debate should continue so that the Minister can explain why he would give permission for our citizens to tell lies.
        Sir Hector Monro: Despite the self-righteous speeches from Opposition Members, I want to put on record the true purpose of their operation tonight. Everyone knows that late night legislation appears on the Order Paper only after the business managers of both sides of the House and the usual channels have looked at the matter and reached a general conclusion that there will be little opposition. Obviously such an agreement has not been reached tonight.
        I want to put on record a point which I feel most strongly as one who has seen an aircraft destroyed by terrorism. Opposition Members are delaying the Bill through extended debate tonight, despite the possibility of such incidents occurring again. Let it be on their heads that they are delaying a Bill that will provide security for the aircraft that fly over our country. It has been a proper disgrace that the hon. Gentlemen who set out purely to make the point that they do not like the community charge are prepared to risk the security of our aircraft and airports. They should all he ashamed of that and it is on record that that is why they have delayed the Bill tonight.
        Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) wants to contribute to the debate, despite the early hour of 2.24 am, he should get his facts right.
        The Minister spoke in support of Lords amendment No. 5 for only two minutes. After 25 minutes of debate, he decided to move the closure. The hon. Member for Dumfries has accused the Opposition of closing the debate when it is actually the Minister who is delaying the Bill. If the closure motion is carried, the Bill will be delayed. The hon. Member for Dumfries should get his facts right.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take that to be a contribution to the debate, and not a point of order.
        Mr. Hood: I am sure that we all have visited schools in our constituencies and talked to the young kids explaining how Parliament works, its procedures and how we are the bastions of democracy. There are 42 Lords amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, and before the motion to adjourn was moved we had spent only two hours discussing that important Bill.
        I was sad to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I am sure that after he has considered what he said, he will regret his comments. To criticise the House for wanting to spend a little longer than two hours to discuss the 42 Lords amendments is wrong. I do not need to tell the hon. Member for Dumfries or anyone else about the real dangers of terrorism at our airports and ports.
        Mr. Steve Norris: If the hon. Gentleman is so seized of the importance of this measure, can he point to any word in Hansard that he has uttered on this so-called vital Bill in which he professes such great interest at any stage of the proceedings on the Bill so far? If he cannot do that, is not the hon. Gentleman expressing appalling humbug?
        Mr. Hood: I have been accused of many things and I suppose that many hon. Members have been accused of humbug. However, there has been more humbug from the

        1077
        Government Benches. We should be discussing the Lords amendments. I am taking the opportunity given to an elected Member of this House to take part in our process.
        If hon. Members believe that because an hon. Member has not spoken previously in debates on Bill he cannot speak now, the public will not understand that. I have heard Mr. Speaker say from the Chair that hon. Members should be careful about the image that they project to the public. Conservative Members are now claiming that any hon. Member who does not agree with the Government or has not spoken in opposition earlier is now not allowed to do so. That is the humbug that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) accuses me of.
        Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not peculiar that, in a House of 650 Members, hon. Members should be criticised for speaking when they have not spoken earlier? If we followed that logic, no one would be able to speak in the House.
        Mr. Hood: We all know how difficult it is for humble Back Benchers to speak in this place. Perhaps I have this opportunity to speak tonight because there are not many hon. Members present. I strongly oppose the motion.
        It is the duty of the Opposition to scrutinise legislation. When we have 42 Lords amendments to consider and only two hours elapse before a closure motion is moved, it is unsatisfactory and—
        2.30 am
        Mr. Barnes: On the point about hon. Members choosing to speak in this debate, I confess that I came into the Chamber for this debate because I was interested in what was due to be considered after this Bill—I refer to the motions relating to the Finance Bill—but having listened, I began to be interested in these proceedings. I have made only one speech on this matter, lasting three minutes, and about three interventions.
        However, I believe that I am entitled to be interested in our proceedings and that later, If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am also entitled to take part in this debate about why we should not adjourn our consideration now. That is the nature of the Chamber—an hon. Member can come in, pick up a debate, follow it, and become interested, and make his own contribution or listen to those of other hon. Members. One can thus learn and advance one's knowledge of the procedures. The trouble with Conservative Members is that they do not understand the procedures of democracy.
        Mr. Hood: I fully agree with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am about to conclude my remarks, but the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is intervening from a sedentary position. I shall give way to him if he would like me to do so.
        Mr. Alistair Burt: I was simply saying that the biggest humbug in this place at the moment is that Opposition Members will not admit that this is a row about timing and procedure. They will not put that on the record in Hansard. Why will not Opposition Members say what is going on and what this is all about?
        Mr. Hood: I do not deny that this is an argument about timing and procedure. We object to the amount of time that the House has been given to discuss 42 Lords amendments—
        Mr. Burt: That is not true.
        Mr. Hood: That is what I am objecting to. That is what this debate is about.
        Mr. Alan Meale: Is not the truth that all the noise that is coming from Conservative Members is because they are whingeing about why they are having to stay tonight, to do the job for which they are paid? They all want to go home to bed. That is why we are hearing whingeing from the other side of the Chamber.
        Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes a point— [Interruption.]
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Some of these Labour Members did not even turn up for Third Reading or Report.
        Mr. Harry Barnes: So what?
        Mr. Hood: If I may take a prompt—
        Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not allow sub-committees in the Chamber to chat back and forth among themselves. Will you ask hon. Members who want to speak on the important issue of the closure to seek to catch your eye?
        Mr. Hood: I shall resume my seat when I have made my final points. I refer back to what Mr. Speaker has told us to do in connection with how we project our image outside this place and about the way in which we are supposed to encourage people to have faith in the democratic process. I take my prompt on this from the hon. Member for Bury, North. If we are talking about what is prompting hon. Members to speak, I must advise the House that Opposition Members are concerned about acts of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with our wanting to debate that in great detail.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has said, we often hear things in the Chamber of which we were not previously aware and to which we want to respond. That is perfectly fair. Depriving Opposition Members of making their contributions may help the Government to win in the short term, but they should think about what they are doing to the democratic process in the long term. Far too often in the past 11 years this House of democracy—we tell the whole world that we are the mother of democracy—has had its democratic rights removed. The Government may be using their majority to further that process now, but as long as we are the Opposition, we shall use our time and our rights to object to that.
        Mr. Redmond: I oppose the closure motion, and I am surprised that it was moved after our short consideration of the Lords amendments. I am interested in the security of my constituents, of the people of Great Britain and of people throughout the world, and it is a tragedy that our debates have been interrupted. Some of the controversy that seems to be developing could have been avoided if a more reasonable attitude had been adopted by the

        1079
        Minister. It is disgusting to speak for only two minutes on a large group of Lords amendments. It seems that the Minister seeks to treat the House with contempt.
        I believe that we can complete our consideration of the Lords amendments tonight. If Conservative Members are interested in security for their constituents and for the constituents of other hon. Members, they should vote against the closure motion. There is no reason why we should not continue to discuss the Lords amendments. We could make progress in another two or two-and-a-half hours of debate. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you can recall many occasions when far less progress was made than that which has been achieved tonight.
        It seems that the Government are not prepared to listen to arguments that are directed against Government legislation. That is a tragedy. The Government are not prepared to practise what they preach to the rest of the world. They should remember that they tell others to follow the example set by the Mother of Parliaments. They are setting a disgusting example tonight.
        It appears that hon. Members want to go to bed instead of discussing safety and security. Surely they recognise that important issues are before us and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him.
        Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman talks about hon. Members going home to bed. The Labour party has 200-plus Members in this place, yet only 17 of them participated in the previous Division. About 95 per cent. of Labour Members are now tucked up in bed.
        Mr. Redmond: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. There is an old saying about "all wind" and so on. The hon. Gentleman yapped about the number of Labour Members currently in the House and the number of Conservative Members who are present. He should understand that the Government are keeping up their lads for their nightcaps. There is an important difference between quality and quantity. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the safety and security of his constituents, he should support the Opposition when we vote against the closure. He should have paid more attention to our proceedings and taken his place a little earlier to listen to some of our discussions.
        Perhaps the hon. Gentleman likes people to tell lies on behalf of the state. Many things come to light because people have told lies. People have been put in prison as a result of telling lies. He may be prepared to tolerate the telling of lies, but I am not. I want honesty. I want truthfulness.
        The hon. Gentleman wants to give management a blank cheque with which to get out of its predicament, but the same hon. Gentleman has voted time and again to withdraw the rights for which people have fought over the years. I dare say that, given the chance, he would introduce legislation to take away the vote from the good women of this country. That is the typical, arrogant attitude of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.
        Mr. Hood: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), with whom my hon. Friend disagreed, was probably influenced by his trips to South Africa, which my hon. Friend and I both know quite a lot about.
        1080
        Has my hon. Friend noticed—obviously Conservative Members have not—that while the motion to adjourn is being debated, the Whips have disappeared? I wonder where they are.
        Mr. Nellist: On the phone.
        Mr. Hood: Yes, on the phone. We shall see the Minister come back with wax in his eyes. A Minister walked through the Chamber five minutes ago who had been pulled out of his bed. There have been so many Tories in the House tonight—the Whips are on the phone now getting them back so that they have 100 Members to win the closure motion. That is how confident the Tory Whips are of the number of Tory Members present.
        Mr. Redmond: It could well be that the Whips had wax in their eyes, but I should have liked to see a tear or two. It takes emotions to create tears and, unfortunately, Conservative Whips do not have the sort of emotions to bring tears to their eyes.
        Mr. Nellist: I will. I wonder if my hon. Friend agrees that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who does such a wonderful impersonation of B'stard that it amazes me every time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of what?"]—of B'stard, a character on television with which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may not be familiar—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman use an unparliamentary expression in relation to another hon. Member. Can he assure me that that is not so?
        Mr. Nellist: B'stard is a character in a television serial, with which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may be unfamiliar. There is an apostrophe in the word, which is not "bastard" but "B'stard"—the name of a Tory Member of Parliament in a television series, which I can highly recommend and which most of my hon. Friends enjoy watching.
        I was going to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) whether he thought that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was wrong to complain that only 17 Labour Members were present for the debate. Does not he agree that if 17 of us can keep in the Chamber nearly 100 Members from a party that always tries to give us lectures about productivity, we must be doing something right?
        Mr. Redmond: I am not sure whether to continue along those lines, but I should have hoped that hon. Members would be in the Chamber listening. I had better not repeat the name of the television character because I have a lisp and might not pronounce it correctly. I should not want you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to jump down my throat. It is an excellent show, but unfortunately, because of your onerous duties in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you do not get the opportunity to see it. You should because the character represents one or two Conservative Members. I am sure that the public, having seen what has taken place here this evening on the Bill, will draw similarities between that show and what is going on here.
        Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is making an interesting and important contribution on why the debate should continue. However, when the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made his interesting contribution and talked of 17 Opposition Members voting on the previous amendment, was not he misdirected? I made it

        1081
        clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and I were in the Chamber so that when this debate came to its proper conclusion we could then debate the Finance Bill provisions which are important to my constituents, and the constituents of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was under a misapprehension when he referred to 17 Labour Members voting on the previous amendment.
        Mr. Redmond: Unfortunately, young lads have a tendency not to listen, and when they do not listen they do not understand what is going on around them. One of the reasons—
        2.45 am
        The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
        Question put, That the Question be now put:—
        The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 17.

        Division No. 248]

        [2.46 am

        AYES

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Ground, Patrick

        Amess, David

        Hague, William

        Amos, Alan

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Arbuthnot, James

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Harris, David

        Ashby, David

        Hayward, Robert

        Batiste, Spencer

        Hind, Kenneth

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Boswell, Tim

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Irvine, Michael

        Bowis, John

        Jack, Michael

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Jackson, Robert

        Brazier, Julian

        Janman, Tim

        Bright, Graham

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Burns, Simon

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Burt, Alistair

        Knapman, Roger

        Butcher, John

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Butterfill, John

        Lang, Ian

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Lightbown, David

        Carrington, Matthew

        Lilley, Peter

        Cash, William

        Lord, Michael

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Chapman, Sydney

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Chope, Christopher

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Day, Stephen

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Devlin, Tim

        Moss, Malcolm

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Neubert, Michael

        Dover, Den

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Durant, Tony

        Norris, Steve

        Fallon, Michael

        Page, Richard

        Favell, Tony

        Paice, James

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Forth, Eric

        Raffan, Keith

        Franks, Cecil

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Freeman, Roger

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Gill, Christopher

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Shelton, Sir William

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Gregory, Conal

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        1082

        Stevens, Lewis

        Wells, Bowen

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Summerson, Hugo

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Wilkinson, John

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Wood, Timothy

        Thurnham, Peter

        Wallace, James

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patrick.

        Watts, John

        NOES

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Meale, Alan

        Bell, Stuart

        Nellist, Dave

        Buckley, George J.

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Cryer, Bob

        Redmond, Martin

        Dixon, Don

        Skinner, Dennis

        Fisher, Mark

        Snape, Peter

        Foster, Derek

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Graham, Thomas

        Hardy, Peter

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Haynes, Frank

        Mr. Jimmy Hood and Mr. Harry Cohen.

        Illsley, Eric

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must first put the next Question. I shall take the point of order after that.
        Question put accordingly, That the debate be now adjourned:—
        The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 19.

        Division No. 249]

        [2.57 am

        AYES

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Amess, David

        Gill, Christopher

        Amos, Alan

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Arbuthnot, James

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Gregory, Conal

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Ground, Patrick

        Ashby, David

        Hague, William

        Batiste, Spencer

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Boswell, Tim

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Harris, David

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Hayward, Robert

        Bowis, John

        Hind, Kenneth

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Brazier, Julian

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Bright, Graham

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Irvine, Michael

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

        Jack, Michael

        Burns, Simon

        Jackson, Robert

        Burt, Alistair

        Janman, Tim

        Butcher, John

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Butterfill, John

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Carrington, Matthew

        Knapman, Roger

        Cash, William

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Lang, Ian

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Lightbown, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Lilley, Peter

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Lord, Michael

        Day, Stephen

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Devlin, Tim

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Dover, Den

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Durant, Tony

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Fallon, Michael

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Favell, Tony

        Moss, Malcolm

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Neubert, Michael

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Forth, Eric

        Norris, Steve

        Franks, Cecil

        Page, Richard

        Freeman, Roger

        Paice, James

        1083

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Thurnham, Peter

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Raffan, Keith

        Wallace, James

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Watts, John

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Wells, Bowen

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Shelton, Sir William

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wilkinson, John

        Stevens, Lewis

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Wood, Timothy

        Summerson, Hugo

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patrick.

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        NOES

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Bell, Stuart

        Meale, Alan

        Buckley, George J.

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Cohen, Harry

        Skinner, Dennis

        Cryer, Bob

        Snape, Peter

        Dixon, Don

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Fisher, Mark

        Foster, Derek

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Haynes, Frank

        Mr. Dave Nellist and Mr. Martin Redmond.

        Hood, Jimmy

        Illsley, Eric

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Debate to be resumed this day.
        Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will have seen tonight from your own observations, the business of the House, as conducted by the Government, has been a complete shambles. The Government Chief Whip has had to organise telephone communications to 60 or 70 Members.
        In view of that, I wonder whether you, Sir, have had a request from a senior Minister—perhaps the Prime Minister—to make a statement on the disorganisation of the Government business and the possibility of an early dissolution so that we can get a Government to organise the business and get some decent legislation through.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no such request.
        Mr. Bell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, we shall not now be debating the Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2) motion or the Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2) motion. If that is so, have the Government notified you of any business statement to put the business of the House, which has been so disrupted and disjointed tonight, back on the rails? Has a senior Minister told you that there will be a business statement on when we will be able to debate these orders?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun a bit because I have not put the Question on those motions, which must be moved by a member of the Government. If they are not, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that tomorrow—or is it today?—a business statement will be made and he may have an opportunity to ask a question about that.
        We now move to motion No. 4, Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2).
        Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. John M. Taylor): Not moved.
        Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall complete the motions on the Order Paper. Motion No. 5, Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2).
        Mr. Taylor: Not moved.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 6, Ways and Means.
        Mr. Taylor: Not moved.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 7, Ways and Means.
        Mr. Taylor: Not moved.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 8, Ways and Means.
        Mr. Taylor: Not moved.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 9, Organic Food.
        Mr. Taylor: Not moved.
        Mr. Norris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the parliamentary use of the term unutterable humbug? Tonight, a series of appallingly inept speeches were made by Opposition Members, manufacturing the most ludicrous arguments on issues about which they had not expressed the slightest interest at any other stage of the Bill. They have caused a measure dealing with the extremely serious issue of international terrorism to be postponed. Is it appropriate for me to place on the record that such conduct by the Opposition, who cannot be controlled by their party Whips, is evidence of unutterable humbug?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase, which sometimes is regarded as rather endearing.
        Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do not you agree that the Government have postponed the legislation? They have moved the closure and a progress motion that the debate stand over to a further day. The Opposition were prepared, if necessary, to scrutinise the Bill through the night. If not all of us, certainly one or two of us would not accept the accusation made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) that we are not concerned about matters such as safety. For seven years, I have brought before Parliament safety issues affecting air and other forms of transport.
        Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is sitting patiently and I am anxious to hear what he wants to say.
        Mr. Brown: I do not know what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and his colleagues were doing tonight. The Bill was passed on Second and Third Reading without a Division, presumably because it was regarded by all hon. Members as vital to air and maritime safety. Is it in order for one or two hon. Members who did not speak on Second or Third Reading to seek, for reasons other than the safety of passengers travelling on aeroplanes, to disrupt the safety of passengers in the way that has been done tonight?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot return to debate a matter that the House has already decided. We must get on with the Adjournment.
        Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
        Mr. Skinner: Yes.
        Speeches come in all shapes and sizes, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you have to hear a lot of them. But I take great exception to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). He should not come here and lecture us about making speeches. He made one last week when he had been to a dinner party with Mr. Speaker, who offended him—very slightly, but it upset him. He spoke against the Government for a quarter of an hour or so, and then, when we had a Division, he ran away.
        If hon. Members wish to talk about wasting time, there is a prime example. If anyone was engaging in humbug, the hon. Gentleman was doing so last week.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is high time that we got on with the Adjournment.

      Natural History Museum
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
      3.15 am
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is the first debate on the problems of the natural history museum since the time of Victoria and Albert. The director and senior curators were in the Gallery until 2 am, when, naturally —having a day's work to do—they went to their beds. They could be forgiven for thinking that the House of Commons contains some very curious and unusual specimens.
      I spent some 10 hours attending the recent defence debates, and, indeed, participated. I say that to put the problems of the natural history museum in context. I argued the case for ending our main battle tank programme. Getting rid of one tank would alleviate the cost of the crisis in south Kensington; getting rid of two would restore south Kensington to its former level of ability to carry out its programmes. Getting rid of three would, it is reckoned, fulfil the obligations of south Kensington and Britain to the world: in this context, they are very real.
      The armies of Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin, rolling across the north German plain, are not now the main threat to this country. The real peril posed to Britain—and Europe—is global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and other environmental problems. South Kensington can provide the crucial raw material for the battle against that threat.
      The Minister has received a number of letters from all around the world—from Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, Helsinki and Washington—all pleading the case for the natural history museum. Let me quote just one, from Cardiff: as a former beekeeper, I think it appropriate. Dr. Paxton writes:
      "I wish to bring to your attention my deep concern over the proposed course of action detailed in the Corporate Plan concerning the termination of taxonomic work on bees and wasps at the Natural History Museum.
      Bees and wasps are important components of our fauna, not only as entities in their own rights but also as vital pollinators of a wide range of wild plants. In addition, there are growing agricultural industries based upon the uses of bees and wasps (e.g. honey production, pollination of agricultural crops). Over the past 8 years, whist a PhD student and subesequently whilst lecturing at UWC Cardiff in the Bee Research Unit, I have often required the taxonomic skills of those at the Natural History Museum concerned with bees and wasps for my personal researches. The Bee Research Unit at Cardiff has a growing number of students, a product of the increased awareness of the role and importance of bees both in agriculture and conservation throughout the world. They, too, have made good use of the excellent and unique expertise in bees and wasps at the Natural History Museum. I feel that this expertise is well worth maintaining."
      One of the hardest-hit sections in entomology is hymenoptera where research on most of the aculeate forms would be closed down under the plan. Bees, of course, are the most important of insect pollinators and stinging wasps, which are the bird of prey of the insect world, are important predators. Both groups are therefore of first-class environmental significance.
      The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will bear out the fact, because he was with me at

      1087
      the post office, that this evening I opened two letters from a small collection of mail. Professor Exley of the university of Queensland wrote:
      "As an entomologist, I am fully aware of the enormous contribution the Museum has made to our knowledge of insects. Its significance is that the collections contain specimens from all over the world so that international workers need only travel to one place to gain a perspective of the world fauna. The acquisition of specimens is not very useful unless they are made accessible and how can that be if staff is cut too drastically?"
      He continued:
      "I can't understand how you can have an aim concerning quality of the environment and simultaneously stop research on bees, wasps, bugs, weevils, lacewings and spiders. Lacewings, spiders and wasps are major predators and bees are largely responsible for the pollination of flowering plants. All these insect groups have enormous impact on the environment.
      It seems especially ridiculous that just when the world seems to be growing aware of the ecological importance of aculeate Hymenoptera, the largest world collection of these insects is to be kept on a care and maintenance basis only."
      Dr. Packer of York university in Ontario, Canada, wrote:
      "It is sheer sacrilege to consider defiling such a globally important institution in this manner—an act of governmental vandalism that will shame the nation as much as the acts of football barbarians, but with far more serious long term repercussions."
      That concerned view among informed people can be repeated time and again.
      Last Monday, 11 June, I spoke for 18 minutes, setting out the whole case. This evening, it is more important to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the Minister.
      3.23 am
      Mr. Mark Fisher rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Member have the agreement of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Minister to speak?
      Mr. Dalyell: Yes.
      The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Yes.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Mark Fisher.
      Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to the Minister for allowing me to intervene in this short debate. I am sure that all those people in this country and elsewhere who care about the natural history museum, Britain's scientific heritage and the quality of our national museums will thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way that he introduced it.
      I have one question for the Minister. I remind him of the question that the Senate of Scientists at the Smithsonian institute in Washington put to him in a letter of 14 June:
      "Surely Britain can find a place for the primary research and public education that have brought the NHM world renown and act as a barometer of the cultural health of the nation?"
      The answer appears to be no. The museum is being forced to cut 15 per cent. of its scientific staff, crucial skill departments, such as its exhibition in-house unit—which has won awards for the superb creepy-crawlies exhibition—and the specialisms that my hon. Friend outlined.
      The reason is that the museum has to save £2 million each year. The cuts will enable it to save that sum. Who is
      1088
      to blame? The Government are to blame. The chairman of the museum's trustees, Sir Walter Bodmer, writing on 14 June in Nature, said:
      "The essence of our financial problem is that the Government's grant in aid will not compensate adequately for inflation".
      Sir Walter is not a politically motivated man—he is an excellent and well-respected chairman of the museum's trustees—yet he makes it clear where the responsibility lies and what is the cause of the cuts.
      The question for the Minister, to which the whole scientific world and the whole museum world needs an answer, is whether the Government will fund adequately this great museum. Will they fund it in such a way as not just to ensure the safety of its 67 million specimens but also to ensure that it can continue and develop its scientific research? Much is at stake, not only for the natural history museum but also for the quality of scholarship and research in all our national museums. The millions of people who have visited the natural history museum and our other great national museums wait for reassurance that funds will be found to maintain the international reputation of our scientific culture.
      3.26 am
      The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on obtaining this debate on a very important issue: the natural history museum and its objectives and priorities. I welcome it. All hon. Members acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in scientific matters. It is significant that at this late hour the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is also here, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who has conveyed to me a number of letters on the subject that he has received from constituents. I am impressed that so many hon. Members are present at this hour.
      Let me take this opportunity—I am glad to have it—to set the scene in the broadest context that I can. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will find it helpful.
      I am in no doubt, and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, that in the natural history museum the nation has a great asset. On my visits to the museum I am always highly impressed by the quality of its staff and its high standards of display, curation and research. It is second to none. This applies when measured on a national or an international scale. The natural history museum is an institution of which we can all feel very proud: a British museum leading the world in its field.
      Under the 1963 Act the museum has a statutory duty to care for the nation's natural history collection. Responsibility for setting priorities and taking decisions on the museum's approach to fulfilling that statutory duty lies with the director and trustees.
      It is the museum's announcement on 23 April 1990 of priorities and decisions in its corporate plan that has given rise to the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to set the scene and answer some of his questions.
      The Government's record on funding the natural history museum is good. Reflecting my commitment to the value of the museum's work, I announced last November a 16·5 per cent. increase in its total grant in aid to a new 1990–91 figure of £25·2 million, including an 11·4 per cent. increase in running costs and provision for the replacement of its Ruislip store.

      1089
      Over the past 10 years the Government's contribution has risen by 12·8 per cent. in real terms, but I must make it absolutely plain that this figure includes funding for the geological museum which the natural history museum took over in 1985 and the purchase of office supplies previously covered by Crown Suppliers. That is in addition to the substantial resources which the museum has raised. These have risen from £4·6 million in 1989–90 to a projected £6·8 million in 1990–91. They now account for over 21 per cent. of the museum's total resources. I warmly congratulate the museum on its increasing success in this area and the efforts that it is making. I am encouraged by the way in which it is developing its plural funding. While, like all institutions, the museum has to live within its means and is determined to do so, the changes it is now proposing are not primarily about money but about reassessing the museum's objectives and priorities.
      In a recent article in Nature, Sir Walter Bodmer, the chairman of the trustees of the museum to whom the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred and who is an outstandingly good chairman, said:
      "It would be impossible to carry out effective research on all the groups of organisms in the museum's collections, even if our resources for research were doubled or trebled."
      The proposed changes are set out in the museum's 1990 corporate plan, which looks forward at least five years. The key objectives of the reorganisation proposed in that corporate plan are to strengthen curation; to focus research effort more sharply into areas of particular importance; to improve the management of the collections; and to develop exhibition facilities and other services for all who use the museum. Those aims are fully in line with the museum's statutory duties. Their object is not just to maintain but to improve the care and maintenance of the nation's natural history collection of over 67 million specimens, as well as the largest natural history library in the world.
      As Sir Walter explains:
      "The museum supports a major research programme based on its collections, with taxonomy as its central theme … taxonomy is the science of classification of living organisms and, with its evolutionary basis, provides the underpinning to almost all biological research."
      Mr. Dalyell: Does not that make the museum a special financial case for funds because so many other institutions depend on it, as do other countries? Is not it part of Britain's worldwide international obligation?
      Mr. Luce: Yes. In no way do I underestimate the significance and importance of the research that is carried out, some of which is unique because of the nature of the institution. If the hon. Gentleman allows me to continue I shall be able to reflect on some of the points he raised.
      The letters that I have received from all parts of the world clearly demonstrate the museum's wide sphere of influence in taxonomy. There is no doubt about that.
      It is generally recognised that a focus for taxonomic research in the United Kingdom is vital. The natural history museum provides that focus and will continue to do so. Taxonomy will continue to pervade all the museum's scientific work. But, as Sir Walter Bodmer has said, no institution can carry out effective research across the whole range of animal and plant life. It is obviously necessary to pick and choose. The museum intends to concentrate its research efforts primarily into a series of six
      1090
      scientific programmes that emphasise the unique and vital contribution its collections and expertise make to issues of contemporary human concern. Those six programmes will be biodiversity; environmental quality—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned; living resources; mineral resources; human health and human origins. Under those broad headings come many specific areas of research. Those programmes have been designed to respond to changing needs and the museum believes that by their interdisciplinary nature they will enhance co-operation between the museum and other national and international organisations.
      The museum has also announced that for the foreseeable future it will cease or severely restrict research in some areas—I stress that—of botany, entomology, mineralogy, palaeontology and zoology. But I should stress that there will be no diminution of the care and maintenance of all the museum's collections. While in-house research may be curtailed, I also emphasise that the museum's collections will continue to be available to anyone who wants to work on them. That goes a considerable way towards answering the important letter from Dr. Paxton in Cardiff, from which the hon. Member for Linlithgow quoted, about the availability of research facilities and the museum's care and maintenance policies. I will of course have that point more closely looked into and I hope in a moment to expand on what I intend to do.
      Mr. Dalyell: If people are given retirement or made redundant or have to leave the museum for financial reasons, in practice the availability is that much less. I am saddened that some scholars who have given a lifetime of service have been given early retirement. That is terribly sad.
      Mr. Luce: I will reflect briefly in a moment on the staffing situation.
      It is important that curatorial skills will not only be maintained but enhanced. A more effective and efficient advisory service will be provided for all those who use the museum. In addition, the museum will continue to provide unique training for scientists drawn from this country and worldwide.
      In the context of the comments made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, it is perfectly possible for the museum to apply for grants and respond to requests for research from any relevant source, whatever those sources may be, including universities or research councils, so long as the proposed research fits within the museum's objectives. That is clear and I have given the trustees a clear instruction that that is possible and people can make applications. That would be in addition to the research that I have already said will continue.
      Mr. Dalyell: That is important and I support the Minister on that.
      Mr. Luce: Naturally the announcement of those plans has generated a lively discussion about the relative priorities that should be accorded to particular areas of research at the museum. I know that the museum is in close touch with the scientific community on those points. Indeed, last Friday a special meeting was arranged at the museum to discuss those issues.
      As the director, Dr. Chalmers, told the meeting on Friday, the museum is also in discussion with the Government's chief scientific adviser, as are my officials. I

      1091
      have asked the adviser to keep me informed of the museum's position in relation to the United Kingdom's science base. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow appreciates the importance of that.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is that Professor Stewart?
      Mr. Luce: No, Sir John Fairclough, the chief scientific adviser to the Government. I shall be calling a further meeting with Sir Walter Bodmer and Dr. Chalmers to discuss the corporate strategy and the wider issues.
      To achieve the aims that the museum has clearly identified and published it has to adapt. I understand that the museum intends to make more appointments on a fixed-term basis, and that will be reflected in a reduction in permanent posts. It is important to make that clear, because that point has not perhaps been sufficiently clear hitherto.
      The necessary reductions will be achieved, where possible, by natural wastage and through some redeployment within the museum. The detailed arrangements are, of course, matters for the director and the trustees.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to other letters and he has sent me copies of communications that he has received. I assure him that I will take the views that have been expressed extremely seriously in the discussions that I will be having with the chairman of the natural history museum and the director, Dr. Chalmers. I believe the staff do an outstanding job. We are very fortunate to have them. They are taking any representations extremely seriously as I requested that they should and they are looking into all the points that are raised. In my meeting with Sir Walter Bodmer, I shall then have the opportunity to go through many of these issues and discuss the wider implications.
      Major changes of the kind proposed at the natural history museum are inevitably difficult to make and, of course, can be painful. I should therefore like to make clear my appreciation of the museum's staff and the valuable work they do. I am sure that the proposed changes will take the museum into the 1990s with renewed vigour and contribute to my overall aim of ensuring that the highest standards of excellence in scholarship and research are allied to maximum public access to the museum's treasures. It is by giving people today the chance to see and enjoy the museum's unique collections that we shall ensure a healthy future for scholarship and research in natural history.
      I want to give the hon. Member for Linlithgow the broadest possible answer to his questions on this important issue. He may already have this document but, if not, I shall make it available to him because I should like him to see the extensive range of research that the museum is planning to undertake in the years ahead. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that certain areas will be jeopardised. As I have already said, the wider implications of that will be examined carefully. I urge him to look at the document because it illustrates that within the six research programmes that I have highlighted there is a wide diversity of research to be carried out, covering a wide range of issues. I find it most impressive. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I attach great importance to the debate that he has launched today and that I shall take what he has said fully into account.
      Mr. Fisher: Much of what the Minister has said today will provide considerable reassurance and be worth studying. People around the museum and in the science world will read carefully what he has said. However, he has given the impression that the changes in the corporate plan were positive changes, taken for scientific reasons, whereas the corporate plan and what Sir Walter wrote in Nature magazine last week make it clear that the museum has to take this action to save £2 million. The museum has made it clear on all occasions that if it was adequately funded by the Government, it would not have to make these extremely difficult scientific decisions. The Minister must address that point. His remarks have—inadvertently—addressed only the scientific element, on which he has given a reasonable and helpful reply, but will he address the fact that it is his Government's neglect and underfunding that have put the museum in the position of having to make these difficult scientific choices?
      Mr. Luce: I shall reiterate what I said at the beginning. It is not reasonable to suggest that the Government are underfunding in a year when we have increased funding by 16·5 per cent., which is a substantial increase and includes an increase of 11·4 per cent. for the running costs. It is not reasonable to suggest that that is gross underfunding. It shows the significance that we attach to the work of the natural history museum.
      However, the hon. Gentleman is right about the corporate plan. I ask each national museum and gallery to look at a corporate strategy, which includes every aspect of their work, including, for example, accessibility to the public, the extent to which they make their scholarship and research available to the public, and their exhibitions. After all, they need to do a great deal of work on their exhibitions. I understand that it is a priority. I shall take the corporate strategy carefully into account. As hon. Members know, it looks five years ahead and, as they also know, with the help of the Treasury, I plan budgets for three years ahead. I shall take the views expressed in the corporate strategy seriously into account before reaching a final decision about the next three years' funding.
      Mr. Dalyell: I, too, think that the Minister has given a helpful answer tonight. I say that publicly and privately —and many things in it can be built on. However, I am bothered about his use of the word "jeopardised" because what are jeopardised are important collections and research availability on the most vital matters affecting the global environment, such as the diatoms and the whole question of entymology. Some of those areas are being threatened, yet they are the very lifeblood of increasingly important sciences.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said from the Opposition Front Bench, anyone who sees the 25 million specimens in spirits will understand that someone has to maintain them. They are biodegradable. They go back to the time of Captain Cook. They are treasures of immense importance and science can make use of them. A comparison has to be made with other spending and there are many other yardsticks, but we are dealing with a vital lifeblood.
      Mr. Luce: I think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention pinpoints the importance that I, Sir Walter Bodmer, and the chief scientific adviser attach to assessing the wider implications. I believe that that assessment is the key and that it must be given serious consideration. I must

      1093
      defend the natural history museum. It has to take decisions within its resources and decide its priorities. I must assess what it sets out in the corporate strategy and take its views seriously into account. I have already undertaken to the hon. Gentleman that that is something that I shall do.
      Mr. Dalyell: I have a particular comment to make, and it involves the Prime Minister. I am not getting at her. In
      1094
      1981, she confirmed to me, as she said in 1979, that she is the Minister who is responsible for co-ordinating science—
      The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Four o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Research and Development
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he intends to reply to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Definitions of Research and Development"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he intends to reply to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Definitions of Research and Development"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government welcome the Select Committee's report on definitions of research and development and will be making a considered response in due course.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what his Department is doing to promote equality of opportunity in the civil service for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Luce
  A revised code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service will be published tomorrow. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Smoking
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to institute a no-smoking regulation in the telephone kiosks and lifts of the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Services Committee resolved in February 1987 that smoking should not be allowed in lifts and instructed that notices to that effect should be displayed. The question of imposing such a ban in telephone kiosks has not yet been addressed and I shall arrange for it to be referred to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will consider taking up the case brought by Torfaen borough council regarding Sunday trading by B and Q, in the forthcoming appeal.

  The Attorney-General
  In the event of any such invitation to me from Torfaen borough council my 552
  response would have to be determined in the light of the fact that Parliament has made it the duty of local authorities to enforce the provisions of the Shops Act 1950.

  Petty Officer John Black
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on 8 May,Official Report, column 22, he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in setting a date for the hearing into his application for a fresh inquest into the death of Petty Officer John Black; and when he expects to write to the hon. Member.

  The Attorney-General
  I have today been informed that the case will be heard tomorrow.

ENERGY

  Offshore Oil Industry
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the potential of the Single European Act and 1992 for the United Kingdom oil fabrication and offshore supply sectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Two factors have been responsible for the growth of this industry: (1) the enterprise and competitive performance of British companies and (2) the fair commercial opportunity provided for companies operating on the United Kingdom continental shelf. The Single European Act and progress in GATT negotiations should enlarge the opportunities for our competitive companies. We shall continue to ensure fair opportunity in the home and overseas markets after 1992.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Payments for Debt
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to repeal the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to the reply, 10 May 1990, c. 230–31]: It is our practice regularly to review the need for these emergency provisions. I have decided, following the most recent review, that the continuation of the Act is not required by present circumstances and I will therefore shortly sign an order declaring the emergency which gave rise to the provisions is now at an end. The Act will cease to be in force after a period of six months. The efficient collection of public debt nevertheless remains a priority and we intend to review procedures for recovering debt owed to public bodies to establish whether further legislative provision has a role to play.

HEALTH

  Long-stay Patients
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commend to all health authorities the Mersey regional health authority's guidelines for use of money held by health authorities on behalf of long-stay patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do indeed commend the guidelines that Mersey regional health authority has developed. We are currently awaiting a report from regional chairmen on the situation on patients' moneys in each region. When we have reviewed this we will ensure that all regions are conversant with the initiatives that Mersey has taken.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 30, whether the final cost of military assistance in respect of the ambulance dispute is yet known.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The final cost of military assistance was £7·2 million.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on whether disabled people should have the right to representation in community care services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our draft guidance on assessment and case management instructs local authorities to ensure that their assessment procedures accommodate any communication difficulty due to disability. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill, as amended by the Government in the House of Lords, will allow a person acting on behalf of a disabled person to make representations, including complaints, about the social services that the local authority provides.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged under 16 years received free eye tests in England(a) in each quarter in 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics prior to 1 April 1989 were not broken down by patient group. Since then, family practitioner committees have collected data on sight tests paid for under the general ophthalmic services on a six-monthly basis. A total of 752,130 or 8 per cent. of children in England received sight tests paid for under the new regulations. A further 1,624,220 sight tests were also paid for in the period but conducted prior to 1 April 1989; an unknown proportion of these would have been for children.

  AIDS
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) the Mersey region and (b) the Wirral health authority the sums for each of the last three years given to groups giving practical and emotional support to people suffering from AIDS.
  554
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: The amounts allocated to Mersey regional health authority for the last three years as a contribution towards the costs incurred in helping prevent the spread of HIV infection and providing treatment, counselling and support for those affected by HIV are as follows. Allocations to the Wirral health authority are a matter for Mersey regional health authority to determine.

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Year

  Allocation (£'000)

  1988–89

  534

  1989–90

  3,430

  1990–91

  3,602

  In addition, £588,000 AIDS support grant has been allocated to local authorities in the Mersey area in the last two years towards the cost of care and support for people suffering from AIDS.

  The amount within these allocations which has so far been passed to groups giving practical and emotional support to AIDS sufferers is not identified separately. However, reports providing details of expenditure for each health and local authority for 1989–90 will be available by August.

  Under-fives Initiatives
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) action has been taken and (b) further steps he will take in respect of the van der Eyken report on the under-fives initiatives.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The final report of the national monitoring survey of the under-fives initiative by Willem van der Eyken was sent out in 1988. Copies went to local authorities, health authorities and relevant voluntary organisations.

  The Department grant-aids 10 national voluntary organisations active in the under-fives field, including the Pre-school Playgroups Association, National Childminding Association and Home Start Consultancy.

  Under-fives groups benefit from centrally funded initiatives such as the small grants scheme, which builds on the one operated during the earlier initiative. They also received funding from the lone parents element of the retail prices index error scheme.

  The new under-fives initiative was launched in September 1989. It takes forward some of the recommendations in Mr. van der Eyken's report. Twenty-one national and local voluntary organisations are managing 25 local projects. The projects are intended to help families in temporary accommodation; improve partnerships between local authorities and the voluntary sector; extend knowledge about impact of day care services on the circumstances of lone parents; and improve understanding about ways of supporting carers.

  The Children Act will be implemented in October 1991. It introduces provisions for local authorities to regulate private and voluntary day care services and childminding, to have a general duty to provide day care services for children in need and a power to do so for other children. A duty is also placed on local social services and education departments to review and publish a report on day care services in their area. The Department is undertaking extensive consultation on draft guidance on these subjects.

  Medical and Dental Education
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the second report of the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 June 1990, c. 401]: The answer to the question should read as
  follows:
  The report is published today, and is available in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I are sending copies of the second report to all interested parties under cover of a message which reads as follows:
  The report from the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education has been prepared in response to the remit which our predecessors gave the group to consider how the current arrangements for undergraduate medical, and subsequently dental, education can be improved to ensure that the policies and programmes of the bodies concerned are properly co-ordinated and directed. The group was later invited to assess the implications for these matters of the proposed NHS reforms, and to make recommendations. The present report subsumes the interim report which was published in June 1989.
  We welcome, and endorse, this new report. We are grateful to the members of the steering group, and to the organisations which have been associated with it, for working effectively together to support the common purpose of the NHS and the universities in maintaining and improving standards of undergraduate medical and dental education.
  The organisational and financial arrangements must encourage those responsible in both the universities and the NHS to work together to teach students, advance knowledge through research and provide and develop services for patients. These three functions are integral, something as true in the reformed NHS as it is today. That is why the steering group has emphasised the essential common purpose of the universities and the NHS in the fostering of medical knowledge and skills, an emphasis which we support. The ten key principles proposed by the steering group to underpin jointly agreed working arrangements have already been promulgated with our endorsement. The sense of common purpose will be strengthened by the new provision in the NHS and Community Care Bill regarding university membership of those health authorities and NHS trusts having significant involvement in medical and dental education.
  The steering group has given close attention to certain details of finance and management. It has proposed revised procedures for the distribution of the service increment for teaching—SIFT—which again have been promulgated, and are being implemented, with our support. It has made proposals for handling the relationship known as "knock for knock", emphasising the importance of changing only by agreement the balance of expenditure between co-operating institutions. It has also suggested that the flexibility essential to the management of the job plans of clinical academics who are honorary consultants in the NHS might be achieved through a tightly defined package of clinical service commitments, to be delivered by university staff under the management of heads of clinical academic departments in consultation with NHS managers. We endorse these proposals, which encourage an agreed approach to the management of those areas in which the universities and the NHS must engage together in responsibilities which neither can discharge alone.

  The steering group's report offers the prospect of a successor group to carry forward further work in these areas, including involvement with the review of SIFT which is to be completed in 1992. It also proposes that the remit of the successor body should be extended to cover
  "the arrangements for clinical research with service implications, including health services research".
  We welcome the establishment of such a successor, and look forward to receiving its advice in due course.
  556
  We commend the present report to all those who should be guided by its recommendations and proposals.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  St. Helens
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next plans to visit St. Helens.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have no plans to visit St. Helens in the immediate future.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the output of manufacturing industries was in 1979 in the north-west; and what the comparable constant value basis figure is for the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what are the figures in constant value of the output in manufacturing industries in the north-west (a) in 1979 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Current prices estimates for manufacturing gross domestic product in the north-west are £6,763 million in 1979 and £12,381 million in 1988; the latest year for which they are available. There is no comparable constant value figure for this year because there are no regional price indices.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures on productivity of manufacturing industry in Birmingham and the west midlands.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Regional productivity figures are not compiled.

  Exports
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average growth rate in the volume of United Kingdom exports of goods and services between 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average growth rate in the volume of United Kingdom exports of goods and services between 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average growth rate in the volume of United Kingdom exports of goods and services between 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information on movements in the volume of United Kingdom exports of goods and services between 1979 and 1989 is available on the CSO database (series HHCX), which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  West Germany
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current trade deficit with West Germany.
  557
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the three months to April, the "crude" balance of trade with West Germany was a deficit of £2·1 billion.

  Inflation
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the level of inflation.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend addressed the CBI's annual dinner on 17 May, at which a wide range of topics were discussed.

  Region

  Average new mortgage1

  Weekly payment2

  Increase

  June 1988 9·8 per cent, interest rate

  June 1990 15·3per cent. interest rate

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Northern

  26,800

  37·88

  59·14

  21·26

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  30,500

  43·35

  67·67

  24·33

  East Midlands

  35,900

  53·52

  83·56

  30·04

  East Anglia

  40,700

  62·57

  97·68

  35·12

  Greater London

  58,000

  95·17

  148·59

  53·41

  South East

  53,500

  86·69

  135·35

  48·65

  South West

  42,700

  66·34

  103·57

  37·23

  West Midlands

  35,100

  52·02

  81·21

  29·19

  North West

  33,200

  48·43

  75·62

  27·18

  Wales

  31,700

  45·61

  71·20

  25·60

  Scotland

  25,900

  36·61

  57·15

  20·55

  Northern Ireland

  22,600

  31·94

  49·87

  17·93

  United Kingdom

  39,000

  59·37

  92·68

  33·32

  1 Building Society mortgages, first quarter 1990.

  2 Assuming endowment mortgage.

PRIME MINISTER

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what actions she has taken in respect of the maintenance of the taxonomic and palaeontological collections in the natural history museum in south Kensington.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that within the overall objectives set out in the natural history museum's corporate plan 1990–95, the museum's taxonomic and palaeontological collections will continue to be maintained. These collections are central to the museum's scientific work, and scientific and public visitors will continue to enjoy access to the collections. The Government increased the museum's grant in aid by 16·5 per cent. this year to over £25 million.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on European Economic Community proposals for ethical standards in biotechnology.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on European Economic Community proposals for ethical standards in biotechnology.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average increase in repayments per week on the average mortgage in each region between 1 June 1988 and today.

  Mr. Lilley
  The figures in the table do not allow for the fact that interest rate payments on many mortgages are adjusted annually and do not reflect each adjustment in the vote. Consequently average movements in amounts actually paid will be less than shown.

  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on European Economic Community proposals for ethical standards in biotechnology.

  Mr. Jackson
  No formal proposals have been made within the European Economic Community for ethical standards in biotechnology. The Government would look carefully at any such proposals on their merits.

  Pupil Testing
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how the pilot studies on testing at age seven years are to be evaluated; and when he will inform Parliament of his decision regarding the nature of the test to be used in schools in 1991;

  (2) what reports he has received from the organisations using pilot SATs for seven-year-olds; and if he will place them in the Library.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The three agencies which developed the standard assessment tasks used in this summer's pilot assessments will shortly submit evaluation reports to the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC). SEAC will in turn advise my right hon. Friend about the outcome of the pilot assessments. In addition Her Majesty's inspectorate, in collaboration with SEAC and the Department, will host conferences later this month for the teachers who took part in the pilot exercise.

  In the light of this work, a revised specification for the standard assessment tasks for use in the first national assessments of seven-year-olds in 1991 will be issued in the autumn.
  559
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools took part in each of the pilot studies for SATs at seven years of age; and how many children were involved.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Just over 21,000 pupils in 619 schools in England and Wales participated in this summer's pilot assessments of seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science.

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the implications of his announcement of 8 June of changes in the criteria considered in approving city technology colleges on the proposal for a city technology college in Corby.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The criteria for establishing city technology colleges have not changed. The plans for a city technology college in Corby are well advanced, and it is on course to open in September 1991.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science at what stage are the plans for a city technology college in Corby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Plans for the establishment of the city technology college are now well advanced. Detailed designs for the college building have been agreed and submitted to Corby district council for full planning consent. Management contractors have been appointed and a start on site is programmed for early July with completion planned to allow for a September 1991 opening.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the money raised from the private sector for the city technology college in Corby.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  To date a total of £1·6 million of private sector sponsorship has been pledged; £1·1 million of this is in the form of a donation of land from the lead sponsor, Mr. Hugh de Cappell Brooke. A further £0·5 million has been pledged from other private sector sponsors, who wish to remain anonymous for the time being. The principal sponsor has agreed to underwrite any shortfall in the £1·99 million that is required from the private sector should further sponsorship not prove forthcoming.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the effect of the city technology college in Corby on surrounding schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A city technology college in Corby will introduce healthy competition for pupils—as will any independent school. However, the sponsors' intentions are that the city technology college's catchment area should be drawn as wide as is practicable to minimise the impact on individual schools.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the administrative costs of the student loans scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Student Loans Company's provisional budget for the financial year 1990–91 is £14·25 560
  million, exclusive of VAT. The figure includes both pre-operational and operational costs. On present estimates, total pre-operational costs will amount to some £10 million, consisting of expenditure of £4·3 million in 1989–90 and £5·8 million in the first five months of 1990–91.

  The Government have said throughout the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill and subsequently that the administration costs of the loans scheme in the first year of its operation were expected to be in the range £10 million to £20 million. I am pleased to confirm that the outcome is a figure well below the maximum of that range.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Saudi Arabia
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters he discussed during his recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During his visit to Saudi Arabia my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had very useful discussions with King Fand and Saudi Ministers on a wide range of regional and bilateral issues. They agreed in particular on the urgent need for progress towards a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute. My right hon. Friend signed a bilateral agreement on the confiscation of drug-trafficking assets.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions at international conferences or meetings within the last five years when Her Majesty's Government have formally rejected or objected to the territorial claim of the Republic of Ireland over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am not aware of any occasions in the last five years where the Government of the Republic of Ireland have raised a territorial claim over the United Kingdom at an international conference or meeting.

  United Kingdom sovereignty over Northern Ireland, as a matter of international law, is clear. Our sovereignty is manifested, day by day, by acts of legislation, Government and the courts. Further, in article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, both Governments affirmed
  "that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".

  Israel
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in his message to Mr. Yasser Arafat, conveyed by Her Majesty's ambassador in Baghdad on 8 June, he asked Mr. Arafat to condemn the attempted attack on beaches near Tel Aviv on 30 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. All deliberately planned acts of violence must be condemned unequivocally.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protests have been conveyed by Her Majesty's consul-general in Jerusalem to prominent local Palestinians regarding the terrorist bomb explosion in the Mahane Yehuda market on 28 May.
  561
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no reason to associate any prominent local Palestinian with the Mahane Yehuda explosion, which was immediately condemned by one of their number, Mr. Feisal Husseini.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, at his meeting with Bassam Abu Sharif on 5 June, the Minister of State expressed concern about the reported threat by Abu Al Abbas to carry out more terrorist attacks on Israel; and what further protests are intended by Her Majesty's Government to the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes, I told Mr. Abu Sharif of our deep concern about the PLF raid on Israel on 30 May and urged the PLO to continue to adhere to its commitment to renounce terrorism.

  Iran
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts were made by British officials to meet Iranian representatives in Dublin on or about 16 May; and with what result.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It was our understanding that the Iranians wanted a meeting. We had told them that we were willing to have a brief contact in Dublin. In the event they did not take up our offer.

  Burma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Burmese Government urging them to respect the results of the recent election there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 29 May we urged the SLORC to give effect to the clearly expressed wish of the people of Burma and called for the early release of the imprisoned leaders of the democratic parties and for the unconditional lifting of martial law. On 6 June the European Community called on the military regime to respect the results of the elections by handing over power to a Government chosen by the newly elected Parliament without delay and to release political leaders in detention immediately.

  We are now considering what further representations might be made and when.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning Government policy towards Taiwan.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since 1950, when we ceased to recognise the nationalist authorities as the Government of China, it has been the policy of successive Governments to have no formal dealings with the authorities in Taiwan. We do, however, seek to promote unofficial trade and cultural links between the United Kingdom and Taiwan.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Disabled People (Aid)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of funds provided by the British Government for development in 562
  the third world is given to schemes which promote the interests and welfare of disabled people; and what percentage of the support (a) was categorised as (i) medical, (ii) employment, (iii) education and (iv) social improvement and (b) is allocated through (1) national Governments, (2) international statutory agencies and (3) voluntary organisations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Much of our aid directly and indirectly benefits disabled people along with other groups and it is not possible to quantify the proportion which assists disabled people specifically. Nor is it practicable to divide such aid into medical, employment, education and social categories, as these very often overlap in the same projects.

  Under ODA's bilateral programme however there are a number of projects which can be identified as being designed to benefit disabled people specifically; for example, assistance to speech therapy for children and transport for the Disabled People's Association in Fiji was about £20,000 and in India we spent about £180,000 on helping to improve the physiotherapy services provided by local spastics societies and about £70,000 for the benefit of disabled children in slums.

  In addition, the joint funding scheme, which helps to finance the work of United Kingdom voluntary organisations in developing countries, provided over £651,000 in financial year 1989–90 on projects designed specifically to benefit disabled people; that was approximately 4 per cent. of the scheme's total expenditure for the year. There are many other JFS projects which benefit disabled people without being specifically targeted on them, because they seek to meet needs of those identified as having special difficulties in life.

  Several of the international agencies which we support, such as WHO, UNHCR and UNIDO undertake projects which promote the welfare of disabled people.

TRANSPORT

  Jet Cockpit Window Incident
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the air accidents investigation branch will conduct a formal investigation into the circumstances in which the forward cockpit window of a British Airways BAe 1–11 was secured by means of non-specified bolts; what information he has as to whether the Civil Aviation Authority intends to investigate the incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The accident is the subject of a formal investigation by the Department's air accidents investigation branch. The role of accident investigation is deliberately separated from that of safety regulation, for which the Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility, to avoid a conflict of interest.

  The AAIB will keep the CAA informed of any relevant findings. On 12 June, as a result of the AAIB investigation, the CAA issued a notice to owners-operators of BAe 1–11 aircraft concerning the windscreen attachment bolts.

  Underground Trains
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 152, if he will call for a report from the chairman of London Underground Ltd. into the death of Mr.

  563
  Raymond Knight and the implications for public safety of one-person-operated underground trains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  At the recent inquest into Mr. Knight's death, Her Majesty's coroner recorded a unanimous verdict of accidental death and that he intended to send a report to the railway inspectorate. The report has not yet been received but when it is, I will consider any recommendations that may be made. I will also write to the hon. Member.

  Smoke Hoods
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many applications to the Civil Aviation Authority for the approval of smoke hoods meeting CAA specification No. 20 are still current.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that three applications are still current.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many smoke hoods submitted for approval under CAA specification No. 20 are being subjected to development tests; and if he will make a statement on the current position.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The CAA does not carry out tests on items submitted to it for approval against a specification. It is for the developer of the item to submit evidence of compliance, which the CAA then evaluates.

  I understand that no applicant so far has satisfied the CAA that the specification has been met.

  Rail Services
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail passenger service journey miles there were in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively, in 1979; and what were the comparable figures for 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  Statistics of rail passenger journeys are not broken down by geographical area.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many employees of his Department are concerned with(a) roads, (b) rail transport, (c) civil aviation and (d) cycling.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: My Department has about 2,300 staff concerned with roads and traffic, 135 with rail transport and 145 with civil aviation; about 40 staff in the Department spend some part of their time on cycling-related work.

  The substantially greater numbers concerned with roads reflect the Department's direct responsibility for the national roads programme, whereas provision of infrastructure for other transport modes is the concern of other bodies, for example, British Rail and the British Airports Authority.

ENVIRONMENT

  Business Rents
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has any plans to introduce measures to curb increases in business rents above inflation.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to investigate the problem of rising business rents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will undertake a study on increases in urban business rents and their impact on local communities.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have no plans to introduce measures to control business rents. These are matters for negotiation between landlord and tenant. Information about changes in rental levels is already available; in addition we monitor the situation under the main legislation for business tenancies—part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

  World Recycling Conference
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will be represented at the world recycling conference in Baltimore. United States of America, on 27 to 29 June.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No.

  Insulating Materials (Waste Disposal)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance he gives on the disposal of(a) high-temperature insulating materials such as asbestos, ceramic spray and fibre, and calcium silicate and (b) waste from the manufacturing plants which produce such materials;

  (2) what guidance he gives on the disposal of (a) low-temperature insulating materials such as polystyrene, polyurethane and phenolics and (b) waste from the manufacturing plants which produce such materials.

  Mr. Trippier
  Guidance on the disposal of asbestos is given in "Waste Management Paper 18", and advice on the other materials and the wastes from their manufacture is to be found in a number of other WMPs published by my Department.

  Football Trust
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange to have deposited in the Library the minutes of the Football Trust meetings.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Football Trust 1990 is a discretionary trust and it is for it to decide whether or not to publish the minutes of its meetings.

  Housing, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the median fair rent set by the rent officer service on Merseyside; what is the median for the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  565
  Mr. Chope
  The median of the fair rents registered in Merseyside in the last six months of 1989 was £18 per week. The corresponding figure for England and Wales was £25·27 per week.

  Land Registers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual cost of maintaining the register of derelict land.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of land currently on the land register; and what is the cost to the taxpayer each year in keeping it up to date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Currently some £6,000 per year. This relates largely to the storage of the information on computer. Since the introduction of owners' registers last autumn maintenance of my right hon. Friend's land registers has been concentrated on sites where the use of his powers to direct disposal is in question, for example, in connection with the public request to order disposal scheme.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for opencast development, having gone to appeal, have been refused by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since April 1987, the first date from which comprehensive data are available, 62 opencast mining appeals have been under consideration with the Secretary of State. During that time, 22 appeals have been upheld and 20 dismissed. One appeal has been withdrawn and 19 appeals have yet to be decided.

  Tenants' Choice
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation to discuss tenants' choice.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

  Local Government
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he, has received in favour of reintroducing all-purpose county boroughs.

  Mr. Portillo
  Several: to which we have replied that major structural change in English local government is not on the agenda.

  Community Forests
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the establishment of new community forests surrounding urban areas.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has welcomed this project launched jointly by the Countryside and Forestry Commissions in July last year. We look forward to the successful establishment of the three forests of this type which the Government have authorised: at 566
  Tyne and Wear, south Staffordshire and east London. In due course we will consider proposals for such forests elsewhere in England and Wales.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the European Court of Justice to present its preliminary verdict on the infringement procedures initiated by the Commission against the United Kingdom Government and other member states concerning the implementation of directive 76/160 on bathing water quality and directive 80/778 on drinking water quality.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Her Majesty's Government have received no indication from the European Court of Justice of when it intends to take further action on the cases currently before the court in relation to these two directives.

  Tyneside Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional contribution to the uniform business rate pool the Government propose to make in respect of the(a) Gateshead and (b) Newcastle sections of the Tyneside enterprise zone.

  Mr. Chope
  None. As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member of 7 June,Official Report, column 688, under the new local government finance system business properties in enterprise zones are exempt from rating. A figure broadly equivalent to the amount of rates that would have been paid but for this exemption was added to the revenue support grant for England for 1990–91.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many man years of inspection were devoted to the task of supervising and monitoring licensed radioactive waste disposal sites by Her Majesty's Government's inspectorate of pollution in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested. Available information on the inspection effort devoted to premises regulated under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and prior to that by Her Majesty's radiochemical inspectorate in the past five years is contained in the Department's management information system returns MINIS 6–10 available in the Library of the House. The MINIS 11 report covering 1989–90 will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the licence holders and sites licensed for radioactive waste disposal under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, together with the date the licence was issued and the term it has to run.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department's "List of Premises in England and Wales currently authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (RSA60) to dispose of radioactive waste" a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It is not normal practice for authorisations under RSA60 to have a
  567
  termination date although all are subject to periodic review. Information relating to the date of issue of each authorisation can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) of 19 March,Official Report, column 490, he will identify those small, localised inshore locations where evidence of eutrophication has been found; what evidence he has of trends in nutrients in coastal and estuarial waters of the United Kingdom; and what examination of fluxes of nutrients, through which estuaries, and by whom, is, or is proposed to be, undertaken.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The inshore locations where evidence of eutrophication has been found are the Norfolk Broads, Langstone harbour, Poole harbour, Tywi estuary, inner Moray Firth and Loch Neagh. Nutrient levels in coastal and estuarial waters have been monitored since 1960 by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea: it reports no sign of a rising trend in levels. Monitoring of nutrients in coastal and estuarial waters in England and Wales is now the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority.

  Isle of Sheppey
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make a decision on the inquiry into the Lionhope scheme on the Isle of Sheppey.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The inquiry will open on 25 September and is expected to last for four weeks. A decision will be issued as soon as possible after the inspector's report has been received.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the president of the Linnean Society on the effects of cuts in research on palaeontological reference collections at the natural history museum on scientific research to underpin the development of current policies on the environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has received no such representations from the president of the Linnean Society.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the HOTCHA scheme to provide grants for house purchase for tenants of housing associations ceased; and what plans he has to replace the scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  The winding up of the home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations—HOTCHA—was announced on 14 December 1988. No new applications were accepted by the Housing Corporation after that date but existing applications were honoured provided the applicant could secure the necessary approvals and exchange contracts by 31 March 1990.
  568
  The Housing Corporation is in the process of introducing a new scheme, known as the tenants' incentive scheme—TIS—under which registered housing associations, whether or not charitable, may give grants to assist their tenants to move out and buy homes of their own. A total of £33 million is being made available for TIS grants in 1990–91 under the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. Of this, £12 million will be for tenants of charitable housing associations who applied under the HOTCHA scheme, but did not complete their purchase in time. The balance of £21 million will be for new applicants for TIS grants. In total up to 2,500 housing association tenants stand to benefit from the tenants' incentive scheme in 1990–91.

  Green Belt Areas
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria his Department uses when approving re-designation of green belt land as an employment area.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Planning policy guidance note 2 sets out the Government's planning policy on green belts. Once the extent of a green belt has been established it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations from the Leeds development corporation about the level of funding for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The resource requirements of the corporation are under review as part of the normal annual discussions which form part of the public expenditure survey cycle. No other representation about either current or future financial years have been received.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities responsible for recycling have installed magnetic separators for reclaiming reusable steel.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on Thursday 26 April 1990,Official Report, column 296.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government's new legislation on the environment will allow local authorities to enter into index-linked contracts to supply waste to private companies seeking to recycle and reclaim that waste, on a joint venture basis where the private partner is covering all capital costs whilst simultaneously allowing the local authority a minority position on the board of directors of the joint venture company.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: Yes. We expect that local authorities will want to enter into long-term contracts for waste disposal, in which index-linking may well be appropriate. Authorities will also be encouraged to enter into joint ventures with private sector disposal companies, as a means of securing private sources of finance for capital schemes.
  569
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the regulations and intentions that govern the consideration of proprietary technologies in a competitive tendering process for the disposal of domestic waste; and how he will assess those technologies that emerge offering the ability to recycle and reclaim domestic waste.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: There are no plans to issue regulations governing the consideration of proprietary technologies for the disposal of waste. Individual disposal authorities will make their own decisions about awarding contracts having regard to the potential of new technologies that are developed for disposal and recycling.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require disposal or other authorities to give a value to waste recycled or reclaimed, by volume, at the competitive tendering stage; and what steps he will take to ensure that tendering contractors are not disadvantaged by cheap landfilling during the consideration of such tenders.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: Disposal authorities will be encouraged, through the provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill, to maximise recycling and waste minimisation. Contractors will be able to estimate the potential value of waste to be recycled and will adjust their contract price accordingly. It will then be for disposal authorities to consider tenders on their respective merits having regard to environmental factors. There will be no requirement to accept the lowest bid.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require the real costs of landfill to be considered, as opposed to gate fees, when competitive tenders for waste disposal are made.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The introduction of competitive tendering, under the provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill, will force all disposal contractors to bid on the basis of the full costs of waste disposal, including the restoration and after-care of landfill sites.

  Cricket Grounds
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to improve safety at cricket grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  All cricket grounds which have been identified as providing accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators have been designated as sports grounds requiring safety certificates under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. Stands or other accommodation which can hold at least 500 spectators for viewing under cover at grounds which are not designated under the 1975 Act are subject to safety certification by local authorities under part III of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. Local authorities have, in consequence wide powers to secure the safety of spectators.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures are available to him to deal with local councils that(a) have not submitted a design for an emergency control centre, (b) have not identified a site for an emergency control centre and (c) have stated that they will not comply with the latest civil defence regulations;

  (2) what is the deadline set by his Department for local councils to agree to comply with the latest civil defence regulations; and by what date councils will have to identify a site and complete a design for an emergency control centre;

  (3) what reasons have been given by local councils for not implementing the civil regulations set by the Government.

  Mr. John Patten
  No local authority has refused to discharge its responsibilities under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983. There are many reasons why individual authorities may not yet have fully implemented the regulations and the planned programme for implementation of the regulations ensures that the Home Office is in touch with them all. The regulations do not provide for the setting of a deadline for compliance.

  The Civil Defence (General) Regulations 1949 contain sanctions which are available to the designated Minister if he is satisfied that any local authority has failed or refused properly to discharge any of the civil defence functions conferred on it; alternatively the Civil Defence (Grant) Regulations 1953 provide for the withholding of grant.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of local councils that(a) have so far failed to comply with the latest civil defence regulations, (b) have not chosen a site for an emergency centre and (c) have not yet submitted designs for an emergency centre.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 10 May at column 198.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to implement the Pigot report on the giving of legal evidence by children in child abuse cases; whether he has received representations on this subject since 10 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are still considering, with the benefit of the favourable comments received upon the Pigot report. what proposals we should make on video-recording children's evidence. We receive occasional letters in support of making it easier for children to give evidence.

  Cautions
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice of the Metropolitan police to release to the press details of cautions given under the Attorney-General's guidelines.
  571
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Upon request the Metropolitan police will(a) make available statistics of cautions given over a period and (b) confirm that an unnamed person arrested or reported for an offence has been dealt with by way of a caution. They will not disclose the identity of anyone who has been cautioned.

  Poaching
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were for poaching in 1988 and 1989; and how many of those convictions were associated with assault.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1988, there were 980 convictions for the offence of poaching. The 1989 data will not be available until the autumn. It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify the number of poaching convictions which are also associated with offences of assault.

  Immigration
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action is being taken to trace the 33 Chinese student democracy activists who failed to meet a bus sent by the immigration service to take them for interview at Harmondsworth on 11 May;

  (2) if he will reconsider his Department's decision that Panama affords sufficient protection to be considered a country of third settlement;

  (3) if it is the intention to return 33 Chinese nationals, formerly members of the student democracy movement, to Panama; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 33, who have failed to comply with the terms of their temporary admission, are now in this country illegally, and no decision on any aspect of their applications can be made until they report to an immigration officer to regularise their position. Any representations then made on their behalf will be considered fully and carefully. Their representatives have been informed of the position.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  Mr. Waddington
  Information on management consultancy awarded before 1985, and the outcome of studies conducted over the last 10 years is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The cost of individual management consultancy contracts is a matter of commercial confidentiality which it would not be proper to disclose. For details of studies carried out in 1985 I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on 14 July 1986 at column 333 and for 1986 to 1989 to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 18 February 1987 at column 643, 26 April 1988 at column 86, 4 April 1989 at column 30, and 3 April 1990 at column 557. The following studies have been commissioned in the current year:
  572
  Price Waterhouse

  Financial Advice on the Privatisation of the IBA Transmission Network.

  NERA

  Advice on the economic regulation of the privatised IBA Transmission Network.

  Norton Rose

  Legal Advisers on the Privatisation of the IBA Transmission Network.

  PA Consultants

  Review of the Prison Service Management Information System Requirements.

  Jones Lang Wooton

  "City Search" for the proposed relocation of the Prison Service HQ.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Nottingham Crime Audit.

  BBN Matching

  Consultancy on Multi-ethnic name.

  PPCR

  Survey of Community Safety.

  Talisman

  Public Relations Consultancy (launch of Rochdale Safer Cities Project).

  Reginald Watts

  Consultancy Assistance to develop Marketing Plan.

  Sudbury Consultants Ltd.

  Study of Command, Leadership and Management.

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  Study and Estimate of Costs of the setting up and running of a Magistrates Courts Agency.

  Ernst and Young

  Privatisation of the IBA Terrestrial Transmission System: Reporting Accountants.

  Greaves and Co.

  Accountancy Advice.

  Vista Communications

  Communication Audit for the Prison Service.

  Touche Ross

  Assistance with Passport Office Agency.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give particulars of each escape from police cells in England and Wales since 11 June 1987, including the charges faced by each escaped prisoner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state his policy on the use of police cells to house remand prisoners.

  Mr. Mellor
  In present circumstances there is no practical alternative to the use of police cells where prisoners cannot be received into an appropriate prison. My right hon. and learned Friend and I very much regret the need to hold remand prisoners in police cells at all. The current level of use is a result largely of disruptive industrial action or lack of good will on the part of staff in some establishments and I can assure the hon. and learned
  573
  Member that every effort is being made to resolve the difficulties. We are most grateful to the police for their assistance.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners are held in police cells in Wales at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  By Tuesday 19 June the number of prisoners having to be held in police cells in south Wales as a direct result of industrial action by prison officers at Her Majesty's prison Swansea had been reduced to four. While the dispute has not been resolved, sufficient good will exists to have enabled this reduction to be brought about.

  We very much regret the necessity to have recourse to police cells at all.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the responses to the Green Paper "Summer Time—A Consultation Document," Cm. 722.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 30,867 responses have been received following publication of the Green Paper, of which 26,029 were in the form of signatories to petitions. Excluding signatories to petitions, 50 per cent. were in favour of moving into central European time—single "summer" time in the winter, double "summer" time in the summer until the beginning of October—46 per cent. were in favour of the status quo, and 4 per cent. were in favour of harmonising summer time along with other EC countries—in effect finishing summer time one month early. Of the signatories to the petitions, 22,684 were in support of central European time and 3,345 were against change. The response in England and Wales was very different from that in Scotland. A total of 59 per cent. of letters and 100 per cent. of signatories to petitions from England and Wales supported central European time; 90 per cent. of letters and 80 per cent. of signatories to petitions from Scotland supported the status quo. Only 10 responses were received from Northern Ireland. A detailed breakdown of the responses is being placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement in regard to the letter sent to him from Dr. Raine Roberts, the forensic physician and clinical director of the sexual assault referral centre in Manchester, by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe.

  Mr. John Patten
  Dr. Roberts' concern is that children giving evidence in criminal trials of alleged sexual abuse can be identified by members of the public in court, and could be subject to unwelcome attention from them.

  The courts already have power, under section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, to exclude from the court anyone not directly concerned with the case except a bona fide representative of the press, who may be prevented from publishing identifying details of a person under 17 who plays any part in the proceedings. In addition, if there is fear of interference with any witness, the witness's name and address may be given in writing instead of orally.
  574
  Use of these powers would seem the appropriate way to deal with the problem.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the length of time currently being taken to process naturalisation cases and the expected time scale for new applications.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: Present waiting times for naturalisation cases stem from the exceptional level of citizenship applications of all kinds received at the end of 1987. The increase in naturalisation applications seems to have resulted from a mistaken belief on the part of many applicants that the then ending of certain rights of registration applied also to naturalisation. Many applied after long previous residence in the United Kingdom without apparently experiencing either inconvenience over travelling or earlier desire to assume citizenship. All have been warned that their applications would be subject to considerable delay.

  In May 1990, the average waiting time for all citizenship applications completed in that month was 26 months; for naturalisation alone it was 29 months. These long waiting times result from the large number of applications—almost 300,000—submitted in 1987. The number of applications received from January 1988 was much smaller, and when the end-1987 cases are cleared the position will begin to improve.

  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 31 January, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), that nationality work would be transferred to Liverpool by 1991. That transfer is proceeding. Earlier forecasts of performance are, however, having to be revised in the light of new information about intake of new applications, the disruption caused by the process of transfer, and lower levels of output on the more difficult naturalisation casework than on registration. It is now clear that we shall not be able to reduce waiting times as quickly as we had hoped, and although we continue to expect an improvement later in this financial year and next, they are likely to remain above 20 months until some time after April 1991.

  We regret waiting times of this length and are giving urgent consideration to the priority that should be given to nationality work as against other functions of the immigration and nationality department. Close account will also be taken of the report of the Home Affairs Committee published today. It is, however, relevant to note that those awaiting the determination of citizenship applications are not prevented from continuing to enjoy residence rights or from travelling on the passports of their current nationality.

  Prisoners (Disciplinary Offences)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number and proportion of prisoners appearing before disciplinary hearings of boards of visitors who were legally represented in the most recent available year.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: The centrally held data relate to the numbers of offences on which boards of visitors adjudicate. The latest data are for

  575
  1988 when applications for legal representations were granted in respect of hearings for 33 offences, that is, 0·8 per cent. of the number of offences on which boards of visitors adjudicated.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were found guilty of disciplinary offences by boards of visitors in the most recent available year; how many were deprived of remission; and what was the breakdown of lengths of remission forfeited.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: The centrally held data relate to the numbers of punishments awarded. From 1 April 1989 the maximum penalty available to boards of visitors was reduced to 120 days' forfeiture of remission. The most recent data were for 1988 when boards of visitors awarded 5,180 unsuspended punishments. A total of 3,108 of these were forfeiture of remission and were broken down as follows:

  Number of days remission forfeited

  Number of punishments

  1–7

  78

  8–14

  65

  15–28

  177

  29–30

  141

  31–60

  1,479

  61–90

  928

  91–120

  168

  Over 120

  72

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the reason for the delay in setting up the Football Licensing Authority.

  Consultant and cost

  Subject

  Outcome

  1988–89 (£39,187)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Monitoring payment arrangements for Urban Development Grants.

  Report accepted by Department and where appropriate recommendations were implemented.

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Evalution of Regional Selective Assistance.

  As at 1 above.

  Pieda (Planning and economic development consultants)

  An impact study of the development of rural initiative venture and enterprise (DRIVE).

  Modifications suggested were adopted in relaunched scheme.

  Leslie Hays and Asses.

  Evaluation of Regional Enterprise Grant Scheme.

  As at 1 above.

  Frank Griffiths

  Purchasing in the Welsh Office.

  Recommendations implemented.

  HMSO

  Review of the organisation of Welsh Office Print Room.

  Recommendations implemented.

  1989–90 (£44,725)

  Leslie Hays Consultancies Ltd.

  Evaluation of Regional Enterprise Grant.

  As at 1 above.

  Price Waterhouse

  Training needs Analysis.

  Report received in April 1990 Recommendations are under consideration.

  Touche Ross

  Management Review of NHS Directorate.

  All the key recommendations have been implemented.

  576
  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: It has been necessary to review the proposed role of the Football Licensing Authority in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster, and the Government's subsequent decision not to proceed with the national football membership scheme and the Football Membership Authority. As a result of that review, responsibility for the authority was formally transferred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in May. It has been necessary to consider carefully how the authority's powers could best be used to bring about all-seated accommodation at football grounds, as proposed by Lord Justice Taylor, and the sort of qualities and experience which would be required among its members and staff to equip it for its revised role. This work has taken longer than had been hoped, but is now largely completed. I hope that an announcement about appointments to the authority can be made before the start of the next football season. In the meantime, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has already met the football authorities, and officials are in close touch with them, to ensure that there is no avoidable delay in implementing the important safety measures recommended in Lord Justice Taylor's report.

WALES

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90 is given in the table:
  577
  It would be disproportionately costly to provide the information required for the earlier years.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list for each area covered by TECs in Wales the payments granted by the Training Agency in Wales for 1990–91 per trainee for each of the courses; and whether such payments included the travelling costs of trainees.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Details of unit costs are confidential to the Training Agency and individual course managers. Payments under YT and ET include trainees' travelling costs in excess of £3 and £4 per week respectively.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with glaucoma and diabetes received free eye tests in each district health authority area in Wales(a) in each quarter in 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  Estimates of numbers of sight tests for different types of patient are based on a 2 per cent. sample. This sample is not sufficient to make robust estimates by patient type within district health authority areas.

  Ferry Services, Fishguard
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met both chairman and chief executive of Sealink to discuss passenger ferry services at Fishguard; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There has been no meeting between my right hon. Friend and Sealink to discuss services from Fishguard. No such meeting has been requested.

  Mid-Wales Development Board
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much capital was invested by the mid-Wales development board in Ceredigion in 1989; what were the corresponding figures for the last 10 years: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Expenditure by the Development Board for Rural Wales in Ceredigion in the financial year 1989–90 was £1·3 million. The corresponding figures for the previous 10 years are as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  0·75

  1980–81

  0·61

  1981–82

  0·73

  1982–83

  0·78

  1983–84

  1·25

  1984–85

  1·50

  1985–86

  1·74

  1986–87

  0·98

  1987–88

  0·70

  1988–89

  0·98

  The figures confirm the continuing commitment by the DBRW to sustaining social and economic development within the district of Ceredigion.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he will list the managing organisations currently operating youth training schemes in each area covered by the TECs; and whether he will list the courses each organisation was running prior to the issuing of new training contracts indicating(a) how many places each organisation had contracted for under each course, (b) how many places had actually been filled in 1989 and (c) what was the total contribution to each managing organisation for the Training Agency in 1988–89 and 1989–90;

  (2) whether he will list in each area covered by the TECs in Wales the managing organisations operating youth training schemes under the new contracts issued by the Training Agency indicating (1) how many places have been allocated to each organisation and each course under the new contracts and (2) the percentage increase or decrease in places and financial contribution to each managing organisation estimated by the Training Agency under the new contracts.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: The training agencies have now provided the details requested. However, due to the volume and format of this information I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of the reply in the Library of the House.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 June on bathing waters, if he will make it his policy to encourage the display of information on water quality on beaches which do not currently have European Community designation.

  Mr. Grist
  As I said in my answer of 13 June, we will be encouraging local authorities to make this information more readily available but it is for them to decide where in their areas such notices should be placed.

  Flexi-ownership
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received concerning the flexi-ownership scheme; how many were(a) in favour and (b) against the scheme; how many of these representations are from (i) individuals, (ii) organisations and (iii) local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No representations have been received against flexi-ownership. Seventeen individuals and one local authority have written expressing interest.

  The Development Board for Rural Wales, which administers the scheme, has received 116 inquiries from tenants.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide the latest available figures for spending and the number of participants on each of his Department's training and employment measures in Wales in(a) the last three years, (b) the current year and (c) projections for the next three years.
  579
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: The information requested for 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 is shown in the table. Actual figures for 1990–91 and projections for the next three years are not available.

  Training agency and employment services programmes

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Volume3

  Spend

  Volume3

  Spend

  Volume3

  Spend

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Voluntary Project Programme

  6,024

  0·91

  4None

  0·86

  —

  —

  New Job Training Scheme

  4,535

  1·1

  4None

  1·1

  —

  —

  Access to Information Technology

  1,244

  0·05

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Job Training Scheme

  3,959

  8·6

  1,570

  4·43

  —

  —

  Training for Enterprise

  6,816

  1·03

  4,869

  0·66

  —

  —

  Local Grants to Employers

  8,141

  1·79

  8,253

  1·86

  —

  —

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  7,062

  n.a.

  6,865

  n.a.

  5,489

  8·954

  Wider Opportunities Programme

  5,485

  1·78

  3,767

  1·25

  —

  —

  Community Programme

  119,865

  75·35

  4None

  40·67

  —

  —

  Residual Adult Training

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·754

  Business Growth Training (Option 2)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,426

  0·467

  YTS/YT

  19,079

  51·77

  18,758

  52·66

  17,781

  50·746

  Employment Training

  —

  —

  17,564

  13·67

  32,766

  32·741

  Non-ET Business Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,398

  0·195

  RESTART

  Data not available due to changes in budget procedures

  2,866

  22·2

  2,602

  0·314

  Job Clubs

  4,768

  4,621

  1·219

  Travel to Interview Scheme

  2,168

  1,777

  0·036

  Jobstart

  1,015

  1,313

  0·444

  Programme Development Fund

  —

  286

  0·019

  Job Interview Guarantee

  —

  191

  0·003

  1 In training at 31 March 1988.

  2 Total expenditure only available.

  3 Key to Employment Service Volume Data:

  Restart = numbers completing courses.

  Job clubs = number of job entries.

  Jobstart = applications accepted.

  Programme Development Fund = numbers involved in projects.

  Job Interview Guarantee = numbers placed in employment.

  For Training Agency Programmes Volume = starts.

  4 There were no starts on VPP, NJTS and CP in 1988–89 as these programmes were replaced by ET. Expenditure relates to residual costs for trainees who had commenced training in the previous year.

  n.a.—Not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Japan
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with Japan.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with Japan.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with Japan.

  Mr. Ridley
  In the four months to the end of April 1990, the United Kingdom trade deficit in manufactured goods with Japan was £1·4 billion, a decrease of 9 per cent. compared with the same period last year.

  Environmental Proposals
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new proposals to encourage British industry to be environmentally friendly.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new proposals to encourage British industry to be environmentally friendly.
  580
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new proposals to encourage British industry to be environmentally friendly.

  Mr. Forth
  I shall continue to encourage British industry to respond positively to the challenges and opportunities presented by environmental isssues. A new environment unit has been established in my Department to focus on the impact of environmental issues on business efficiency and competitiveness and in particular to encourage and advise on the development of improved environmental technology, waste management and recycling.

  Patents
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average time for the completion of processing a patent application.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The average time is estimated at three years and 10 months.

  Insider Trading
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on plans to improve the detection of insider trading.
  581
  Mr. Forth
  No. I am not aware that there is a significant amount of insider dealing which goes undetected. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence to the contrary, I should be grateful if he would give it to me.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on an inquiry involving oral evidence on 5 June from Mr. Nigel Harris of the AUEW, Mr. Alan Harris, Mr. Bill Menzies and the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

  Mr. Ridley
  I expect to receive the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report by 3 August.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many takeover bids have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Since 1979, 104 merger situations qualifying for investigation under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, and three merger situations between water enterprises qualifying for investigation under the provisions of the Water Act 1989, have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In addition, there have been 14 references to the commission under the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for trade and Industry if he will make a statement as to his policy, on referring acquisitions and mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission against the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Ridley
  Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Director General of Fair Trading makes a recommendation to me as to whether a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is for me alone to decide whether or not to accept the director general's recommendation. I treat each case on its merits. However, in the vast majority of cases, I agree with the recommendation made by the director general.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the levels of Government-funded research and development for(a) Japan, (b) the United States of America and (c) the United Kingdom for the years 1985 to 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the levels of Government-funded research and development for(a) Japan, (b) the United States of America and (c) the United Kingdom for the years 1985 to 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Government-funded R and D as a percentage of GDP was between 1·3 per cent. and 1·0 per cent. for the United Kingdom in the period 1985 to 1988. For the United States of America, the corresponding figures were between 1·3 per cent. and 1·2 per cent. For Japan, the percentage was constant at 0·5 per cent. No figures are yet available for 1989.

  Debt Advice
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to increase spending on debt advice work.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to increase spending on debt advice work.

  Mr. Forth
  None. My Department does not specifically fund debt advice much of which is provided by citizens advice bureaux, as part of their general service. DTI grant in aid to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland, which provide the support services for individual citizens advice bureaux will amount to more than £11 million in 1990–91, compared with some £10 million last year. Individual bureaux are funded mainly by local authorities.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take to reduce the balance of payments deficit in information technology.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take to reduce the balance of payments deficit in information technology.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take to reduce the balance of payments deficit in information technology.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government's policy is to create the right climate for profitable investment. The success of that policy is shown by the substantial investments being made in the United Kingdom by many of the world's leading companies in the IT industry.

  Plessey
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the subject of the GEC/Siemens takeover of Plessey.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the subject of the GEC/Siemens takeover of Plessey.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the subject of the GEC/Siemens takeover of Plessey.

  Mr. Ridley
  Ministers have received four recent representations about the GEC/Siemens takeover of Plessey.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received about ensuring the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.
  583
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have received a number of representations on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage the development of specialised steel making.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is for the industry to take whatever steps it considers appropriate.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to ensure that the steel and special steel industries maintain their internationally competitive position.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is for the industry itself to ensure that it is competitive.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of British Steel; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with British Steel about its decision to close Ravenscraig hot strip mill.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the Ravenscraig steel plant.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the Scottish steel industry.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) earlier today.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any correspondence from British Steel plc explaining, with financial details, the decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig, Lanarkshire; and if he will make a statement about the implications for the steel industry in general.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have received a copy of a letter from the chairman of British Steel to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning the company's proposal to close the Ravenscraig hot strip mill. The contents of the letter are confidential.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the legislative measures needed to establish the single European market the Council of Ministers has(a) now adopted, (b) reached a common position on and (c) secured agreement in principle to; and what proportion this constitutes of the total programme.

  Mr. Ridley
  Of the 282 legislative measures set out in the European Commission's White Paper, "Completing 584
  the Internal Market", 148 have now been adopted by the Council of Ministers, a common position has been reached on seven, and agreement in principle has been secured on six. Seven measures have also been partially adopted. This constitutes 59 per cent. of the total programme.

  Departmental Reorganisation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect the reorganisation of his Department will have on the regions.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect the reorganisation of his Department will have on the regions.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the reorganisation of his Department on the regions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Policy towards the regions is not affected by the reorganisation of my Department.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the performance of the British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion he has recently had with the president of the Confederation of British Industry about the performance of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has recently had with the president of the Confederation of British Industry about the performance of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has recently had with the president of the CBI about the performance of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a range of issues relevant to business.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no immediate plans to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate, for each year since 1979, whether the United Kingdom had a surplus or a deficit in manufactured goods with other European Community countries.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  585

  Crude balance of trade in manufactured goods

  £ million

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  France

  -727

  -439

  -595

  -535

  -1,082

  -1,154

  -1,222

  -1,510

  -1,151

  -1,152

  -967

  Belgium-Lux

  -403

  -168

  -380

  -525

  -499

  -558

  -518

  -357

  -528

  -608

  -695

  Netherlands

  84

  184

  -191

  -466

  -803

  -844

  -747

  -1,128

  -1,117

  -1,914

  -2,157

  FR Germany

  -2,523

  -2,001

  -2,152

  -3,314

  -4,926

  -5,069

  -5,833

  -6,713

  -7,465

  -8,676

  -9,631

  Italy

  -796

  -368

  -498

  -826

  -1,175

  -1,302

  -1,387

  -1,590

  -1,553

  -1,787

  -2,087

  Irish Republic

  954

  793

  690

  547

  471

  495

  548

  584

  484

  491

  698

  Denmark

  147

  114

  -5

  -1

  -71

  -81

  -21

  -1

  -58

  -140

  -197

  Greece

  184

  140

  137

  137

  172

  163

  167

  149

  152

  173

  222

  Portugal

  14

  79

  49

  39

  -74

  -236

  -238

  -217

  -98

  -49

  -77

  Spain

  -78

  -79

  -71

  -80

  -84

  -257

  -294

  -54

  251

  257

  442

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Manufactured goods have been defined as Sections 5 to 8 of the Standard International Trade Classification Revision 3 (SITC (Rev 3)).

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have received a number of representations on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Exporters
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to help exporters.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to help exporters.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to help exporters.

  Mr. Ridley
  The volume of United Kingdom exports has continued to grow, reflecting the strong position of United Kingdom industry. Excluding oil and erratic items, the volume of exports in the three months to April was 11 per cent. higher than a year earlier. There is a wide range of advice and support available from my Department to assist United Kingdom exporters and of which many firms make use.

  Post Office
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has recently had with private companies about the Post Office's letter monopoly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has recently had with private companies about the Post Office letter monopoly.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has recently had with private companies about the Post Office's letter monopoly.

  Mr. Forth
  Naturally, the Department has discussions with a wide range of private companies in the areas in 586
  which it has an interest. Discussions have been held with a number of companies with postal service interests, but on a basis of confidentiality.

  Harrods
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any efforts are being made to recover the costs of his Department's investigation into the Harrods takeover from the present owners.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. Provision for the recovery of the expenses of and incidental to Companies Act inspections is contained in section 439 of the Companies Act 1985, as amended by section 59 of the Companies Act 1989. These provisions are not applicable in the case of House of Fraser Holdings plc.

  Juno Project
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to provide sufficient funds to ensure the participation of a British astronaut in the Juno project.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The organisers of the Juno project have requested Government funding. Juno was conceived as a private sector venture to put a British astronaut into space on the basis of commercial and media sponsorship. I could not justify diverting resources from the Government's own space programme which has quite different goals, notably earth observation and telecommunications.

  Consumer Affairs
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what items were discussed at the European Community Consumer Affairs Council on 13 June.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what items were discussed at the European Community Consumer Affairs Council on 13 June.

  Mr. Forth
  The following items were discussed: the package travel directive, the proposed general product safety directive, the system for the rapid exchange of information on consumer products, the European home and leisure accident surveillance system, and the Commission's three-year plan for consumer policy in the EEC.
  587
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of local authorities' trading standards officers to discuss consumer affairs.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the local authorities' trading standards officers to discuss consumer affairs.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the local authorities' trading standards officers to discuss consumer affairs.

  Mr. Forth
  I met representatives of local authority trading standards officers on three occasions in 1989 to discuss consumer matters and my officials have frequent meetings with trading standards officers.

  Industry Council
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the European Economic Community Industry Council meeting of 28 May.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the European Economic Community Industry Council meeting of 28 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) on 14 June 1990, at column 305.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last attended a meeting of the European Council of Industry Ministers at which the subject discussed was steel.

  Mr. Ridley
  I attend meetings of the European Council of Industry Ministers whenever necessary. The last meeting I attended at which steel was discussed was on 14 November 1989.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the discussions on steel at the European Industry Council.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the discussions on steel at the European Industry Council.

  Mr. Ridley
  At the 28 May meeting of the Industry Council the European Commission presented its view of the Community steel market over the next five years. There was an exchange of views, but no decisions were taken because the Commission's view is not subject to Council agreement or approval. The Commission also informed the member states that it had started preliminary work examining options for the future of the treaty of Paris which is due to expire in 2002.

  Investment
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Confederation of British Industry to discuss investment levels.
  588
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a range of issues relevant to business.

  Financial Regulation
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he expects to discuss financial regulation at his next meeting with the chairman of the stock exchange.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to discuss financial regulation at his next meeting with the chairman of the stock exchange.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to discuss financial regulation at his next meeting with the chairman of the stock exchange.

  Mr. Ridley
  I meet the chairman of the stock exchange as frequently as necessary for discussion on a range of topics.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's latest assessment of the effectiveness of City regulation.

  Mr. Ridley
  Regulation of investment business is for the most part the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board, which is the designated agency under the Financial Services Act 1986. Other aspects of City activity are regulated under other arrangements, such as the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the Banking Act 1987. I am generally satisfied with this regulatory structure. No regulatory system can prevent all fraud and malpractice.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

  Mr. Ridley
  I receive a considerable number of representations on a variety of topics relating to the regulation of financial services. We consider very carefully those which relate to the scope or the framework of the regulatory system or to the powers under the Financial Services Act which the Government retain. Those which relate to matters which are the responsibility of the SIB or another regulatory authority are passed to the appropriate body.

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received seeking further investment in the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received seeking further investment in the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.
  589
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Various representations have been received relating to investment associated with a resumption of shipbuilding at North East Shipbuilders Ltd's former shipyards in Sunderland. These proposals have not been accepted because of restrictions imposed by the European Communities' sixth directive on aid to shipbuilding.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many vessels, in excess of 500 gross registered tonnes, were built in United Kingdom shipyards in each of the past three years; and what financial assistance was provided for their construction by way of the European Community's shipbuilding fund.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of vessels, in excess of 500 grt, built in the United Kingdom during the last three years
  is as follows:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  14

  11

  23

  Under the shipbuilding intervention fund, assistance is provided to United Kingdom shipyards, for the construction of vessels of over 100 gt, to enable them to quote break-even prices against non-EEC competition. Data are not available specifically on vessels over 500 grt. Total expenditure over the last three financial years is as follows:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £18·8m

  £39·4m

  £39·9m

  The IF is not an EC fund but a subsidy arrangement operated by the Government in accordance with the requirements of the sixth directive on aid to shipbuilding.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about further Government investment in the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department has not recently received any significant representations.

  Safety-critical Software
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the setting up of a standard for safety-critical software.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the setting up of a standard for safety-critical software.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the setting up of a standard for safety-critical software.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are encouraging the development of standards and guidelines for all systems incorporating software, the failure of which might endanger the safety of people or property. This is being done at both national and international levels. The activity is being co-ordinated by a working group of the 590
  interdepartmental committee on software engineering (ICSE) on which a number of relevant Government Departments and agencies are represented.

  On 8 June 1990 ICSE publicly launched "SafeIT", a consultative document on the safety of computer-controlled systems. This includes a proposed standards framework. The period for consultation lasts until 30 September 1990 and we are actively seeking the views of users and suppliers in industry and academia as well as Government. DTI and the Health and Safety Executive, which jointly provide the secretariat to ICSE, are co-ordinating the consultative process.

  One of the main purposes of the document is to influence the standards-making process. The document emphasises that in order to achieve the full benefits of standardisation, sector standards should develop from an overall generic approach. Once such an overall framework is in place, the speed at which sector standards can be developed by the British Standards Institution will be greatly enhanced. Thus draft defence standards 00.55 and 00.56, now available for public comment, are examples of draft sector-specific standards which are expected to fall within the generic framework being developed by the International Electrotechnical Commission.

  The SafeIT document also urges United Kingdom companies of all sizes and from all sectors to contribute actively to the development of international and European standards.

  Textiles
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in textiles.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in textiles.

  Mr. Forth
  Latest available figures show that imports of textiles exceeded exports by £1,564 million in the 12 months to March 1990.

  Devon and Cornwall
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to promote the level of inward investment in Devon and Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department is the major source of funds for the Devon and Cornwall Development Bureau (DCDB), the regional development body for Devon and Cornwall. To assist DCDB in its activities, I announced on 8 March that it would be offered grant of £510,000 in 1990–91. This is an increase of 21 per cent. on the 1989–90 grant of £422,000 and will allow DCDB to devote extra resources towards encouraging inward investment. This grant provides 72 per cent. of DCDB's total funding.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on regional policy.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on regional policy.
  591
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on regional policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government remain committed to an effective regional policy and will continue to make the necessary resources available.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of regional development grant and regional selective assistance in(a) financial year 1978–79 and (b) the last financial year.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of regional development grants and regional selective assistance in(a) 1978–79 and (b) the last financial year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1978–79 expenditure in Great Britain on regional development grants and regional selective assistance was £416·9 million and £104·5 million respectively while in 1989–90 expenditure was £203·9 million and £197·8 million respectively in current prices.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have announced inward investment projects in the United Kingdom over the past 12 months; and which regions have most benefited from the projects.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the number of companies which have announced inward investment projects in the United Kingdom over the past 12 months; and which regions have most benefited from the projects.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to the latest figures readily available to the Invest in British Bureau, in the 12 months ending March 1990, 304 inward investment decisions were made to locate in the United Kingdom. These included the establishment of a new business, expansion or acquisition of an existing business and involvement in joint venture. The figures are based on information provided by the companies themselves at the time of the investment and do not take into account subsequent developments. The following table sets out the number of inward investment decisions broken down on a regional basis.

  Regional breakdown of inward investment decisions in the 12 months to March 1990

  Number

  Scotland

  35

  Wales

  31

  Northern Ireland

  23

  North East

  36

  North West

  43

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14

  East Midlands

  12

  West Midlands

  86

  South East

  16

  South West

  6

  United Kingdom (undefined region)

  2

  TOTAL

  304

  Packaging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to encourage industry to reduce the amount of packaging used for products.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to encourage industry to reduce the amount of packaging used for products.

  Mr. Forth
  The promotion of waste minimisation in general is a key focus of my Department's environmental programme. The need to minimise packaging and, where essential packaging is concerned, to use materials which lend themselves to recycling, is being promoted through my Department's participation in relevant seminars and conferences and through meetings with representatives from the packaging industry. In March my Department was co-organiser with the Institute of Metals of an international conference which discussed all aspects of the design of products so as to avoid harm to the environment, including the minimisation of packaging. An example of a product designed with reduced packaging in mind is included in the booklet "Design for the Environment" which my Department has produced with assistance from the Design Council.

  National Economic Development Council
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council to discuss the impact of Government policies on British industry.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council to discuss the impact of Government policy on British industry.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council to discuss the impact of Government policies on British industry.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has frequent contacts with NEDO officials on a wide range of business matters and I last chaired the council on 4 April. I have no plans to meet the director general again at present.

  Advice Agencies
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the poll tax on the workload of the citizens advice bureaux and other advice-giving agencies.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the poll tax on the workload of the citizens advice bureaux and other advice-giving agencies.

  Mr. Forth
  No such assessment has been made. Independent advice on matters related to the community
  593
  charge will be given by local citizens advice bureaux, which are primarily funded by local authorities. My Department provides funding to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) and Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) which provide support services to individual citizens advice bureaux including training and information materials. The Department of the Environment has agreed to provide £36,000 to NACAB this year to help with the costs involved in providing training for bureaux workers on the community charge and the Scottish Office has given CAS £36,000 over the last two years for the same purpose.

  North East Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former employees of NESL are currently in work.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Of the 1,755 former employees of NESL and associated British Shipbuilders' companies in Sunderland who have registered to date with Sunderland Enterprise and Training Ltd., 1,354 (77 per cent.) are now in new jobs or working on fixed-term contracts of 12 weeks or more. SETL does not monitor casual employment of short duration. A further 105 people are currently on training courses.

  Furniture and Furnishings
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assurance he has sought from the European Commission that legislation concerning the flammability of furniture and furnishings will meet the highest safety standards for British consumers.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assurance he has sought from the European Commission that legislation concerning the flammability of furniture and furnishings will meet the highest safety standards for British consumers.

  Mr. Forth
  The European Commission is engaged in discussions with member states about a proposed directive on the fire behaviour of furniture and furnishings. The Government will be consulting interested parties on the proposal in the near future.

  We will press stongly for our requirement for ignition resistance of foam and other fillings at forthcoming meetings with the Commission and at parallel European standards meetings on the test standards.

  West Germany
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with West Germany.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with West Germany.

  Mr. Ridley
  In the four months ended April 1990 the United Kingdom trade deficit in manufactured goods with West Germany was £3·1 billion.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet with the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the future development of the ECGD.
  594
  Mr. Ridley
  I have no current plans to discuss the future of ECGD with the CBI. The memorandum submitted by the CBI to the Trade and Industry Select Committee—see third special report, 1988–89 Session—shows the CBI to be broadly supportive of the Government's decision on the future status and organisation of ECGD which I announced on 18 December 1989.

  Engineering, West Yorkshire
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received recently from people engaged in the engineering industry in west Yorkshire about the future of their jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None; no.

  Competition
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has plans to take any new initiatives on competition policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The recommendations for legislative change in the 1988 review on mergers policy have now been implemented. Mergers policy focuses primarily on competition and I continue to apply it vigorously. We announced last year in the White Paper "Opening Markets: New policy on Restrictive Trade Practices", Cm. 727, proposals for new legislation governing anticompetitive agreements. We also indicated in that White Paper that we are reviewing the provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1973 and Competition Act 1980 dealing with the position of the individual anti-competitive firm.

  Mining Engineering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet representatives of the mining engineering industry to discuss exports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to meet representatives of the mining engineering industry.

  Computer Components
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the components of computers assembled in the United Kingdom are of(a) British and (b) European Economic Community origin.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) earlier today.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the components of computers assembled in the United Kingdom are of(a) British and (b) European Economic Community origin.

  Mr. Forth
  Official statistics do not indicate the end uses of electronic components produced in the United Kingdom or the European Community. It is not possible therefore to give the information requested by the hon. Member.

  Solvents
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to regulate the sale to minors of certain forms of toxic correcting fluid and general solvents.

  Mr. Forth
  The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act prohibits the sale of solvent-based products to youngsters who appear to want to sniff them. I am not prepared to go further than this to restrict the sale of these useful products to legitimate users.

  Footwear and Textile Industries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on Government support for the footwear and textile industries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Companies in the footwear and textile industries are eligible for, and have received, assistance under a range of Government schemes of financial assistance.

  Company Legislation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to make any further changes to company legislation.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have no plans at present for further primary legislation in the field of company law; but I expect to bring forward a number of items of secondary legislation over the coming months to implement the Companies Act 1989, and to make the necessary provision to implement EC company law directives.

  Cars
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the treatment of cars manufactured in the United Kingdom by Japanese-owned companies.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the treatment of cars manufactured in the United Kingdom by Japanese-owned companies.

  Mr. Ridley
  I discussed the subject yesterday at the Foreign Affairs Council. I have insisted that cars manufactured in the EC by Japanese-owned companies should continue to enjoy unlimited free circulation throughout the Community, and I believe that this has now been accepted.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to establish any new bodies to oversee particular sectors of industry.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have no plans to establish any new bodies to oversee particular sectors of industry.

  Iraq
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Tirade and Industry if the latest extension of credit of £250 million to Iraq via Midland bank is supported by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. The financial protocol for £250 million of new medium-term credit to be guaranteed by ECGD was agreed between the United Kingdom and Iraq Governments in the course of the joint commission held in London in November last year.

  Shopping Visits
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what restrictions each of the other 11 European Community members impose on their residents who make day-trip shopping visits to the United Kingdom; and which of these countries have had their restrictions approved by the European Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  Restrictions approved by the European Community are contained in the travellers allowances directive (69/169/EEC). They are as follows:Greece, Denmark and Ireland may exclude from allowances to travellers goods the unit value of which exceeds 310 ecu, 340 ecu and 85 ecu respectively.
  Ireland may also exclude from the allowances for travellers under 15 years old goods the unit value of which exceeds 85 ecu.
  Denmark may apply the following quantitative limits for the importation of goods by travellers resident in Denmark after a stay of less than 48 hours in another country:
  Cigarettes—80
  Smoking tobacco where the tobacco particles have a width of less than 1·5 mm—150 gr
  Distilled beverages and spirit drinks of an alcoholic strength by volume of more than 22 per cent. volume—Nil

  National Front
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he carried out, and with whom, before he extended limited liability status to the National Front.

  Mr. Redwood
  No limited liability status has been extended to the National Front as a political organisation.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations, and from whom, he has received following the extension of limited liability company status to the National Front.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: No limited liability status has been extended to the National Front. Representations were received from four Members of Parliament on behalf of constituents prior to the registration of National Front (Printers) Ltd. The local trade unions in Companies House also expressed concern on behalf of their members. No representations have been received subsequent to the registration of the company.

  GATT Textile Committee
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the GATT textile committee meeting held in Geneva on 12 June.

  Mr. Ridley
  Last week's meeting of the GATT negotiating group on textiles and clothing in Geneva
  597
  continued discussions on arrangements for phasing out the multi-fibre arrangement (MFA) after its expiry next year. The European Community tabled a paper further elaborating its ideas for the reintegration of the textile trade into GATT. The paper reiterated the Community's support for a solution based on phasing out the MFA and dealt with amongst other things product coverage, the process of phasing out restrictions, and the length and nature of transitional safeguards.

  Shoes
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had concerning the importation of shoes from third-world countries, tariffs raised against British shoes in those countries and the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have been in regular contact with the footwear industry over the past year about the issues raised in the current round of GATT negotiations, and have passed to the European Commission the details the industry has given us of both tariff and non-tariff barriers in all third countries, including a number of third-world countries. We will make every effort to ensure that these issues are properly addressed during the detailed bilateral phase of the negotiations between now and the end of the year.

  Computers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that all personal computers pass safety tests prior to sale to the public;

  (2) what safety tests his Department requires to be undertaken on personal computers; and who is responsible for carrying out the tests.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The safety of most electrical equipment including personal computers traded throughout the European Community is set by the EC low voltage directive, implemented in the United Kingdom through the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989. I would certainly encourage all manufacturers to carry out tests on their products or have them independently tested, and I believe this is the normal practice. However, neither method is mandatory. the fundamental requirement is for the product to be safe.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department first learned about possible dangers of electrocution from personal computers; when it issued a public warning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Personal computers are required to comply with the requirements of the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989. The Department was notified on 29 May of tests carried out by a testing company and subsequently received reports showing, inter alia, that four models did not fully meet the relevant standard. In accordance with normal practice the trading standards authorities responsible for enforcing the safety regulations for electrical equipment including personal computers
  598
  have been or will be informed of the reports received. It is for them to establish the facts and to take the appropriate action.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to ensure that unsafe personal computers are recalled without delay.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: This is a matter for the local trading standards authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the safety regulations for electrical equipment including personal computers.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what circumstances his Department permits personal computers to go on sale without testing for safety.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: There is no obligation under the EC low voltage directive, which has for a number of years dictated the safety of electrical products, including personal computers, for products to be formally tested prior to sale. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that products are safe and the regulations provide for heavy penalties for those who market unsafe equipment.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure the application of British safety standards to computers and computer peripherals sold in or imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: All electrical products including computers and peripherals are required to comply with the EC low voltage directive which is implemented into United Kingdom legislation through the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989. One means of conforming with these regulations is through compliance with British standards. This is not, however, the only means of conformity; the fundamental requirement is that they be safe.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to make British safety standards mandatory for computers and computer peripherals used in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: No. Where products fall under the requirements of European legislation as in this case with the EC low voltage directive, individual member states cannot insist on mandatory compliance with national standards as this would be regarded as a barrier to trade.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are maintained to ensure the safety of computers and computer peripherals imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The safety of computer equipment marketed to consumers in the United Kingdom is subject to enforcement by the local trading standards authority.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has of computer products being sold in the United Kingdom which do not meet British standards of safety codes; and what steps he is taking to monitor and change this situation.
  599
  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Records are not kept on the extent to which computer equipment sold in the United Kingdom complies with British safety standards and I do not believe it would be practicable to introduce such a system.

  Electrical Equipment (Safety)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to make testing of electrical products under the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989 mandatory before these products are sold.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: No. Any additional requirements in excess of those contained in the EC low voltage directive would be regarded by the European Commission as barriers to trade.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce a system whereby proof of satisfactory testing to recognised standards will be mandatory upon all manufacturers of electrical equipment.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave to his questions earlier today

  Appointments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all beneficial appointments and non-governmental paid positions for which officials and former officials of his Department sought, and were granted, permission to accept since June 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Civil servants are required to seek approval for any paid appointment for which they apply within two years of leaving Crown employment. The rules are centrally laid down by the Cabinet Office. Statistics of applications which have been made by ex-employees of my Department are readily available only from 1987 to date: 337 applications were made; all were approved; of those, 34 were approved subject to certain conditions being met. Details of the positions for which approval was being sought are confidential to the individuals concerned and I regret that I cannot divulge details of specific cases.

  Twenty most visited attractions in the North West, 1989

  Rank

  Attraction

  Number of visits (thousands)

  Change 1988–89 per cent.

  1.

  Blackpool Pleasure Beach

  16,500

  —

  2.

  Albert Dock

  15,100

  +46

  3.

  Blackpool Tower

  1,495

  +1

  4.

  Frontierland, Morecambe

  11,200

  +20

  5.

  Stapeley Water Gardens

  11,270

  +27

  6.

  Chester Zoo

  904

  +1

  7.

  Croxteth Country Park

  1750

  —

  8.

  Chester Cathedral

  1750

  +20

  9.

  Tate Gallery, Liverpool

  687

  +37

  10.

  Granada Studios Tour

  600

  +158

  11.

  Sandcastle, Blackpool

  1580

  -17

  12.

  Liverpool Museum

  549

  -6

  13.

  Knowsley Safari Park

  501

  -2

  14.

  Heaton Park

  1500

  —

  15.

  Blackpool Zoo

  382

  +6

  Limited Liability Status
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what authority he is able to refuse limited liability status, and registration as a company with the benefit of limited liability.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: Decisions on the registration of companies are for the Registrar of Companies, who will consider whether applications meet the requirements of the Companies Acts. However, under section 26 of the Companies Act 1985, the approval of the Secretary of State is required for the registration of certain names.

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received for export licences to send toxic waste to Romania since 1987.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under regulations in force since 1988, the Secretary of State must be notified of proposed hazardous waste exports for disposal in non-EC countries and he can prohibit the export by raising an objection. No such notifications have been made for exports to Romania or any other non-EC country.

EMPLOYMENT

  New Businesses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has of new businesses started up in the past five years; how many jobs have been created thereby; how many businesses have been closed in the same period; what were the comparable figures in 1974 to 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer on 14 May at column 331.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the top 20 tourist attractions in the north-west in numbers visiting or attending; and if he will indicate(a) the attendance in each instance for 1989 and (b) the percentage change from the previous year's figures.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table gives the information.
  601

  Rank

  Attraction

  Number of visits (thousands)

  Change 1988–89 per cent.

  16.

  Chester Visitor Centre

  1380

  +10

  17.

  Lyme Park

  1350

  +17

  18.

  Merseyside Maritime Museum

  302

  -26

  19.

  Etherow Country Park

  296

  n/a

  20.

  Cheshire Candle Workshops

  1269

  —

  1 = Estimated attendance.

  n/a=Not available.

  —= No change.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many applications have been received for vacancies on the sheltered placement scheme in each of the last 12 months;

  (2) how many vacancies there have been on the sheltered placement scheme in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Service, which is responsible for the sheltered employment programme, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive will be replying in writing to my hon. Friend.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made on implementations of measures already agreed in the European social charter.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Community social charter, which the United Kingdom was unable to agree, was a political statement of intent. The European Commission's proposals for implementing the provisions in the charter are outlined in its social action programme. The first detailed draft proposals under the programme have recently been published. Negotiations on the individual proposals in the programme can now begin in the Council of Ministers in the usual way.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were self-employed in(a) June 1979, (b) December 1988 and (c) December 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  Self Employed Persons in the United Kingdom

  Number

  June 1979

  1,906,000

  December 1988

  3,113,000

  December 1989

  3,311,000

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Eggar
  In May 1990, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,611,000, about half the July 1986 level.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing(a)
  602
  employment by industry and ethnic origin, (b) employment by broad occupation, ethnic origin and sex and (c) unemployment rate by ethnic origin for the earliest available date on a comparative basis with tables 4, 5 and 8 in the Employment Gazette, March 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Earlier labour force survey analyses by ethnic origin and industry and by ethnic origin, sex and broad occupation are available for 1985–87 and 1984–86 in Employment Gazette, December 1988, pages 637–8 (tables 4 and 5) and March 1988, pages 168–9 (tables 4 and 5). Unemployment rates by ethnic origin are given since 1984 on a consistent basis, using the ILO definition of unemployment with a four-week job search period, in table 8 quoted; but information for 1984, 1983 and 1981, using the previous labour force definition of unemployment with a one-week job search period is given in Employment Gazette, March 1988, page 173 (table 8) and June 1984, page 263 (tables 1 and 3). Information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the most recent unemployment figures for the Colne Valley constituency; and what were the comparable figures in the same month five years earlier.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1990, on an adjustable basis, there were 1,819 unemployed claimants in the Colne Valley parliamentary constituency, a fall of 2,154, or 54 per cent. compared with May 1985.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures; what were the figures in May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1990, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,611,000, compared with 1,088,500 in May 1979. There are now over 1½ million more jobs than in 1979 and unemployment is about half of what it was at its peak in July 1986.

  Benefit Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, if a claimant adviser offers a vacancy to a claimant which they have obtained from a local newspaper or other source, other than a jobcentre, the claimant has to show good cause if they do not wish to pursue it, or decide to reject it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Service, which is responsible for the claimant adviser service, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the chief executive of the Employment Service, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chief executive of the Training Agency to discuss the provision of employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the director general of the Training Agency on a regular basis to discuss all of the Department's programmes including employment training. About 700,000 unemployed people to date have taken advantage of the help ET offers them to obtain the skills and experience they need to get jobs.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what number of trainees on employment training had to leave the scheme last year because no suitable training placement could be found for them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available. There is a plentiful supply of work placement opportunities for trainees on employment training. At any one time 72 per cent. of trainees are on project or employer-based placements.

  Wages
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the median wage was received by the lowest paid 10 per cent. of male manual workers in each year between 1986 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is published in table 15 of part A of the 1989 new earnings survey report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of adult workers earning below £157 per week in each of the years between 1986 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimated number of full-time adult employees earning below specified weekly amounts are published in table 14 of part A of the 1989 report and in table 29 of part B of the new earnings survey reports for 1986 to 1988. Copies of the reports are in the Library.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many business men have promised to serve on the boards of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over 1,000 business leaders have been involved so far in setting up training and enterprise councils.

  Of the 15 TECs that have now become fully operational, there are 138 private sector board members.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals the Health and Safety Commission has to increase health and safety protection in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission's proposals are set out in its plan of work for 1990–91 and 604
  beyond. The plan has been submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for his approval and it is hoped that it will be published in July.

  Clothing Industry
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in the clothing industry in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of employees in employment in the clothing industry, including hats, gloves and fur goods, in Great Britain decreased by 4,000 between December 1988 and December 1989.

  Cancer
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has conducted or commissioned any research into cancer of the larynx resulting from asbestosis, explosives or industrial substances.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive continues to sponsor programmes of research into aspects of the toxicity and carcinogenity of industrial substances. It has commissioned no specific research into cancer of the larynx.

  Ex-offenders
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Employment, further to the answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) of 15 May,Official Report, column 375, on training for ex-offenders, whether a report will be produced by his Department presenting the findings of the examination referred to; and whether he intends to consult relevant outside bodies during the course of the examination.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are frequent contacts and discussions between the Training Agency, Home Office, probation services and voluntary bodies such as NACRO and Apex Trust about training and enterprise provision for ex-offenders. The recent White Paper on punishment in the community is included in those discussions. My Department does not publish reports on such on-going contacts.

  TVEI
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those local education authorities participating in the technical and vocational education initiative extension and set out their budgets for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 19 June, at columns 463–66.

  Migrant Workers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the statement by the Minister of State in reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow,Official Report, 21 May, columns 122–23, regarding the movement of migrant workers among Community countries, what is the expected date of

  605
  publication of the relevant directive; if its terms will be decided by qualified majority or unanimity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: Revisions to the Community legislation on free movement of EC nationals are under discussion following proposals put forward by the Commission. It is not yet known when these will be agreed.

  The proposed revisions do not cover workers who are non-Community nationals, except as dependants of EC nationals: such workers are not within Community competence.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) of 21 May,Official Report, column 81, whether he has estimated any cost to business in requiring employers to spend more time with national insurance inspectors.
  606
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There is of course a certain cost to businesses in carrying out the task of calculating and paying the correct amounts of national insurance contributions for their employees; this is an inescapable responsibility for them if their employees are to receive correct amounts of social security benefits and pensions. Most employers carry out this task conscientiously and effectively and thus keep the burden on their business to the minimum. However, there is a minority of employers who, for whatever reason, are performing this task less than effectively and from whom the collection of NICs needs to be improved.

  Contributions unit inspectors will be concentrating their efforts on these employers. Their aim will be to help educate such employers (some of whom may be relatively inexperienced). If employers can be assisted to get the task right first time, they will in fact reduce the burden on their business which flows from having to take corrective action. This will help ensure that their employees' NIC records are correct and up to date, and that less staff time in the contributions unit needs to be spent on such corrective activity.

  One of the main aims of the contributions unit is to ensure that burdens on businesses are kept as low as is practicable.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of(a) claimants and (b) benefit units, identifying (i) families and (ii) pensioners on supplementary benefit who received (1) one single payment, (2) two single payments, (3) three single payments and (4) four or more single payments in the year 1985–86 expressed in each as a total and as a proportion of supplementary benefit caseload.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the number of pensioners receiving different numbers of single payments is in the Library, in table 19·1 of the supplementary benefit annual statistical inquiry, 1986. The other information is not available.

  Widowed Mother's Allowance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women receive widowed mother's allowance in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that at March 1989, 64,000 women were receiving widowed mother's allowance in England and Wales.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the projected and (b) the actual value of loans repayments to the social fund in 1989–90; and whether he will make a statement on the practice in many social fund offices of setting repayments rates at or about the maximum recommended level of 15 per cent. of applicable benefit levels.

  Mr. Scott
  Loan repayments to the social fund in 1989–90 totalled £108 million against the forecast of £104 million. The rate of repayment of a loan depends on the individual's circumstances. Where there are no existing commitments, it may be as high as 15 per cent. of the income support applicable amount. But it could be set at 10 per cent., 5 per cent. or less than 5 per cent. An applicant's ability to repay a loan is taken into account before an offer is made. In appropriate cases, rescheduling is considered and money advice is offered.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the extra funds allocated to the social fund by recycling from loan repayments to loans and grants budgets between December 1989 and March 1990, are regarded for expenditure purposes as a call on 1984–90 social fund expenditure or on some other budget head; and if he will make a statement on the implications of this for future social fund budgets.

  Mr. Scott
  Expenditure arising from the additional allocations made to local offices in 1989–90 has been treated as expenditure from the social fund in that year. Account was taken of the additional allocations in December 1989 and January 1990 in calculating the allocations for 1990–91 which I announced on 26 March. Decisions on the allocation of social fund budgets for future years will be taken nearer the time.

  Community Care Grant
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women have submitted claims for a community care grant in the past 12 months; and, of those, how many were turned down due to already receiving widowed mother's allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  One of the conditions for eligibility for community care grants, (as with the previous single payments system) is being in receipt of income support (supplementary benefit). Receipt of widowed mother's allowance is relevant only in so far as it plays a part in determining eligibility to income support.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people with severe mental handicap and severe behaviour problems have been refused mobility allowance because their walking problems cannot be attributed to a physical cause;

  (2) how many people with severe mental handicap whose behaviour problems interrupt their walking progress are in receipt of mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Money Purchase Pension Schemes
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he sees any need to amend contracting-out arrangements for money purchase schemes following the European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  While there remain uncertainties about the legal implications of this judgment for occupational pension schemes, it is clear that there is a specific problem for contracted-out money purchase schemes (COMPS). This arises from the conflict between the European Court's ruling in the Barber case that such schemes must equalise the age at which pensions come into payment for men and women, and the current requirement that such schemes may contract out of the state pension scheme only if they pay protected rights to their members at the age of 60 for women and 65 for men. We have therefore today tabled in another place an amendment to the Social Security Bill to enable these schemes to pay pensions deriving from protected rights from the date on which the member attains an age not earlier than 60 and not later than 65. This will ensure that such schemes can continue to meet the legal requirements of contracting out while complying with the equal treatment requirements of the European Court of Justice judgment. The same conflict does not arise in the case of schemes based on final salary and therefore they will not be affected by the amendment.

  State Pension
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase the British state retirement pension in line with other EEC pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 16 March 1990]: Comparisons with other EC members are highly misleading and are complicated by the wide variety of pension provision in different states.
  609
  We will continue to maintain our commitment to increase the state retirement pension fully in line with movements in prices.

DEFENCE

  HMS Southampton
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of repairs to HMS Southampton following its collision in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the collision, it was decided to combine the repairs with the ship's 1989 refit. The contract was placed with Swan Hunter Ltd. after a competition. The estimated total cost of the repair and refit (including equipments procured separately by the Ministry) is £45 million.

  Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what adjustments were made to comparator earnings by the armed forces pay review body to reflect its judgment on the additional pension benefit received by members of the armed forces compared with that available for civilian schemes for each of the years from its inception in 1971;

  (2) what adjustments were made to comparator earnings by the armed forces pay review body in each of the years since 1971, to reflect its judgment on the additional widows' pension benefit received by members of the armed forces compared with that available for civilian schemes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Between 1971 and 1980 the adjustments made by the AFPRB in respect of the value of pension benefits (including widows' pension benefits) were based on the adjustments used in the context of negotiated pay in the home civil service: details were not published by the AFPRB. From 1981 to 1985, the AFPRB made a downward adjustment of 11 per cent. to comparator earnings. From 1986 onwards, the downward adjustment was reduced to 10 per cent.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what adjustments were made to comparator earnings by the armed forces pay review body in each of the years(a) 1985, (b) 1986, (c) 1987, (d) 1988 and (e) 1989 to reflect its judgment on the additional widowers' pension benefit received by female members of the armed forces compared with that available for civilian schemes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. Adjustments to comparator earnings are currently made on the basis of male pension benefits only.

  Armed Forces Pay
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures operated for each of the years from 1960 to set levels of pay for the armed forces; what consideration was given to pension benefits then available to members of the armed forces in setting such levels in each subsequent year; and what decisions were taken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Between 1960 and 1968 pay in the armed forces was reviewed every two years. Pay was 610
  determined by reference to changes in civil service pay (for officers) and to changes in average earnings in manufacturing and other industries (for other ranks). In 1968, armed forces pay was made the subject of a standing reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The AFPRB was established in 1971 to advise the Prime Minister on pay and allowances in the armed forces. Until 1980 adjustments for pension benefits were linked to those agreed for the home civil service.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many, and what types of aircraft will take part in overland low-flying activity during Exercise JMC 90/2; on what dates and between which times in what areas any such low flying will take place; and what is the minimum height for overland low-level flights in Exercise JMC 90/2.

  Mr. Neubert
  The majority of air activity in support of this exercise will be carried out over the sea, but some overland low flying may occur in daylight hours on Friday 22, Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 June, north of Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands and in north-west Scotland. Buccaneer, Tornado, Jaguar, Canberra and Hunter aircraft are expected to participate, as well as some air defence aircraft. The exact numbers of aircraft will depend on prevailing weather conditions and operational considerations. Some helicopter activity is also planned. The minimum height authorised for fixed-wing aircraft over land during the exercise will be 250 ft.

  JENOA
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the meaning of the term JENOA in relation to Exercise JMC 90/2; and if he will make a statement on the nature and purpose of the activities to be conducted in the JENOA area in Exercise JMC 90/2.

  Mr. Neubert
  JENOA is an acronym for general operations area. It is a term used by exercise managers and refers to any one of a series of pre-defined areas of sea forming a grid within the exercise area.

  Stornoway Airport
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the vertical separation provided to aircraft operating under the control of Royal Air Force radar controllers at times of military activation of Stornoway airport.

  Mr. Neubert
  The minimum vertical separation provided to aircraft operating under the control of Royal Air Force radar controllers at times of military activation of Stornoway airport is normally 1,000 ft, but this may be reduced to 500 ft in certain defined circumstances.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of Stornoway airport during Exercise JMC 90/2.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is planned to deploy six Tornado F3 aircraft and one Sea King helicopter to Stornoway airport during part of Exercise JMC 90/2.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that the facilities at Coulport for the handling and storage of Trident warheads will be adequate to contain any potential plutonium dispersal that could be caused by a nuclear warhead accident.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The likelihood of an accident to a nuclear weapon involving dispersal of plutonium is extremely remote, and safety is fully taken into account both in weapon design and operating procedures at handling and storage depots. Comprehensive plans exist for accident response at naval bases including Coulport; these are kept under review to ensure that they are adequate to deal with all accident scenarios.

  MOD Police
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence police were employed at Royal Ordnance, Bishopton until the disbandment of the police force in June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence police (MDP) complement for Bishopton provided for a detachment of 39 officers, prior to its withdrawal from 1 June 1990. The present position is as stated in my written answer to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on 15 May, at column 392.

  RAF Quedgeley
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether there are any plans to release any part of land currently at RAF Quedgeley for purposes other than his Department's use;

  (2) what representations he has received on the potential development of land at RAF Quedgeley;

  (3) if he has any plans to hold consultations with local residents about alternate uses for land at RAF Quedgeley;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the future use of RAF Quedgeley other than for his Department's purposes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: We do not yet have any specific plans to dispose of land at RAF Quedgeley. However, as a result of requests from Gloucester city council, Stroud district council, and private sector interests, we have identified some 248 acres as likely to become surplus to defence requirements, and as suitable therefore for inclusion in the local plan currently in preparation.

  The future use of any such land would be a matter for consultation with the local planning authority and other interested parties, in line with normal planning procedures.

SCOTLAND

  Roads
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to improve the roads between Glasgow and the Mull of Kintyre.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The road between Glasgow and the southern end of the Mull of Kintyre 612
  comprises the A82 and A83 which stretches from Glasgow to Lochgilphead forming part of the trunk road network; and the A83 (non-trunk) from Lochgilphead to Campbeltown and B842 Campbeltown to Keil Point on the Mull of Kintyre which are part of the local road network for which Strathclyde regional council has
  responsibility.

  Major improvement schemes in progress or currently planned relating to the A82 and A83 trunk road section of the route are as follows:

  A82 Luss bypass; work commenced in March this year.

  A82 Hollybank-Tarbet; the preferred line order for this scheme is expected to be published soon.

  A83 Inveraray bypass; a preferred line has yet to be established.

  Minor schemes on the A82 involve the installation of central reserve safety fencing between Erskine and Balloch and improvement of the junctions with the A8014 and A814.

  On the non-trunk section Strathclyde regional council has three road schemes planned or in progress.

  Religious Education
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of responses so far received to his draft circular on religious education and religious observance in primary schools, listing the names of the organisations involved; and when he intends to issue a definitive policy on this matter.

  Mr. Lang
  Responses have been received to date from the organisations listed. In addition 13 individuals have commented. Further responses will be accepted until the end of June. It is intended to issue a circular when these
  responses have been fully considered.

  Organisations responding to Draft Circular on Religious Education and Observance

  The Baptist Union of Scotland.

  The Church of Scotland.

  The Congregation Union of Scotland.

  The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

  The Scottish Episcopal Church.

  The Professional Association of Teachers in Scotland.

  The Catholic Education Commission.

  The Association of Teachers of Religious Education in Scotland.

  The Scottish Association of Advisers in Religious Education.

  Association of Directors of Education in Scotland.

  The Educational Institute of Scotland.

  The Scottish Joint Committee on Religious Education.

  The Scottish Humanist Council.

  The Catholic Head Teachers Association of Scotland. Education Alert.

  Christian Education Movement in Scotland.

  The Scottish Parent Teacher Council.

  The Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.

  The Association of Christian Teachers.

  The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Education Expenditure
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure per pupil in real terms for each year from 1979, by eduation authority, in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Lang
  The information available is given in the table, which has been compiled from local authority financial returns. Expenditure on primary and secondary schools in Highland region was not separately identified in 1979–80.
  613

  Expenditure per pupil in primary and secondary schools adjusted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator

  Region

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borders

  1,022

  1,366

  1,129

  1,458

  1,182

  1,458

  1,197

  1,476

  1,181

  1,510

  Central

  841

  1,460

  932

  1,533

  996

  1,593

  1,051

  1,637

  1,076

  1,670

  Dumfries and Galloway

  858

  1,502

  968

  1,531

  999

  1,547

  1,055

  1,553

  1,063

  1,635

  Fife

  918

  1,472

  1,040

  1,568

  1,099

  1,638

  1,071

  1,648

  1,128

  1,675

  Grampian

  956

  1,571

  1,003

  1,738

  1,072

  1,729

  1,112

  1,764

  1,123

  1,769

  Highland

  n.a.

  n.a.

  983

  1,546

  1,014

  1,647

  1,074

  1,652

  1,092

  1,687

  Lothian

  958

  1,656

  1,091

  1,811

  1,121

  1,855

  1,054

  1,802

  1,085

  1,837

  Strathclyde

  922

  1,498

  1,010

  1,571

  1,096

  1,663

  1,140

  1,709

  1,174

  1,777

  Tayside

  847

  1,532

  932

  1,627

  1,017

  1,721

  1,043

  1,736

  1,067

  1,803

  Orkney

  1,376

  1,543

  1,473

  1,519

  1,419

  1,705

  1,327

  1,760

  1,341

  1,908

  Shetland

  1,022

  2,166

  1,245

  2,404

  1,377

  2,516

  1,521

  2,587

  1,535

  2,459

  Western Isles

  1,073

  1,859

  1,201

  1,899

  1,233

  1,907

  1,259

  2,005

  1,304

  2,124

  n.a.—Not available.

  Expenditure per pupil in primary and secondary schools adjusted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator

  Region

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borders

  1,177

  1,590

  1,169

  1,643

  1,231

  1,807

  1,253

  1,902

  1,333

  2,188

  Central

  1,068

  1,687

  1,046

  1,729

  1,085

  1,863

  1,160

  2,039

  1,224

  2,114

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,059

  1,715

  1,006

  1,686

  1,068

  1,933

  1,147

  2,112

  1,204

  2,273

  Fife

  1,071

  1,709

  1,095

  1,743

  1,152

  1,925

  1,221

  2,134

  1,302

  2,251

  Grampian

  1,102

  1,830

  1,074

  1,776

  1,152

  1,947

  1,179

  2,078

  1,192

  2,281

  Highland

  1,107

  1,671

  1,090

  1,700

  1,166

  1,831

  1,257

  2,003

  1,284

  2,095

  Lothian

  1,080

  1,822

  1,084

  1,885

  1,166

  2,083

  1,192

  2,192

  1,175

  2,282

  Strathclyde

  1,167

  1,837

  1,161

  1,864

  1,203

  2,017

  1,255

  2,157

  1,262

  2,252

  Tayside

  1,082

  1,782

  1,071

  1,816

  1,115

  1,995

  1,187

  2,177

  1,215

  2,331

  Orkney

  1,198

  2,315

  1,439

  2,054

  1,410

  2,265

  1,676

  2,276

  1,380

  2,991

  Shetland

  1,509

  2,554

  1,549

  2,649

  1,570

  2,825

  1,661

  3,079

  1,655

  3,544

  Western Isles

  1,241

  2,101

  1,208

  2,193

  1,235

  2,413

  1,502

  2,582

  1,580

  2,814

  Water Pollution
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest information concerning the presence of toxic or noxious algae or other such contaminated substances generated by the dumping of sewage sludge and chemicals in the Firth of Clyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no reports at present of toxic algal blooms in the Firth of Clyde. Such events are rare and naturally occurring and I am not aware of any scientific evidence to show a connection with the dumping of sewage sludge and chemicals in the sea and toxic or noxious algae or other such contaminated substances.

  The dumping of sewage sludge at Garroch Head in the Firth of Clyde is controlled by licences issued by my right hon. and learned Friend and carefully monitored both as a condition of the licence and by detailed surveys by DAFS.

  Voluntary Bodies
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the effects upon grant aid to local voluntary associations of regional and island authorities being unable to recover the level of poll tax expected when preparing their budget.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The collection of community charges and decisions by local authorities to provide funding for voluntary organisations from within their financial resources are entirely the responsibility of the authorities themselves.
  614
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has adopted to assess the effects of the poll tax on grant aid to voluntary associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. It is for individual local authorities to decide whether to make funding available to voluntary organisations from within their financial resources.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to make additional funds available to local authorities for projects designed to encourage low-cost housing development to meet local needs in rural areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Resources for housing capital expenditure in 1990–91 were allocated to local authorities in March on the basis of their relative housing needs and with reference to their capital programmes and housing plans. It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities for the use of these allocations in the light of local circumstances, including the need for low-cost housing projects if this is seen as a priority in their area.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to secure the release of land for low-cost housing development to meet local needs in rural areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes has been asked to formulate a rural housing strategy and ways of making available more low-cost housing to meet local needs is one issue that it is considering. Work on the strategy is well in hand and I look forward to receiving its final report.

  Traffic, Gateside
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Gateside to inspect the prevailing road traffic arrangements, including the effects of the 40 mph speed limit.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  NHS Reform
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his officials have held recent discussions with interested parties regarding the possibility of any part of the national health service seeking self-governing status in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My officials have held discussions with numbers of employees in the national health service throughout Scotland on the implications of self-governing status.

  Rents to Mortgages
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many representations he has received concerning the rents into mortgages scheme; how many were(a) in favour and (b) against the scheme; how many of these representations are from (i) individuals, (ii) organisations and (iii) local authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects the rents into mortgages experiment to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have had no formal representations about this scheme since I first announced it in May 1989.

  Scottish Homes was asked to introduce the scheme on an experimental basis for a trial three-year period beginning in October 1989. This arrangement still stands. During its first eight months of operation, Scottish Homes has received 154 firm applications to purchase. The scheme is being closely monitored and early indications are that it is attracting the interest of the intended target group and others.

  Any extension or modification to the scheme which appears appropriate in the light of experience will be introduced as soon as practicable.

  Explosives
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify those areas in British coastal waters which are designated for the dumping of explosive materials and devices.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: The following areas in Scottish coastal waters are shown on Admiralty navigation charts as dumping grounds for explosive materials:

  Area

  Chart

  Position

  Firth of Clyde

  2220

  55° 37' 00" N 4° 59' 30" W

  Beauforts Dyke

  2198

  54° 54' 00" N 5° 23' 00" W

  Beauforts Dyke

  2093

  54° 35' 00" N 5° 05' 00" W

  Beauforts Dyke

  2198

  54° 45' 00" N 5° 15' 00" W

  Sound of Mull

  2390

  56° 30' 00" N 5° 37' 00" W

  Inner Sound

  2498

  57° 19' 00" N 5° 51' 00" W

  616

  Area

  Chart

  Position

  Isle of May, Firth of Forth

  734

  56° 10' 45" N 2° 30' 15" W

  Isle of May, Firth of Forth

  734

  56° 11'24'N 2" 29'00" W

  East of Aberdeen

  1446

  57° 09' 00" N 1° 58' 30" W

  None of these dump sites is now used for disposal of explosive material or devices.

  Archaeological Surveys (Radar)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what preliminary conclusions he has reached about the usefulness of radar surveys in establishing archaeological data about what went on in the outer precincts of great abbeys; and for establishing archaeological precautions on disburbance of ground levels.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Ground-probing radar has been primarily developed for use on building sites where it has been used to detect voids in standing buildings. It works by bouncing electromagnetic waves off boundaries between deposits of different electrical properties. Thus in suitable conditions it can detect stone walls, volumes of disturbed ground such as pits or wells, and some archaeological layers. Simple large features can be identified and interpreted easily. It will not, however, detect features in completely waterlogged soils, and it shares the limitation with other geophysical techniques that strong surface features can mask underlying ones. An advantage over magnetometry particularly relevant in Scotland is that it is not so vulnerable to igneous and metamorphic rocks with strong magnetic fields. Its advantage over other geophysical techniques is that it gives a three-dimesional picture.

  Ground-probing radar has not yet been extensively tested and does have limitations. Thus failure to identify physical evidence of underlying structures does not necessarily mean that such evidence has not survived: it may be merely obscured. It is in the nature of archaeological deposits that intrusive methods of archaeological investigation, that is, excavation, remain the only satisfactory method of determining what lies beneath ground level.

  It is clear that many of the great abbeys of Scotland had substantial precincts beyond the main nucleus of church and conventual buildings. In Scotland these are almost entirely unexplored. In managing properties in care, the aim of Historic Buildings and Monuments, Scotland (HBM) is the preservation of archaeological deposits in situ. Where this is not possible, HBM will continue to take advantage of modern technology including techniques such as ground-probing radar. This has been used in Scotland at Wardend of Durris and at Whithorn. Increased experience of comparisons between radar traces and features revealed by excavation should allow sampling strategies to replace full excavation, better planning of full excavation, and reduction in exploratory trenching with greatly increased efficiency and reduced costs.

  Metal Detectors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an assessment of the effectiveness or otherwise of legislation relating to metal detectors in areas such as Roxburgh castle.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The use of metal detectors on scheduled ancient

  617
  monuments, and the removal from a scheduled monument of any artefacts recovered by use of a metal detector, require the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland under the terms of section 42 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. This requirement is being generally publicised through a leaflet recently published by Historic Buildings and Monuments, Scotland. On monuments where there has been a particular problem (in Borders and Dumfries and Galloway regions) signs have been erected warning anyone who might be intending to use a metal detector that the area is protected by law. These vulnerable sites also receive more frequent visits from Historic Buildings and Monuments' monument wardens and the local police have been asked both to monitor the sites and to assist the wardens as necessary.

  Training
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what particular requirements he is placing on LECs to ensure that appropriate training opportunities will be made available to mentally handicapped and/or mentally ill individuals; what level of funding he has assessed as being appropriate for such work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Local enterprise companies will be provided with appropriate levels of resources and obliged by the terms of their contract to meet performance targets relating specifically to provision for trainees with special needs including the mentally handicapped and people with mental health problems.

  Inverclyde (Development)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the latest information he has as to how many jobs in Inverclyde have been created by the activities of the Inverclyde initiative from its inception;

  (2) what steps he has taken to assess the accuracy of job creation forecasts for Inverclyde, given to him by the Inverclyde initiative since its inception.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The total number of jobs created by projects which have been assisted by the Inverclyde initiative between March 1985 and May 1990 is approximately 3,840.

  This figure is based on information provided to the initiative by the companies it has assisted and its own records of placements under the training and employment grants scheme. The figures have been checked to exclude any element of double counting. Responsibility for monitoring and evaluation of integrated area initiatives led by the Scottish Development Agency is primarily a matter for the agency.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all groups and organisations within the Inverclyde district council area which have received urban aid or programme support in(a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1990–91; and if he will identify the level of grant received in each case and the conditions attached to each award.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The information requested is set out in the table. A number of
  618
  applications for approval of additional expenditure in 1990–91, including some relating to the Inverclyde area, are still under consideration. Details of conditions attached to projects could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Inverclyde district council area:

  Urban programme approved expenditure on projects run by local groups

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Name of group/organisation

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £

  £

  £

  Port Glasgow Community Enterprise Ltd.

  30,395

  21,276

  —

  Port Glasgow Upper East Community Council

  4,552

  5,534

  5,811

  Glenbrae Advisory Group

  76,901

  60,643

  2,717

  Quarrier's Homes

  54,979

  59,826

  15,154

  Greenock Employment Action Group

  47,002

  49,353

  30,228

  Inverclyde Drugline

  26,658

  43,879

  43,813

  Gibshill/Weir Street Community Council

  28,136

  32,494

  34,119

  Inverclyde Tutoring Project Executive Committee

  34,702

  42,480

  37,170

  Ravenscraig Youth Action Group

  49,280

  131,424

  80,585

  Threshold Printing Project Steering Group

  —

  —

  42,759

  St. Kenneth's Day Centre Committee

  18,410

  7,833

  8,225

  Bow Farm Community Council Caraven Project

  41,799

  49,288

  51,753

  South West Greenock Employment Group

  41,841

  47,426

  49,797

  Octavia Tenants Hall

  81

  —

  —

  Inverclyde Resources Ltd.

  6,021

  14,127

  33,342

  Larkfield Youth Action Management Committee

  51,616

  36,976

  64,368

  Strone/Maukinhill Forum

  43,932

  55,787

  51,652

  Second Chance Learning Management Group

  44,126

  67,639

  68,706

  Greenock East Credit Union

  36,857

  11,900

  12,495

  Larkfield Community Council

  17,664

  4,985

  5,234

  Inverclyde Womens Aid

  38,700

  43,839

  56,441

  Venture Group Inverclyde Initiative

  11,205

  20,932

  22,853

  The Westburn Centre (Community and Enterprises) Ltd.

  60,000

  —

  —

  Gibshill Youth Club

  14,029

  3,682

  —

  Larkfield Community Newspaper Group

  —

  13,247

  —

  Bluebird Family Centre Parents Committee

  —

  3,000

  —

  Port Glasgow Association of Tenants Groups

  86,592

  109,406

  101,737

  Inverclyde Targeted Training and Employment Initiative

  —

  —

  46,760

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his current estimate of the cost to Her Majesty's Government of the Inverclyde enterprise zone; broken down into(a) rate relief and (b) capital allowances.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The initial estimate of the overall cost to the Government of developing the Inverclyde enterprise zone was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Greenock on 30 March 1988 when she announced agreement to the designation of the zone. That estimate of £25 million excluded any selective financial assistance. The costs of both rate relief and capital allowances are dependent on the scale, timing and type of developments in the zone during its 10-year life span.

  Social Workers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to improve social workers' knowledge of social work law and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: Approval of qualifying training in social work and of training of mental health officers are matters for the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW). The council has reviewed teaching of law to social workers in qualifying training and will be issuing guidance later in the year with a view to improving social workers' competence in this area. The council is at present also monitoring the content and quality of mental health officer training programmes in Scotland.

  Bathing Beaches
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities have the resources to maintain accurate information on pollution levels on beaches.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The monitoring of the quality of bathing waters identified under directive 76/160/EEC is the responsibility of the river purification boards. The boards are funded by precept on the regional councils in their areas and their funding already takes account of the need to maintain accurate information for this purpose. I believe that the boards will be willing to transmit their monitoring results free of charge to local authorities.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to arrange for the display of information on beaches to show accurately the level of pollution recorded for such beaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: I wrote on 15 June to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek the participation of local authorities in a voluntary scheme to display, in a standard form and at locations convenient to the public, the results of the monitoring of bathing waters identified under directive 76/160/EEC. The Government believe in making information on the environment more freely and easily available and I hope that the local authorities will be able to help in this way.

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many general practitioners or general practitioner practices have expressed an interest in becoming practice budget holders within each health board in Scotland;

  (2) how many general practitioners or general practitioner practices will be eligible to become practice budget holders within each health board;

  (3) if he will publish the names of the general practitioners or practices which have expressed an interest in becoming practice budget holders.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: It is not possible to say how many practices are eligible to become budget holders. The initiative is limited to
  620
  practices with a list size of at least 9,000 patients, but smaller practices can link together in order to meet the list size criterion. Moreover, eligibility is dependent on the practices being able to demonstrate that they have adequate management skills to administer the fund, and will have suitable computer support systems up and running by the operative date. There are approximately 147 practices which could meet the list size criterion. Expressions of interest have been received from 46 practices to date.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner practices are now eligible to become budget holders; how many have expressed an interest in budget holding; and if he will name those practices.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: It is not possible to say how many practices are eligible to become budget holders. Practices with list sizes of over 11,000 patients will be eligible, while those with 9,000 to 11,000 patients will be considered on an individual basis. Moreover, it is possible for smaller practices to link together and so meet the minimum list size criterion. In all cases the practice must demonstrate that it has the managerial capacity to administer the fund, and will have adequate computer support systems up and running by the operative date.

  To date a total of 46 practices in Scotland have expressed an interest in becoming fund holders. Detailed information on the practices concerned is not held centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Avoparcin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Avoparcin can legally be fed to dairy cattle in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. Such use has been permitted since 16 March this year, following a decision by the EC Standing Committee on Additives in Feedingstuffs to extend its authorisation.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will summarise the research evidence that BSE is not transmissible to pigs.

  Mr. Maclean
  No naturally occurring sub-acute spongiform encephalopathy has been reported in pigs anywhere in the world. Experimental transmission of kuru to pigs has been attempted but failed to result in disease or a spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy herds there are in Britain; and how many of these have been affected by BSE.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are nearly 41,000 dairy herds in Britain. Up to 15 June, 5,532 of these had at least one confirmed case of BSE.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in
  621
  Britain have experienced (a) one case, (b) two cases,(c) three cases, (d) four to 10 cases and (e) over 10 cases of BSE.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information up to 15 June is as follows:(a) 4,751; (b) 1,428; (c) 594; (d) 769; (e) 62.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of BSE-affected cows that have entered the human food chain(a) prior to the introduction of compulsory slaughter of suspect animals and (b) since the introduction of compulsory slaughter.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:(a) This is not known; (b) none.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider introducing regulations requiring the incineration of all beef offal.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any research work has been carried out to allow pigs that have been fed infected meat and bone meal and cattle offal to live their full natural life span to see whether any develop spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  Experiments to determine whether pigs are susceptible to a scrapie like disease as a result of parenteral or oral exposure to brain from confirmed cases of BSE are in progress. The former has been running since February 1989 and so far no clinical or pathological evidence of a scrapie like disease has resulted. It is intended that these pigs will be kept, subject to welfare considerations, for at least five years.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there is any evidence of hazard arising from the milk of cows with sub-clinical BSE.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence and neither is any expected. Scientific studies of natural scrapie have shown that the agent is not found in udder colostrum and milk.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the possible dangers of feeding offal from cows with sub-clinical BSE to pigs and poultry;

  (2) if he will review the practice of feeding beef offal to pigs and poultry.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence to suggest that BSE poses any risk to pigs or poultry.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possible danger to vermin and birds from the burial of the carcases of BSE-affected cattle in domestic refuse tips; and whether he will make it his policy to require the incineration of all BSE-affected carcases.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is the Ministry's intention to secure incineration facilities for all BSE-suspected carcases, although progress towards this goal has been slowed by 622
  local opposition to most proposals to build incinerators. Until there is sufficient incineration capacity, a proportion of carcases will continue to be buried in accordance with sound veterinary practice and under the supervision of the state veterinary service. These procedures ensure that there is no risk of spreading the disease through this method of disposal.

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the meat and bone meal produced by the rendering industry in Britain is used for feeding to(a) pigs and (b) poultry.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there is any evidence that scrapie can cause spongiform encephalopathy in animals other than cows by direct ingestion of infected food.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is concluded that at least some outbreaks of transmissible mink encephalopathy were caused by feeding scrapie-infected material and it is probable that five antelope in British zoos contracted a scrapie like disease from eating scapie-infected material.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce higher standards in the rendering industry to prevent the scrapie agent getting into meat and bone meal.

  Mr. Maclean
  Consideration of such a policy must await the results of research, currently in hand, into the rendering processes required to inactivate the scrapie like agents.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there is yet any evidence that scrapie can be transmitted horizontally in a flock via(a) the faeces, (b) bedding and (c) scratchings of scrapie-affected sheep.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  (a) No.

  (b) No.

  (c) No.

  Slaughterhouses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place the latest reports by his veterinary officers on slaughterhouse standards in the Library.

  Mr. Gummer
  Advice on individual premises is offered by my veterinary officers, in confidence, to the enforcement authority (district council) concerned. The release of the advice would be a matter for the enforcement authority.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the recommendations of the Food Advisory Committee in the past year together with the actions taken by him on each recommendation.
  623
  Mr. Maclean
  In the past year I have announced our acceptance of the Food Advisory Committee's recommendations for stricter controls on colours in food and proposals for legislation are currently in preparation for public comment and notification to the European Commission. I also announced acceptance of committee advice that the use of potassium bromate as a flour improver should no longer be permitted. Regulations prohibiting this use came into effect on 1 April this year. I published and sought comments on the committee's report on old compositional orders and I shall be considering the responses before reaching decisions.

  In the area of labelling, I accepted the committee's revised guidelines on the use of "natural" in food labelling and advertising, which were published in June last year. I also accepted its recommendations for detailed controls on the use of certain nutritional claims for which draft legislation is in preparation for public consultation and notification to the European Commission.

  At present I am considering advice from the committee on the use of mineral hydrocarbons on cheese, in chewing
  624
  gum and on food contact materials and on a request for the use of sodium benzoate as a preservative for grey mullet roe. I shall make separate announcements on these matters in due course.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an assessment of the consequences for research underpinning the work of his Department in relation to insect and aphid control and beekeeping, of the reductions proposed by the natural history museum in its collections and research.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department's entomologists at the ADAS central science laboratory use the extensive and unique collections at the natural history museum in order to solve difficult identification problems.

  We have been assured that the natural history museum's entomology collections will continue to be maintained and that access will continue to be provided to us.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR 011 the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Drinking and Driving
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they propose to deal with drink-driving.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we have just launched the summer phase of our year-round publicity campaign against drinking and driving. The involvement of brewers and other private bodies is a continuing feature of the campaign. Earlier this month we extended the high risk offenders scheme for drivers whose alcohol dependency presents a road safety risk. More offenders will now need to prove that they are medically fit to drive before their licences are returned. We also aim to introduce at the earliest opportunity the law reforms outlined in our White Paper The Road User and the Law.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I appreciate what the Government are doing about this serious problem. However, is the noble Viscount aware that there will only be a significant reduction in the number of deaths and injuries caused by drink-driving with the introduction of random breath testing at specially authorised and sign-posted checkpoints? Such a form of random testing should not trouble the sensibilities of those people who think that civil liberties are threatened. Is he further aware that if 1,000 people were killed in air crashes every year, as there are with drink-driving, there would be uproar and that very soon solutions would be found?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I fully appreciate the feelings of the noble Lord. He has raised this matter before over the past year. It is estimated that the number of people killed in drink related accidents last year was below 900 compared with over 1,100 two years ago. Considered in the light of the increase in traffic, that shows the success of the continuing campaign against driving and drinking. As to random testing, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently announced the Government's view that present police powers are wide enough and strike the right balance between effective enforcement of the law and freedom of the individual.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that at the moment those who re-offend during a 10-year period after being convicted of driving while two and a half times over the limit have to present themselves to a doctor before they can reapply for a licence? If that is the
918
case, is he satisfied —I mean no disrespect to doctors in your Lordships' House—that doctors are the right people to see the offender rather than a specialised alcohol centre? Does he not think it desirable that people should be assessed after one offence of being two and a half times over the limit?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think I can give an opinion as to whether doctors are the right people to carry out an assessment. I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my right honourable friend. As from 1st June this year, on the recommendation of the Blennerhassett Committee, regulations came into force so that those drivers who are disqualified once for driving while two and a half times or more over the legal limit are included in the categories of those disqualified twice within a 10-year period for any drink-driving offences and those disqualified for failing without reasonable cause to supply a specimen for analysis. Those drivers will have to pay the full cost of renewing a licence as well as the cost of the medical examination. The regulations came into force on 1st June.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that prevention is better than cure? On that basis have the Government considered taking steps to see that advertisements in relation to drink should not be so attractive as they are, particularly to the young?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are spending £2 million in the current year on advertising the dangers of drinking and driving. Paid advertising is not the only way to capture attention. The same audience can be reached by other publicity. The media have a key role to play in getting messages across, for example, through feature articles and programmes. That is taking place at the moment.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people are very pleased that his right honourable friend has announced that there will not be random breath tests? Does he agree that there is enough trouble regarding public relations between the police and public without exacerbating the issue?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, but I must point out that it is lawful for the police to stop vehicles at random for the purpose of investigating whether or not a driver has alcohol in his body. The police are making full use of their powers. Over half a million tests were conducted in 1989.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, there is also the argument that if the police conducted random breath tests at controlled centres, the public would probably appreciate the job that they were doing. I congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing; it is a continuous and difficult job. Will the Government give serious consideration to the European limit? In most other countries in Europe it is below our limit. I believe that the Commission wishes us to set a limit below the 35 millimetre level.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the European Commission tabled a proposal to harmonise maximum blood alcohol levels of 0·5 milligrams per millilitre. However, the proposal was shelved at the Council meeting in December 1989 since there was no majority support for the Community's competence to legislate in the area.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it appears to be becoming easier for pubs to obtain planning permission to extend car parks and for new pubs to build bigger car parks? Is that in the best interests of the country?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not believe that that will have the opposite effect to what the brewers are trying to achieve. The Government are delighted that the Brewers' Society is relaunching its Wheelwatch scheme. We know that it will do its best to encourage landlords to take responsibility for their clientele.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I knew the figures he gave me about the reduction and I welcomed them? Unusually for me I said that I appreciated what the Government were doing. However, I say in all seriousness that the fact that 950 people were killed on the roads through drink-driving last year is an utter disgrace. Does the Minister agree that we have to achieve a balance between deterrence and detection? The random testing that I have described —which was different from that described by his noble friend; there seems a misunderstanding on that —is being carried out successfully in other countries. Why do the Government not try it on an experimental basis?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord says. I can go no further than that. However, I agree, as I am sure all noble Lords agree, that one death caused by driving and drinking is one too many.

MMC Reference, 1986
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, and if so in what circumstances, in 1986 representations were made to Cabinet Ministers to influence a decision on a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, a very considerable number of representations were made to Ministers in 1986. However, under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reaches his own decision on whether or not to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission after considering the advice put to him by the Director General of Fair Trading.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware that since I put the
920
Question down on the Order Paper—although not because of it —there has been a considerable increase of interest from the media regarding the matter? Since it is not inconceivable that it may become sub judice, I do not believe that I should pursue the matter with further quesions.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says.

EC Funds: Fraud
2.46 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the contents of the report of the European Court of Auditors (0J-C133, 31st May) and the joint statement thereon made by the Treasury and the Minister of Agriculture of 30th May, they will now publish as a White Paper their own detailed proposals for dealing with fraud against Community funds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not convinced that a White Paper is needed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the audit report to which I refer contains particulars of some very grave frauds and irregularities within the European Community, and that there has been a report from the National Audit Office with regard to the United Kingdom? Over the past few months Her Majesty's Government have indicated that they take the matter very seriously indeed and that they have proposals under consideration. Why should the Government hide their light under a bushel? Why do they not publish their findings in order, among other things, to shame those of our fellow members of the Community who are doing very little about it into considering that they ought now to start to follow the United Kingdom's example.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in commending the united government stand on this matter. The Commission has adopted an action programme for tackling fraud. At the instigation of the United Kingdom it now has procedures for considering special reports by the European Court of Auditors such as the recent report on export refunds. In January this year the Commission published its first annual report on fraud, which was debated in another place on 27th February. For its part, the UK takes every opportunity to ensure that the momentum of the fight against fraud is maintained. It is for those reasons that we do not feel that we are hiding our light under a bushel. After all, over the past few months we have had several Questions in the House on precisely this subject.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are frequently criticised as being non-communautaire by those very states in the

921
European Community that are not following the United Kingdom's initiative in the matter? Does he not believe that if the Government make public the proposals that we have in mind it will help to stimulate our European colleagues?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we continue to try to stimulate our European colleagues on this matter. I must emphaise that we have taken the lead in insisting that the Community should tackle seriously the problem of fraud and of inadequate management, which is at the root of the problem.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether or not a White Paper is necessary, public opinion in this country will be very interested in a ministerial Statement as soon as there is anything to report? Will he urge on his right honourable friend the necessity of making such a Statement in order to appease those members of the British public who are worried about the matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall certainly urge that suggestion on my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a Motion for Papers has recently been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in the no day named list to call attention to the volume of the fraud and to the need for specific programmes for reform? Does he consider it appropriate that through the usual channels arrangements be made for that most important matter to be considered by the House reasonably soon?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the usual channels have heard my noble friend's suggestion. Concrete progress has been made in the area on export refund monitoring; on proof of arrival of export for claiming refunds; on a new code of conduct for reporting all significant frauds and irregularities in relation to structural fund receipts; and on tougher regulations relating to the payment of our own resources. We are not complacent. We believe that there is still a great deal to be done and we are in the vanguard of the fight against fraud.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, apart from the White Paper, are we to infer from the Minister's previous reply that the Government have considered or are considering further proposals which are not yet known to this House; or are they content to continue to make representations, as the Minister stated?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we continue to fight fraud with our Community partners and with the Commission. In the United Kingdom we have already increased resources devoted to the undertaking of physical checks. We have provided extra training for Customs staff; we have insisted on better facilities for CAP export examinations; and we have concentrated special investigator-led drives in high risk areas. As I said, we are not complacent. We believe that there is still more work to be done.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I agree with noble Lords who have called for further and fuller information by way of ministerial statements or a government White Paper. Does the Minister agree that fraud in the Community is on a vast scale? Is he aware that the report of the recent commission on the fight against fraud stated that a large percentage of fraud takes place in agriculture? While I do not believe for one moment that British agriculture is involved in such fraud, can the Minister indicate what percentage of total fraud is committed in that area?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is difficult to answer the noble Lord's questions. No one knows what is the total amount of fraud against the Community budget. Various estimates have been made but I should not give more credence to one than to another by mentioning a figure. Therefore, it is not possible to give the noble Lord the percentage of the fraud which may have been committed by British agricultural producers.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while the Minister may be unable to give a specific figure, does he agree that fraud within the Community is on a vast scale? Without going into detail, will he say that fraud in agriculture represents a substantial part?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the number of people in Customs and Excise who devote their time to exports has been increased during the past year; and if so by how much? Can he say whether that section has now been computerised?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I may not be able to answer the noble Baroness's question fully. However, approximately 4,000 officers have been given extra training in order better to direct attention to higher risk areas.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, apart from White Papers and so forth, would it not be useful to the Government to know the views of noble Lords expressed in an objective debate? The subject has come before the House on no fewer than eight occasions in the past three years but always at Question Time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that a debate can be organised through the usual channels.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I appreciate that the House is spending a long time on the Question. However, can the Minister put the history of the subject in proportion? Does he remember that about three years ago the European Commission put forward a proposal to the Council of Ministers to deal with fraud in Community levies and trading but it was blocked by the British Government in the Council? Is it correct that the Prime Minister's attention was drawn to the fact that this is a large and important area of fraud and that now the Government are pulling out all the stops to try to prevent it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that the historical perspective has anything to do with the Question.

Self-Employment: Growth since 1979
2.55 p.m.
The Viscount Oxfuird The Viscount Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the growth in the number of self-employed since 1979.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, since 1979 the number of people self-employed has risen by more than 70 per cent. to 3.3 million in December 1989.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for an expected but nonetheless welcome Answer. Can he indicate whether the growth was spread equally between women and men?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, during the same period the number of self-employed women more than doubled.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of the high failure rate among small businesses, can the Minister tell the House what action the Government have taken or are taking in order to advise people who become self-employed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have a range of schemes designed to help small businesses; for example, the enterprise allowance scheme, the loan guarantee scheme, the enterprise initiative and a variety of other government-backed schemes. They are designed to help and advise small businesses on how to become more successful.
Lord Renton: My Lords, of those various government initiatives which have been so helpful in enabling small businesses to start up, can the Minister say which has been the most effective in creating fresh activity among small businesses?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot point to one scheme in particular and say that it has been the most successful. However, the Government have been most successful in helping small businesses by creating a stable business environment, lowering taxation and having less government red tape.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, among the helpful measures introduced by the Government, does the Minister include the uniform business rate?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the uniform aspect of the business rate will be extremely helpful to small businesses in enabling them to budget for future rate increases.
Lord Oram: My Lords, do the figures which the Minister has given include those workers who are collectively self-employed in workers' co-operative societies? Is he aware that, having been thrown out
924
of work as a result of the Government's economic policy, many thousands of workers decided to get together in groups to form their own co-operative societies? That success was largely inspired by the Co-operative Development Agency. Is it not therefore regrettable that the Government are winding up that agency?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad that people have had the initiative to set themselves up in businesses of their own.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent that welcome development has taken place in rural areas compared with urban areas?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there has been a good regional spread of self-employment growth of approximately 100 per cent. in the South-West to just under 50 per cent. in the northern region.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister gave a figure for the increase during the past decade. Can he indicate how many of those people were involved in manufacturing industries? How does he relate what he says to the fact that during the past 12 months an additional 40,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industries? How many of those people were self-employed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, people who are self-employed cover the full range of business activities.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in addition to the number of people now described as self-employed, for a variety of reasons—some of which are not very good —there has also been a notable increase in the number of part-time employees? Warnings have been given by both the CBI and the TUC that that is not a healthy situation and they ask that it should have no deleterious effect on research and all forms of scientific investigation which are necessary for British industry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite correct in what he says because less than one in six of self-employed people work part-time. In recent years the growth has been strongest among full-time self-employed people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am not talking about part-time self-employed people; I am talking about people who at one time were working full-time and who now, because they cannot find such work, have to be satisfied with a part-time job.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Question deals with self-employed people. In any case, part-time work sometimes suits people very well.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that the number of self-employed who have become bankrupt has risen steadily since the early 1980s? Can the Minister tell us whether those people go back onto the unemployment register or are they a helpful statistic for the Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we do not separate self-employed business failures from other kinds of business failures. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that on VAT statistics generally, in 1989 early indications showed that there was an increase of 1,500 VAT registrations per week.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what has been the reduction in self-employed people in the agricultural industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Caldecote, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. The number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to apply a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would conform with the spirit of these debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes maximum time limit as recommended in the Companion.

Industrial Relations
3.1 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's policies on industrial relations, and the reduced incidence of strike action in commerce and industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of introducing this debate on an issue of prime importance to the prosperity of the country and the well-being of its people. There will be no dispute about that in any part of the House. However, I realise that much ground relevant to this debate was covered last Friday on the Second Reading of the Employment Bill. I hope that this debate will give an opportunity for a wider review of Government policies and their record in the industrial relations field. I look forward too, as I am sure will other noble Lords, to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton.
Industrial relations is a shorthand term for personal relationships between those working together in any occupation. Because people are always both the most valuable resource and the most sensitive one to manage, the significance of those relationships on the success of commerce and industry cannot be over-emphasised. In an ideal world it would seem sensible for all those in any comp my to work together for the common good, not least in providing value for money to the customer on which the success of any enterprise primarily depends.
Of course, in many companies that spirit prevails, particularly in smaller ones where personal relationships are easier. But mainly for historical reasons, that is not how the situation has developed
926
in the larger companies which are so significant to our economic strength. There, a more adversarial spirit prevails which, if not well handled, can lead to unconstructive, damaging conflict.
For similar historical reasons, the term "industrial relations" has become almost synonymous with relations between management and trade unions whereas it is something which permeates throughout any organisation from top to bottom; for example, constructive relations depend equally on the examples set by trade union leaders as well as by directors and managers. In that connection, it is as damaging for chairmen and directors to be awarded excessive pay rises, which have rightly been deplored by the Prime Minister, as it is for trade union leaders to encourage their members to press for pay increases unrelated to productivity.
Three groups are involved in the industrial relations field: employees whose work at all levels must be organised and planned; management, which carries out that function; and government, who make the rules and create the legal framework within which companies operate. In that respect, there is no shadow of doubt that over the past decade this Government have an outstandingly successful record.
Those of us who have worked in industry for the past 40 years will have vivid memories of the varying climate of industrial relations and the legal framework within which we have worked and the significant effect which that has had. We remember the absurdities of demarcation disputes between different trades, of limitations on piecework earnings, of go-slows and closed shop disputes all imposed or encouraged by short-sighted trade union leaders or sometimes by those "Red Robos" and Scargills who misuse their powers for political reasons to the detriment of their members' interests and the strength of British industry.
All those damaging practices prevailed within an outmoded legal framework and unfavourable climate endorsed by the Labour Party but progressively reformed by Conservative governments.
To come closer to the present day, we all remember with sadness the winter of discontent when 3 million working days were lost through industrial disputes in one month in January 1979. Over the past 10 years all that has changed. In 1989 there was the lowest number of stoppages of work in a year for over 50 years. There were 701 stoppages in 1989 compared to an average of over 2,600 per year in the 1970s.
In the year ending March 1990 some 5 million working days were lost compared to an average of nearly 13 million a year in the 1970s. Today the number of working days lost per 1,000 employees is about one quarter of the level in the early 1980s when we were still suffering from the effects of the policies of noble Lords opposite, egged on by obtuse trade unions excessively influenced by Left-wing extremists and those intent on destroying our democratic way of life.
Those are solid achievements in no way minimised by specious comparisons with other countries, as

927
was attempted in Friday's debate in the Second Reading of the Employment Bill.
Such a transformation of the industrial relations scene has had widespread beneficial effects. Productivity and overall efficiency in manufacturing industry has greatly improved along with its competitiveness. Perhaps even more important, British industry has regained a good reputation for prompt, reliable delivery of high quality products to our customers overseas even though not yet in sufficient quantities.
At the same time, Britain is now highly regarded as a place for inward investment except in those rare cases of absurdly short-sighted and damaging behaviour by trade unions such as occurred in Dundee in March 1988. An inter-union dispute there led by the Transport and General Workers' Union made Ford decide not to invest some £40 million in new plant but to go to Spain instead, with a loss of some 1,000 jobs. Mr. Bill Jordan, a very responsible president of AEU —the Amalgamated Engineering Union —was sickened by the TGWU's behaviour which was, he said, the unacceptable face of trade unionism. I agree.
That incident now stands out clearly as a hangover from the bad old days and serves to show, by its relative rarity, how much has been achieved and by its crass stupidity, how more needs to be done to prevent such damaging nonsense in future. The determination of this Government to do just that is not in doubt and, indeed, their record is first-class in creating a more favourable climate for better industrial relations.
In the bad old days the closed shop did much damage. It has been steadily reformed with the clearly expressed approval of the great majority of the electorate, including many trade union members. It would be wearisome to record in detail all the steps taken, but I must mention a few even though some were mentioned in the Second Reading debate.
The Employment Act 1980 provided compensation for people unreasonably excluded or expelled from a union closed shop and ensured that new closed shops must be approved by 80 per cent. of those at the workplace so as to protect the interests of people sacked for refusing to join the union.
The 1982 Act provided further protection against the abuse of closed shops and for compensation to those who had suffered between 1974 and 1980 under Labour Government legislation. The 1988 Act removed immunity from industrial action taken to establish or maintain any kind of closed shop practice. It made all dismissals for non-union membership unfair.
The current Employment Bill tackles the problem of the pre-entry closed shop, which still affects over 1·25 million jobs. On other issues Government policy has been similarly effective. The 1980 Act removed trade union immunity for most forms of secondary action. The present Bill will go further along the same road, removing immunity from all secondary action except for lawful picketing at the place of work.
The Trade Union Act 1984 stipulated that unions must hold a ballot before going on strike. Since then
928
there have been several examples of a union calling a strike which has subsequently been rejected in a ballot; for example, the NUR in 1986; the TGWU dockers in 1986 and 1988; the NUM and NALGO in 1988, and the TGWU members at Ford in 1990. Those sensible decisions democratically taken by those involved show clearly the benefits stemming from the improved legal framework for industrial relations created by this Government.
The list of successful industrial relations legislative measures is long. Noble Lords opposite and their friends have often claimed that the law has no part to play in improving industrial relations. What rubbish! Of course it has, albeit indirectly. It can create the right framework for constructive relations and so enable people who work in industry to carry through their responsibilities for its efficient operation.
I do not want in any way to give the impression that I believe that all trade union leaders or all trade unions are bad and disruptive.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, no. I myself belong to a trade union. I belong to a trade union through my long-standing membership of the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers. It is now a responsible and active section of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chappell, has given long, distinguished and constructive service.
I shall always remember with gratitude the constructive co-operation of a local trade union leader when, owing to continuing losses, the company of which I was chairman had to close a factory. That is never a pleasant job. I offered to open all the accounts of the company to the union leader to demonstrate the serious financial situation that existed. His reaction was that there was no need; he accepted what I said and suggested that we get on with working out how best to carry through the closure with minimum disruption and hardship. Legislation is not needed to deal with people like that, but to protect us against destructive leaders with outmoded and dangerous policies.
What is the Labour Party's reaction to the Government's proven record of success in industrial relations? Only a year ago the TUC described the Government's proposals on the closed shop as unhelpful and misguided. Already there has had to be a U-turn because the Labour Party accepts the EC social charter, in which Article 11 provides that,
"Every employer and every worker shall have the freedom to join or not to join such organisations" —
which include trade unions —
"without any personal or occupational damage being thereby suffered by him".
Clearly it is a reluctant U-turn, for in principle the party would still like to see 100 per cent. trade union membership at the workplace as stated in the Labour Party's publication Looking to the Future.
One of the Labour Party's most damaging proposals is to allow secondary picketing, as they say, "within limits". What limits? As The Times pointed out those limits would include secondary

929
action to force the breaking of contracts by customers and suppliers. Picketing is an emotive issue. In principle, though it may be unwise, there is nothing objectionable in those supporting a strike against a specific employer, putting their case at the workplace to those who oppose it. However the latter have an absolute right to reject or ignore the arguments put to them.
Trouble starts when violence and intimidation are used against other employees, particularly when it involves other companies not party to that dispute. It is clear therefore that picketing must be legally confined to its simple purpose of peaceful persuasion at the relevant place of work. Any woolly "within undefined limits" policy such as advocated by the Labour Party is a recipe for unrest and conflict.
On pre-strike ballots there has been another U-turn. In 1983 the Labour Party opposed them; spokesmen described the Bill which introduced them and ballots for union elections as "irrelevant effrontery"; "a shabby partisan stratagem", and "a scandalous and undemocratic measure". Looking to the Future does not mention ballots for union elections, but in the U-turn it is accepted that,
"to qualify for legal protection, industrial action requires the support of a properly conducted ballot".
What a U-turn!
The list of U-turns is long; all are being made because, in the words of The Times on 26th May,
"The Labour leaders have told the unions that the party would be unelectable if it did not promise to retain most of the Conservative laws".
It is clear that one law they would not retain is that which allows sequestration of union assets. Without that, the penalties against trade unions for breaking the law are virtually unenforceable. Therefore all the U-turns are at best window-dressing and could all too easily become circular turns to the pre-1979 position if by any mischance or bad luck the Labour Party hoodwinked the electorate into putting it once again in the driving seat.
That would indeed be a disaster in the field of industrial relations, for, although leopards cannot change their spots, wolves can put on sheep's clothing to catch the real sheep unawares. That is what the Labour Party is doing today as it seeks to emerge from the dark wood of 10 years in opposition into the open fields of industrial relations. If by any mischance it captured them, off would come the sheep's disguise and it would destroy all that has been painstakingly built up over the past 10 years and all that has led to today's vastly improved industrial relations situation.
Much remains to be done, but let us go forward from the sound base and proven track record of this Government and not back to the bad old days of confusion in the rules and conflict in the industrial relations field. I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I feel rather as though I have been savaged by a mad sheep! It was with some surprise that I learnt that the
930
Government intended to use a debate day for a five-hour debate on industrial relations, particularly since we have recently had the Second Reading of the latest Employment Bill. On that occasion only two Members of the Government side of the House apart from the Minister decided to participate. Perhaps they were saving it all up for today.
In introducing the debate the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, made the expected claims for government policy. We heard them in the debate on the Employment Bill. Again we have been told that the continuous stream of anti-union legislation —for that is what it has been; it is not employment legislation at all —has had the effect of reducing the number of strikes and increasing productivity.
We on these Benches are not alone in challenging that view. A report published in February 1990 by the National Institute Economic Review entitled The Economic Effects of Industrial Relations Legislation Since 1979 argues that the legislation has had only a limited effect on Britain's economic performance. As for the alleged decline in the number of strikes, that is only in line with international trends and it is unclear, the report said, as to how much is due to the legislation. Britain, says the report, is still slightly more strike-prone than average.
It is our view on this side of the House that the decline in union membership that has taken place has been due largely to the effects of unemployment and the decline in manufacturing industry where unions have traditionally been strong. What the Government have done quite deliberately, by means of its step-by-step approach, is to tilt the balance substantially in favour of employers and against employees, particularly if the employees seek to become organised and to exercise collective rights through their unions. The Government claim to have increased employees rights but in fact have done so only in relation to union members within their own unions, despite the fact that there is little evidence of widespread malpractice in UK unions, which, broadly speaking, are honestly administered and without the corruption that has disfigured the labour movement in many other countries, including the United States.
Against that, employee rights in relation to their employment —the reason why most people join unions—have been seriously diminished by this Government. I give a few examples. In 1979 employees who thought that they had been dismissed unfairly had the right to complain to an industrial tribunal after six months' employment. Now the qualifying period is two years and an individual may have to pay £150 before the tribunal will hear the case.
Industrial tribunal procedures on the burden of proof have been changed, making it more difficult to win a case. Those in small firms now have no right to know what the disciplinary procedures are. New complex conditions have been placed on women's rights to maternity pay and to return to work after having a baby. In the social insurance field earnings-related unemployment pay was abolished some time ago. The industrial injuries scheme has gradually been eroded despite the high incidence of accidents at work. Entitlement conditions for

931
unemployment pay have increasingly been tightened. There is now no right to a fair wage. The Fair Wages Resolution in place since 1945 and maintained by successive governments ever since, including Conservative Governments, as part of an International Labour Office commitment has been abolished. Wages councils have had their powers eroded and may now not set minimum pay rates for young people. In regard to trade union rights, the Government have done everything they can to undermine union organisations and collective bargaining. The statutory union recognition procedures that existed under the Employment Protection Act has been scrapped.
The Government do not believe in arbitration and have gradually written off the Central Arbitration Committee —a body which did a great deal to sort out difficult industrial problems and to find acceptable solutions. It has been gradually written out of legislation and now has hardly any functions left. Of course, as we saw in the ambulance dispute, the Government do not believe in arbitration.
It is not surprising that a government with that sort of record oppose the social charter. We have debated the charter on previous occasions in this House. I and others have pointed out that it is a very modest document, with only very basic principles, which it should be possible for any advanced and reasonably civilised society to endorse. This Government will not do so. In taking the stance they have, the Government have put themselves at odds with the rest of Europe.
The British Government have blocked European Community directives in a number of important areas. They have done so on employee participation, information and consultation, on rights for part-time workers and temporary workers and on parental leave and leave for family reasons. These directives establish important new rights for working people. But this Government are not interested in rights for working people; they are interested solely in giving public money to establish an office —the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members —not to enable such members to pursue rights in employment (which are few enough anyway with this Government) but to enable dissenting individuals to sue the unions of which they themselves are voluntary members and in situations where they have voluntarily accepted the union's rules.
The CROTUM has had very little work to do with the £1.5 million of public money she has. The Government have therefore cast around in their latest Bill to find her something else. She will be able to join her name to any proceedings instituted by individuals whom she is assisting —a right not possessed either by the Commission for Racial Equality or by the Equal Opportunities Commission. The money devoted to that office could be put to a more worthy cause such as the EOC, of which I was a member for some eight years and which has important work to do.
In addition, the new Bill prohibits all forms of union membership agreements. Sympathy action is outlawed altogether. Unions are to be made liable
932
for unofficial industrial action and employers will be able to sack any individual participating in unofficial action, and that individual will not be able to have recourse to an industrial tribunal. It is quite outrageous that the right of appeal should be taken away.
I do not know why the Government should get so worked up about the closed shop. We have had more of that this afternoon from the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. In any event, successive pieces of legislation have made it virtually unenforceable. The TUC believes that its incidence is far lower than that claimed by the Government. My party supports the social charter, with its right to belong or not to belong to a union. However, although that principle is set out in the new Employment Bill, it is quite clear that the Government are much more keen to support the right not to belong to a union than the positive right to belong to one. It is apparently not understood by the Government that employers can be exceedingly unscrupulous —but perhaps they like employers to be that way. It is by no means unusual for an employer deliberately to provoke a strike in order to get rid of people, particularly if redundancy is in the offing.
Moreover, the Government have done nothing about blacklisting, which everyone knows is a common practice. I note that representatives of the Economic League when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Employment in the other place admitted that they kept indexes based on people's presumed political proclivities and that this information is supplied to employers. Why do the Government do nothing about such a practice, which, incidentally, is contrary to ILO Conventions?
As for the International Labour Office, in May 1989 the ILO Committee of Experts condemned the British Government's legislation on no less than nine counts as having been in breach of ILO Convention 87; that is, the convention concerning the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. The condemnations were in respect of some of the following: ordering the sacking of GCHQ employees for refusing to give up union membership; prohibiting the disciplining of members who broke union rules; prohibiting unions from paying the fines of officials; prohibiting sympathy action (the ILO said that this should be permitted as long as the primary dispute was lawful); prohibiting strikes aimed at the real employer by restricting lawful strikes to disputes with the nominal employer (this deals with the situation in which the employer creates separate companies in order to circumvent lawful industrial action); limiting strikes solely to industrial matters and prohibiting strikes with mixed industrial, social and political objectives; removing the right of dismissed strikers to challenge the fairness of their dismissals; failing to give legal protection to job applicants blacklisted on grounds of union membership or activity; abolishing by law the right of teachers to bargain collectively. That is this Government's record in the field of industrial relations.
No one, least of all the union membership, wants to see strikes. Strikes cause hardship to members, cost the union money and create an enormous amount

933
of stress for those responsible for leading them and those who are seeking to achieve a settlement. I have to say that I speak from personal experience in that respect. The right to withdraw one's labour is a fundamental right acknowledged as such throughout the democratic world. It is now acknowledged in Eastern Europe and I note that the Government appear to applaud that development.
However, the Government's legalistic approach to industrial relations can actually make things worse. The new propositions attempting to get unions to repudiate unofficial strikers by writing to every individual to that effect will make disputes harder and not easier to settle. They ignore the underlying causes of the disputes. There is no attempt by this Government to strengthen the role of the agencies concerned with conciliation and arbitration. I have already said that the Central Arbitration Committee now has practically no role.
In contrast, the propositions of my own party include the establishment of a new industrial court. We also believe that there should be a legal right to recognition which unions, when they are sufficiently representative—I emphasise "when they are sufficiently representative" —will be able to enforce through the industrial court. We shall restore the right of sympathy action in line with common practice in other EC countries. I stress the European dimension there. It is something that this Government will not be able to ignore for ever.
Where legislation has failed to prevent industrial action the Government have simply introduced further new measures. One popular myth was that trade unionists were forced by trade union leaders to take industrial action against their will. We heard echoes of that in the opening of the debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, this afternoon. As a result of government legislation ballots were imposed to stop that. But unions were frequently able to use a ballot result in favour of dispute action to bring further pressure on employers.
These provisions did not have the effect that the Government intended. That is not to say that we disapprove of ballots; on the contrary, we have always used them —in my union anyway —long before there was any statutory requirement to do so. But the Government's code of practice on balloting is designed to make it as difficult as possible for a union to call dispute action and still retain immunity.
One has to ask why the Government have proceeded so far down this path when even some of their own supporters, particularly those with an interest in and a knowledge of trade union and industrial relations, believe that they have gone too far. They cannot surely believe their own propaganda about over-mighty, over-powerful unions. That was never true, not even in the 1970s. In certain industries and in certain parts of the economy it is true that unions were stronger than they are now. But union strength has always been defensive rather than offensive.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, after all, it is the management and leadership of large companies that make the decisions. They decide whether to close down a factory and move it elsewhere or what to do about a takeover bid. The workers are not consulted. All they are able to do is to react, just as they react if there are price increases and rises in mortgage rates and they see the leaders of industry awarding themselves bloated salary increases.
Again, the attitude of the trade unions is a defensive one. That was true even in the NUM dispute referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. Miners were reacting against pit closures and the destruction, as they saw it, of their communities. There might have been a number of different views as to the way in which that strike was conducted, but few people doubted that, basically, the miners had a case. What the Government's legislation and their general attitude to industrial relations indicate is that they think that workers never have a case. They do not provide the mechanism for sorting things out peacefully and they attempt to take away from unions and their members the ability to respond collectively in the only other way left to them.
Moreover, the new Bill with its attempt to outlaw and to make unions liable for unofficial strikes entirely fails to come to terms with the fact that such instances are often quick and spontaneous; for example, a reaction to something that occurs on a work site. Last year there were 697 fatal accidents at work, 147 of them in construction. Yet, as the Bill stands, there is nothing to protect individuals who walk off a site where the working is dangerous. That does happen.
So we have this step-by-step approach so lauded by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. But the real reason for it has not been to give the unions back to their members, as has frequently been said; it has been to weaken collective response from employees. In other words, it is to try to keep wages down. The Government's White Paper entitled Employment for the 1990s makes it clear that they believe that pay is too high despite the fact that the pay of the low paid has had to be bolstered in this country by the use of family credit. That has an undoubted wage substitution effect and simply means that the public subsidises low-paying employers.
In fact, despite the assaults on the trade union movement and the out-of-date attempt by the Government to marginalise it and to pretend that unions do not exist, people still belong to unions and recruitment proceeds. There are still over 10·5 million people in unions. The Government have no cause to be so self-congratulatory. This is not primarily a debate about the economy. The indications are that there is trouble ahead and the Government will not be able to blame that on the unions.
No: this policy is not a cause for self-congratulation. It is a disgrace to a country that regards itself as advanced and civilised. It is my belief that we shall not have to endure all this for much longer. When we have a new government with a new philopsophy we shall see a much more

935
even-handed and fair system and a fair framework of law for both employers and employees.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am glad that the Motion tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, is so framed that it enables us to debate the merits of the Government's policies on industrial relations over the past 10 years and, where we differ from them, to make our own suggestions for the future. One of the advantages of general debates of this kind is that we can approach matters in a more constructive frame of mind than when we are confronted with specific Bills of a controversial kind. That is my aim today. I am only sorry that the noble Viscount did not choose to do likewise.
At the start of the 1980s there was no doubt on these Benches that in the last few years of the Labour Government the pendulum had been allowed to swing much too far in the direction of the perceived interests of trade unions at the expense, not only of employers, but of union members and the country at large. That period culminated, as the noble Viscount said, in the so-called winter of discontent and the deserved downfall of the Government whose policies had brought it about.
Therefore, initially we were glad on these Benches to give broad support to the policies of successive Conservative Governments in the step-by-step approach initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Prior. Indeed, on at least two matters —the need for a secret postal ballot in the election of members of the principal executive committees of trade unions and the desirability of eliminating the pre-entry closed shop —we were ahead of the Government.
I am also happy to acknowedge, in the words of the Motion before us,
"the reduced incidence of strike action"
over the period. How far that is due to Conservative Government policies on industrial relations or to harsher economic and employment conditions is less easy to determine. Latterly, speaking on behalf of my noble friends, I have felt obliged to say that if legislation in this field is to be effective it must strike a fair balance between the interests of employers and employees. In my view the last two Employment Acts and the current Employment Bill have all failed that test.
The present Secretary of State started by leading us to believe that this year's Bill would be the last. But it is now rumoured that in the next Session of Parliament there may be yet another, this time to deal with the system under which union subscriptions are deducted from wages at source by employers. Moreover, it is said that the Department of Employment is reviewing other means of curbing trade union power still further. In my view it is high time that the Government began to think less in terms of further punitive union legislation and more of positive measures to improve this country's industrial relations' problem. I should like to put forward three ways in which this might be done. First, I call in aid the view of the Institute of Personnel Management. It believes that, instead of there being more legislation, efforts should be
936
devoted to seeking alternative ways of resolving industrial disputes. In its comments on the Green Paper which preceded the current Employment Bill, the institute stated:
"A Government lead should be given to revising and rationalising procedures for the quicker resolution of disputes. ACAS should be asked to prepare a Code of Practice which should include the recommendation that procedures should be prepared with the active involvement of employees and their trade union representatives at their work place to ensure the essential element of personal commitment to them; many procedures at present are too remote and long-winded".
That recommendation reminded me that it is now more than nine years ago that I asked the Government to consider the possibility of introducing a code of practice that would deal with negotiating procedures. Among other things such a code could draw attention to the distinction in Western Europe between disputes of right, involving the terms and interpretation of agreements already entered into, and disputes of interest.
In disputes of right, there is an obligation not to resort to industrial action before referral of the issue to a court of law or to arbitration; and almost invariably the parties to the dispute abide by that independent arbitration. Disputes of interest, on the other hand, arise out of bargaining situations; and, typically, when an existing agreement affecting pay expires and a new one must be negotiated, both parties retain their freedom until a new agreement is reached. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of a new agreement, a dispute of interest arises and both agree to use industrial action if they wish —the union side to call a strike and the employer equally to operate a lock-out.
The code of practice I have in mind would be based on the proposition that conditions should be established throughout British industry that would enable negotiating procedures to be introduced in which both management and employees would have sufficient confidence to see that they were observed. Under those procedures the aim would be to work towards a situation in which in all disputes concerning the terms or interpretation of agreements already entered into —not others —and where they affected individuals or groups, there should in the last resort be recourse to arbitration by which both management and employees would abide. Depending on the progress made towards that objective, the provisions of such a code might get a sufficient degree of consent eventually to become admissible in evidence and be taken into account in proceedings before a court or an industrial tribunal.
No doubt a good many political, legal, and, for all I know, other problems would have to be surmounted before that could be achieved. But at least the matter could be examined. I should be grateful if, when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replies to the debate, he would say whether he sees what I am driving at and whether the Government have sympathy at least with the underlying principle. Apart from anything else, a development on these lines might be helpful in reducing the incidence of strikes in essential services, a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whom I am glad to see in his place, understandably expressed concern on Second Reading of the Employment Bill last Friday.

937
Next, I believe that further progress needs to be made by management in providing employees with information on matters of concern to them and in consulting with employees or their representatives over decisions that are likely to affect employees' interests. That is essential if we are to maximise our international competitiveness. Many of our leading companies give high priority to employee involvement, as is well demonstrated by the examples set out in the Department of Employment's document People and Companies. I fear that many medium-sized companies still have to follow that lead. From what the noble Viscount said, I fancy that he may share that fear.
I am a firm believer in two principles. First, if employee involvement is to flourish it must grow organically from the bottom upwards and not be implanted from the top downwards. Secondly, in seeking to extend the concept throughout industry and commerce, and for that matter the public services, we should build on best practice. How can this be facilitated? Before answering that question I should remind the House that it has a European dimension.
The Commission is anxious to harmonise arrangements in this area in the approach to 1992. The subject features prominently in both the social charter action programme and the draft directive on worker participation. That directive is at present being considered by a sub-committee of your Lordships' European Communities Committee of which I have the honour to be a member. I cannot anticipate the findings of the committee, but as in the case of the social charter the Government will soon have to take a basic decision: whether to adhere strictly to their current view that arrangements for employee involvement should be left entirely to voluntary agreement between employers and employees or whether this country should make a more positive response to both the social charter and the draft directive by seeking through negotiation to adapt them to industrial conditions in the United Kingdom. In my view the latter course should be taken.
I believe, in company with some eminent members of the Institute of Personnel Management, that in order to speed the progress of involvement and participation it may be necessary for some minimum statutory regulation or code of practice to be enacted on the subject. One lies ready to hand in the voluntary code and accompanying action guide which has just been brought up to date by the IPM and the Involvement and Participation Association, with support from the Department of Employment, the TUC, the CBI and ACAS. The code has the great advantage that it is concerned only with general principles and standards of practice and does not seek to lay down particular methods to which all must adhere. It states, for example:
"Participation is best developed in each organisation by agreement between management and employees and/or their representatives in ways they jointly find most suitable for their particular circumstances, and are jointly willing to support".
In our debate last Friday on the social charter I asked the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether
938
the Government would consider giving the code statutory backing. He wrote to me afterwards to say that a statutory code would be inconsistent with the concept of voluntary agreement and that in the Government's view it was unnecessary and could be counterproductive. I shall not again ask him the same question because I do not want to put him in the position of telling me that the Government's position is unaltered. I hope nevertheless that the Government will keep this possibility in mind. I too believe in the voluntary principle, but if voluntarism is to work there must be volunteers. In the end the Government themselves may well come to feel that some further action is required in this field as one of the positive ways in which this country's industrial relations might be improved.
My last suggestion concerns training, particularly in the management of people. I should like to revert to the theme of a debate I was privileged to introduce in your Lordships' House last year. The Government have now set up a new structure by establishing training and enterprise councils throughout the country. But a structure is not the same as a strategy. The Government have abdicated responsibility for training by saying specifically in the White Paper Employment for the 1990s, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, referred:
"Developing training through life is not primarily a government responsibility".
In my view it certainly is. By acting in that way the Government have given up any idea of seeking a consensus that will stand the test of time and a possible change of government. Other countries know that dialogue is essential if there is to be continuity of policy, but the Government have abandoned altogether discussions on the subject with trade unions as representatives of employees.
Under the auspices of training and enterprise councils, training is now to be delivered locally: it is to be employer-led. There are already complaints of inadequate funding. Aside from that, how should an employer be defined? The Government's view appears to be that the only people in need of training are those in industry and commerce. That view ignores the fact that the wealth-spending public services can and should contribute just as much as the business sector to our prosperity by becoming more effective. We are all part of a complex interdependent society in which the public services, including national and local government, should promote a training culture like everyone else. Yet the Government's White Paper, to which I have referred, contains hardly a mention of what still needs to be done in those services.
I note that the Motion before the House is similarly concerned with policies on industrial relations, not in the public services, but only in commerce and industry. Yet many of the most damaging strikes in recent years have occcurred in essential services like health and education, for whose employees the Government are directly or indirectly responsible.
I suggest that the Government should give a lead in promoting training in those services, especially in the management of change. If I am asked to say what kind of training that would involve, I can respond only by drawing on my own experience. It should

939
include training that allows for analysis of the qualities which are required for leadership. It means enabling those who have to manage change to identify, confront and overcome obstacles based on habit and fear which stand in the way of what they are aiming to achieve. It involves training in joint problem-solving and much else—matters on which I do not have time on this occasion to dwell.
It is high time that the Government turned their attention to positive ways in which relations between management and employees can be improved. I hope that what I have said may contribute a little to that end. In conclusion, I should like to say that I and my noble friends are very much looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, who will be the next speaker in the debate.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, as a very new Member of your Lordships' House, I beg noble Lords' indulgence in this debate, which was so ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Caldecote. I want first to say that I feel enormously privileged to be among such very distinguished people. I have already realised the great intellect, experience and caring concern which is represented here in this House. I should explain that I am but a humble farmer from Cheshire, although I have been involved in various industrial activities connected with the food and cheese industry. Cheshire is a county which is known for the quality of its dairy products, the determination of its people and the beauty of its countryside.
As this is my maiden speech, it is my duty to be non-controversial. I must say I find that an easy task—though possibly the only easy part there is of this task —as it is my nature to prefer to identify ideas which unite rather than ideas which divide. However, industrial relations have been a very divisive matter. For a great part of our industrial history, the employer and the employee regarded each other as enemies. It seemed to have been accepted in the past that what was in the best interests of one side had to be against the interests of the other.
Legislation, prior to the industrial legislation of this Government, did much to widen that divide by entrenching each side's position. The truth is that the best interests of both employer and employee are really one. All those involved in any organisation, whether private or public, as owners, directors, managers, operators, foremen or apprentices, can succeed only if the organisation succeeds. The demand for labour is infinite and work is infinite; it is the supply of labour which is constrained by numbers, age, skills, cultures and the rewards and conditions demanded by the worker. Ultimately, the imposition of such constraints can become counter productive.
In my view, the greatest single benefit flowing from this Government's industrial relations policy has been the changed attitudes that it has brought about on both sides. That has been true as regards the trades unions. They have become more efficient within their own organisations and more positive
940
in their attitudes towards the organisations which employ their members.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to a report by the National Institute Economic Review published in February of this year. I, too, intend to read your Lordships a part of that report; but, needless to say, it will not be the same part. The report states that, as a result of the Government's legislation,
"unions have been obliged to develop computerised membership records, to keep better accounts, to run more orderly elections, to exert greater influence over their shop stewards and communicate better with their members".
The report also refers to studies of trade union activities in the 1970s. It states that,
"studies of union decision-making suggest that successful leasers tend to have a more long-term and less volatile view of events".
I suggest that that probably applies to all good leaders.
The successful unions today seem to appreciate better and better that to obtain the best deal for their members —after all, it is their job to do so —the first requirement is for the employing company or organisation to be successful. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, make the same point only last week. In doing so, he also referred to the fact that when people like us employ other people we should be aware of the fact that they have families. I can only tell noble Lords that in my personal experience I have always been deeply conscious when employing people that one also becomes responsible for their families, for their future and for the houses in which they live. I think that all good employers should do so. To be successful the company must produce high quality products, invest in the lastest technology and ensure high levels of productivity. There is no future for anyone in a company where the workers at all levels do not support its profitable growth.
My home is near Chester, in the North West and close to Merseyside. Contrary to the belief of many people in the South, we are actually a very prosperous area. We have high investment and great opportunities. Anyone who watches television will know that a much more agreeable lifestyle exists for those living in Coronation Street than appears to be the case for those East Enders living in Albert Square.
The growing success in the North West in recent years has been due, among many things, to the growth of small firms and the inward investment that we have received from Japan, Germany, the USA and elsewhere. That success has come from good industrial relations. In the small firm, owners, managers and operators work closely together, understanding each other's problems and working for the success of the company. A prime factor in the decision of the many international companies which have invested in the North West has been the good relationship that they have been able to establish with the unions and the employees. I really believe that all this has been made possible by the Government's industrial legislation policy.
With your Lordships' permission I should like to give two examples of this growing success. Ten years ago the Mersey Dock and Harbour Company was a problem company. It represented what was seen by

941
many as the decline of Liverpool, the Liverpool itself was considered to be a problem city. However, nothing could now be further from the truth. As a result of the changing attitudes of the unions, and the furl support of all the employees, the Port of Liverpool has a recent record of industrial relations as a good as, and in many instances better than, any other port in Europe.
I shall give the House a second example of this change. In the early eighties I started a company to export cheese to the United States —or, at least, the United States was our first customer —and it was the first company to export cheese by refer container from the Port of Liverpool through the Panama Canal to the West Coast of America. As I was concerned about the perishability of the cheese, I went to see the dockers at the Port of Liverpool to ensure that my product was not going to be held up unnecessarily and cause me a great deal of expense. They were delighted to see me. I was the first exporter to help them fill the refrigerators myself, and they promised me there and then that on no occasion would I have a delay, and I never did.
The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is now one of the success stories of the North-West. It is an interesting fact that following the abolition of the dock labour scheme, the company is now the largest employer of port operatives in the United Kingdom. From 1980 to 1990 the total tonnage handled has grown from 9 million tonnes to 20·3 million tonnes. There is now a new spirit in Liverpool. Success breeds success, and the company and all its employees are now working together, confident of continuing success into the 1990s. What a comparison that is with the situation in the 1970s.
Another example of a place which has benefited from all aspects of the Government's industrial policy is the Port of Boston in Lincolnshire. At the beginning of 1989 the docks were in decline. They were losing money and had no funds for investment. The company was then bought by A.F. Budge Ltd. of Retford, Nottingham. The number of workers was reduced by 42 per cent. after its purchase —from 171 to 129 —without any reduction in the tonnage handled. There is now, within 12 months, a training programme for new employees; investment to increase the capacity from 1·5 million tonnes to 2 million tonnes; and the River Witham, upon which the port stands, is to be dredged to allow the port to handle 5,000-tonne ships. Investment is now planned which will bring employment levels back to what they were 12 months ago, but in what is now a prosperous, growing company with an assured future What is most important, the whole area benefits from that success, with more work in the area than ever before and more prosperity for everyone.
Things do work better when everyone works together for a common goal, when the prime aim is what unites and not what divides. The Government's actions have changed attitudes at all levels to bring that goal about. The proof is in this country's increasing industrial success.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, it would in any case be a great pleasure for one humble farmer to welcome another humble farmer to your Lordships' House; but it is more particularly a pleasure after having listened to the admirable speech of the noble Lord which shows the depth of his knowledge on a wide range of subjects, and the humanity and consciousness of individuals with which he approaches industrial problems. It is an approach which it is —unfortunately I might almost say —refreshing to meet among successful industrialists. I have used those conventional words, although not in a conventional way, and we all look forward to hearing frequently from the noble Lord on this and other subjects.
Basically there are three methods of avoiding industrial unrest. One of them is the fear of unemployment. If workers are afraid of the sack and of being unable to find work anywhere else, they are less likely to take industrial action, especially of a disruptive kind.
The second method is through money. If it appears that a worker, or a group of workers, is going to leave, the chances are that by pouring out more money an employer may be able to retain the services of those people. The third method, which is not mentioned or thought of so frequently, is through personal involvement. If an employer, responsible for an industry large or small, can ensure that the workers in that industry are involved in the same way as the owner or operator of that industry is involved, then one's chances of industrial unrest are minimised and might even disappear.
In the previous century, the greatest reason for the lack of industrial unrest was undoubtedly the fear of unemployment. Tensions had to grow to unmanageable proportions before people would risk being thrown out of work or suffering other penalties. It so happens that last weekend my wife and I were driving through the peaceful Dorset countryside. We came across the village of Tolpuddle. Your Lordships will know the name well and will be aware of what led to the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It was a valuable little glimpse into the past. One realised how, in that lovely Doreset countryside, tensions grew so violently and bitterly that they led to what took place there and to the eventual deportation of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
After that of course organised labour grew at a considerable speed. Sadly, confrontation grew between workers and employers. The "we" and "they" increased out of all proportion in a way that was never known in the earlier part of the previous century or before.
Apart from in small industries, especially agriculture, that confrontation (the division between the bosses and the workers) grew and grew, particularly as firms became larger and more impersonal, with the result that industrial unrest over the years increased greatly, culminating in the general strike shortly after the First World War. That strike was followed by high unemployment. There again, the first fear that I mentioned (the fear of unemployment) brought an element of unhappy stability onto the labour scene.

943
The war came, and I shall not go into all the happenings then. After the war, there was a period of Labour government when efforts were made to move away from that confrontation. We had nationalisation, and, "It belongs to us all now. We are all involved it it", but that did not work. The policy published in the White Paper In Place of Strife did not work. The good intentions of those Labour Governments had no happy results. That culminated in the "winter of discontent", and so we come to the last decade and what happened then.
From listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, it appears as though we entered into a golden age of industrial relations in which there was a diminishing number of strikes, and increased happiness and contentment among the workforce and the employers.
I grant the noble Viscount that strikes had been diminishing over that period, but I would not say that it was a golden age of labour relations by any means. It was achieved to some extent by legislation brought in by the Conservative Government —legislation which, in large measure, I personally support. Some of it I am not so happy about but I shall not go into details. The present situation has been brought about largely by pinning the colours to the profit motive. I do not wish to embark on a long discourse, but frankly I believe that "profit" is a dirty word. Unfortunately, it is essential: we cannot operate without profit. However let us not think that the profit motive is the be-all and end-all of existence. How much better it would be if we, individually, and other people were able to work, not with the idea simply to gain more and more wealth, but because it was a service to the community. However that is idealistic and we must live with the world as we find it.
In the past 10 years the profit motive has been exalted higher and higher. One only has to look at the salaries that middle, higher and top management receive. There may have been undue publicity, but people read about them and cannot wonder at the lower paid workers using the only means in their power —the ability to work and the right to withdraw their labour—in order to achieve higher salaries and wages. All they are doing is to put into practice the theories that are preached by the present Government of exalting the profit motive, using one's own initiative, one's own abilities, to achieve a higher standard of living for oneself and more for the Government.
Therefore a large part of the industrial peace that we have enjoyed during the past decade has been won at the expense of inflation. Ever higher prices with more paid to those who are producing the same amount as before must inevitably lead to inflation. It must inevitably lead to our tendency to price ourselves out of the international market and to a further deterioration in our balance of payments.
The accusation —and it is an accusation —falls as much against the private sector as the public sector. The latter comprises very large employers and it involves having to give way to the demands for higher and ever higher wages. Perhaps in years to come fear of unemployment will rescue the
944
Government from this vicious spiral in which they find themselves, but that would be a sad solution.
Therefore we are left with another method of avoiding industrial action: involvement of all those concerned. It is relatively easy for small businesses, including agriculture, to involve all workers. The boss comes into daily contact with the workers and can explain matters to them. With the bigger businesses it is much harder. Some have been able to achieve it and great credit is due to them. However many have not achieved it and there is still this distinction not just between "us" and "them" but unfortunately between what are called "white-collar" and "blue-collar" workers. Until we can abolish all such distinctions and simply say, "Here is a group of people working in one industry, one company, for the common benefit", we shall never achieve true industrial harmony. We must abolish the executive car park, different canteens, different dining rooms depending on one's grade in the business. We will not divide people depending on what colour shirt they wear, or whether or not they wear overalls. They must all be part of the same group, the same team. The Japanese are pioneers in this; we are learning from them, but not fast enough.
A further matter which I draw to your Lordships' attention is the role of the personnel manager in business today. I fully accept that large businesses must have a group of people who, with their computers, keep records of the tens of thousands of people employed by the company. There must be a record of their families, salaries, wages, sickness and so on. However that is the limit to which personnel management should go. Everyone should be a personnel manager other than those engaged in manual or skilled work on the shop floor.
The ideal concern, large or small, should be one where every worker has direct access to someone with the authority and responsibility for dealing with all but the biggest complaints received. Workers can come to this person and say, "Hey, I don't like what is happening, I have a grievance". On the spot, that man has the authority to put matters right. Otherwise, if the problem is too big for him he can go upstairs to the person one grade higher, put it to him and within 24 hours at the most the answer is given. It may not be the answer that the complainant wants, but at least there is not time for his disagreements, his feeling of injustice to fester and grow out of all proportion.
Too many of our large businesses now have to refer everything through the personnel management up to the various levels of boards. It takes weeks or months before even modest complaints can be resolved. We cannot have good industrial relations if that form of stratification, bureaucracy and delay isolates the man or woman doing the job, producing the goods, from the policy makers and people who put their car in the other car park, eat better meals in more attractive surroundings and make the decisions that affect the lives of everyone in the concern.
If we are to have peaceful industrial relations which are not based on fear of unemployment or solely on higher wages or higher salaries, but are based on complete involvement in the success of the concern —be it large or small —if we are to have

945
that peaceful harmony in industry, we must pay ever-increasing and rapid attention to the best methods of involving all levels of the workforce in the running of the business.
4.19 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Wade on his maiden speech. Your Lordships' House will, I am sure, be determined to hear from him again, I hope after not too long a period of time. I rise with a little diffidence but I wanted to make a personal contribution to this debate as I have worked within the engineering sector of British manufacturing industry for the past 30 years or so. During that time I have been very much on the receiving end of the changes in industrial relations policy and the legislation which are the subjects of the debate today.
Your Lordships' debate spans a wide canvas and covers a plethora of relevant areas. A range of the industrial relations legislation spanning the past two decades has been covered. Some of it has increased and some of it has reduced the powers of the trade union movement. I know that legislation is vital in setting the backdrop to our industrial relations scene but it is only part of a much broader picture.
I shall focus on what happens in the workplace and on the shop floor where additional factors are also at play. For a company to succeed it must have a Properly motivated workforce. Here British management has a role in fostering collaboration and consultation as an endemic part of the day-to-day management process. We have already heard about the British disease of the 1970s, but looking back to our industrial roots in the 19th century —here I hope I shall have the support of noble Lords on all sides of the House —it is clear that the divisive class system, the creation of them and us within a company, was also a significant contributor to the British disease.
One of my aims and ambitions during my working life within British industry has been to foster the belief in a proper dignity for all levels within an industrial organisation. An ideal company is a place where everyone is encouraged to feel like a working member of the same team. We can see some examples of successful and world beating companies here in the United Kingdom where just this objective has beer achieved. I think of JCB, the earth-moving equipment company, or AWD Bedford, the truck manufacturing company, where years of consultation and attention to detail in the field of industrial relations have sown the seeds of corporate success.
From what I have said already, I should like noble Lords to remember but one word. That word is "dignity". Dignity at the workplace for all levels within a company, is I believe, a most important factor in the setting of a united and harmonious industrial environment. Over the past two or three years I have devoted much of my energy to fostering the concept of total quality management. I have been delighted to see that the Department of Trade and Industry has taken up a similar theme. Total quality management is not just about product quality; it is
946
about the quality of relationships between different departments, different individuals and different levels within an organisation. When one gets it right —I am pleased to say that more and more British companies are getting it right —a proper sense of dignity for all parties is established.
Legislation has its role in helping to establish the right environment. However, even with the finest legislative framework one will achieve very little unless harmony and mutual respect are established between senior management, middle management, first line supervision and organised labour. That is where Her Majesty's Government can claim credit over the past 11 years. There are few who would disagree with the logic of much of our recent industrial relations legislation. However, some noble Lords on the Benches opposite have tried to portray it as unfeeling and uncaring in the way that it has been presented and implemented. I do not agree with that position, but that is as may be. What it has done is to free managers to manage. In this new environment good, dedicated, hardworking managers who are prepared to explain and take their workforce along with them have prospered. Those who have not done so have largely failed.
I feel that perhaps we still have something to learn from the great Quaker traditions of the 19th century. In the 1960s and 1970s many of our manufacturing industries —I think particularly of the one with which I was associated at the time, the motor industry —were operating on the very limit of their capacity. Many plant managers succeeded and were promoted because it became the tradition to cave in to almost any demand, no matter how unreasonable. Certainly output was maintained, but what a terrible price we had to pay later in terms of rampant inflation, overpriced goods and overmanned and unproductive factories.
We have learnt that managers must be free to manage, but that is only the first step. It is then down to them to create a harmonious environment within which their enterprise can prosper. Management freedom is not without its penalties. I confess to a twinge of concern when I read last week of the settlement by Iveco-Ford at Langley of 10.5 to 11.5 per cent. Whatever the merits of that settlement, it is always worrying to see a wage settlement leaping ahead of inflation at a time when inflation is widely acknowledged to be our single greatest enemy.
But is it not far better to give our industrial managers the freedom to decide their own destiny and to live or die on that basis? When one reads the small print of that settlement and learns that the 39-hour week at that plant remains intact and that other significant grading concessions have been negotiated, one realises that sometimes it is better to leave that kind of decision to the people on both sides of the negotiating table who really understand in great detail the industry in which they are working.
What else have we learnt? I believe we have also learnt that in almost any environment it is wise to study and to respect the strength of the other chap's point of view. I hope that as we move into the fourth term of Her Majesty's present Government we shall be able to move forward in the industrial relations

947
field in a way that preserves the face of all parties on whatever side of the negotiating table they may be.
I shall move on to comment a little on one of the most recent pieces of the Government's industrial relations legislation; the abolition of the dock labour scheme. That has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Wade. What has been achieved in less than a year is truly remarkable. We must remind ourselves that abolition has created a new and exciting world for our British ports in a much changed environment. Our British ports are experiencing high improvements in productivity, in quality of performance, in commitment, in flexibility, in realism and confidence. The former two nation labour structure has disappeared boosting the morale of our port workers as a whole and redirecting their efforts where it matters, to improving the service offered to their customers.
It is relevant to note that under the former dock labour scheme nowhere did one find any reference to efficiency, viability, quality, customers or indeed to any of the normal business disciplines. I am glad to say that all that has now changed. Our port managers now have the ability to manage, to invest free of inhibition and to build for the future with confidence for the first time in their professional lives. Who will be the ultimate beneficiary? It will be United Kingdom Limited.
I have one final point to make. There was a fear that abolition of the scheme would see a return to the kind of management malpractices that gave birth to the original dock labour legislation. That has not happened. A firm commitment was given by the port managers not to return to the casual labour system. That has been honoured. In addition, trade unions have not been derecognised and men are free to choose who they wish to represent them. If they opt for union representation they are free to be represented in that way. In short, the dignity of all parties working in our ports industry has been preserved.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me one final word on one other industrial relations event in the recent past, the ambulance drivers' dispute. Here I know that many noble Lords on all sides of the House were deeply torn by a very real concern not just for the major issues involved but for the victims of that terrible set of circumstances. Despite the anguish that we all felt, I believe that we must offer a word of congratulation to the Government. When I saw last week's inflation figures approaching 10 per cent. I shuddered to think what awesome consequences would have arisen if the floodgates of public sector pay demands had been blasted open. Painful as it was, I believe that the right balance was struck.
Most of my time over the past 30 years has been spent travelling abroad promoting the export sales of British manufactured goods. I think back to my experiences of the 1960s and 1970s in smoke-filled rooms in Bombay, Prague, Gothenburg or Kuala Lumpur when I experienced a deep sense of shame as I tried to explain away late deliveries, broken promises and shoddy workmanship. Our nation was
948
perceived to be governed by Red Robbo and his associates. Our industrial relations record made us the laughing-stock of the world.
How different it is today. Today, with our international competitiveness largely restored, with our industry represented by a new generation of professional, hard-working, dedicated and caring business team members, we can go abroad and hold our heads up high. That is a practical manifestation of what has been achieved by the industrial relations policies of Her Majesty's Government over the past 11 years. I, for one, am proud of it.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, your Lordships have heard three speeches from noble Lords on this side of the House who have great industrial experience and have given us the benefit of it. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Caldecote for having chosen this subject and for the way in which he opened the debate.
I am sure that all of your Lordships would wish me, too, to express our gratitude as well as our congratulations to my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton on his maiden speech. It was a splendid speech. Its content, moderation and clarity could not have been excelled. We look forward to hearing many more speeches from him, and before long.
I am the first of three lawyers to speak in this debate. As the debate has been so much about legislation I hope that I may be forgiven if I not only refer to some extent to the legislation but also amplify some of the evidence already given of its results. In doing so I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, will be rather surprised to find that what she told the House is not altogether capable of being established.
I have to take your Lordships back some way, if only to remind noble Lords on the Benches opposite who belong to the Labour Party of events in the late 1960s. The then Labour Government were so desperately worried about the excessive power exercised by a minority, I grant, of trade union officials, which had already done a great deal of harm to the economy and threatened to do more harm, that they produced a White Paper entitled In Place of Strife. The White Paper was found to be acceptable to moderate opinion throughout the country. What happened to it? It was intended to be followed by legislation. I understand that a Bill was drafted. However the trade unions objected strongly. All trade union leaders, not merely a minority but both those who were responsible and those who were not responsible objected strongly. The Labour Party had to give in because such a high proportion of its funds came from the trade unions. The funds which came from the trade unions were paid by trade union members, whether or not they wanted to pay, because that was the system at the time.
Then we come to the late 1970s, to which reference has already been made. Again we had a Labour Government which were desperately worried. We had not only the winter of discontent, because I must amplify what my noble friend Lord Caldecote said about "Red Robbo". In a few months he cost the nationalised part of the motor industry —British

949
Leyland —no less than £100 million in unofficial strikes. When in 1979 we had a general election in which we undertook in our manifesto to change the law, the voters of this country —such a high proportion of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out, being members of trade unions —returned the first of the Governments led by the present Prime Minister.
We then embarked on the step-by-step approach. We had the Acts of 1980 and 1982, which led to our more than doubling our majority in 1983. Then we came to the very important Act of 1984. I remember especially a midnight Division here in which some of us voted against our own party. There were other supporters of an amendment, which had quite an effect, requiring unions to hold secret postal ballots before a strike could become lawful. I am glad to say that our amendment was accepted, as such amendments so often are, in another place.
I must draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to the fact that since the 1984 Act came into effect there have been 1,100 ballots notified to ACAS. Fewer than 15 per cent. of those ballots have resulted in a call for strike action. In the following cases the union leaders called for a strike but the workforce rejected it in a ballot: the Civil and Public Services Association in 1985; the National Union of Railwaymen in 1986; the Transport and General Workers' Union dockers in 1986 and 1988; the National Union of Mineworkers in 1983 (strange as that may seem to noble Lords opposite); NALGO in 1988 and the Ford workers this year. If ballots had not been held and the workers had not been given the opportunity of rejecting the call for a strike, those damaging and important strikes affecting the public service and the national economy could have taken place, because the union leaders wanted them.
We now have the present Employment Bill, which is also very important. There is no point in discussing it at any length, but I think that I should point out, because it is so relevant to this discussion, that it is important for three main reasons. It removes all remaining legal protection of the closed shop. I shall say a bit more about that in a moment. It removes statutory immunity from all forms of secondary action. As has been mentioned, it resolves the problem of unofficial strikes by requiring union officials either to repudiate them or to support them by making them official and legal by holding ballots. I should have thought that it is true union democracy to give the members the chance of the last word. That is what our legislation does, and it would be a tragedy for trade union members if the Labour Party were to repudiate it.
We have already been told of the remarkably beneficial results of our legislation: fewer strikes, increase of production, better understanding between workers and management, and the living standards of the workers have undoubtedly improved. Although, as the noble Baroness said, and I do not challenge it, there are still 10·5 million trade union members in this country, there used to be many more. Many left the unions and many left the Labour Party. We cannot win general elections
950
without the support of several million trade union members. That was why we won the general elections of 1983 and 1987.
I quite agree that at present we have some teething troubles over the community charge, and we have the current most unfortunate problem of inflation. But let us not lose sight of the fact that, if people judge the Government's performance merely on those two issues and let the Labour Party do what they think they should do on industrial relations legislation, there will indeed be a return of the frustration and sense of grievance that the people felt before we came to power.
Let us just see what the Labour Party intends to do. We have not been told very specifically, but in general terms. On the closed shop, I must say that feel that its policy is somewhat inconsistent. It quite rightly recognises the right of people not to join a trade union, but the Labour party says that it fully supports and advocates a 100 per cent. trade union membership at the workplace. Those two propositions cannot live together. It would mean that people who do not join a trade union will often not be able to get the job for which they are qualified and which they would like to have.
Another important part of the legislation that we have passed concerns secondary action. We have made secondary action largely illegal, and the Bill before us takes that a stage further. As regards secondary action Mr. Blair, the Labour Party spokesman, has made it clear that if the party opposite is elected and has power it would again legalise secondary strikes. The consequences would be disastrous for the economy.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? Just to make Labour Party policy absolutely clear, Labour will also restore the right to take sympathy action in line with common practice in other EC countries. In other words, as I said in my opening speech, what we propose is simply to move into line with Europe. This Government may have to do so, if they retain office, sooner or later as a result of directives from Europe.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made a very general statement about the laws of all the other European countries. Quite frankly it is a mistake to generalise in that way because they vary considerably. In any event, we know that the fact that Parliament made it unlawful for much secondary action to take place, (especially in major strikes affecting the output of the economy, as well as some strikes affecting the public service) has been of great effect in helping the economy.
I say that it has been of great effect in improving industrial relations as well, because often men were taken out on strike against their will and had little chance of resisting the secondary action unless they were prepared to be accused of disloyalty to the rest of the union. It might only have been a minority of members of the union, and indeed not all the union officials, who wanted the secondary action. Sometimes the secondary action was embarked on for purely party political reasons.
Baroness Turner of Camden: No. When?
Lord Renton: My Lords, just as serious in the proposals of the Party opposite—and I must confess that I am now attempting in a brief way to deal with the legal implications of its policy —are its proposals which would prevent or weaken law enforcement, I mention only two points. It says that it will forbid ex parte injunctions; applications to the court, as soon as the risk of a strike has appeared, asking the court to make a brief interim order before the case can be heard. By preventing that procedure we would be delaying court orders until strikes are well under way and have already caused great damage. In this way trade unions would be given a status in law and indeed above the law that nobody else has. I do not think that would make them popular.
The second way in which I think we should worry a bit about what the Party opposite proposes to do is this: it intends by preventing the sequestration of union funds, also to give them a privileged position that nobody else enjoys. It says that all that is needed are fines, and that fines are a more savage penalty than sequestration. But if Fines are not paid, their payment must be enforced either by sequestration or, if it is individuals who are responsible, by imprisonment. If there is no sequestration there is no way other than imprisonment of ensuring that the law is observed. Quite frankly, it would seem as though the Party opposite wants to make a nonsense of the law. I have exceeded my time. I hope that I have said enough —perhaps more than enough —and so I shall sit down.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? I think he said that the Government's proposed legislation on unofficial action would have the effect of solving disputes in which such action occurred. Does the noble Lord accept that it remains to be seen whether the legislation will have that effect?
Lord Renton: My Lords, there first remains to be seen exactly the terms in which the legislation emerges in the present Bill. Nobody can predict precisely what the effect will be. All that we can do when legislating in Parliament is to use our judgment to the best of our ability and experience.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade. Unfortunately I could not listen to all his maiden speech but I was present for the last few minutes of it and heard enough to realise that a very powerful speaker with wide knowledge of his subject has joined us. Naturally we hope to hear further from him in the future. However, he will understand when I say that I found his closing remarks to be a little contentious.
The noble Lord talked about the success story that could be if everybody decided to pull together. Those may not have been his actual words but that clearly was implied. I go along with that view 100 per cent. But the speech made by the mover of the Motion did not contain any notion of such a concept —not one iota. If one speaks of impartiality and objectivity, then the opening speaker was about as
952
impartial as Mike Tyson on Sunday night when he nearly killed a fellow in one round. That just about reflects the impartiality of the noble Lord's speech.
There is no question at all but that this Government are bent on smashing the trade unions. They talk about giving trade unions back to their members. That is nonsense. It is absolute rubbish. And well the Government know it. In fact every time one sees on television the present Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Howard, it comes across quite clearly that he hates trade unionism in any form. He does not miss an opportunity to express that feeling, although he may have a smile on his face.
I find it rather significant that the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, spoke of demarcation disputes. The biggest demarcation dispute that I have seen in the past 10 years occurred in your Lordships' Chamber on the issue between the barristers and solicitors. They showed us demarcation lines that would have made any in the manual industries look foolish indeed. What behaviour! I recall that a lttle time ago your Lordships set aside for discussion a special day —a Friday —because certain people thought that the citadels of the law in which they practised were being threatened. It got to the point where the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in his speech made an appalling attack on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for daring to say that changes might be required in that area of activity. I do not think that people who come across with that sort of argument should start to lecture trade unions on impartiality. There was no impartiality shown in your Lordships' House on that day. I remind your Lordships that it was necessary on that occasion for an apology to be issued to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for some of the words that were uttered about him by leading members of his own profession. I give way to the noble Lord —
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to remind him that the barrister and judicial Members of your Lordships' House made no objection to solicitors being given rights of audience in the High Court and indeed other people as well and no objection was made to their being appointed High Court judges.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that if he reads the record in Hansard of that Friday, he will see that there was about as much togetherness between the two professions as may be found between two antagonists in the final stages of a divorce case. The noble Lord must come off it. If he reads Hansard again I do not think that he will dispute my remarks. I believe that some Members on his own Benches tacitly approve of what I say. It was a disgraceful episode. If that is an example of the impartiality of the most prestigious professions in this country, then bring me back some basic trade unionism, brother!
The noble Viscount referred to the fact that legislation was necessary. I recall that some years ago, when a previous Conservative Government brought in the Industrial Relations Act, they made judge of that particular court the noble and learned

953
Lord who is now our present Master of the Rolls; namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. It was mentioned in another place and in this Chamber that during some of the proceedings of that court the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, was heard to remark that the balance of fairness had moved away from the trade union movement and was becoming more and more loaded on the side of the employer.
But such remarks were not sufficient. Bill after Bill has been brought forward. It may well be —I do not dispute it —that some of the legislation may have been objective, forward-looking and necessary. I have said before in your Lordships' House that all my life I have been a member of a union which balloted on every issue. I have never believed that there was any other way of coming to a conclusion which would have the full support of the members. I speak of the AEU, of which union I have now been a member for 53 years. In fact I was a wildcat when I was 15 years old and went on strike in 1937. It was my first strike —unofficial, by the way.
But we are talking about industry and getting together. I do not want to lambaste the managerial side but it has been clearly stated by those concerned —even on occasion by the BIM and the CBI —that poor management in this country has played a major part in our industrial decline. The mover of the Motion did not pay any regard to that. Oh no. It seems that management cannot do anything wrong; management will never provoke a strike; it has never been because of bad management that men have had to come out.
As one who has been nearly 40 years in industry, I have had recourse to strike action three times: once when I was 15, once when I was 18 and once as an adult at the call of my union because of what was happening in the industry. I do not believe that the strike weapon is very effective. It is rare that when people have been on strike they return to work having won what they went on strike for. I have never believed that it is good trade unionism to start discussions with management by first bringing the men out of work. That is nonsense; it never works. It is sad that people such as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, have painted that scene as the general principle of trade unionism. It was not and never has been the case. If one looks at the strike record in this country, it is clear that where there was a high strike profile it was in the very highly paid sectors where powerful muscle was used. It was in areas such as the newspaper industry. The unions always won because bad managers gave them what they wanted until a lot of the members priced themselves out of jobs. However, one cannot say that about engineers in this country nor about the textile workers. Those people —those of them who are left —are still earning considerably less than their counterparts in Europe. They work just as hard but very often use equipment that is not quite so good. So there are swings and roundabouts in the question of who is to blame.
The noble Viscount welcomed our better industrial performance. I have always believed that one of the criteria for earning a good pay packet is the
954
capacity to produce the goods that one is employed to produce. As an individual, I always believed in piecework because I could always earn good money. When that type of activity is fairly rewarded, it is better than all forms of discipline and anti-trade unions laws.
The noble Viscount referred to the example that ought to be set to the nation. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me for having digressed for the past few minutes and will note some of the examples set by members of the noble Viscount's own party, some of whom up until recently were in positions of power in your Lordships' House and were responsible for bringing before this Chamber measures to privatise huge publicly owned utilities. Some of us can recall the scandal when about 300 Peers were drummed in to force through the poll tax Bill even though some of the Government's own Members were opposed to it. It is not a good example of democracy to drum such a measure through the House by about 300 Peers who are not elected members, and some of whom have never faced an election. Fortunately some Peers who voted for the Government on that Bill have recanted and have realised that they made a mess of things. However, I refer to standards of conduct in public.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Can the noble Lord tell us what this has to do with industrial relations?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Viscount made such an outrageously partisan speech that a reply is needed. When he refers to behaviour, the noble Viscount appears satisfied that employers should be the people with the thumbscrews and the rack so that they can literally dictate to the trade unions. Such behaviour results not in negotiation but in imposition. The noble Viscount may not like what I say. However, I shall recount some other examples.
Measures have been passed in this House and in another place by Ministers who within the shortest possible time have left public office and have become highly remunerated chairman of the bodies that they have privatised. If that had happened in local government, the councillors responsible would have been facing the courts because under local government statutes they would have been acting outside the law. I have referred to the policies that one noble Lord supported and who, quite by accident, was offered and accepted an appointment on Wednesday last at a salary of £½ million. What society supports such action? The people who support it lecture those who are, at most, a month away from dismissal. When I was in industry the period for notice of dismissal used to be a week but employees now have a month's grace. However, under the existing law the cards are in the hands of the employers; they are not in the hands of the employees.
The noble Viscount referred to a situation in Dundee. He said that jobs were lost in Scotland because of an inter-union dispute. I agree that if that were so it would be deplorable. But I have heard from very responsible sources that the position was

955
not so simple and that Fords did not wish to go to Scotland anyway.
Viscount Caldecote: Oh!
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Viscount says, "Oh!". He quoted the president of my union, who naturally wanted that job situation for my trade union but he did not achieve it. It is very strange that a person who does not win the issue is deemed to have behaved badly.
The noble Viscount has referred to a much superior industrial performance, but it has started to peter out. If the phoenix is rising from the ashes, by any standards it is a very small phoenix indeed. I quoted some figures which indicate that in the past 12 months 45,000 more jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industry. It may be said that we shall need a smaller force which produces more. But 45,000 is a large number. It does not indicate to me that industry is doing as well as the Government say or as well as I should like it to do.
We are not at present debating the Employment Bill, but there will be time to do so on the Floor of the House. However, that measure is unnecessary and is another indication that the Government have no time for trade unionism and trade union members. They would love to see them disappear from the face of the earth. I do not accept the point that the Government under the present Prime Minister are giving trade unions back to the members. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hope that the noble Viscount who opened the debate will be frank and tell us what he really means.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Caldecote for introducing this very important debate at this time, enhanced by the magnificent maiden speech that my noble friend Lord Wade made.
Since I follow the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I should like to do justice to his analysis and to meet the points of his argument. I was not able to follow exactly what relevance his arguments or his process of presentation had to the subject matter of the debate. However, I shall read Hansard with care. I hope that he will acquit me of any conscious discourtesy if I do not seek to reply in any detail. I should like to tell him this straight. I for one am not a person who has no time for trade unions. I am not a person who would love to see the trade union movement disappear; and the whole House knows that, as does the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I referred to certain members of the party opposite who are well known for such opposition. I cast no personal slur on the noble Lord. I know his views too well. I never for one moment thought that he would understand that I was accusing him of such beliefs.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that may well be true, but the noble Lord stated that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had no time for trade
956
unions. That is simply not true. What is true is that he has no time for trade union abuses.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister will know that it is out of order to intervene on an intervention.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I stand by what I said about the Secretary of State. I do not withdraw one word of it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to intervene in my own intervention. Perhaps we may continue with the job in hand.
I am the second lawyer in to bat on this side. I defer to the patient, objective and authoritative analysis of my noble friend Lord Renton. He took us back to In Place of Strife. He knew what was going on; he was in the other place. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dean, remembers what went on. He may well have been in the other place at that time. But it was interesting to set the perspective which some of us saw only from reading the papers. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, took us forward, and rightly so, to the next election, because that is what the subject is all about.
There are three facets to the problem. As I see it —your Lordships may see it quite differently —and having listened to the most interesting speeches, it seems to me to divide into three categories. The first is the perspective in which we ought to consider these government policies. The second is the change in attitude that the government policies are claimed to have brought about. The third is the probable effect of the proposed labour policies.
It is an intensely political debate; and it is very good that it should be. One simply has to look forward, and, with the courtesies of this House, to examine the policies proposed by the Labour Party and to discuss the probable effect. As a result of their policies on industrial relations, this Administration have during the past decade brought order out of turmoil and chaos. That is the true perspective in which to look at the achievement. The view was so well put by my noble friend Lord Caldecote that no more need be said. Noble Lords may well believe that he put the view not only forcefully but fairly. The noble Lord laughs and he is entitled to do SO—
Lord Dean of Beswick: I was not laughing at the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not mind —by all means laugh at me. However, it is no laughing matter when one comes to the objective analysis which the Labour Party and the electorate must face but not the party to which I adhere. It is that the forces of turmoil and chaos are not dead; they still exist, as do their methods and aspirations to govern. That is not a problem for the party to which I adhere; it is a problem for noble Lords on the opposite side of the House.

957
No government, Conservative, Labour or whatever, should ever drop their guard. But the policies of the Labour Party would achieve precisely that. It would occur because of the package of trade union immunities to be introduced as part of the Labour Party's policies. The process which brought the trade unions within the rule of law and which has afforded relative peace would come to an end. By the rule of another law we should move again towards industrial anarchy, with secondary action and secondary picketing. There it either is or in all probability would be, and why? As my noble friend Lord Renton made totally plain in his analysis—and with respect he is correct —the courts would be inhibited from dealing with unlawful acts and granting ex parte injunctions. Their powers of enforcement would be emasculated by the removal of the sanction of sequestration for contempt of court.
On the other hand, if the Government's policies as proposed in the Employment Bill are pursued, the unions will remain within the law without such immunities and subject to the law. One has only to look at Clause 4 of the Bill. It proscribes secondary action and the so-called "sympathetic" industrial action. Clause 6 clarifies and establishes the responsibility of trade unions for the acts of their officials, groups and members. What on earth is wrong with that? Clause 8 proposes the removal of an outrageous anomaly under extant law by enabling an employer to dismiss any employee taking unofficial industrial action in breach of his contract of employment. That is the law of the land.
I now defer to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, because so often we agree across this Chamber. I should like to see a mandatory code of practice and conciliation procedure built in to Clause 8. However, such an amendment could be made in Committee. I may not be popular for saying that there was something in what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said and I should be interested to see an amendment tabled along those lines.
The proposed extension of government policies along those lines—and they have worked well —affords a fair, progressive regime relevant to today and to the future. However, the proposed Labour Party policies are retrogressive. The conflict of approach is fundamental. It is far too fundamental to afford any resolution in this debate. Clearly, one day the electorate must decide.
I wish to comment briefly on the closed shop provisions which to some extent reflect the principle of Section 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I had a quiet word with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who made a speech on Friday about the closed shop. I told him of what I intended to say about his interesting contribution. He is fully content that I should make my comments in his absence. I told him that Frank Cousins and Ray Gunter opposed the closed shop. They were responsible trade unionists and therefore there were two views on the matter. Frankly, the noble Lord went a little over the hill on Friday in describing in a certain way those people who did not join unions. I pointed out that Article 20(2) of the Declaration of Human
958
Rights condemned the closed shop and that it has been condemned judicially by the Court of Justice. The fact that it happens to suit a number of employers makes the matter only worse because there is an infringement of a basic right of freedom of the individual worker. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is not in his place but that is the substance of what I told him I would say about the contribution that he made on Friday.
I shall conclude by referring to the most interesting and important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He spoke with a wealth of experience and considerable moderation, restraint and foresight. Although he did not use the exact words, he was saying, in effect, "For heaven's sake let us give up a stylistic Balinese dance with ritual gestures and postures. Let us try to achieve a new partnership and a new spirit". In that spirit he said that we should be prepared to look at some of the proposals in the Bill from a dispassionate point of view. We should not approach the Bill with any fundamental bias. We should look at what is proposed, why it is proposed and the justification.
There is no Bill that your Lordships cannot improve in your revisal role. Assuredly, the Employment Bill is no exception. I intend to follow the example set by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and approach the duty in that way and in that spirit. In that spirit I should welcome amendments tabled from noble Lords opposite with the backing of the TUC.
The first proposal relates to an interest of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. The basic problem of the Ford fiasco at Dundee was the absence of effective recognition machinery —and the noble Baroness accepts that. Also, the Bridlington agreement had broken down and was dead as a dodo. In the interests of the country and the trade union movement, I should like to see an amendment tabled with the support of the TUC in order to devise a machinery to deal with recognition disputes. The Government and this House would then have an opportunity to consider that. That would lie within the ambit of this Bill.
My time is up. I should welcome the tabling of one or two amendments for the consideration of this House, one of them on the matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. That is the basic spirit in which I propose to approach that task.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will forgive me if I do not follow him along the path which he has taken. I am quite sure too that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very robust speech which I enjoyed. I did not take quite the same view of it as perhaps did other noble Lords. His speech was rather more fierce than that of my noble friend Lord Caldecote, though, in introducing the debate this afternoon, my noble friend was justifiably robust. He put on record what had happened over the past few years and events have proved his point. That was underlined by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird in his own contribution from his personal experience of management, both in

959
this country and abroad, in the engineering industry. Again, that proves a point.
I rather liked the more gentle approach of my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton. At least, it was gentle this afternoon. Time will tell. He made a singularly sympathetic maiden speech. We shall see whether he continues to be as sympathetic and non-controversial as time goes on. However, I am quite sure that we shall enjoy his contributions.
My noble friend drew my attention to some remarks made by Sir Hector Laing, who retired recently from the chairmanship of United Biscuits. In a booklet entitled A Parting Shot he writes:
"In a free market system, the nation functions through the interaction of interdependent, yet distinctly separate institutions. Society prospers if each sector, be it government, industry, finance, labour …performs its function reasonably well and with understanding of and tolerance for the roles required of the other sectors. Each is one vital part of society".
I believe that, in the exchanges which have taken place this afternoon, that has been put aside. Sir Hector continues:
"In the 20's and 30's, managements had substantial economic power over working people, and sometimes abused it".
There is no denying that:
"In the 50's and 60's, organised labour gained increasing power so that by 1979 trade unions leaders had very considerable power …and similarly sometimes abused it".
There is no denying that. Sir Hector concludes that paragraph by stating:
"The balance between organised labour and industrial management has now been restored, partly by statutory curbs on trade union power and partly by the changed economic climate".
I do not believe that one can deny that.
I do not believe that there is much point in looking back at what this or that government have or have not done or what party did this or that, or even in talking about strikes of a few years ago. We must look forward. I was singularly disappointed on the Second Reading of the Employment Bill that in more than 50 minutes of contributions by the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, we heard nothing of what her party, were it ever to get into government, would do in this sphere.
Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, spent some time in talking about tilting the balances and about the accident rate. She is right about that. The accident rate has increased in our factories, which is very depressing. I note that we shall shortly be having a debate on the work of the Health and Safety Executive and perhaps its role and what can be done to improve that situation may be explored. The noble Baroness talked about the abandonment of wages councils. She did not mention that Marks and Spencer, W.H. Smith and Sainsbury's have increased wages for young peoply by —I believe I am right —something over 20 per cent. to bring them into balance. Does the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, wish to make a comment?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, we were with the noble Lord, however, we were discussing the opposition of other low paid workers who were protected by wage council orders and are no longer effectively protected.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I was selecting certain points, which is my entitlement.
The noble Baroness ended by saying that when her party came to power, there would be a new philosophy. It is no good philosophising. We want some action. When my noble friend Lord Renton challenged her, she was not able to say very much more. That is rather disappointing. Conversely, the present Government's programme on labour and industrial relations is clearly set out and has been demonstrated.
I do not often relate anecdotal experiences. However, in his opening remarks my noble friend Lord Caldecote spoke of the importance of inward investment and how the United Kingdon had attracted so so much inward movement. At about the time at which the change came around, I was doing a similar job to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in the Department of Trade and Industry. I was travelling abroad frequently selling "UK Ltd." as a good place in which to invest. I was surprised that the question most raised related not to what incentives were being given in a particular region or area by government or the regional authority. It was, can we rely upon the stability of labour? In the late 1970s all one had read about in the newspapers was strikes and disturbances. I was able to state, truthfully, that one could now rely upon stability. That is still largely true today. However, the Dundee experience set back by years all the work which had been done. Whether the understanding is right or wrong, the perception is important, not the detail of the argument. Therefore, I believe that, whatever laws are made, the important thing is the perception of the people and the perception which employers have of employees and vice versa.
My noble friend Lord Oxfuird spent some time speaking about dignity. He is absolutely right. I should like to see a firming up of the relationship between employer and employee —I do not like that term but that is how it is recognised —to our greater economic and social well-being. I should like to see a number of factors changed and advanced. I should like to see wider employee participation in their business, though I confess not on the lines we considered when I sat on a committee with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, examining the fifth directive on European company law and employee participation. I prefer the way we do it in the United Kingdom. It can be done in a variety of ways. Employee share participation is very important. Everybody belongs to the same family; everybody has an interest in its furtherance. That is a good thing and should be encouraged.
I should like employers to give more information to employees, whether through a works paper or works council, on where the company is heading, its objectives and how it hopes to achieve them. If closure is to come it will come; business will demand it, but the company should explain it and explain it properly.
Like noble friends on either side of me, I like responsible trade unions; I like to know with whom I am dealing and that when a deal is struck it is struck and stuck.

961
My noble friend Lord Wade spoke of employer's social and family responsibility. I recall as a young manager firing an employee. My managing director said to me, "You realise that this afternoon you brought about the social and economic collapse of four people: the family". An employer who takes on the awesome responsibility of employing others should not take that responsibility lightly. It should be undertaken with understanding and, as my noble friend Lord Oxfuird said, with dignity and respect for the other person.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, let me first thank the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for raising this important and notable debate. It is especially notable by the number of noble Lords who chose to speak today rather than to speak in support of the Bill last week. At points I was not sure which debate this was.
Let me immediately join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for his contribution in a notable maiden speech. We look forward to more good news from Cheshire. The noble Lord said that everything works better when everyone works together, and no one on these Benches would disagree with that.
There is an initial problem in responding to the debate from these Benches. It has ranged far and wide. I wish I could follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, into the area of interlocutory injunctions of which he apparently so firmly approves, or the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his somewhat idiosyncratic account of the history of the 1960s and 1970s. However, his speech was important in another way. At the beginning he addressed —as I should like to do —the noble Viscount's important Motion, and he said that he would show us how the Government's legislation had caused the effects which are claimed for it.
I find that an interesting problem. There are clearly two contrasting policies put before the country in regard to industrial relations. We now have experience of the Government's policy in action through their legislation. They plainly believe that industrial relations are best based upon individual relationships between employers and employees. They often say so. Workers and trade unions therefore do not need more than a low level of rights and liberties in terms of legislation; employment protection rights tend to be a burden on business, and as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, reminded us last Friday, (at col. 574 of Hansard)) inhibit competitiveness.
As my noble friend Lady Turner said, the Government therefore —logically from their point of view —deregulated protection rights to the lowest point in Community member states. One only has to look at the legislation on the statute books concerning unfair dismissal, young workers' night shifts and a variety of areas on women's rights to see that the picture is fairly clear. They have cut the area of trade union rights which workers expect to find if they join together in a democratic country
962
whereby they can give collective expression to their views.
We on this side believe that employees are a valuable resource, if one wants to put it in the words of the noble Viscount. We believe that they are entitled individually to a guarantee of higher protection and opportunity. How rarely training and skill have been mentioned in the debate! One may have thought that the Government would take great pride in hearing Members opposite speak of the training record. We have not heard much in that regard.
We believe employees are entitled collectively to rights for trade unions through which representatives may protect employees' interests, jointly participate in constructive industrial relations and exercise the civil liberties of freedom of association. Those are three areas in which I join with other noble Lords. There is a clear difference in understanding of what the statute book should look like in that regard. I should be happy to debate the Labour Party's programmes, but I am not prepared to do so in footnotes on somebody else's Motion on another subject. The noble Lord indicates that he will give us time, and we would welcome a debate for the Labour Party programme to be discussed. No doubt that will be noted in the usual channels.
The Minister who is to reply from the Government Bench has difficulty, looking at his previous speeches —along with his colleagues, because he is not alone on this point; it is a collective difficulty —with what is a central methodological issue in the debate. Perhaps I may depart from what I intended to say and put it another way. Suppose we said that the worrying inflation position —the Government must be worried —the awful training position —they know it is awful —and the balance of payments situation which is worse than it has ever been, was brought about because of the Government's industrial relations legislation. I am sure that the Minister would not accept that statement. He would ask us to show some cause and effect. I shall read Hansard with great care, but I hazard a guess that so far there has been only a miniscule relationship between the speeches on the other side of the House and the issue of how the effects which are claimed have been caused by the legislation.
That is the reason I say that it is an interesting problem. In one sense it does not matter to us whether or not that cause is there. Our first objective is to the standard of civil liberties on the statute book. When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, claim the rule of law and basic freedoms as his base, I know that he is sincere, but perhaps he will look with me at all the ways touched on by my noble friend in which the British law at the moment falls below the level of what is internationally acceptable.
Let us be quite clear on this issue. The insular approach to this matter of most people in this country is extraordinary. Anyone who goes abroad and discusses industrial relations legislation knows that everybody regards the position of this country as having fallen below the floor of minimum standards. I shall run through the different ways in

963
which the ILO bodies—the Committee of Experts and Freedom of Association Committee —condemned the Government over the span of 1980 to 1988. There was the dismissal of strikers, which they now intend to make worse; the violation of trade union rights at GCHQ; the abolition of collective bargaining rights for teachers. That is a scandalous and flagrant breach of the convention of freedom of association. They have invaded trade union freedom by prohibiting discipline of strike breakers among members. They failed to protect workers from the blacklists of which we have heard, especially those circulated by the Economic League. Of course, we now also have the banning of all sympathy action, but even when the ban was not 100 per cent. it was condemned by the ILO. There are other items, but those are the main ones.
Let us be clear about this. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, carries on a curious relationship with that particular debate. Last Friday he summed up the matter particularly well, and I am happy to accept his summary. First, he pleaded not guilty. That one would expect, in a general way. Secondly, he said that the Government had responded to the Committee of Experts' points at the ILO but that, as usual, those comments were offered in confidence. Therefore, we do not know what the Government said. We are not told what their reasoning is; we are told just that they said something. Thirdly, he alleges that in any case there were breaches by other countries and he named Germany, Greece and the Netherlands; though I believe the third is not wholly well put.
The Government's posture is rather like that of a burglar caught red-handed who pleads not guilty, refuses to disclose what he has whispered in confidence to the judge, and in mitigation pleads that there have been other less extensive larcenies committed by his competitors. That is not a very honourable attitude to take without revealing more and without stating very clearly and precisely which parts of the convention the Government do and do not accept.
The Government's real defence in this matter does not rest on human rights. They are in a bad shape if it does. The Government's real defence is, as the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Bill in another place (Col. 39 of Hansard for 29th January) that,
"improvement in our productivity" —
in manufacturing, of course; there is no claim of anything parallel in the tertiary sector —
"elimination of inefficient …working practices"
and the transformation in the economy has been caused, in the main (the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, put it "in the main") by this legislation.
The first point to make is that on productivity all the research suggests that there is at least no proven cause and effect of that kind. Reference has been made to the article by Professor Brown and Dr. Wadhwani in the National Institute Economic Review which makes that suggestion. My noble friend Lord McCarthy gave figures last Friday to which the Minister did not reply except to say that surrounding the debate on research:
964
"there is a great deal of uncertainty and confusion". —[Official Report, 15/6/90; col. 580.]
There is not a great deal of confusion. Mr. John McInnes has recently summarised the work of very different researchers —Professor Metcalf, Dr. Nicholls, Dr. Wadhwani and Mr. Daniel—and all of them agree that there is no evidence that,
"Thatcherism has changed productivity trends in the long term by changing industrial relations".
That case could be better made by reading more and in greater detail, but that is the dominant axis of all the conclusions of that research in this area.
It is, of course, the strike record which is given pride of place. The noble Viscount said that to quote comparative figures is specious. I have to tell the noble Viscount, in all frankness, that he reminds me of academic colleagues who always begin with that word when they are faced with figures that they find highly inconvenient. It is not specious unless it can be shown to be methodologically inaccurate to look elsewhere as well as at Britain. If one takes the five years 1983 to 1987 and the five years prior to those, 1978 to 1982 —which is a fair break because the Government's legislation effectively begins to bite later on in 1982 —we find that in the first period Britain ranked seventh among the 19 major nations in the statistics. In the second period 1983 to 1987 it once again ranked seventh in number of days lost.
If one looks at countries where trade union rights were relatively unchanged in this period between 1978 and 1987, one finds that working days lost per 1,000 workers also fell, but by much more. In Sweden they fell by 80 per cent., in Ireland by 50 per cent., in Italy by 56 per cent. Where trade union rights were significantly increased —in the private sector to which the statistics alone refer, and I am taking the Government's statistics —in France the decrease was 48 per cent. and in Spain it was 50 per cent.
It is not surprising that most research in this area also concludes that the British decline in working days lost through strikes is, as it obviously is, rather less than in very comparable societies, but very comparable societies with very different industrial relations systems. Of course, if we were comparing only with, say, Germany and Sweden's organic bargaining systems one might say it was because of that, but if one looks at the range of societies with only a few of them reducing their strike rates less than ours it begins to be a little odd. Indeed, the dispassionate conclusion might well be that if the Government's legislation has helped to reduce the strike index then the other factors must have increased it if the international economic circumstances are relatively similar.
I hope the Minister does not say that all the other countries in the list have different international circumstances. He claims that the legislation has reduced the strike rate in Britain. Whether or not that is so, it is apparent that the labour market factors, which all the research suggests is the basis of this movement, have brought it down far more in a wide variety of other countries. I am afraid the lawyers have to accept that sometimes the law is not the most important thing around; and with the Government's legislation, thank heaven for that!

965
However, there are a few other features that I will mention briefly. One feature is that stoppages have increased in length during the 1970s and 1980s. The number of stoppages has declined but the number of long stoppages has increased. That partly reflects, but only partly, not so much the legislation as the failure of the Government to promote conciliation and their preference for confrontation. That has been partly in order to enforce their incomes policy in the public sector, scrapping the valuable arbitration machinery for the Civil Service that dated from 1925; turning industrial disputes into battles with enemies within, with the ambulance workers and the miners; crushing by legislation the collective bargaining rights of school teachers as a punishment for daring to fight for decent conditions in the state sector of education; doing away with the fair wages resolution and with unilateral arbitration. It is in the public sector that the Government have kept tile length of stoppages rising.
To conclude, therefore, the Government have failed to give a lead in those areas of industrial relations, such as participation of work people and employee involvement, which we see as having a place in legislation as well as in the voluntary mechanism. The idealogy is extraordinary which says that the law should have no place in that area when the Government are so fond of restrictive laws elsewhere. There must be a positive impact in employees participation, and a positive role for trade unions and employees based upon a secure and fair base of employment rights. We do not share the Government's view that industrial rights are a luxury suitable in Gdansk but not in Grimsby. There is, in fact, a place in this country for a decent and proper employment and industrial relations policy. There is an alternative to present government policies and the time for that alternative is about to come.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I say right at the outset how much I have enjoyed this afternoon's debate. I commend particularly the words of my noble friend Lord Caldecote and underline how much I share his views on trade unions. There is no question of any kind of ideological attack on trade unionism; only opposition to the irresponsible abuse of trade union power. That is why I did not fully understand the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, but since he is not in the Chamber perhaps we shall return to that issue later.
I listened with great interest and pleasure to the excellent maiden speech given by my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton. It was a remarkable speech and I was pleased to listen to it. That did not come as any great surprise because he lists among his recreations shooting, food and travel. Surely we have in our midst a man after my own heart.
Today we are debating industrial relations and strike action. Surely, that goes very much to the heart of what the Labour Party is all about, yet I am surprised to see that it has managed to produce only two Front Bench spokesmen and one Back-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who we all
966
know is not a Back-Bencher; he is a most effective Front Bench speaker. Where is the Labour Party this afternoon?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is at Ascot.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggests that it is indulging in a pastime somewhere in the Royal County of Berkshire. He may well be correct.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There might have been more Members of the Labour Party here if the Prime Minister had been a little more generous in her allocation of peerages.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord should take that up with the leader of his own party rather than with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
I now turn to the point of this debate. Let us look first at the undisputed facts. The evidence provided by the strike statistics is impressive. The annual average number of days lost each year to industrial action in the 1970s was 12·9 million. In the 1980s it fell by almost a half to an average 7–2 million; and over the five years to March 1990 it has halved again, averaging 3·3 million.
I know that during the course of today's debate noble lords have mentioned some of the statistics. However, they are so impressive that they are worth repeating. I shall come to the direct criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made about international comparisons. Notwithstanding Opposition claims that last year we experienced a summer of discontent, the number of stoppages in 1989 was in fact the lowest since 1935. During the Labour Government's winter of discontent, 3 million days were lost in the single month of January 1979, which compares with just 4·1 million days in the whole of 1989.
In the 1980s the number of days lost per thousand employees fell by 75 per cent. —proportionately more than with almost any of our major competitors. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that it is very difficult to make comparisons between different countries because different definitions are used. Some countries will always come out ahead of the United Kingdom in any international league table. I know that the noble Lord knows that in France, for example, the figures exclude strikes in the public sector. Noble Lords can imagine how our figures would appear if we were to do that.
The number of stoppages fell by 9·5 per cent. over the life of the present government compared with just 1 per cent. per annum over the life of the previous Labour Government. When this Government came into office strikes were one of the major barriers to improving Britain's economic performance. Days lost through industrial disputes had risen to new high levels during the late 1970s. A series of major strikes and continual minor disputes posed great difficulties for all types of commerce and industry. Poor industrial relations affected both

967
productivity and profitability, which in turn led to a reduction in employment.
It is surely no coincidence that the improved industrial record of the 1980s has been achieved at the same time as the Government's reform of industrial relations and trade union law. These reforms have, by enhancing democratic practices in the conduct of union affairs and by protecting members against abuses of union power, helped to correct the imbalances of power between trade unions and employers and between trade unions and their members.
We have also brought in a number of measures to deregulate and promote greater flexibility in the labour market. The abolition of the dock labour scheme was one of the more prominent of these deregulatory measures. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Wade mentioned that in his maiden speech. His account of improvements at Merseyside and at the docks in Lincolnshire is confirmed on a far wider scale. We shall see that as we come up to the first anniversary of the abolition of the scheme. It has led to the release of new energy and enterprise in the former scheme ports. Surplus labour has been shed and efficient working practices have been introduced. Productivity has increased markedly; the ending of restrictive labour practices has reduced significantly the time taken to unload ships. A high priority has been given to training and there has been increased investment both in and around ports. All this has been achieved with no relaxation in health and safety standards.
All these steps have helped to change the 1970s' atmosphere of industrial conflict to one of negotiation and industrial co-operation. British employers and employees now waste less energy on disputes and devote more to producing quality goods and services on time and at the right price.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, if I understood him correctly, that it is not industrial relations policy alone that has been the sole reason for that change. There have been powerful economic pressures which have undoubtedly had an effect on the attitudes and behaviour of both unions and employees. I take up the words of my noble friends Lord Oxfuird and Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Today companies have adjusted to these pressures. They are leaner and fitter, having slimmed away surplus labour and introduced significant changes to working practices. Management initiatives, often with employees' co-operation, have swept away many inefficient restrictive labour practices and replaced them with new flexibilities such as multi-skilling, teamworking and so forth, often associated with the introduction of new technology.
The effects of government industrial relations policy cannot easily be separated from the impact of our policies more generally in helping to bring about these desirable and essential changes. For example, in other areas we have given tax incentives to encourage investment in industry, in particular in order to encourage employees to demonstrate their commitment to the welfare of their company by investing in it. Eleven out of the past 12 budgets have included tax incentives in this area.
968
We have done much to stimulate enterprise and the creation of small firms through the small firms service, the loan guarantee scheme, the business expansion scheme and various other programmes and initiatives. The number of self-employed has risen from 1·9 million to 3·2 million, which is an increase of 70 per cent. since the Government came to office 11 years ago. During the past year new small firms have been registered at the rate of 1,500 a week. The importance of these achievements in economic regeneration and growth has been fully recognised by the ILO. It is clear evidence of the rebirth of enterprise within the United Kingdom.
We are totally committed to improving the quality of our workforce by improving vocational training from schooldays onwards. I have no fears about coming to this House and standing by our excellent record on training. It is the Labour Party which has something to fear when it comes to training. Its record was appalling. Now it suggests a tax on jobs to pay for training.
In March of this year there were nearly 360,000 YTS trainees. Eighty-two per cent. of YTS leavers now go into jobs, further training or education. There are 210,000 people on employment training. Our new training and enterprise councils will have the flexibility to make ET even more responsive to the needs of individuals and local labour markets.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He referred to training. A few moments ago the Minister claimed that the Government had a marvellous record for training and denigrated the last Labour Government's record on that subject. The Minister must be aware that engineering is the biggest manufacturing sector of this country. Is he aware that, under this Government's proposals, we are training only 30 per cent. of the number of engineers that we trained under the previous Labour Government? Does he not agree that it is peculiar to call that a success when there is a reduction to two-thirds in the number of engineers being trained?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is precisely why we are reforming the training system. We are involved in a host of education initiatives such as TVEI, Compacts, high technology national training, work-related further education, open learning and career development loans. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will approve of many of these initiatives.
The National Council for Vocational Qualifications is spearheading a fundamental reform of vocational qualifications, and by the end of 1992 we aim to have a United Kingdom-wide system of qualifications relevant to the needs of the modern workplace and individuals in all industries, for all occupations at all levels. The Training Standards Advisory Service was established in 1986 to provide an independent assessment of the quality of training in training agency programmes, and its findings helped to improve the quality of government-sponsored training programmes.
All these measures have helped to produce the well informed, committed and motivated workforce

969
that we have in Britain today. But legislative reform has contributed significantly to the important changes of attitude which have made this improvement possible.
In 1979 Britain was widely seen as a strike-ridden society and a graveyard for investment from overseas. Ten years later our reputation has been transformed at home and abroad. An independent survey of foreign-owned firms in 1989 showed that 96 pet cent. believed British industrial relations have improved significantly and 70 per cent. planned to increase their investment here. Employers have paid tribute to the Government's achievement in terms of helping them to modernise and increase profitability in industries such as vehicle manufacture, printing and newspapers.
These improvements have strongly influenced overseas investors, and the United Kingdom's inward investment record in the 1980s is impressive by any standard. In that respect I agree with my noble friends Lord Wade of Chorlton and Lord Oxfuird and with my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry had such personal experience of trying to sell Britain.
A survey by the Japan External Trade Organisation shows a large increase in the number of Japanese companies manufacturing in Britain. Available evidence suggests that the United Kingdom share of Japanese investment in the Community —at 38 per cent. already far ahead of the share of Japanese investment in any other Community country —is growing. Our share of United States investment in the Community stands at more than 40 per cent. —way ahead of the share of any of our other EC partners. The importance of good industrial relations is something that Japanese, American and other investors rate highly, along with the flexibility of the British labour force which has been praised by so many commentators, including Dr. Atenstaedt of the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce. I should perhaps add here, since we hear a good deal in debates such as this about international bodies and their views, that a very recent OECD report entitled Progress in Structural Reforms: Labour Markets has endorsed deregulatory labour market policies, and welcomed:
"more flexibility in employment contracts and lower costs of dismissal protection in order to reduce disincentives for expanding the workforce".
The very same report also endorsed legal and institutional frameworks for wage negotiations to help wages adjust to structural changes of demand and supply in industries, regions and skills. That is very much in line with government policy in these areas.
What has been the Government's strategy? Learning from the experience of noble Lords opposite in the 1970s, we did not attempt to change too much too quickly. We have proceeded by a measured, step-by-step approach, never too far ahead of public opinion, always aimed at clearly identified problems, which is why we have had the support of trade union members themselves. Also learning from the 1970s, we have scrupulously
970
avoided any interventionist role in the conduct of industrial or employee relations. The proper role of government is to set the overall legislative framework but leave it to the parties directly involved to decide whether, and how, to use the new freedoms and protections created. That principle also applies to pay. We have not sought to impose any set pay policy; pay levels should be determined by the pressures of the labour market and internal business needs. Pay rates must be free to respond to labour market conditions and must be free from unnecessary institutional restraints.
An equally important element in our approach has been our commitment to keep industrial relations and trade union law under review, and a readiness to come forward with proposals to modernise that law whenever and wherever necessary. There is no question of closing the book on the step-by-step process of reforming the law to take account of developments and future needs. Our approach has proved itself the right prescription for a healthy and efficient labour market. Unemployment has fallen dramatically from a peak of more than 3 million in 1986 to the present 1·6 million. Jobs have increased substantially, with more than 27 million people in work, the highest ever. The United Kingdom rate of employment growth between 1983 and 1987 was more than three times as great as the European Community average.
As concerns the detail of our industrial relations and trade union law, I shall merely remind noble Lords of some of the more significant legislative changes that the Government have introduced during the past 10 years. They include the requirement for a secret ballot to be held before a union calls for industrial action; the removal of immunity from indiscriminate secondary action, industrial action to enforce closed shop practices, and from picketing away from the picket's own place of work. At the same time complementary legislative steps have been taken to increase union democracy, to help make unions more responsive to their members and to protect members and non-members from union coercion.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, was the Minister not surprised to find that when the Government enforced legislation which demanded that unions balloted on political funds, every single union that balloted actually balloted for a political fund?
Lord Strathclyde: Not really, my Lords, it was entirely up to the unions and their members to do so through the secret ballot. What is perhaps surprising is that when those measures came before the House the party of the noble Baroness voted against them.
Baroness Turner of Camden: They were a waste of time.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have taken many other steps to introduce greater democracy within unions.

971
What then has been the Opposition's response? We have seen some of it this afternoon although not as much as perhaps we should have liked. They have of course fought all of our legislative reforms tooth and nail. My noble friend Lord Renton said precisely the same thing in his excellent speech. My noble friend Lord Caldecote mentioned John Smith, who said in another place (at col. 164 of the Official Report of 8th November 1983) that the Trade Union Act of 1984 was "an irrelevant effrontery".
Last year the Labour Party Policy Review said that:
"The present industrial relation laws are clearly now in many respects partisan, unfair and unbalanced. The Tories in five separate Acts since 1979, have gone to unprecedented extremes in altering the balance in industrial relations law …Our legislative priority will be to remove such measures".
No member of the Shadow Cabinet has contradicted John Prescott's remarks at the end of last year which committed the next Labour Government to repeal all of the Government's trade union reforms. He said:
"It's going to repeal all of it, there's no little bits you can keep of it. There's nothing you can keep of this legislation. [Mr. Kinnock] hasn't denied that it is going to be done …It has to go".
That is the reality of the Labour Party's stance today.
And what of their latest proposals? Can we believe Mr. Blair's reassurances that some of the existing legislation will be kept and some only modified? To which of the multitude of Opposition spokesmen should we listen? Even Mr. Blair's more moderate line contains proposals that would be highly damaging. Much of the document is muddled and vague, perhaps intentionally, but it is clear enough that the Labour Party is still dedicated to giving trade unions special rights and special privileges. It would allow strikers to hold their employer to ransom and force him to concede the most outrageous demands by preventing the employer from being able to dismiss them. It would licence once again the flying picket and calls for secondary strikes; and it would prevent the courts from imposing the normal penalties that apply if anyone flouts a court order to stop acting unlawfully.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the Minister will cover many points in his long speech. Perhaps I may pick one before he continues. He notices in particular the demand that we have made —it is true —that those who are dismissed by reason only of taking legitimate industrial action shall not be open to dismissal. Is he aware that that basic rule applies—with varieties of legal culture of course —in almost all of the major industrial democracies not just in Europe but in the world? Does he feel comfortable being a Minister in the country which most blatantly breaks that ILO standard?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not understand the noble Lord's stand on this matter. I do not understand how he can pick and choose which laws from other countries he wishes to welcome. Indeed, there are plenty of others which he would not choose.
The Labour Party's policy document entitled Looking to the Future is, through the Opposition's
972
eyes, to look into the murky depths of a fortune teller's crystal ball and its predictions are likely to be about as accurate. The Government's strategy is a tried and tested formula, its success borne out by the remarkable transformation of our industrial relations in the 1980s. The Opposition's nostrums would rapidly undermine all that has been achieved and return us to the industrial relations chaos of the 1970s.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said that the Labour Party has totally accepted the social charter. We have not done so. We have three main concerns. First, there is the effect that the Commission's proposals would have on jobs. The practical effect of the charter would undoubtedly have been to increase employers' costs, reduce competitiveness and damage employment prospects. Secondly, there is the question of subsidiarity and the sovereign role of the United Kingdom Parliament. Thirdly, there is the respect for national traditions and practice. Harmonisation in the social and labour market field should only be pursued where there is a clear need for European standards; for example, in health and safety. The Labour Party has consistently ignored each of those aspects.
As regards the ILO and the remarks made by the noble lord, Lord Wedderburn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in 1989 the ILO Committee of Experts—an advisory committee—made a number of comments about United Kingdom law in connection with the ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise. There was nothing unusual in that process, and I do not understand why the noble Lord is so surprised. As I said on Friday, the committee in part of the same report made a number of similar comments about the law in other Community countries. The Government responded to the points made by the ILO committee. As usual, they were made in confidence. However, what noble Lords opposite conspicuously fail to mention is the fact that the TUC consequently withdrew the complaint it had made about aspects of UK employment law and, accordingly, there was no need for the matter to be considered further by the ILO.
I turn now to deal with GCHQ—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the Minister continues to deal with GCHQ, I think that I should intervene at this point because his speech has really become quite a saga. Indeed, he has made a personal point against my noble friend and myself. Of course, it is true that for procedural reasons this case went no further. Therefore, it was obviously taken from the recond. I put the following to him. I quote from the Committee of Experts' report of April 1989 which reads:
"The Committee asks the Government to introduce amendments to the law".
This concerns the protection of workers under the various headings which were then set out, which included sympathy action but, more particularly, dismissal. I press the dismissal point. That request to the Government to introduce amendments to the law has not been withdrawn. Will the Government therefore respond to it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this has nothing to do with procedural actions. The United Kingdom has not been condemned by the ILO. As I said, the TUC withdrew the complaint that it had made. Clearly the TUC had no confidence that the ILO would uphold its views.
I turn again to deal with GCHQ. The ILO Conference Committee expressed concern about the Government's position but rejected calls for a special paragraph of censure. The Government's view is that Convention 87 cannot be considered in isolation from Convention 151. The latter convention enables a government to exclude public servants in highly confidential positions from the right of association which is guaranteed under Convention 87.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I really must protest. That proposition has been rejected by the Freedom of Association Committee. That committee is by no means the Committee of Experts and it was not involved in the case which was withdrawn. That is the proposition upon which the Government pleaded their case and lost. That surely cannot be the answer.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I reaffirm what I have already said: the United Kingdom has not been condemned by the ILO. Therefore, let us leave this subject at least for the time being. I fear that we must simply beg to differ on this particular view of the ILO. I repeat: we have not been condemned by the ILO.
Several noble Lords commented upon the research showing that post-1979 legislation has not reduced strikes and therefore it has obviously failed. Our reforms are not simply aimed at producing industrial peace; they also promote individual liberty and democratic practice in union affairs. There is no known research work which denies those effects of our post-1979 reforms.
The noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Walston, spoke about employee involvement. I am sorry that I missed a few words of the latter noble Lord's speech. However, I promise to look at the report of the debate in Hansard in due course. The Government are firmly committed to employees being involved in the organisations in which they work. Employee involvement contributes to the prosperity of the firm and to the quality of the working life of employees. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth who said that that element was so very important. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway made a variety of points, some of which were pertinent to the Employment Bill and I look forward to dealing with them when we reach the Committee stage.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that the statistics of our position are eloquent, they include: a rapid fall in unemployment since 1986; a sustained growth in employment since 1983; the lowest number of industrial stoppages for 50 years in 1989; and, the days lost to industrial action in 1989 were less than a third of the annual average for the 1970s.
If there are new problems to be faced in the 1990s, our policies will deal with them as they have dealt with those of the past. They will be met with the
974
same measured step-by-step approach which we use to tackle identified problems, the same avoidance of government intervention in the conduct of industrial and employee relations and the same objectives of deregulation and flexibility to ensure that our legal framework reflects the developing needs of our economy and our society.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I have two points to make. I appreciate that he may not be able to deal with them today and, if that is the case, perhaps he will write to me. However, I asked, first, whether the Government would consider the introduction of a code of practice relating to negotiating procedure agreements. Secondly, I made the point that the Government needed to do more to fulfil their responsibility for training, especially in the management of people in the public services which would include national and local government.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall of course write to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on these matters if it proves to be necessary. However, perhaps I may briefly say that the Government commend the IPM and the IPA for their excellent voluntary code of practice on employee involvement. We believe that it will contribute significantly to voluntary developments in this important area. As I said, I shall write to the noble Lord if there is a point that I have missed.
6.18 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate and I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for his excellent maiden speech. I particularly liked his emphasis on the principle "unite for success", and his belief that the Government's legislation has helped in that direction. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Oxfuird who mentioned that this was all a question of balance. I agree with that view. I also agree with the CBI's view that we have just about got the right balance, or that we will have done so by the time the present Employment Bill is enacted. I also support my noble friend's emphasis on dignity which I think is enormously important in industrial relations.
Noble Lords opposite showed the weakness of their case by the number of red herrings which they drew across the trail, especially the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who drifted into the subject of privatisation Bills, the poll tax, small phoenixes and even peerages which really seemed to go rather far from the subject under debate. However, I am very sorry that I made him so cross.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, clearly wanted to avoid challenging the Government's excellent industrial relations record. She diverted attention to a great deal of what seemed to me to be largely irrelevant detail. I should like to emphasise that no one, least of all me, wants to see the demise of responsible trade unions; they have a very constructive part to play in the industrial relations

975
scene. However, what we want to do is to eliminate the power of the destructive elements within them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, both supported the concept of looking carefully at the question of a code of practice. As I said, much remains to be done and that may be one of the matters at which we should look most carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, questioned whether the improved industrial relations record was caused by the Government's legislation. I submit that all the evidence points to the fact that it has influenced it. On overseas comparisons, perhaps we have not yet achieved enough improvement in comparison with our competitors; but it cannot be denied that there has been a major improvement which has occurred since the Government came to power. I cannot believe that that is pure coincidence.
I repeat that we have made good progress in the industrial relations field. Let us build on that progress, and not go back. Let us go forward and make greater improvements. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I thank especially my noble friend the Minister for his full reply. It has been a useful and important debate on this vital subject. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride on road without protective headgear.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("horse") insert ("of more than nine hands").
The noble Lord said: I listened to the Second Reading debate with great interest although I did not take part in it. I understand the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is promoting the Bill. I sympathise with her. She has had an unfortunate experience, and she knows a great deal about the subject. It is not for me to quarrel with her and her motives. I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we in this country are going overboard on regulations. I wonder whether we have our priorities right in terms of parliamentary time. I read the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, in which he said:
"There are on average five fatalities per year from horse riding accidents."—[Official Report, 11/6/90; col. 81]
That is undoubtedly too many accidents. Even one is one too many; but I noted that in his speech supporting the Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, said that in 1989 378 children were killed on our roads. In the light of that figure, our priorities should lie elsewhere. However, the Bill has been given a Second Reading in the House and we should now be trying to improve it, which is the objective of this amendment.
In support of the amendment, perhaps I may quote the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who said:
"One is in a potentially dangerous situation if one is on a large animal capable of travelling at considerable speed. One could easily fall off and thus it would seem sensible to have protection".—[Official Report, 11/6/90: col. 91.]
I accept that to fall from a large horse could cause serious injury. Having in my early teens ridden various kinds of horses, including carthorses, I know how far away the ground can seem from the saddle or from the back of a horse. That is not the case when one is riding, let us say, a Shetland pony, when one is almost on the ground. A large lad, or even a big girl, riding a Shetland pony, a donkey, a young colt or filly would have their legs trailing on the ground. Slipping off the back of a Shetland pony or a donkey is probably far less dangerous for a child than falling from a high chair on to a tiled kitchen floor or for a youngster falling from his bicycle on a public highway.
I chose nine hands as the appropriate height to make it clear that I was not seeking to wreck the Bill but merely to make it more realistic and acceptable. I hope that under those circumstances, and in that spirit, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will see fit to accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: I am pleased to support the amendment which, like all the amendments, is practical and is by no means a wrecking amendment. It merely brings more sense into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said, the amendment would exclude Shetland ponies and most donkeys. There are few donkeys which are higher than nine hands.
After all, nine hands is effectively 36 inches which is the height of an average kitchen worktop. Young people are often wont to sprawl on kitchen worktops unless there is an adult to shoo them away. The noble Lord mentioned highchairs and bicycles. Nine hands is less than half the average height of a child's climbing frame. Such frames, to my certain knowledge, are not by any means always sited on grass, because grass is a rare commodity in cities. They are frequently sited on garden paving slabs which are every bit as hard as a road surface.
Children will rarely ride donkeys or Shetland ponies on busy roads or even on less busy roads. However, there are circumstances, for example, seaside promenades, which are pedestrianised, or from which traffic is excluded at certain times of the day, which remain technically highways over which donkeys may occasionally have to cross. The amendment is designed to cope with those rather special circumstances.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned my speech. I was assuming that all things are relative. I assume that a comparatively small child would be on a comparatively small horse. If that child falls off, its delicate skull will strike the hard pavement. One would be travelling at greater velocity than one does on foot. I agree that there are some bad examples of children's playgrounds which have been placed on concrete, but all the new playgrounds are based on woodchip or some other soft material. Anyone who wishes to check that fact should go to a recently constructed park.
The Earl of Swinton: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. I hope that my noble kinswoman will not accept the amendment. Some of the naughtiest of ponies are the smallest of ponies. They are extremely wilful little brutes and they can be extremely dangerous. Although they are not far off the ground, they can give one a bloody great kick, and a child can be thrown a considerable way before he falls head first on to the road.
Viscount Mountgarret: I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to an artist by the name of Thelwell. I have never in my life seen more violent brutes than those little ponies which can be far more fearsome than a large, well-trained and lovely hunter.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I feel that it would be a great pity if the amendment were accepted. First, let us not forget the definition of a horse. A horse is an animal of more than 14 hands, if my memory serves me right. I admit that to me most horses or ponies tend to be somewhat uncomfortable in the middle and highly dangerous at both ends. I usually find that with dogs and horses the smaller the animal the harder it is to control. A tiny pony is much harder for a child to ride. I have the feeling that if we alter the wording to "nine hands" we shall do a great deal of harm to those children who wish to learn to ride.
It is my experience that if one puts a child onto a horse —I think I am right in saying this —for instance, a Welsh pony as opposed to a Shetland pony the child is much more likely to learn to ride properly. I cannot support the amendment in any way.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point that has just been made. It was suggested that a horse under 14 hands is not a horse, it is a pony. If that is right, then the wording does not apply anyway. It would be useful to have some clarification.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I should make it clear that I speak for myself since this is a Private Member's Bill, but I know that many of my colleagues support what I shall say. I oppose the amendment and hope that the noble Baroness will not accept it. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others have made clear, a small child can be injured by falling from a pony. Shetland ponies are notoriously unreliable.
978
A further, more important point is that a small child who learns to ride wearing protective headgear is more likely to continue to use that headgear later without problems. I hope that noble Lords will reject the amendment if the need arises.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, told us how few children had been killed. He did not say how many had been injured. Helmets will protect children from injuries as well as death.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to correct the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that "horse" does not include ponies. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 3, he will see that for the purposes of the Bill "horse" includes, "pony".
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported me in speaking against the amendment. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, the interpretation for the purposes of this Bill is that,
" 'horse' includes any mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly or stallion and also any ass, mule or hinny".
We want them to be included because there might be the odd case where it is necessary.
If accepted, this amendment would unnecessarily restrict the scope of the Bill. More important, it would exclude some of the most vulnerable riders, the very young on small horses, from the protection that hard hats give. As was said, most Shetland ponies are between 10 and 10½ hands, but there are some miniature ponies and the odd one might be under nine hands. The younger the child, the softer the skull, and that is an important point. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great interest. I still find it quite amazing that we should talk about a horse as a donkey. That is what every speaker so far appears to rest his case on.
I agree that a horse of, for example, 14 or 14½ hands —I believe that the definition of a colt is up to 14½hands—may very well be dangerous for a child up to the age of 14. However we are not talking about toddlers but about children up to the age of 14, who can be quite large human beings. I believe that enforcing or trying to enforce the wearing of perhaps expensive helmets by children riding this type of animal is, if I may make a pun, making an ass of the law.
Although I shall not press the amendment at this stage, I hope that noble Lords and particularly the noble Baroness will consider the matter between now and Report stage to see whether they can come some way towards me in making the Bill realistic rather than imposing a regulation simply for the sake of doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("on a road").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment is self-explanatory. It seeks to cut down the area of doubt as to where a child might be required to wear protective headgear. Your Lordships' House has already agreed, as has another place, to the principle that it is desirable for a child under the age of 14 to wear protective headgear. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the provision should be restriced to use only on a road.
The Bill would never have been necessary in the first place if parents or people in charge of young children had applied common sense. It must be common sense for young children to have sensible and rational protection to vulnerable parts of their body, principally the head, when they are allowed on horses or ponies. Unfortunately, many people, including parents, do not do that. Therefore there is the need for this Bill. Anyone with common sense would surely agree that the use of protective headgear is not merely to protect against accidents on the road, about which we all know the difficulties, but off the road. Many accidents happen when children are jumping fences or whatever it is. A fall from a pony or a horse, whether involving a young child or an adult, can be as dangerous and lethal then as a fall when they are on the road. That is one reason why I think the amendment has merit.
The second reason is that we all know that over many years the law—namely, judges, barristers and the like —have often complained that if only we had passed better legislation in the first instance their time would be reduced and the costs and other problems to the clients would be reduced likewise. If the words concerned are left in the Bill, it opens up all kinds of difficulties. So much so, that I know that my noble friend —if I may refer to her as such, though not in the parliamentary sense —will have to move an amendment later to try to define what a road is. If we delete the words "on a road" she would not have to go to the trouble of making that amendment to avoid creating areas of doubt in the eyes of the law if anyone transgressed the provisions of the Bill.
Thirdly, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is bound to disagree with me because he is not entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill anyway. However, he and I joined forces genuinely on the whole principle of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. We felt —and I thought at the time quite rightly —that the principle of compulsion was an intrusion upon personal and private liberty. There is an argument for that. However, I have to say that, having seen car seat belts in operation over a number of years and having recognised that it is common sense to wear a seat belt in a car, it appears common sense for a child rider to wear protective headgear. If we accept the principle of a degree of compulsion where common sense should prevail in the case of car seat belts, why cannot we accept it in this instance?
It is not a question of wondering whether the local bobby will hide under a hedge to find out whether one's little darling is wearing a crash hat. That is not
980
the point. The point is that if people know that it is a requirement of the law to comply with a measure, generally speaking they will observe it. Furthermore if an accident occurs and it is discovered that they are not complying with the law, the penalties are not only a fine in a court of law but also insurance claims, third party liability and other such liabilities. Therefore to require children to wear protective headgear when riding in the countryside as well as on the roads would present no more problems as regards enforcement than the position as it currently stands.
Finally, let us take the scenario of guest children staying in one's house. The darlings may go out for a ride, supposedly round the little cross-country course that has been laid out in one's park or on one's private land. Thelwell's pony takes off at a gallop and goes, lickety-split, through the gate which has been left open by mistake and out on to the road. The point is that the guest children started off purely by exercising in the park but they may find themselves on the road. When the rider regains control or the horse runs out of breath, the child will have to ride that horse back home without protective headgear as he only intended to ride in the park. However, the child is riding on the road and an accident may occur. If it does, the rider or the parent or adult responsible for the young rider has broken the law. I believe it is unnecessary to restrict this Bill to road riding. I believe that children under the age of 14 should be required to wear protective headgear at all times when they ride out on their horses or ponies. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: While I have some sympathy with the amendment of my noble friend, I believe it would be totally unenforceable. As regards children riding horses on private land, the police have no powers to enter private land to enforce the provisions of the amendment. I therefore believe the amendment is unenforceable.
Lord Monson: As the noble Viscount rightly guessed, I totally oppose the amendment for a number of reasons. In the first place it is incompatible with existing personal safety legislation, or nanny state legislation, depending on one's point of view. At the moment it is perfectly legal to drive a post-1965 car on a private road without wearing a seat belt. Pre-1965 cars can be driven anywhere without the driver having to wear a seat belt of course.
It is perfectly legal, whatever one's age, to ride a motorcycle on a private road without wearing a crash helmet. There is nothing to prevent 10, 11 or 12 year-old children from driving cars or riding motorcycles on private property if their parents permit them to do so. However, the most unacceptable aspect of the proposed amendment is that —the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, pointed this out —it would give the police power to enter private property for the purposes of seeking out unhelmeted riders. That is a most obnoxious idea.

981
The whole rationale for this Bill, as I understand it, is that our roads are much more crowded than they used to be 10 or 20 years ago and a growing minority of motorists show riders no consideration whatsoever, thereby endangering both the lives of the riders and their mounts. However, none of those dangers applies to riding off the road. Human beings have been happily riding horses off the road on grass, sand or on the bare earth for at least 2,500 years, if not longer, without headgear. Long may they continue to do so.
Lord Cobbold: I cannot support the amendment either. As has already been stated, there is a considerable difference between riding on a road and rding off road. It is not only a matter of the road surface but also of the other traffic that uses the road and the possibility that the traffic may cause an accident. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made that point. There is also the matter of enforcing the measure. The prospect of police entering private land is something that the Committee should resist.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: It was decided to limit the offence to causing or permitting a child to ride on a road without protective headgear because of the great difficulties of enforcing a requirement to wear protective headgear on private land unless the police were given power of entry to private land. However, that was considered unacceptable.
It is also more important that a child wears protective headgear on the road because accidents in such places tend to be more serious than those which occur in a field due to the road's harder surface. The main purpose of the Bill is to compromise by the limitation that children will have to have appropriate hats available. The hope is that children will wear their hats everywhere.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, gave the example of a pony bolting out on to a road. In that case any incident that occurred would be an accident. Therefore the parent or adult responsible for that child would not be liable. However, that is an example of how important it is for all children and all horse riders to wear hats if they possibly can. I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: With such a charming plea how can I possibly do otherwise? However, I am not convinced by the arguments that have been proposed against my amendment. I do not believe my noble friend Lord Brougham listened when I said that it was not a case of police constables hiding under bushes to see whether children were wearing hard hats while they were riding. I cannot accept what my noble friend said. The prospect of intrusion by the police on to private land is quite wrong. Police do not intrude into private motor vehicles to see whether seat belts are worn. It is only when drivers transgress the law or something goes wrong that that factor comes into play. I am merely suggesting that if an accident occurred on private land and the riders
982
involved were found not to have worn protective headgear they should be liable.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am trying to imagine the circumstances of such an incident. The noble Viscount said that the measure would only be enforced if an accident occurred. However, a bit of bad neighbourliness may occur which could lead to a report to the police. The police would then go to a magistrate and obtain a warrant to enter the private land concerned. Has the noble Viscount considered that possibility and what it would mean to people in the countryside? I hope that he will not proceed with his amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I take that point. I also accept what the noble Baroness said that if children go out riding even off road, they are likely to wear protective headgear in any case. I just thought it would be more sensible to ensure that they did wear such headgear. However, not many Members of the Committee have spoken in favour of my amendment. The noble Baroness made a charming and impassioned plea for me to withdraw my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, after ("regulations") insert ("and (in the case of a child under 12 years)").
The noble Lord said: I was glad to hear my noble friend Lady Masham use the word "compromise" when replying to the previous amendment because this is a compromise amendment. In other words we have tried to meet my noble friend and her supporters halfway. My original intention was to propose an upper age limit of 12 rather than 14, not because I believe that it is safe or desirable for 12 and 13 year-olds to ride on busy roads without a helmet —I made that quite plain on Second Reading —but because the proposed law seemed quite unenforceable as regards 12 and 13 year-olds.
On further consideration I concluded that there should not be too much of a problem about enforcing the wearing of helmets. Even if 12 and 13 year-olds ride out on their own, which they normally do if they are experienced riders, there is usually somebody in charge at the stables or paddock to ensure that at least they are wearing hats when they set out. As hats are expensive items of equipment, the 12 and 13 year-olds are hardly likely to leave them stuck on top of a gatepost where they are likely to be stolen once they are out of their parents' sight.
Enforcing the correct wearing of hats is a totally different matter, particularly as all teenagers are, and always have been, notoriously rebellious. Teenagers seem to become rebellious younger and younger every decade. Only two days after our Second Reading debate it was revealed in the Daily Telegraph that an extraordinarily high proportion of young people, including 12 year-olds and even younger children, drink not only beer and cider but also wine and spirits, sometimes with their parents' knowledge but presumably much more often without their knowledge, particularly where spirits are

983
concerned. There is not yet a law in force which makes it a criminal offence for parents to leave their drinks cabinets unlocked when their children are alone in the house, but no doubt some Back Bencher is working hard on it at this very moment.
Far more startling is the fact that the previous day —the day immediately following the Second Reading debate, 12th June —it was revealed, again by the Daily Telegraph and I suspect by other serious newspapers, that an amazing 46 per cent. of girls now lose their virginity before the age of 16. What an extraordinary world we live in now! Interestingly, the factor of illegality —with which this Bill is concerned —also arises in that case. Strictly speaking it attaches to the men and boys concerned and not to the girls. Nevertheless, it happens on an enormous scale, with the police only taking action in a tiny proportion of cases.
We must be blunt about this. If almost half of the parents in this country, according to the serious press, are incapable of preventing their 15 year-old, and sometimes 14 year-old, children from undoing their clothing immediately they are out of their parents' sight, how on earth can they be expected to prevent 12 and 13 year-old children from undoing the straps on their helmets once they are out of their parents' sight because they are too hot or want to eat a bar of chocolate or a bag of crisps or to swallow a soft drink? As I said, most children of that age, if they are experienced riders, ride out alone and not with their parents or with older people in charge of them.
It simply will not do to say that authorities will never prosecute in such cases. Once the law is on the statute book, however misconceived parts of it may be, there is no guaranteee that it will not be enforced by the police. That is impossible. It is most undesirable that a law should be brought into disrepute in this way, apart from being extremely unfair on the parent or guardian who may very well have done his or her best to ensure that the strap is fastened but has no means of controlling the child once the child is out of the parents' sight. I beg to move.
Lord Manton: I put my name to the amendment after much careful thought. I have, unfortunately, had experience of small children and of ponies. Small children are quite easy to avoid; ponies must definitely be avoided at all costs. Of course I am in favour of small children not landing on their heads too often and therefore in favour of them wearing hats. However, when I have been involved, much against my will, with my many small nieces and their even smaller and horrible ponies, I have noticed that at the slightest opportunity the children undo the straps of their helmets. If any Members of the Committee have watched racing recently they will have noticed that the first thing that a jockey does at the end of a race is to undo the chin strap.
I believe that it is very important that we do not support unworkable or untidy legislation. If this very important matter goes onto the statute book it should do so in a workable manner. I do not know whether it is possible to legislate that a small child has to have its chin strap done up. I have spent a great deal
984
of time over the years making sure that their girths are done up. That comes quite high up the list of priorities. I have often noticed children falling off horses and taking the bridle with them because they have not done that up. To have to go round to the other side of the pony to make sure that the child's cheek strap is done up as well is almost impossible. That is a point which concerns me. It is a detail, but it is detail which makes for good or bad legislation.
Another point which I consider important relates to the owner of the pony. If you are lucky enough to acquire a good children's pony neither love nor money will make you part with it. I know what happens in the world of ponies from experience within my own family. My sisters, who live in various parts of the country, produce children with monotonous regularity but do not have quite so many ponies. Therefore they lend ponies to each other. If one parent lives in Yorkshire and another lives in Somerset the Somerset parent may ring up the parent in Yorkshire and say "Can I borrow the pony? Your child has outgrown it and mine wants to ride it". The pony is then sent several hundred miles south. That happens again and again. The owner cannot be responsible for what happens when somebody else's child is riding that pony in a different part of the country.
If one goes anywhere where a large number of children are riding, for example at Pony Club camps where there may be up to 100 children riding ponies, one will hear someone ask "Where did you get that pony?" The answer is "I was lent it by my friend, or my cousin." When that child has outgrown it the pony goes back to the original owner. That is intended to encourage children to enjoy the countryside and riding and to enable them to learn to ride. That is why it is important that they should ride good ponies. If the owner of a pony is liable for the safety of the child on that pony when the child and the pony are no longer in the owner's care, he or she will not lend the pony. As a result good children's ponies will be restricted to their original owners and other children will not have the chance to ride them. As a pony has a longer life-expectancy in the sense that it is likely to be ridden for much longer than a child will remain of a size to ride it, that would be a waste of ponies. That would be sad. If I were the owner of a pony I would not send it elsewhere if I could be liable for any accident that might happen.
Those are the only points that I wish to make, but I believe they are important. If the Bill goes on to the statute book in an unworkable form it will be very detrimental to the pony-riding world.
Baroness Nicol: I hope that the noble Baroness will not accept the amendment because it would weaken the Bill.
I should like to answer the main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. A child between the ages of 12 and 14 is still a child and still vulnerable. The fact that that child is more difficult for the parent to handle is no reason for leaving it outside the provisions of the Bill. It seems to me even more important that as the child reaches the age where it tries to be independent parents should have the force

985
of the law behind them. They would be able to say to their children that it is the law that they should wear headgear. I hope that the amendment will not succeed.
Lord Addington: Any child should be told that it is breaking the law, up to a certain age. Children are difficult at all ages. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, sounded rather like the reviewer of a 1950s James Dean film: the term "juvenile delinquent" was writ large. Children misbehave and experiment with drink and drugs in their early teens. However, they are usually small experiments. We could find cases of children doing so even at the age of five, where they find a drinks cabinet open, for example. I hope that that argument will not carry any weight.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I would disagree with my noble friend Lord Mancroft on this. On the second point, he is probably on the wrong amendment about the ownership of ponies, so I shall not say anything about that. I could not follow his argument that children were less likely to do up their caps between the 4es of 12 and 14. I have a rather strange principle, which is probably totally wrong, that on the whole the more children grow up, the more sensible they are. This may be a complete and utter fallacy, but it seems to me that they are more likely to do up their hats between the ages of 12 and 14 than they are under 12, and I cannot see the reason for changing the age range.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What I have found is that children, once they get past the age of 12, become very wilful indeed. The first thing they want to do is to rebel against anything that parents say to them. I would say to my noble friend Lady Nicol that in some cases to tell teenagers that it may very well be that their parents will get into trouble from the police if they do something or if they do not do something would be an extra incentive to them to do it or not to do it.
Of course my noble friend has had children and it may well be that her experience of teenagers is different from mine, but there is no doubt that teenagers as a whole like rebellion. If they can somehow in some cases at some point get at their parents, they love to do it. It has been happening from time immemorial. I therefore think that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is a sensible one, and if he presses it I shall certainly support it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As one who has had three children and brought them up, I have to say that I would say to my children, "If you break the law and if, because you have broken the law, I am prosecuted and have to pay a fine, that fine will be stopped out of your pocket money". That is how you cope. It is quite simple.
Viscount Ullswater: I would just like to correct one thing that my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, because I am sure that he did not seek to mislead
986
the Committee. It is an offence under the rules of racing for a jockey to undo his chin strap until he has dismounted.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I answer the argument of my noble friend Lord Monson that if a parent makes it a condition that a 13 year-old can ride if their helmet is done up and the child breaks that condition, how can the parent be held responsible. They have not permitted the child to ride in this way, and therefore they would not be penalised. This amendment would make the regulations on how the headgear should be worn applicable only to the under-12s. This means that although the 12 to 14 year-olds would have to have a correct hat with them, they could wear it on their elbow or anywhere else if they so wished. This amendment, therefore, essentially reduces the age limit to 12.
As I said at Second Reading on llth June, 14 was chosen to bring this Bill into line with other similar legislation such as rear seat belts in cars. I hope that Members of the Committee agree that this essential piece of safety legislation should not be withheld from the 12 to 14 year-old riders. This is the age when there are many accidents. It was found in the neurosurgical unit in Nottingham that it was girls between the ages of, I think, 11 and 15 who had most head injuries. I urge my noble friend Lord Monson to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Monson: We have had an interesting debate and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his support. This was particularly valuable because of his extremely thorough knowledge of all matters equestrian and his great experience. He also stressed the need for having legislation on the statute book that was enforceable so as not to bring the law into disrepute.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, did not explain how the Bill could be enforced once the child in question is out of sight of its parents. That really is the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, too. Children of 13 or 14, if they are at all experienced, do not normally ride out with their parents or their guardians. They go out on their own. Younger children tend to to be accompanied by an adult of some sort and therefore it is easy to enforce. I know that this is an arbitrary division, but one has to set an age somewhere, and that is basically the explanation of why I exclude the ages 12 and 13. I fully take the point made by my noble friend Lady Masham that many accidents happen, and I am not suggesting that hats are not a good idea. I am suggesting that because it makes the law look silly it is a bad policy in general to have unenforceable law on the statute book.
My noble friend Lady Saltoun said that if parents had to go to court and be fined they could take it out of their children's pocket money. Indeed, yes, but it is still not at all pleasant for parents to have to go to court. I would say to her that the assumption that if the child disobeyed its parents' instructions the parent would never be prosecuted is a dangerous assumption to make. I should like to think that that was the case, but in practice, as I shall explain when

987
we come to the next pair of amendments, I do not think that it is something that could be relied on. Not at all.
I am somewhat in two minds as to what to do. I think I shall not press this amendment. I shall take it away and either decide to reintroduce it or to introduce a defence amendment. That is to say, that it shall be a defence for somebody accused under this section to prove that they had done everything in their power to persuade the child in question to have their chin strap buckled, or something of that nature. It is difficult to draft and it is rather unsatisfactory, but I would hope that it might meet many of the points made by my noble friend, who of course has studied this in great depth. Perhaps she might be more inclined to accept this. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, leave out line 17.
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 go together. With the leave of the Committee I shall speak to them both. The purpose of these amendments is self-evident. It is to exclude the owner of the horse or pony from criminal liability when he or she is quite possibly hundred of miles away at the time the horse is ridden by somebody under 14 without a helmet or without the helmet being properly buckled, but to make the owner liable when he or she is in possession or custody of the horse immediately before the child rides it.
Some owners have their horses stabled without charge on the understanding that they can be ridden by properly qualified strangers. Other people may lend their houses together with any horses there may be in the paddock —possibly their cars too, not that that is relevant —to friends whom they know to be expert horsemen while they themselves are away on holiday or on business; or there may be a holiday exchange, as takes place quite often with the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has also mentioned pony clubs where people often lend their ponies to strange children and obviously have no control whatsoever over what the children do.
I am afraid that it simply will not do, as my noble friend imagined, to claim that in such circumstances the police will not prosecute, because once the law is on the statute book there is no guarantee of this whatsoever. One of my noble friends, who unfortunately cannot be here today as he is attending another well known equestrian event but who strongly supports this amendment, has drawn my attention to a case in 1967 in which a school teacher who was tenant of a farmhouse let out rooms in that house to students. The students were subsequently caught smoking cannabis.
The unhappy school teacher was prosecuted and fined £25 plus £12.80 costs, which is equivalent in today's money to over £200 in all, for,
"being concerned in management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis",
even though she did not live on the premises and could not possible have known about the cannabis
988
smoking. It is true that she subsequently won her appeal, but not without being subjected to a great deal of expense and, above all, worry. One does not want to see that kind of thing happening again.
If this pair of amendments is accepted, subsection (2) will still remain tight enough to catch anybody who deserves to be caught. There will be no loopholes. I beg to move.
Lord Boardman: I feel that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft when he spoke to the previous amendment. The offence is causing or permitting a child under 14 to ride without headgear. That obtains whether that person is the owner of the horse or has control or custody of it.
I do not think that it will make any difference whether or not the intended provision is in the Bill because the owner will be caught if he causes or permits the child to ride without headgear, just as any other person who has custody of the horse will be caught if he permits or causes the child to ride without headgear. I feel therefore that there is a misunderstanding of this point on the part of the mover of the amendment.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: I feel that my noble friend Lord Mancroft disposed of the argument about the owner in one word. I do not understand why the owner should be responsible for something that is done with the horse when he himself may perhaps be in India or on holiday in the Isle of Wight or wherever and divorced from all possibility of any interest in what is done with his horse or pony in his absence.
It is also curious that if one makes the owner of the horse responsible and it is a child who is the owner of the horse, it will defeat the object of the Bill, which is to put the responsibilty for the child riding without a hat on the person who is responsible for allowing the child to do it and not on the child.
Viscount Ullswater: In the relevant circumstances both the owner and the person who has given permission could be prosecuted. In the case in which the owner has given permission for his horse to be ridden in his absence, he must have made it clear that the law must be abided by or must have had a reasonable expectation that the person to whom he gave permission would abide by the law. I hope that that helps in the discussion.
Viscount Mountgarret: I must say that I have a degree of sympathy with my noble friend. Provided that both these amendments—I am afraid that we have not discussed the second one—are taken together, one would end up with:
"any person who has custody or possession of the horse".
That embodies the word "owner" as well. In a way therefore this provision is somewhat surplus to requirements, provided that the next amendment (which we are not speaking to now) comes into play. The Bill is probably best left as drafted but my noble friend has a point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: On the advice of parliamentary counsel it was decided in another place that it would be desirable to have "owner" on the face of the Bill in order to avoid any misunderstandings. An owner who has caused or permitted a child to ride without the correct headgear will be liable to prosecution whether or not this amendment is accepted. For the sake of clarity therefore I urge noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
I am an owner. I run a trekking centre. I make it known that I want people to wear a riding hat. If this Bill becomes an Act, I shall put up a sign stating that all people will wear riding hats. As it is, they are not allowed to ride unless they have a hat.
The point was made about a person lending a horse when he was absent in India. I lend ponies to people. I take great care to ensure that they go to responsible people. If this Bill becomes an Act I shall have to write a letter to them pointing out that if they ride this pony they must not forget to wear a hat, at least if they are under 14, but in that case I think that everybody would wear a hat. I do not think that that will be very difficult. I do not think that, if he has done his best, the owner should be liable.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If I may say so, that is not good enough. We need the assurance that the owner will not be liable —not that the noble Baroness might think that he is not liable. That is the problem with this legislation. When legislation of this kind passes through the House, legislation under which people are liable to be prosecuted on a criminal charge, it has to be absolutely clear.
In speaking to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, showed exactly how an owner could be caught out by this legislation. That is simply not good enough. In my view the two amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, deal with the subject and make it clear that the person liable is the person who allowed the child to go out on a road and who had possession of the horse or pony immediately before the child mounted it. That liability should be there and nowhere else. It should not be allowed to be shifted somewhere else. That is in support of the Act itself. Once there is divided liability, there might be difficulty in obtaining a conviction.
I do not know what the noble Lord will do about these amendments but I hope that the noble Baroness will not just brush them aside. They are important amendments. Indeed, her speech showed that the matter needed some clarification. We must not pass legislation, through this House in particular, when that legislation is not clarifying and clear to the prosecuting authorities.
Lord Airedale: If the owner were to be in India, as has been suggested, he would be outside the jurisdiction and would be quite safe.
Lord Boardman: It is made quite clear that none of the people mentioned in subsection (2) is responsible
990
unless he or she causes or permits a child to ride without protective headgear. I should have thought that it was quite unnecessary for this amendment to go any further.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: That was the advice of counsel. This Bill has the full backing of the Ministry of Transport and the Government.
Lord Monson: I am not sure how much today's Ministry of Transport knows about horses. I shall let that pass. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, stressed the word "permit". The trouble is that the unfortunate owner has to prove that he did not permit it. It is all very well for my noble friend Lady Masham to say that she sticks up a notice saying that people must wear hats. That is possible in some cases but not in others.
Lord Boardman: The principle remains as it always has in criminal law with regard to the burden of proof. Someone has to prove that the owner failed to permit, withdrew permission, or allowed a child to ride without a hat.
Lord Monson: I do not think it is possible to prove either way unless there is something in writing about it. If everyone has to produce a legal document to prove that he has urged riders of his horses to wear hats, it will make the country more bureaucratic than it is already.
I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cork, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, whose support is unusual in so far as concerns this Bill, although it is welcome. If I may say so they have hit the nail on the head. If these two amendments are agreed to —they must both be agreed to; it is no use approving just one of them —whoever is in charge of the horse immediately before the child rides (whether or not it is the owner does not matter) is responsible. As I see it there are no loopholes nor is one giving too many hostages to fortune.
We bear in mind the case of the unfortunate lady who was prosecuted for allowing her house to be used for smoking cannabis although she was many miles away. With that in mind, from the civil liberties point of view I think it essential to test the opinion of the Committee on this amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: Before the noble Lord sits down, is it in order for me to ask for clarification? He said that I appear to support the amendment. I wish to correct him. Is this amendment contingent upon Amendment No. 5, which we have not yet addressed? On its own the amendment is unacceptable to me. However, in conjunction with Amendment No. 5 it could be acceptable.
Lord Monson: I said at the outset that I was speaking to both amendments together. I would not dream of pressing the first but not the second. I hope that the noble Viscount does not think that I would do such an underhand thing. If that were the case it would be up to other Members of the Committee to press the amendment themselves. Of course the

991
amendments go together. Since one amendment must appear before the other—there is no way round that —I have to press this amendment first. I hope that the other will then automatically follow.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 22, at end insert:
(" ( ) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the child under the age of 14 years had apparently attained that age, and that he did not believe otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment draws its inspiration from the Licensing Act. One of the problems that is likely to beset the manager of a riding establishment will be similar to that which already besets the manager of a public house. Let us suppose that a well developed teenage boy presents himself at the door of a public house. The manager has never seen him before. The boy lies about his age but from his physical appearance may well be speaking the truth about his age. The manager has no other evidence about the boy's age, accepts in good faith that he is speaking the truth and lets him into the public house. In those circumstances, the manager has a statutory defence under the Licensing Act.
I believe that we may have a parallel situation. A boy may present himself at a riding establishment. The proprietor has never seen him before. He is a very well developed boy.
Lord Kilbracken: Or girl.
Lord Airedale: Boys include girls under the Interpretation Act. The boy lies about his age. The proprietor of the riding establishment has no other evidence about the boy's age and accepts what he says. From his appearance it may well be true. He allows the boy to ride without protective headgear.
I submit that that is a good parallel with the example of the public house manager. If a statutory defence under the Licensing Act is permitted in the first case, a similar statutory defence should be available under the Bill for the proprietor of the riding establishment who acts in good faith. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As in similar legislation on the wearing of seat belts, we have to be very clear about setting an age limit. The amendment would effectively limit the Bill to any child who appeared to be 14. It would be quite wrong to remove the protection provided by the Bill from any child simply because he or she appeared to be older than their years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Airedale: I thought that I had drawn a successful parallel, and that if a statutory defence is allowed in one case it would be fair to allow it in another. However, I do not wish to take the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regulations]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert:
("(1A) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
The noble Baroness said: The Department of Transport has already undertaken to consult widely before making the regulations to enforce the wearing of hard hats. However, on its advice it has been decided to enshrine this commitment in the Bill. That is what the amendment provides. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I am slightly puzzled by my noble friend's explanation of the amendment. It seems to be at variance with the words of the amendment which imply that before drafting the regulations the Secretary of State will take advice from the organisations concerned.
I have no objection to that in principle. It may produce some sensible and worthwhile suggestions. However, we must remember that not every businessman wishes to join the CBI, the Institute of Directors or a small business group, not every farmer wishes to join the NFU, CLA or a small farmers' organisation, not every motorist has an interest in joining the AA or RAC and by no means all riders wish to belong to "representative organisations". We must always remember the individuals who wish to be treated as individuals and not as part of a group. At all costs we must avoid anything that smacks of the corporate state.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The requirement on the Secretary of State to consult before making the regulations is chiefly to discover whether there should be any exemptions upon religious grounds or in particular circumstances. It is also to receive advice on what the required standard or standards of headgear should be —for example, whether cycle helmets should be included.
Lord Monson: Can the noble Baroness say whether it is proposed that Sikh children should be exempted from wearing helmets?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: That is a consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) A draft of any regulations to be made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament and those regulations shall not be made unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is self-evident. The same applies to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. They merely extend the principle of affirmative procedure rather than negative procedure to Northern Ireland to bring it into line with the remainder of the United Kingdom, on the assumption that Amendment No. 8 is accepted.
If the Bill is passed we are taking quite a major step. I do not need to remind the Committee that no other country in the world has a similar law. The argument that somebody has to be the first is not an adequate answer. Moreover, when the legislation governing seat belts for children in the rear seats of cars was brought in, the affirmative resolution procedure was agreed to, in recognition of its importance with regard to civil liberties. Exactly the same principle applies to this Bill. It may not in practice make much difference in this Chamber. We know that the advantages are more apparent than real. However, the affirmative resolution procedure regulation provides for greater scrutiny in another place I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Boardman: A number of resolutions that come before the Committee should be positive. However, the provision does not fall within that category. The regulations are straightforward. The Committee has passed an amendment relating to the consultations which must take place before they are made. I believe that we should leave the provision in the form of a negative resolution.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I imagine that before the Bil1's Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, had thought that it would be straightforward. I am sure that she had no idea that I should take part in the debate. However, it has proved not to be perfectly straightforward. A number of amendments have been tabled and there has been a great deal of discussion. Therefore, we cannot assume that the regulations will be perfectly straightforward.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable and is one which in other circumstances the noble Baroness may have supported. It is important that Parliament should be able to discuss regulations and orders and to reject them. It would be wise for one reason in particular, as has been mentioned, to have an affirmative procedure in this case. In her speech on Second Reading the noble Baroness referred to exemptions on religious grounds. Some of us strongly believe that no exemptions should be made on religious grounds in this or any other Bill. I spoke against the exemption of Sikhs, for example, from wearing protective helmets on building sites. I believed that it set a bad example to others. If such a provision is extended to the riding of horses two issues will arise; first, it will set a bad example and, secondly, it will appear that the state is less concerned about accidents and deaths to Sikhs than to other people. They are two good reasons for providing that the regulations should be made by means of affirmative procedure. Indeed, if the exemption relating to Sikhs was contained in such a regulation I might well have wished to create a precedent in the Chamber and vote against the regulations perhaps with effect.
I support the amendment. The rights of Parliament are being overriden from all sides. The Acts that it passes can be overruled even by the
994
European Community. I hope that Members of the Committee in particular will be careful about their rights and privileges and support the amendment.
Lord Airedale: The principles which decide whether an order shall be affirmative or negative appear to be most odd. Recently we dealt with an affirmative order about mushroom growing. That was quickly followed by the student loans regulations which were highly controversial and which were dealt with under the negative procedure. Is there a principle which decides such issues?
Baroness Masham of Iltion: Nothing surprises me about this Chamber. I have been a Member since 1970 and I never take anything for granted.
The amendment seeks to change the regulation-making process from negative to affirmative resolution. As Members of the Committee know, the affirmative resolution procedure is the exception rather than the rule. In the parliamentary Session 1987–88 there were 113 general Statutory Instruments from the Department of Transport under the negative resolution procedure and only 11 under the affirmative resolution procedure; that is a proportion of nearly 1 to 11. The affirmative resolution procedure is quite rightly used where the regulations are potentially controversial. That was the case with rear seat belts for children. Members will recall the debate about school journeys, for example, and how they would be accommodated in the rules.
The Bill is far more straightforward. It is more akin to motorcycle helmets where the regulations are made under the negative resolution procedure. The regulations to be made for this Bill will cover the type of hat, how it is to be worn, who might be exempted on religious or medical grounds and in what circumstances they might be exempted. None of that is controversial and the only effect of changing to affirmative resolution might be to delay the implementation of the great safety benefits that the measure will bring to young riders. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: I am afraid that I cannot withdraw my amendment. If both Houses of Parliament thought it right that the affirmative procedure should apply to regulations governing the wearing of seat belts by children, logically we cannot deny applying the same procedure to this Bill. It represents a more major change in the law because the front seat belt legislation was already in place when the rear seat belt legislation was passed. Therefore, it was not such an innovation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, many controversial issues may arise from these regulations. The provision would not delay the effective introduction of the Bill as opposed to its legal introduction, given that the publicity attached to the Bill may induce many more people to buy helmets for their children on a voluntary basis. It is an important issue and once again I must test the opinion of the Committee.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("foal").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to delay the Committee and therefore I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. The major debate on the amendments took place during our discussions on Amendment No. 1. Nevertheless, several comments remain to be made. I do not agree with what was said and still hold the view that we are making a fool out of the Bill by including the animals referred to in the amendments.
For example, I suggest that on page 16 we leave out the word "foal". I understand a foal to be a young horse still with a dam. Is it seriously suggested that people ride foals? I do not believe that they do. When in my young days I lived at Chazey Court if I had been seen on the back of a foal I should have been knocked off. I would have been told that it would cause damage to the animal at a critical stage of its life. Therefore, why are foals included in the Bill?
Furthermore, why on earth are asses, mules and hinnies included in the Bill? I suspect that the reason for the inclusion of the definition is that it is contained in other Bills. The word "horse" is defined in the Protection of Animals Act 1911 as follows:
"'Horse' includes any mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly or stallion."
Again the definition in the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949 is:
"'Horse' includes stallion, gelding, colt, mare, filly, pony, mule and hinny".
One can understand that asses, mules and hinnies might be included in the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, but that does not mean that they should be included in this Bill.
The Slaughterhouses Act 1974 states:
"'Horse' includes ass and mule".
However, that was an Act to regulate the slaughter of those animals. In the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, which again has nothing to do with protective headgear but I understand has to do with the shoeing of horses, the definition states:
"'Horse' includes pony, mule, donkey or other equine animal".
Therefore, it seems to me that the definition of "horse" has been filched from other legislation, and because it is thought convenient, it has been included in this Bill.
I still contend that is is wrong to insist that young riders up to the age of 14 —and they may be six foot tall at that age —should be forced to wear protective headgear complete with tight chinstrap when they are riding a horse or a mule. I do not believe it is necessary, and that is the object of these amendments. I reject all previous arguments. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that asses and mules have a hell of a kick. However, they usually kick behind them and do not kick a person on the head. I hope that that sort of argument will not be used again against my amendment.
We have had the main argument, and I do not wish to repeat that. I have put forward my theory as to how those words are included in this Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will even at this stage consider the amendment and accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I do not quite know how to confess this, but as a child I rode an ass and an animal called a jennet which does not seem to be mentioned. That is a cross between an ass and a pony, but the other way round to a mule. Such animals can be very unpredictable. They are accessible to children growing up in the sort of family with which I was brought up which owned miscellaneous animals. I should like to feel that the provisions of this Bill extend also to those animals. I cannot agree with my noble friend, and I hope that this amendment will be rejected.
Lord Monson: As regards Amendment No. 10, my support for it was based upon the use of the Queen's English. I do not believe that one can include in the definition of a "horse" an ass or a mule any more than one includes in the definition of a "motor car" a bus, lorry, or motor cycle. With that proviso, I am inclined to accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on Amendment No. 10.
Amendment No. 9 is a totally different matter. It is ridiculous to suppose that anybody, even a baby, will ride a foal. In any event, a baby will not have a crash helmet. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will not press Amendment No. 10. However, I hope that he will press Amendment No. 9 if it is not accepted, because it will be interesting to see how many Members of the Committee go through the Division Lobby in support of the proposition that foals can be ridden.
The Earl of Swinton: My admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, knows no bounds. I asked myself how he would be able to bring in his aversion to Europe on this discussion, and he managed to do that on the last amendment. Donkeys and other animals can not only kick back, but can buck and kick in the air with enough power to dislodge a small child and throw it on to its head.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should correct the noble Earl. My aversion is not to Europe but to the EC.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: Leaving the EC aside, as regards these amendments, we come back to the point that this amendment is making an exception. A foal can be a potentially large animal. I am sure that those more knowledgeable on equestrian terminology will be able to find some very interesting definitions of the word "foal", and can find examples of enormous specimens. A child can be hurt at an early age by falling from a considerable height from such an animal. I suggest that we should make our definitions as wide as possible when dealing with safety regulations so that they can be applied as widely as possible.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, has he ever heard of a case of anybody ever riding a foal?
Lord Addington: No, but what happens when we do?
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: I can suggest a possible answer to that because no matter what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, may say, it is possible to ride a foal. Like other animals, foals vary in size from the small to the large as do people. When the noble Lord was of an age to be told that it was improper or unwise to ride a foal, he was large enough and old enough to understand. Had he been told that when he was a baby, he might not have been quite so ready to understand. His mother might have said to him, "Look at this dear little animal! Do have a ride!". She might have then put him on the back of the foal. Foals can take off with remarkable alacrity. He might have landed upside down on hs head on the cobblestones. Unquestionably, he might have received a very nasty injury which could have proves fatal. His mother would have been responsible for that. That is a possible scenario.
As regards the other animals which the noble Lord wishes to omit from the definition, I am not certain that I have ridden them all, but it is quite likely. I can swear to the fact that a mule is a dangerous animal. It may be slightly less dangerous when you are sitting on its back than when you are on the ground beside it. Such an animal is rideable. Many mules are taller than children of the age referred to in the Bill. This definition should be retained in the Bill.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him this question. Is he suggesting seriously that the mother of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would have put him on the back of a foal on the public highway? After all, that is what this Bill is concerned with. Secondly, the size of the foal is not important. The important fact is that its bones are not yet formed and therefore it is dangerous to put anything heavy on its back.
Lord Burton: It is like trying to make a baby carry a large weight. Therefore the person responsible for the child should be prosecuted whether or not the child is wearing a hard hat.
Lord Mancroft: I have no intention of ever trying to ride or fall off a foal. However, can any Member of the Committee tell me what is a hinny?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: A hinny is the product of the mating between an ass and a stallion. Is that not correct?
Lord Airdale: It is the other way round from a mule, is it not?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to put on record that nobody should ride a foal, but some people do remarkably stupid things.
998
By narrowing the definition of "horse" it would make enforcement very difficult for the police, who would need some expertise in distinguishing the size and type of horse. It is not always possible to tell a foal just by looking at it. According to the Oxford English Dictionary a foal is,
"The young of the equine genus of quadrupeds".
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will appreciate that problem and withdraw the amendment. Also, if the purpose of excluding donkeys is to protect donkey rides on the beach, perhaps I can advise him that they are already excluded as we are concerned only with roads. If the amendment is to exclude a specific donkey derby, I should be grateful to know which so that the Secretary of State could take that into account when he makes the regulations.
I have ridden donkeys and they are exceedingly difficult to ride because they have very little in front of them. I believe I have fallen from a donkey more times than I have fallen from a horse.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As I said earlier, we had the main debate on Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 when discussing Amendment No. 1. Other noble Lords may have had different experiences from myself. I confess that I have always ridden docile donkeys. I have never been thrown or kicked by one; perhaps I have good control over them. However, I have never yet seen anyone else being thrown by a donkey, and certainly not on a public highway. I therefore believe that my original amendment was reasonable and that Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are also reasonable.
I believe that by allowing to remain in the Bill the possibility that foals can be ridden is a bit beyond the pale. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, explained, foals are young animals not properly developed. We are speaking of riding foals on a public highway. I cannot conceive of circumstances where foals will be ridden on public highways by anybody —not by children of 12 and 14 or by adults. Presumably adults will also do stupid things, but I cannot conceive of such a situation. In those circumstances I shall press the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I could say that the reason "foal" appears is that nobody wants anyone to ride a foal. That is obvious. But the definition of "foal" is very vague and nobody knows when a foal is not a foal. That is the problem. When does a foal become a young horse? "Foal" appears because the definition is vague.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may intervene. In answer to my noble friend last night I telephoned a friend who has enormous experience in the riding world and herself trains horses. She said that under no circumstances can a foal be older than six months.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, before he puts the amendment to the Committee, why he must press the amendment if he feels that foals are never likely to be ridden.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To make it a better Bill. There is no point in including words in a Bill which are unnecessary. I understand that the definition of a foal is a young horse running with its dam. That is a very young horse indeed. Therefore I feel that it is right that I put the amendment to a vote.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: It might possibly help the Committee if we go a little further on the definition of "foal"; does it cease to be a foal when it has been weaned from its mother? Having said that, young horses run with their mothers for quite a long time. In my experience, small children are often put on what could be called foals. The fact that they may not be on the road is probably irrelevant. It is possible for young people, for enjoyment, to be put on to little horses or foals and it is therefore important that the Bill remains as it stands. Otherwise we shall confuse the issue.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, leave out lines 19 to 27 and insert:
(" "road" does not include a footpath or bridleway but, subject to that, has —

(a) in England and Wales the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; and

(b) in Scotland the meaning given by section 151(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

(2) For the purposes of the definition of "road" in subsection (1) above—

(a) "footpath" means a way —

(i) over which the public have a right of way or. in Scotland, of passage on foot only; and

(ii) which is not associated with a carriageway; and

(b) "bridleway" means a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way: a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the way,").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 11 is intended to restrict the scope of the Bill to roads where there is a risk of collision between vehicles and horse riders. That is the reason bridleways and footpaths are excluded. However, it will be illegal for children to ride their horses on a footpath alongside a road without protective headgear. Under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 it is an offence to ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of the road set aside for pedestrians. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Rights of Way Bill
7.55 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Kimball.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Part IX of Highways Act 1980]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("make good") and insert ("treat").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 1 is simple. It may appear to be only a matter of drafting but there is a little more to it. It relates to the reinstatement of a right of way after it has been either ploughed or disturbed. The wording in the Bill as it stands is,
"so make good the surface of the path".
At Second Reading I said that the words "make good" —particularly "good" —were extremely imprecise and woolly, aware though I was that they had come forward from the 1980 Bill. Some people feel that the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know.
I take the contrary view that there is nothing that cannot be improved. The phrase "make good" to me tends to suggest that something is put back as it was before. In a colloquial sense I believe that is what the phrase would be taken to mean. It is obvious that with all the will in the world when these rights of way are ploughed or disturbed they will never be precisely as they were before. The object of the Bill, as I see it, is to make these paths, byways, bridle paths, and so on, reasonable for people to use them as they should be used. I therefore felt the word "treat" to be better. The later part of paragraph (a),
"as to make it reasonably convenient for the exercise of the right of way",
is the description of how the treatment should take place. It is not a matter of the greatest importance, but I think that "treat" is a little better than "make good". I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: The term "make good" has been used in legislation since 1949 so it is familiar to farmers and to local authorities. It is understood to imply a reasonable restoration of the walking surface with an understanding on all sides that there is a degree of flexibility in that standard. Sometimes the path may be improved by making good, and sometimes it may have deteriorated; but that flexibility has been accepted.
To "treat", as proposed by the noble Lord, implies a more sophisticated exercise and is open to several interpretations. Such a requirement might cause the Bill to lose the support of farmers whose good will is essential to its operation. The term "make good'

1001
is perfectly acceptable to the Ramblers' Association and like-minded bodies. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment because we do not wish at this stage to lose the good will of the many farmers who have agreed to these measures.
Lord Kimball: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Radnor for all the work and attention he has given to the detail of this Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for accurately summarising the problem we face in accepting the amendment; much as I should like to do because I now that my noble friend genuinely prefers the word "treat".
The snag is that there are now various modern techniques, including something called "solidry" which local authorities practice and which only local authorities can afford, which would come under the description of "treat". Therefore, we are putting an additional burden on the farming community if we accept the amendment. In view of what the noble Baroness said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I can assure the Committee that the last thing in the world I wish to do is upset the farming community or the ramblers. I take the points that have been made. It is obvious that the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("so").
The noble Earl said: I speak also to Amendment No. 3. These two amendments have to be taken together. Again, it is a matter of semantics, but I feel that it is perhaps a little more important than that. For one thing, I do not feel that surplus words, even a few, are to be desired in legislation. Therefore, I feel that it would be advantageous to delete the word "so" from the beginning of paragraph (b) and take out the words at the end of the paragraph so that it reads:
"indicate the line of the path or way on the ground to not less than its minimum width".
That means exactly the same as the paragraph now reads. To me it seems, in a sense, rather stronger but perfectly reasonable wording. It does not seem necessary that the paragraph should contain the words.
"that it is apparent to members of the public wishing to use it".
Those words are embodied in the word "indicate". Therefore, why have this additional description at the end of the paragraph and the word "so" at the beginning? There is no difference to the thrust of the Bill by this alteration, and at the same time it is a small attack on verbosity. I beg to move.
Lord, Kimball: I find it difficult to disagree with my noble friend; but I regret to say that his amendments, taken together, change the structure of the Bill. That is the problem. This paragraph in the Bill has been
1002
carefully drafted to link with the surface restoration requirements which precede it so that taken together the path is adequate for the exercise of the right of way. That is, the surface shall be made as good so as to be convenient for the exercise of the right of way and the line so indicated as to be apparent to members of the public wishing to use it.
The advice we have had from drafting counsel is that the courts will similarly hold that the requirement to indicate is a minimum one. It requires no more than that someone, once at the start of a path on a field boundary, will be reasonably certain of the line they should take to walk or ride across the field. The amendment effectively breaks the link between the two tests. Taking out the reference to the path being apparent to members of the public could lead the courts to conclude that something more is required and that the path should be indicated by a higher standard than that which was originally intended by the working party which looked at this problem.
As with the first of my noble friend's amendments, these two amendments introduce an inconsistency into the Bill. In view of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able withdraw this amendment and I shall have much pleasure in accepting his later amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I certainly have no intention of pressing this amendment. I take the points that have been made. Perhaps I looked at the matter in a rather simplistic manner. Again, the last thing in the world that I wish to do is to cause farmers any more trouble than they have already. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 5 which should be taken with it. I first declare an interest as a farmer although I do not think I have any footpaths going through my land of the sort we are discussing. I also declare an interest as a walker. I am a keen Sunday afternoon walker. I know some of the problems of using footpaths which are not good and therefore I speak very much from the walkers' interests and point of view.
The problem is that where a farmer plants corn he has to plant it a certain distance apart. There is no excuse for planting it closer, and we now know the distance that he must leave. Even if he plants the corn at, I believe, 1.8 metres apart it could fall over—oilseed rape could be the biggest problem —and without the farmer knowing he could end up with a gap of less than one metre.
The proposed subsection (1)(b) states:
"to prevent the crop from so encroaching on any relevant highway, whether passing over that or adjoining land, as to render it inconvenient for the exercise of the public right of way".
I have no quarrel with that because as a walker I do not want to be inconvenienced. I do not mind

1003
having to push things away because that is part of the joy of walking in the country —climbing stiles, and so on —otherwise one might just as well go to the park. The proposed subsection (2) of that clause states:
"For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a crop shall be treated as encroaching on a highway if, and only if, any part of the crop grows on, or otherwise onto or over".
That means that if the top of the crop extends over the one metre minimum then the farmer is committing an offence. We are not talking about blocking the path or making it inconvenient. I am not talking about planting too close to the path. If there is wind at home and the oilseed rape comes over and the next day I receive a complaint, then I may be liable.
The great majority of walkers are people of goodwill who want nothing more than to go for a good walk and enjoy themselves. However, we all know that there are some keen walkers who like nothing more than exercising their rights. I quote the example of people who always insist on following a footpath through someone's house because they have the right to do so whereas a reasonable person would go round the outside.
We also have a great many very keen local authority officials. I had a case recently concerning a fault found in an hotel kitchen. I was involved with the hotel. We did our best to put the fault right. I met an official outside and I said, "I am glad to see you. Is there any advice you can give us to make sure that we have got it right?" She said, "I am not here to give you advice, I'm here to close you down if you get it wrong". There are numbers of these young officials about who are straight out of school and that is their attitude. They will be carrying one metre measuring sticks around with them and if they can find a place where the corn is less than a metre apart, bang goes the farmer. That is nothing less than harassment and it will happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, talked about goodwill. There will be no goodwill at all. The farmer will be fined £400 on Scale 3 because the wind had blown a tip of corn on to the path. He would be fined as if he had obstructed a police officer or had a dog worrying livestock or as if he had evaded his TV licence fee. That is the penalty. Furthermore, because of that wind he will have a criminal record. That could happen to any noble Lord.
It really is absurd. If I am incorrect and if the relevant words are "to render it inconvenient" that is fair enough and there is no problem. It is a matter of judgment. However, if the relevant words are,
"if any part of the crop …grows over",
that will be totally unacceptable. It would bring the law into disrepute and if a case was ever brought it would make the law an ass. Whether my amendment is correct I cannot say. An amendment to make this provision reasonable and not just a question of a measuring stick is absolutely essential.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I put my name to this amendment because I was confused by what was
1004
meant by "apparent width". Why not just put "width"? Since then I have taken legal advice. The interpretation that I was given by the lawyers, who never cease to amaze me, is as follows. If the crop overhangs the right of way but is not rendering the path inconvenient as stated in subsection (5)(1)(b) on page 5, lines 6 to 9, of the Bill and not growing in the right of way, which I fully accept, then the authority would be acting unreasonably if the farmer was accused of committing an offence. That is the legal advice I have been given. I hope I can bow to the judgment that that is correct. If my noble friend can confirm that it is correct, then I shall be perfectly happy.
Baroness Nicol: The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, is very persuasive. Nevertheless, I am advised that this amendment would introduce a degree of ambiguity to the Bill which would undermine the agreement which has been reached by the Rights of Way Committee working party. As we have just heard, growing crops has been the main source of complaint and difficulty over the years. The Bill as presented gives a fair and acceptable way out of the difficulty.
It makes the provision that there must be inconvenience to the public before the Bill applies, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has discovered. The introduction of the phrase "reasonably passable" in Amendment No. 5 is an invitation to long legal wrangles of the kind which can happen under present legislation and which are damaging to all concerned except, possibly, the lawyers.
Minimum widths have been set to make the least possible impact on crops and still meet the needs of walkers. Any reopening of the discussion to accommodate these amendments could upset the balance which has been achieved and set the whole process back, perhaps for years. This Bill has benefits for farmers and for walkers. I hope that it can proceed without delay and that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Kimball: Perhaps I may just say to my noble friend Lord Gisborough that he is quite correct in what he said. However, I hope that I can convince him and my noble friend Lord Stanley that what they fear is not the case. The requirement on the occupier, as set out in the Bill as drafted, is not an absolute one. It is to prevent a crop from encroaching on to or over a relevant highway so as to render it inconvenient for the exercise of the right of way. An authority taking action must first assess the inconvenience being caused to path users. Therefore, there is a consistency of drafting with the same concept being applied here as elsewhere in the Bill; namely, in Clause 1 on page 2, line 14, and on page 3, line 25. In each case there has to be some demonstrable inconvenience to the public before the provision can be applied.
Under my noble friend's amendment, this section only is replaced by the test of being "reasonably passable". It may or may not amount to the same thing. However, the phrase is undefined, as the noble Baroness said, and it is not in keeping with the other terms used in the Bill or in existing legislation. As

1005
she has said, it will unfortunately lead to even greater confusion. That is what we are trying to avoid in the passing of this Bill. The provisions in the Bill have been carefuly framed to complement the existing provisions in Section 137 of the 1980 Act concerning the wilful obstruction of the public's free passage along a highway and Section 154, which requires an occupier to trim back any overhanging vegetation.
However, the amendment is in conflict with both these sections. A farmer who lets a crop overhang may, using the provisions of the amendment, find that he can still be prosecuted for an offence under the existing Section 137 or he can be required to cut back the overhang under Section 154. For authorities and 1ocal magistrates there is uncertainty about when Section 137 applies to a particular crop. This the new Section 137A has sought to resolve. With that explanation of what is a very complicated legal situation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment. I share his concern and I hope that many people will take note of what he said. There is a slightly belligerent element among some of the rambling community which makes things very difficult for landowners and farmers. While I accept that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I should like to read what he said because I am not sure that he covered my point about any part of the crop growing over. I shall read carefully what he has said and perhaps come back to it on Report after taking advice. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("but the crop shall not be treated as grass if it is a cereal crop").
The noble Earl said: This amendment relates to interference with rights of way by crops. To understand it properly one must read Clause 1(5) at the bottom of page 4 which states:
"Where a crop other than grass has been sown or planted on any agricultural land the occupier of the land shall from time to time take such steps as may be necessary".
It goes on to describe what the steps are. Grass is a permissible crop over which one can walk and in respect of which one does not need a measuring stick. Therefore it follows that the definition of grass is extremely important. Halfway down page 5 of the Bill, subsection (3) describes it very fully indeed. It states:
"the clop shall be treated as grass if, and only if, it is of a variety or mixture commonly used for pasture, silage or haymaking".
There is a difficulty here. The Bill intends all the excepted crops, including cereals, to stand outside this description of grass. But all the cereals are in point of fact grasses. If that is the importance of this part of the Bill, which I believe it to be, it would suit both farmers and walkers if the matter were put right either one way or the other. There must be the exclusion which is described in the amendment.
Oats can be used for silage. In the past they were frequently used and there is no reason why they should not be used again. If the Committee will forgive me I shall read from the editorial column of this week's Farmers Weekly. It states:
"Tight corn profits mean that you need close to six tonnes per hectare just to cover the costs of a high input growing system. It is little wonder in the circumstances that mixed farmers are showing interest once again in whole crop conservation for stock feed".
One should be certain here that a crop of oats, even if it goes right through to combining, does not get away in a magistrates' court with being grass which could be commonly used for hay or silage. It is quite a fine point but it is worth while to make certain of it. I beg to move.
Lord Kimball: I have much pleasure in accepting the amendment. In doing so I thank the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for his diligence and experience. It has enabled him to spot a point which had hitherto been missed. Despite all the careful scrutiny that the Bill had had by the working party, the lawyers, the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of Transport —in fact three government departments—and the preliminary draftsmen and so on, this point did not surface. I am most grateful to my noble friend for having spotted it. I have much pleasure in accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of s.329(1) of Highways Act 1980]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 43, after ("follows") insert ("closely").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment. It refers to the fact that some footpaths follow roughly round the outside of a field, cutting corners and so on, or are perhaps five yards in for some reason or other. These could be covered by the Bill in as much as they follow round the field. The amendment intends that a footpath, meaning a field-edge path, should be a field-edge path only if it goes closely round the edge of the field —in other words, effectively round the fence —and not if it roughly goes round it within five or six yards or whatever. It is not a very important point but there may well be cases where it will be useful to differentiate between one that goes roughly round the outside and one that is genuinely next to the fence. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I should have said at the beginning of this exercise that as this is a Private Member's Bill I speak from this Dispatch Box on my own behalf and not on behalf of my colleagues.
I cannot support the amendment. The use of the word "closely" does not help to clarify the Bill and by causing uncertainty in the farmer's mind it could limit activities in which he could otherwise legitimately engage, such as disturbing a path which approximates to but is not on the field edge. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has not quite seen that point. I am sure that he does not intend to limit the activities of the farmer but that would be the effect of the amendment.
Lord Kimball: I hope that my noble friend will reconsider and not press the amendment. We all understand the point quite clearly but the definition we propose in the Bill has existed in legislation since 1968 and has not given rise to any difficulties in the court cases that have been brought.
The word "closely" does not clarify the definition in any way; rather it serves to confuse and could work against the farmer's interest. It might, for example, be interpreted as preventing a farmer from exercising his right to disturb paths which are close to rather than on the field edge, or it might lead to a farmer being prosecuted for such a disturbance. If on the other hand it is meant to imply that the path should exactly follow the field edge, it is unnecessary since this is already the interpretation placed by the courts on the existing term "follows". With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Bill
8.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps I may start in an unorthodox but appropriate way by saying what the Bill does not set out to do. It does not set out either to create new offences or new powers or to prevent anyone's legitimate enjoyment; it sets out simply to raise the penalties for certain existing offences from the levels which were appropriate when they were enacted to a level which is appropriate today. The increase required to do this is very large indeed because the amounts of money which can be made by breaking the law have become very large indeed. Indeed, I would not be proposing the Bill to your Lordships if I did not believe that the need was both pressing and real.
The need has been occasioned by the recent development of a form of exploitation of the young which puts them in considerable danger. The organisers of this exploitation arrange events which have been featured a good deal in the news lately and which your Lordships may have noticed mentioned frequently in the media. The ostensible purpose of these events is to bring young people together in very large numbers to listen, and perhaps to dance, to a particular kind of music. The music is known as acid-house music and because of this the events have become known as acid-house parties. The name highlights the motivation of the young people attending these events. However, they have been given another name and that is pay parties, which highlights the motivation of the organisers who bring the young people to such events.
1008
The young people pay to go to these parties and they pay with a vengeance, even if nothing goes wrong. They pay up to £30 for a ticket. Moreover, as there may be up to 10,000 people present at a single event, your Lordships can perhaps see why an increase beyond the present limit of £2,000 as the maximum fine for the relevant offence is called for.
Organising a large musical event is not an offence, nor should we wish to make it so. This is not a killjoy Bill, and it has not been drafted with killjoy intentions. However, your Lordships may be interested to know something more about these particular events. Perhaps we should start with the music. Let us take, for example, its volume. In one case of which I received details it was not just clearly but offensively audible at a distance of five miles downwind. In that instance the police received 980 telephone complaints in the space of one-and-a-quarter hours. On another such occasion, the sound was produced by 72 speakers, each of them 4 feet tall, arranged in two banks of 36. On a third such occasion, 50 speakers were operating in an enclosed barn.
I do not underestimate the health hazard to those young people attending such events which the details reveal. Nonetheless, they are not the principal danger which is involved and which makes it necessary to increase the penalties applicable to those who promote and run these events. The effects on the surrounding population are also worth considering. They are exceedingly unpleasant and those in the immediate area suffer most —naturally, because of the noise and, unnaturally, because of the organisers' habit of employing large numbers of heavyweight security staff, sometimes equipped with sticks and staves and often accompanied by Rottweiler dogs. Their job is not to protect the customers; it is to prevent any interruption of the proceedings. On occasion, the steps taken to prevent interruption are more elaborate and constitute in themselves a hazard to those attending the event.
In a third instance which was quoted to me, the organisers of an event which was held in an abandoned warehouse locked all but half of one entrance and filled the approach road with parked vehicles so that it was impassable —not only to police vehicles, which may have been the intention, but to any vehicle, including fire engines and ambulances. That compares with an example quoted in another place about an event held in a warehouse in Accrington where no fewer than 5,000 young people had to enter and leave through a single door. On that occasion the approach roads were blocked off at a distance of half a mile from the venue.
During the three years that I was the Minister responsible at the Home Office for the fire service, I became acutely aware of the need for a means of rapid evacuation of buildings in an emergency. The alternative is very often the death of large numbers of people under horrific circumstances. In cases such as those I have cited, the danger of fire is very real. An eye witness account from Essex tells of a meeting of 3,000 people in that county at which the generator was faulty and where the power cables on the floor produced sparks throughout the performance. There

1009
is every prospect that some such unlicensed event will one day produce a dreadful toll of casualties.
The very great annoyance caused to the general public by the sudden, unexpected descent of anything from 2,000 to 10,000 young people at night on a single place, with no planned arrangements for traffic or parking, is in itself a matter of interest. However, when the purpose of the descent is to hear levels of noise more appropriate to psychological warfare than to innocent entertainment, I suggest that it becomes a nuisance sufficient to cause your Lordships active concern. To that concern should be added the concern that young people naive enough to be attracted to the events are often subject to exploitation at every stage. Suffice to say that at one such event held in a large empty building there was no water supply and no provision of toilet facilities and that those present were charged £1 for the use of an ordinary bucket on every occasion.
Noble Lords will also realise that such assemblies are fertile ground for drug pushers. I do not say that they are staged in order to promote the pushing of illegal drugs; indeed, I understand that some such meetings are drug free. But at others if the police arrive, those in possession of drugs drop them on the floor at once, as is their normal practice, and the cocktail which can be swept up from the floor could be enough to wipe out a battalion.
I think that your Lordships will agree that that is a danger to which young people should not be unnecessarily exposed. I also hope that noble Lords will agree that they should not be exposed to being roasted or suffocated to death in the event of a fire. In fact, it may be felt that there ought to be legislation to prevent such incidents occurring and to secure that massive entertainments such as these are held only with notice and approval given and under proper supervision. Why, one may wonder, have we not legislated for this already, given that these parties have been in the public notice since at least last summer? Of course the legislation already exists; the appropriate requirements are already there. However, at present the promoters and the organisers can snap their fingers at them because, though the powers suffice, the penalties when compared with the rewards are derisory. I say that existing powers suffice because I understand that Her Majesty's Government have kept in touch with the police on the subject and that they do not at present seek to acquire any further powers.
I turn now to deal with the Bill itself. It will perhaps help your Lordships if I put the proposals in the legislation into the context of the existing framework of entertainment licensing law. As is often the case, the simple objective is rendered difficult by the circumstances under which it is undertaken. The situation differs slightly as between different parts of the United Kingdom and I shall start with England and Wales.
Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, or, in Greater London, the London Government Act 1963, responsibility for the licensing of premises which are used for public dancing, music and similar public entertainments is vested in the local authority, the district or London
1010
borough council, in which the premises are situated. The public entertainment licensing law applies automatically to events held indoors throughout England and Wales and also to those held out of doors in Greater London. Outside Greater London it applies only to outdoor musical events which are held on private land, and then only if the local authority concerned has taken the necessary steps to adopt the relevant provisions in the 1982 Act. Licences are required for the provision of either live or recorded music.
Whether an event is a public one or not is ultimately a matter for the courts to decide in the light of the particular circumstances of each individual case. Broadly speaking, however, the question turns on whether any member of the public, on paying for admission, if that is required, could attend the entertainment. Although the organisers of acid-house parties have vigorously argued to the contrary, it seems fairly clear that many such events for which there is what amounts to an admission charge, which large numbers of people attend and at which there is music for them to dance to would require to be licensed under the public entertainment licensing law.
In general, the law in England and Wales does not seek to control private music and dancing entertainments in the same way as it does public ones. There is, however, an exception. The Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing) Act 1967 enables all local authorities to take powers to require the licensing of private events involving music or dancing which are promoted for private gain on a basis which is broadly comparable to the licensing of public entertainments. Thus, if it were to be held in a particular case that a particular acid-house party was private and not public entertainment, then because of the high profits the organisers freely admit to making from such events it could still be required to be licensed under the 1967 Act, provided of course that the local authority concerned had already adopted its provisions. I understand that authorities are inclined to do that.
In Scotland there is no equivalent to the 1967 Act, but public music and dancing entertainments there are licensed on generally the same basis as those in England and Wales, under the provisions of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The general purpose of that licensing system is to ensure that places which are used for music and dancing entertainments have adequate standards of safety and hygiene and that any possible nuisance to the local community is kept to a minimum. Therefore, when considering applications for the grant of an entertainment licence, the licensing authority has regard to the views of the police and the fire authorities to whom advance notice of the application must be given.
The licensing authority has a wide discretion over whether to grant entertainment licences and may when granting such a licence attach to it a wide range of terms, conditions and restrictions. The law makes due provision for applicants aggrieved by a local authority's decision to refuse to grant a licence or by any particular terms and conditions that have been inserted into the licence to appeal to the local

1011
magistrates and subsequently to the Crown Court. It is an offence under the 1982 Act to provide and in certain circumstances to allow premises to be used for music and dancing as a public entertainment unless a licence has first been obtained from the relevant licensing authority. If the local authority has adopted the 1967 Act, however, making those provisions for private entertainment for private gain is also an offence.
The penalties for those offences against the entertainment licensing laws vary in detail according to each Act. That brings us to the meat of our business. The offences of holding an unlicensed entertainment or breaching the terms or conditions of a licence under the 1982 Act, for example, are punishable on summary conviction with a fine of up to £2,000. I remind your Lordships in that context that the tickets cost £30 each and the numbers involved can be as high as 10,000. The same maximum fines apply to similar offences comitted in Greater London, but under the London Government Act 1963 offenders may also be sent to prison for up to three months instead of or in addition to the fine. The maximum penalty for breaches of the 1967 Act is a fine of up to £1,000 or up to three months' imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalty for holding an unlicensed public entertainment in Scotland is a fine of £1,000, but breaching the conditions of an entertainment licence attracts a fine of up to £400 only.
All those maximum penalties are now so relatively light in comparison to the huge profits that certain unscrupulous people have recently begun to make that they no longer provide an effective deterrent to breaking the law. The organisers of illegal acid-house parties and those who assist them can easily afford to ignore the law. It has therefore become necessary, as a matter of urgency, to bring those events under effective licensing control and to ensure that people tempted to organise them in the expectation of realising huge profits are deterred from continuing to operate outside the law.
The Bill will enable the summary courts in England and Wales and in Scotland to impose fines of up to £20,000 or sentences of up to six months' imprisonment on people convicted of holding unlicensed music and dancing entertainments or using a place for which an entertainment licence is in force in contravention of any term or condition which limits the number of people who may be present at the entertainment. The penalties for other offences under the Acts which the Bill seeks to amend remain unchanged.
Clause 1 amends the provisions in three Acts (the London Government Act 1963, the Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing) Act 1967 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982) which have effect in England and Wales or may be adopted by local authorities there for the licensing of music and dancing entertainments. Clause 1 prescribes a new maximum penalty on summary conviction of a fine of £20,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both, for offences under any of the provisions which concern the use of a place for such an entertainment in respect of which no licence
1012
is in force. The new maximum penalty will apply also to offences under those Acts concerning the use of a licensed place for such an entertainment in contravention of any term, condition or restriction of the licence which limits the number of people who may be present at the entertainment. The penalties for other offences in the 1963, 1967 and 1982 Acts remain, as I said, unchanged.
There is only one other clause in the Bill. Its description is shorter. It amends the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which enables local authorities to impose a licensing requirement on inter alia any person proposing to provide public entertainment. At present, the 1982 Act provides relatively modest penalties for engaging in such activities without a licence or for a breach of licence conditions. That clause seeks to modify the existing penalties in Section 7(1) and (2) of the 1982 Act by applying the new higher penalties in respect of public entertainment licences granted under Section 41 of the 1982 Act.
It was originally the sponsors' intention that the increased penalties provided for in the Bill should extend to all breaches of the terms and conditions of an entertainment licence. However, following concern expressed in another place that to do so might lay the organisers of legitimate licensed events open to penalties which were much too severe, including the threat of imprisonment, for what might be relatively trivial breaches of the licence conditions, the compromise arrangement now evident in the Bill was agreed. I believe that some of your Lordships are aware of those proceedings. It will still enable the enhanced penalties provided for to be imposed when more people are allowed to attend an event than is stipulated on the licence. I revert to my illustration of large numbers of people in constrained spaces and the danger that that constitutes. That is the greatest temptation of course to the organisers when possible breaches of licensing conditions are contemplated, as it is the one that offers the organiser the best chance of making more money.
Breach of a condition relating to noise will not now render a licence holder liable to the increased penalties in the Bill. That may seem a pity but noise nuisance can already be dealt with under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Any of your Lordships who may be concerned about that omission should be aware that the Department of the Environment is at present undertaking a thorough review of that and other legislation relating to noise nuisance. I have no intention of extending those provisions in the Bill.
I should perhaps conclude by saying that the Home Secretary has announced that he intends to make an order using powers given to him in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to give magistrates in England and Wales the power to order the confiscation of profits, where they exceed £10,000, of those convicted of the offences that I have listed. Together with that order, the provisions of the Bill will, I am sure, go a long way towards protecting young people from unacceptable risks and peaceful citizens from unacceptable disturbance caused by unlicensed events.

1013
The Bill does not seek to ban all large public musical events as such or to prevent any legitimate entertainment; it does not create any new powers or offences; it merely brings the penalties up to date. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Elton.)
8.48 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, before turning to the substance of the Bill I should perhaps declare what is, I suppose, an interest in its outcome, in that I am the holder of an annual music and dancing licence for 15,000 people in respect of Knebworth Park, which own, and I am also the holder of a special variation to that licence for a maximum of 120,000 people to cover an open-air charity rock concert due to take place at Knebworth Park at the end of next week which will probably be the largest musical event to take place in Europe this summer.
The objective of the Bill, as has been clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is to deter the holding of so-called pay parties, acid-house parties or raves, as they are commonly known, without a licence. It also covers, as the noble Lord has told us, certain other musical events and entertainments of a public nature. It is not about drug abuse, as he said, and it is not about noise pollution, both of which are covered by other Acts of Parliament.
It is the pay parties or acid-house parties which have been very much in the news that have given rise to the legislation. These parties have increasingly attracted the cowboy and criminal element who cut costs by ignoring the basic principles of safety and organisation, elbowing aside legitimate promoters who take the trouble to obtain a licence. Bona fide promoters have a professional interest in providing proper facilities for the safety and welfare of those attending and in minimising the inconvenience caused to those living in the vicinity of an event. They will wish to obtain another licence in the future.
When first proposed in another place, the Bill caused great concern to legitimate concert promoters and licence-holders because it sought to apply the same increased penalties to those who obtained a licence as well as to the cowboy operators who did not. Happily, the sponsors of the Bill took note of these concerns and therefore I am able to support the amended Bill now before your Lordships. The Bill has I understand, also now received the support of the Concert Promoters' Association. The proposed increased penalties now apply, with one exception, only to the use of a place for entertainment in respect of which no licence is in force. For those who take the trouble to obtain a licence, the proposed new increased penalties apply only in respect of an infringement of a condition which imposes a limit on the number of persons who may be present at the entertainment.
The purposes of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has explained, is to deter an unscrupulous promoter from obtaining a licence for, say, 5,000 people and then selling 10,000 tickets or more which
1014
would generate more than enough cash to pay the fine subsequently imposed. This is a condition which legitimate promoters can accept and which can in normal circumstances be controlled.
There is, however, one technical point that I should like to raise. The wording of subsection (3A)(b) in Clause 1 relating to the infringement of a limit on maximum numbers under an existing licence is prima facie somewhat ambiguous in that it might be interpreted to mean that in the event of an infringement of a condition imposing a limit on the number of persons attending being broken, any infringement of any other condition of the licence would also attract the proposed increased penalties.
I understand that discussions have taken place on this point between representatives of the Concert Promoters' Association and officials at the Home Office and that the Home Office is of the opinion that no such ambiguity exists and that the new proposed penalties would apply exclusively to the question of maximum numbers. However, I would welcome the Minister's assurance on this point.
I close by making a few general points. In passing legislation of this kind we must be careful to avoid creating a Catch-22 situation: "I can't hold a party without a licence, but they won't give me a licence". The licensing procedure is lengthy and tortuous. My licence in respect of the Knebworth event next week runs to six pages and 60 conditions. The licence is not easy to obtain. In the case of pay parties in particular, local authorities and police forces, although required to be fair, often entertain negative prejudices and can easily find reasons to object.
The costs involved in meeting the conditions imposed by a licence are considerable. The police naturally set the level of police presence which they believe to be necessary for the event in question. The promotor has to pay the bill and there are no real procedures in this sense for arbitration in the event of disagreement. In the case of the Knebworth concert next week—admittedly a very large event —your Lordships may be interested to know that the police bill is £64,000.
Rock concerts were considered to be a bit way out when we started them in the early 1970s. Now they are sedate affairs, with corporate hospitality tents like Wimbledon. Fashions change. I am sure that many of your Lordships can remember the fun of all-night parties, breakfast perhaps in Grantchester or watching the sun rise over the Serpentine. We owe it to the young not to make it impossible for them to enjoy themselves, even if at times it involves a bit of cat-and-mouse activity with the authorities and some disturbance to neighbours.
The demand for pay parties is obviously great and is unlikely to go away as a result of this legislation. If therefore local authorities refuse to grant licences, it will only encourage the cowboy and criminal element to fill the demand. In supporting the Bill, I urge the Minister to encourage local authorities and police forces to identify sites in their areas which are suitable for properly licensed functions and where young people can enjoy themselves as they wish in safety and with minimum disturbance to local inhabitants.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has introduced the Bill with his usual clarity and fluency. I do not imagine that he expects me to welcome it with open arms —if so, his assumptions are correct —even though I freely acknowledge that the Bill does not create a new offence, which is certainly a refreshing change, and even though I acknowledge that many of the problems which he has outlined are real. However I believe that they can be dealt with by other methods.
The Bill is essentially aimed at protecting both young people and those members of the public upon whom those young people may suddenly descend. Both are admirable aims. However, we must remember two points about young people. First, they tend to go in for transient enthusiasms and crazes. Secondly, they enjoy and always have enjoyed shocking the older generation.
In the ordinary way, the so-called acid-house craze might have died the same natural death as hula-hoops did a generation or so ago. However, because the tabloid press hyped the whole business to such an extent —to use jargon appropriate to the problem —the older generation has overreacted. By this, I do not mean those members of the older generation directly affected by these parties, who have every right to object. I mean the older generation who merely read about it in their papers. The spectacle of people holding up their hands in horror, with their eyes bulging and their hair standing on end like characters out of a Bateman cartoon, is an irresistible incentive for younger people to maintain their enthusiasm for these parties, which in the normal way might have waned.
What are the problems that we face? Drugs? As we have heard, these are only a factor in a small number of such parties. We already have tough laws to cope with drugs. Drink? No, because alcohol is always banned at such parties. Litter? Yes, certainly, but existing litter laws are strong enough if only magistrates would make use of them instead of imposing the derisory fines they normally do. Noise? Yes. Here perhaps the law is deficient: I should be happy to support any law tightening up the penalties for creating the noise that causes great nuisance and distress to other people. Cars parked dangerously on the verges? Yes, again that may be so in some cases, but we also have laws to deal with them. Fire? Yes, if the parties are held indoors. Here again, I imagine that existing laws are adequate if they are properly applied.
With the sole exception of noise, where existing legislation may well be deficient, all the nuisances and dangers arising from these parties seem to be remediable by existing legislation and existing penalties. However, as someone is bound to point out, what about entertainment licences? Yes, indeed, entertainment licences. These licences have always seemed to me a peculiarly British concept, Victorian in origin, no doubt, but with Cromwellian undertones, based on the supposition that public entertainment is something basically rather immoral which ought to be regarded with the greatest suspicion and should be severely rationed. Where permitted, it should be closely supervised by the powers that be.
1016
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, has just given us an example of the tremendous problems he faces in obtaining a licence for his extremely well-run functions. Many people both here and outside the House object to the enormous profits being made by the promoters of these parties. However, one only obtains enormous profits where the law of supply and demand is interfered with by governmental or other outside agencies. This assumes that the supply is elastic, and in the case of entertainment it most certainly is. If the supply were allowed to come into balance with the demand, the massive profits would shrink very rapidly.
As I said at the outset, where parties are held indoors a fire risk is undoubtedly always present. It is only right that indoor entertainments should be supervised for that reason. However, such a consideration does not apply to parties or gatherings held out of doors. If acid-house parties, pop festivals and other such gatherings are to be so controlled, why should political gatherings not be similarly controlled? After all, at the latter gatherings the threat of violence is far more ever-present.
It was extraordinary to hear a police chief criticising the organisers of such a party for holding it near a river or a canal on the grounds that someone might have fallen in. One might just as well try to ban Henley for the same reason, particularly as Henley, unlike the so-called acid-house parties, is far from being a teetotal occasion. I cannot greet the Bill with enormous enthusiasm but I am realistic enough to acknowledge that in the present paternalistic and somewhat puritanical climate in which we live my reservations are unlikely to count for very much.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I support this Bill wholeheartedly. I congratulate my noble friend on introducing it. I also commend all he has said in doing so. He spoke a great deal about the dangers for young people of modern so-called acid-house parties and similar gatherings. He also spoke a good deal about public entertainment licensing and the legal framework which exists under that heading.
I speak in my capacity as chairman of the National Noise Council. I wish to speak particularly about the noise that is caused by such gatherings as those known as acid-house parties, pop concerts and the like. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, talked about licensed parties being essential and desirable. I agree with that. He suggested that parties which make an enormous amount of noise —the legal parties make an enormous amount of noise too —are all right provided they are held in the right place. I hope there are such places for such parties. As my noble friend said in moving his Bill, the average acid-house party can be heard five miles away.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said that the younger generation had always made a lot of noise and the older generation had always had to tolerate the younger generation to some degree. However, in my young days I do not remember any party taking place which could be heard five miles away. I am a great lover of Henley. I agree that there is a lot of alcoholic entertainment at that event each year, part

1017
of which I enjoy myself. However, I believe it is unlikely that any noise from Royal Henley, in my considerable experience of it, could be heard over half a mile away. I consider that these modern parties represent an enormous noise problem.
As regards the general problem of noise, as my noble friend quite rightly said, the noise review working party of the Department of the Environment is presently sitting. The findings and recommendations of that committee will feature in the Government's environmental White Paper which is to be published in the autumn. Noise has always been a problem. We all accept that. However, it is in my submission as chairman of the National Noise Council more of a problem today. We have amplified music and that is the worst problem of all. Singing is performed at a louder tone that I can ever remember in my youth. It appears that there are those in society who have to make a noise to emphasise somehow or other their failure to succeed in life. They inflict their loud noise on those who are more successful.
There are many aspects of the noise problem. I wholly support the provisions of the Bill in that the control of such gatherings as acid-house parties through increased penalties —I wholly agree with that —and increased powers for environmental health officers would be very much in the public interest. As regards the control of these parties and similar gatherings, I suggest, with my noble friend, that control is urgently needed. This is a public problem of considerable magnitude. I and the council over which I preside believe that the creation of a serious noise nuisance should become a criminal offence. I also agree that current penalties for noise conviction are inadequate. They should be increased in line with those suggested in the Bill. Local government control of such gatherings and of the noise that they emit should be greatly strengthened.
In moving this Bill my noble friend talked of the present powers for the control of noise. He mentioned the Control of Pollution Act under which such control as we have over noise is exercised at this time. I should remind noble Lords that under the previsions of that Act a local authority must be satisfied that a nuisance is to occur before serving a notice or seeking an injunction to prevent it. Before any action can be taken by a local authority, there must be identification of the persons who are to be involved in the creation of the nuisance. We have been told tonight that there are cowboy organisers of acid-house parties and similar gatherings. What easy hurdles those two requirements are for the cowboys to jump. These and other substantial restrictions heavily limit at this time control of the enormous public nuisance which large gatherings involving loud music present.
The provisions in the Bill are highly commendable and the National Noise Council welcomes them. I shall end on the broader principle of the issue of noise and public responsibility with regard to noise control. I speak from a sense of great suffering at this time. I have two homes, one in the peace and quiet of the countryside of Northumberland and one in Westminster. My flat in Westminster was until very recently as peaceful as my home in
1018
Northumberland. Unfortunately, a local authority block of flats has been opened and from about five o'clock in the evening until eleven o'clock each night and all weekend a certain number of children make an amazing amount of noise. It occurs to me that acid-house parties and pop concerts have a time limit placed on them but the children in the courtyard below the flat where I live provide a continuous performance.
The current problems of noise in this country are considerable. I welcome the Bill and wholly support it in that it approaches substantially a very real problem.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, not only for bringing forward the Bill but also for his very clear explanation of what it means. I was glad that he gave the reasons for the need for this legislation, making it clear that his wish was not to prevent entertainment but to meet the concern which I am sure that we all share.
That concern is very clear: the promoters of acid-house parties permit dangerous and unsafe conditions while they themselves make vast sums of money. Although none of the speakers this evening has first-hand knowledge of such parties, I have been given detailed descriptions by young people who have had first-hand experience of them. From those descriptions it is clear how very clever those non-professional promoters are. They recognised that there would be great demand from young people for such entertainment. One reason, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, is that it is very difficult to obtain a licence, and licences impose restrictions relating to the termination of the party and so on. Therefore, such an idea would be very attractive to young people.
Such parties are also attractive to young people because of the glamour associated with them; they are secret events. Young people must regard acid-house parties as the place to go, and see them in a favourable light because they appear to be anti-establishment. I cannot think of any more enticing reason for young people to attend a party.
The organisers clearly have a very clever system of operation. The membership is given a telephone number which they must ring in the evening, as late as 10 o'clock, to find out the venue. Entrance tickets are sold in advance so that there is no exchange of money at the event itself. For their tickets, which as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, can cost as much as £30, members will get music, soft drinks and the venue itself. There will be no sale of alcohol and no money will change hands. Only members will attend. That is the justification for not requiring licences.
The noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Monson, gave reasons for concern about acid-house parties. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was less concerned about those defects in that he felt that other legislation could cover everything except perhaps the fire risks within the buildings concerned.
Lord Monson: Fire and noise.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Often the organisers and their responsibilities are unknown to anybody. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, very dangerous and unsuitable buildings are used. Large profits are made but they are not used for security, providing toilet facilities or for the general safety of the audience. There seems little doubt that there is a drug culture at the centre of such acid-house parties and a considerable amount of peddling of drugs takes place. As the noble Lord also said, there has been violence at the events which has often been caused by the security guards hired to protect the promoters.
I also find it worrying that the police, in their attempts to prevent the gatherings taking place at all, have been placed in the position of acting in an irregular manner. For example, they have set up road blocks to prevent people getting to the event and I understand that there have been occasions when they have sealed off motorway service stations. That is a very unsatisfactory situation, but it has been the only way in which the police have been able to deal with the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, focused most of his remarks on the subject of noise, and I do not think that there is anybody in this House who would not agree with him. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, this Bill is not going to be able to relate to that particular problem. From my knowledge, the noble Lord's Bill has attracted a great deal of support not only in the other place but also from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the Association of District Councils, which have spoken out srongly in favour of these measures. It is also a fact that the Bill —and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said so, as has the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold —was much improved from its original form during its passage through the other place.
The was a serious concern about the original proposal by the sponsor, Mr. Graham Bright, that there was a real risk that the provision of the Bill might well penalise many innocent licence holders who were conducting their affairs in a perfectly legal way. However, at Report stage the sponsor of the Bill and my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Stuart Randall, came to an agreement to amend the Bill. The result of this amendment is, as the noble Lord said, that licence holders would only be charged increased penalties for any breach of the attendance limit imposed as a condition of the licence. This of course is the best way of trying to prevent the satisfaction of greed by allowing far too many people to come to these parties.
Although I was relieved and reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who said that he had no more anxieties at all, I still felt from my not so experienced understanding of this Bill a slight concern about organisers such as, say, those of the Glastonbury Festival who find out that the limit of 75,000 people for whom they have a licence is in fact exceeded. Perhaps it is a beautiful day and more than 75,000 people come to the festival, but the organisers could not have anticipated in any way that this would happen. I should be grateful for an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the organisers would not be liable for the increased fine for exceeding the
1020
limit mentioned in their licence when they themselves could not possibly have foreseen it. I also look forward to an answer to the more specific question that the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, asked.
Perhaps I may end by saying that we on these Benches certainly support these measures. We feel that they will go some way—perhaps a long way —towards curbing what are clearly insecure, dangerous and in many ways unsavoury events. I was not at all sure that I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he said that he felt that they might be transient, because knowing the amount of money that is being made at these acid-house parties it seems unlikely that the promoters will give them up and that young people will suddenly no longer want to go to them. I feel that certain measures are necessary, I am happy to welcome them, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer my one concern.
9.18 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the House may find it helpful if I intervene at this stage to explain that the Government fully support this Bill. Before doing so, however, I must first thank my noble friend Lord Elton for the informative and helpful explanation he has given of exactly what this Bill seeks to do, and why it is so necessary that it should get on to the statute book as a matter of urgency.
Illegal acid-house parties, a phenomenon that has developed over the last 18 months to two years, pose considerable dangers to the safety of the young people who attend them. I think that that is the concern of all of us. They also cause enormous problems in terms of noise, traffic congestion and other general disturbance for the residents of the areas selected by the organisers for their events, and for those living further afield who may be kept awake by the very loud noise emanating from these parties. And they place considerable burdens on the police and local authorities who are responsible for dealing with the many breaches of the criminal law, the entertainment licensing law and the law on noise pollution which inevitably seem to occur on such occasions.
My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth is, as he informed us, the Chairman of the National Noise Council, and he drew our attention to this in some detail. I can tell my noble friend that on 5th October 1989 my honourable friend Mrs. Bottomley announced an urgent Department of the Environment review of existing best practices by local authorities in tackling noise nuisances at acid-house parties, with particular emphasis being placed on whether local authorities view the present powers under the Act as adequate. There is, moreover, evidence of the growing involvement of serious criminal elements in the organisation of such events, attracted by the opportunity they afford both for making lots of money and for peddling drugs.
It has fallen, in the main, to the police and the local authorities to take what action they can under the existing law, and there are a number of different provisions that they have been able to employ in this context against illegal acid-house parties. The police themselves already have adequate powers to

1021
deal with any criminal offences which might occur, be they concerned with, say, the misuse of drugs or threats to public order. They also have very wide powers under the common law to prevent breaches of the peace and public nuisance. The Government very much welcome the vigorous action taken by police forces in different parts of the country to tackle the problems caused by these events. We consulted the police in the usual way before reaching any conclusions on what further action needed to be taken to bring these parties under control, and we have kept in touch with them since, as this Bill has made progress through another place. They did not, at the outset, consider that they needed any additional powers to deal with these parties, and I can tell your Lordships that that remains their view. The Government accept that. Should the police come to take a different view, in the light of developments in the future or decisions in cases that have yet to come to court, we shall give the fullest consideration to any arguments for change that they put forward.
The police and local authorities have had some success in preventing a number of illegal acid-house parties from getting started. Where this has not proved possible, the police have done what they can to ensure the safety of those attending the event and to minimise the nuisance caused in the immediate neighbourhood and beyond. However, as my noble friend pointed out, those are essentially the objectives of the existing entertainment laws. The problem is that the penalties for offences against those laws are now so comparatively light when compared with the huge profits that can be made by promoting illegal, unlicensed parties that they no longer provide an effective deterrent against breaking the law. The organisers of these events, and their assistants and associates, can happily afford to ignore the entertainment licensing laws totally when setting them up. It is necessary, as a matter of urgency, that the penalties for the relevant offences against those laws should be increased substantially, as my noble friend's Bill proposes, so that these events are brought under proper licensing control and the organisers and others involved with them are deterred from continuing to operate outside the law.
My noble friend's Bill forms an important element in a package of measures to be taken to secure that objective. As he said, he has the support of the police and the local authorities in his endeavours, as well as that of the Government. The anxieties expressed in another place that the provisions in the Bill might hit bona fide organisers of legitimate, licensed events in a harsh and unjustified manner have, we believe, been met by the amendments that were made to it there.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, an assurance that the contravention of some term, condition or restriction of a licence which does not impose a limit on the number of people at an entertainment does not attract the increased penalties provided by the Bill. It is only under the legislation in force in London (Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963, which is amended
1022
in Clause 1(1) of the Bill) that the contravention of each term, condition or restriction of a licence is a separate offence. In that case the Bill provides for the increased penalty to apply only to a term which imposes a limit on numbers.
Under the other enactments amended by Clause 1 of the Bill the offence consists of a contravention of the terms, conditions or restrictions generally. Here, the increased penalties apply only where the terms, conditions or restrictions are contravened, including the limit on numbers.
I should perhaps close by saying something about the other measures that are to be taken, in addition to this Bill, to tackle the problems arising from illegal acid-house parties. The Home Secretary has already announced that he intends, once the Bill becomes law, to use the powers given to him under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make an order giving magistrates in England and Wales the power to order the confiscation of the profits, where those exceed£10,000—which is the lower limit laid down in that Act —from those convicted of the offences to which it applies. Your Lordships will be aware that this Bill extends to Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has considered whether to make provision for a similar confiscation power to apply there. However, he has concluded that it would be premature to do so before he receives the report from the Scottish Law Commission on the question of a general power to order the confiscation of the proceeds of crime he expects later this year.
Taken together, the measures in this Bill and the introduction of a power to confiscate the profits of those convicted of the offences against the entertainment licensing laws should go a long way towards reducing the risk to the safety of young people and the unacceptable degree of disturbance to whole communities caused by the recent proliferation of illegal acid-house parties. It is not sought to ban all such events outright. But they need, as a matter of urgency, to be brought within the framework of existing controls. The way to do that is, in our view, effectively to deter the organisers from continuing to operate outside the law by threatening to hit their pockets very hard, and perhaps by sending them to prison. My noble friend's Bill therefore has the full support of the Government.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I most grateful to the Minister for that forthright support, and for the emphasis that he gave to my principal concern on moving the Second Reading: the safety of the young people concerned. I recognise the very geat inconvenience and sometimes suffering endured by those in the locality. However, I sought to make it clear that the principal intention of the Bill is to limit the danger and that the matter of inconvenience —which is very largely one of noise—is the subject of a separate initiative by the Government in which I do not doubt that my noble friend Lord Elliott will have a very close and effective interest, and receive much sympathy from myself and others.

1023
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, gave his support in principle for the Bill, which I warmly welcome. It comes from one who has revealed an expertise on a grand scale. I expect to see his name in the Guinness Book of Records any day now if his event is the success that we all hope it will be. I hope that it will not attract hostility from the neighbours for any good reason.
Because of the fear that it might attract some local hostility, some noble Lords may not be too dismayed by his revelation that it is not very easy to obtain a licence to give entertainments for many thousands of people, generating a good deal of noise and traffic.
I am grateful to my noble friend for answering in terms the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I do not need to repeat the reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the media hype which accompanies every new phenomenon: in particular, that affecting the young. I certainly accept that that happens. However, I hasten to assure the noble Lord that not a single example was taken from the media. My evidence came from eye witnesses and the police, except for one example that was given by a Member of another place.
I shall read the remainder of his speech with great care. If I may paraphrase, the central theme seems to have been that there are sufficient powers already, and that the Bill is therefore superfluous. I remind the noble Lord that there is not a single new power in the Bill. I began by referring to the existing powers and said that there was no intention to add to them. Nor is it intended to add new offences. That might also offend the noble Lord, who might feel that I was part of nanny state. Having sat on the Front Bench for some years, I am notably not that. However, I am a member of society who believes that when the young and naive are tempted by the excitement of attending a large illicit and secret event, they should not be exposed to the danger of being roasted or suffocated to death. Secondly, they should not be subject to the other dangers attendant on such large congregations in unsupervised cicumstances, or with supervision by those not interested in the welfare of the "punters", as they are called. Thirdly, inconvenience and obstruction should not be caused to emergency service vehicles.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will regard the Bill merely as doing what it is intended to do. That is, to raise penalties in order to keep them in step with changing circumstances. He may then feel a little less hostile towards it than he appeared to be when he spoke. His resignation towards being ineffectual in amending the Bill may change to satisfaction when allowing it to go forward
Lord Monson: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads my speech in Hansard, he will see that it was not as hostile to the Bill as he imagined. Nor do I dissent from some of the remarks that he has now made. I acknowledged the fact that the Bill does not create any new offences and I praised it for that reason.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. When I am fathering a Bill, I find myself if not like a tiger with her cubs, at least like a hen with her chickens. Therefore, I am unusually defensive and fierce when perhaps that is unnecessary.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elliott for his support. I recognise that he would gladly go a great deal further than the Bill provides. He will understand that we wish quickly to put legislation on the statute book. The earlier intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that the best way of achieving that is to be content with what we now have in hand. I look forward to receiving his support in that respect.
I welcome the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. In particular, I welcome her recognition of the intense difficulties faced by the police, who nevertheless propose no new powers at present. She mentioned the support of the Association of District Councils. That is most welcome because the councils will principally be concerned with the provisions.
The noble Baroness asked what would happen if the legitimate organiser of a proper event found that, because it was a lovely day, many more people attended than were expected or for which the event was licensed, and that there was no means of keeping the people out. I cannot answer for the courts in such a case. It would depend on the circumstances. First, the local authority must consider whether there should be a prosecution for a breach. If it were minded to be unreasonable, it would need to recall that it is a defence for someone charged with such a breach of condition to say that he took all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. If the breach is involuntary, a licence holder may escape prosecution or the severest penalties. I cannot speak for the courts, but I can say that there is a good defence of reasonableness. One would expect the licensing authority to be reasonable, and the applicant for the licence to have an estimate of what the most jubilantly successful event might produce. I thank noble Lords for their attention, patience and diligence.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Channel Tunnel Workforce: Health and Safety
9.34 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the present powers of the Health and Safety Executive are adequate to safeguard those working on the Channel Tunnel.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords who have any idea of what is taking place on this huge construction site, possibly the largest in Europe, will understand that my probing questions may range a little wide of the specific Question on the Order Paper.
I ask this Question because during my public life I was an engineer in the sense that I worked in an engineering factory. I have always had a deep interest in the building industry against a background, in my local government days, of dealing with housing in the general sense. I became quite anxious —as I know did noble Lords from all parties —about the repeated reports in the press and the media of the deaths which have occurred at the Channel Tunnel. Because of my privileged position in your Lordships' House, I wish to take this opportunity of publicly discussing this matter on a factual basis without the media hype in the newspapers and, sadly, on television.
In order to obtain first hand knowledge, along with a colleague from another place, Mr. Stanley Orme, the chairman of the PLP, I spent five or six hours at the site. We did not go down to the tunnel because that would have needed more time than we had available. We were mainly concerned to see the type of safety procedures and regulations on site. We have arranged to go to the site again at a later date for the specific purpose of seeing inside the tunnel.
One knows that national trade union leaders sometimes make statements which do not always reflect the views of the people involved at the sharp end; that is, the shop stewards. I know that from my experience as a shop floor trade unionist.
Quite rightly, much anxiety has been expressed because there have been six deaths on what one can call the British side of the site. The company admits to some liability regarding two of those deaths. No doubt they will be called to account legally, and regarding compensation payments to the relatives of those unfortunate people. Having said that, no amount of compensation can compensate for the loss of a husband, son or friend in that situation.
A few weeks ago I attended the UCATT national conference. That trade union represents over 50 per cent. of the workers who are on the site. The question of safety was discussed at that conference. Last year the number of deaths recorded nationally increased by 30. The total amounted to over 150. The conference delegates stood in silence to pay tribute to their colleagues in the building industry who had died. That was very moving.
Therefore, we must begin by remembering that the building industry is our most dangerous industry, and that this site is the most dangerous site within it.
What did we find on that visit? On applying for the job, candidates are screened as to their suitability. If they are considered suitable, they then have to undergo a very strict medical test. That includes a rigorous eye and audiology test. If there is any suspicion of any physical defect which may put them at risk on the site, they are not employed. They are rejected whether they are ex-miners or tunnellers, and so on. That basic standard must be achieved in terms of sight and hearing in order to work on the site because it is very dangerous.
When candidates are accepted, whether they are miners or people familiar with tunnelling in a different context, they spend three days on an induction course on site where they are intensively
1026
taught the rigours of that specific site. There is no question of people being bussed or lorried on to a site and walking into an area of great personal danger without first being forewarned and educated in what to do and what not to do.
One point that was made in another place and in your Lordships' House is that the figures for accidents in the Channel Tunnel are very bad compared with the national average. That depends how one deploys the figures. The information that Mr. Orme and I were given was that on that site they report 100 per cent. of the accidents that take place. In industry generally only 40 per cent. of accidents are reported.
The site consists of three separate projects, each of which has its own safety committee, with representatives chosen by the men on the job. The major union on the site, with over half of the 8,000 employees as members, is UCATT, which is the major building trade union. Questions were asked of us and we bounced questions back at the people involved. We were quite clearly told by the representatives that full facilities and places are afforded to them on each of the committees. There is no restriction on their raising any issue whatever.
Those representatives can ensure that any proposals agreed upon on the three different projects are followed through. They can call for immediate action if the agreed proposal is not progessing at the speed or with the thoroughness that they expect. All those nominated to the committee receive full training and are instructed in safety measures. In addition there are seven full-time safety officers employed on the site.
One needs to get some conception of the size of the project. That can be achieved only by seeing it. There is a small police station permanently on site and a medical centre —which we visited —which is really a mini-hospital and is manned 24 hours a day. All those provisions are in excess of the Housing and Safety Executive standards.
We met the shop stewards on the job and I put a specific question to them. The question has been raised on television, in another place and in this Chamber; whether workers have been victimised if they have protested about inadequate safety measures. I should advise the House that the stewards to whom we spoke were angry at that suggestion. They said quite clearly, "Somebody is saying that we are not doing our job. That is nonsense". They said that there might be a foreman who had passed a remark about getting rid of somebody if he continued beefing, but they added, "Nobody, as far as we are aware, has left the site because of such action". Those shop stewards were not from a single union; they belonged to UCATT, GMB, my own union, the AEU, and the ETU. All those people subscribed to that view.
In addition to those provisions, 500 operatives on site are fully trained in first aid techniques, with 40 trained to an advanced level. The training continues and they hope to do better as time goes on.
One of the sad aspects of this matter is the way in which some of the media have dealt with the situation. I have a copy of a letter sent by Mr. Albert

1027
Williams, the secretary of UCATT, to the editor of "Around Westminster", BBC 2, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London. It is dated 22nd May. The letter refers to the programme "Around Westminster" and its Channel Tunnel feature broadcast on Sunday 20th May. The letter reads:
"At considerable inconvenience to myself, I was interviewed for approximately 1 hour for the above programme at my office on Wednesday 16th May, and I was more than surprised that not one mention of the views I projected was contained in your programme.
Now, I accept that editing etc. eliminates certain interviews, but the non-inclusion of my interview meant the total exclusion of any point of view of the 4,000 plus workers employed at the Tunnel"—
that is, half those employed on the site—
"which made the programme, to say the least, imbalanced.
I suspect that the reason my contribution was omitted is because I refused to sensationalise and project an 'anti-tunnel' point of view.
I am sending a copy of this letter to various interested parties concerned with the construction of the tunnel".
That letter was written by a trade union leader who has over 50 per cent. of the people employed on the site as members of his union.
I did not see the programme but obviously I can understand that excluding the view of the most important section of the workers —or rather not the most important, because every section is important, but the largest section —was, in fact, rigging the programme, which was therefore not as factual as it should have been. That example should be put on record.
I have referred to the six people who died. It should be made clear that not all six died in the tunnel. Some died some distance away from the tunnel. It might be asked, "What is the difference to the dead?", but the implication could otherwise be that there is some carelessness in the tunnel. I would not condone that for one moment. The Health and Safety Executive has to be tough in this situation. My understanding is that it has a continuous presence on the site. Every accident is reported to the executive so that it can be dealt with and categorised correctly.
The main contract is held by five companies: Balfour Beatty, Costain, Tarmac, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey. UCATT have given me some notes on the position. These state:
"The work is organised around the clock on the basis of three consecutive eight-hour shifts. The workers get 6 days on and 2 days off followed by 6 days on and 3 days off. The wages for an 8 to 9-hour shift are around £100 a day basic with around £70 bonus a day".
I asked what was the annual out-take for workers on the site. I was told that people working in the tunnel can gross an annual salary of £50,000 and those working above ground can gross a salary of about £20,000.
Much has been said about the speeding up of work on the tunnel and the management putting pressure on workers through the bonus system so that they work harder. That is denied in the notes I have been sent, which state:
"This is not borne out by the way the pay system works at Trans Manche Link …with a basic of £100 per day, workers are guaranteed a decent rate regardless of their performance".
We met the project manager, who made it quite clear to us that there is no question of pressure of time. Though the project was behind time because some unexpectedly wet strata were met at the beginning, it is now on target and could be deemed to be slightly ahead of target. He said that the drilling machines are not being driven or forced through to anything like their capacity. That is inhibited by the fact that as the work proceeds the precast concrete sections that line the tunnel are put in place. It is a very technical matter. We hope to go down to see the work.
The brief states:
"At the end of June 1989 employment in tunnelling stood at around 4,200 and on the project as a whole at around 6,300. By the end of February" —
which of course is the end of February of this year —
"the total number employed has risen to 7,500. Total employment is now beginning to approach twice that predicted during the planned stages of the project, and is expected to continue to rise (though probably more slowly) during 1990 as the mechanical and electrical fitting-out phase builds up.
Of workers on the site over half are represented by UCATT"
and other unions are involved.
"This means that the majority of the workers are highly organised and already familiar with the system of safety representatives operating at the tunnel. Health and Safety is policed by the Health and Safety Executive —plus a good presence of TML safety officers permanently assigned to the site".
We asked what they thought was the most important component for the future for maintaining safety in relative terms to other contracts. We asked what was the most important commodity that they would like to see extended. They said that it was education of the people involved so that they were aware of the dangers they are getting into and of the importance of maintaining standards of awareness.
I am only repeating the figures given to me, but we were told that 85 per cent. of the accidents on site were not due to neglect on the part of anybody but to human error. People may say that that is a very high figure. When some people read what I have said tonight they may want to challenge it. But those were the figures that we were given and that is the situation we are in.
Various things can be done. I believe that the fines are not large enough. If death is caused on a building site because of neglect by the contractor, in my opinion that is far too important a case to be dealt with at the magistrates' court. We have some judges who give rather odd sentences when people are found guilty. The magistrates are very limited in what they can do. The death of a workman on site caused by neglect is a major personal disaster and it should be dealt with as such.
I have a recollection when I was a young boy of someone coming to my home for my father to go back to work because his workmate had been trapped between a lift and a floor. He had been almost disembowelled. Though it is over 60 years ago I can see the girl even today. It had a devastating effect on the family. A death in any industry, particularly in these circumstances, has a devastating effect whether on the wife, the children or brothers and sisters. It is an appalling situation. At the moment the maximum fine available to magistrates is £2,000. That is not good enough. The Health and

1029
Safety Executive was able to get a fine of £50,000 levied against the five major contractors through the Crown Court, but £50,000 divided by five is not a very large sum.
The trade unions say that there should be a constant review of management procedures and a greater enforcement of procedures, particularly with reference to safety groups and safety representatives. They say that most of the fatal accidents were caused by people being in the wrong place. It seems that signposting is not sufficient to prevent accidents to people wandering where they really ought not to be. The unions further suggest that all the most up-to-date health and safety equipment should be made available. They refer to human sensors which if placed on the moving machinery might have prevented at least three of the fatal accidents. We learn by our mistakes and I hope that those suggestions are taken on board.
In conclusion, the unions say that the Channel Tunnel project is a civil engineering achievement that lacks any realistic comparison. No endeavour can equal the project in terms of its size and
1030
ambition. It is therefore hard to compare its health and safety record with that of any other contract in the United Kingdom. I am sorry that I have spoken at length but this is an important subject which needs to be put on the record. What is the position on the French side of the Channel? I am told that the French side of the contract is much easier to work. The French are tunnelling almost on a lateral basis whereas workers on the British side have to go down before they even enter the tunnel. It is a much harder exercise.
I have asked this Question because I believe that a close watch must be kept on what is going on. However, we should bear in mind that the workforce and the management are engaged on probably the largest ever civil engineering contract in this country. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that achievement. However, we must also consider what steps should be taken to reduce the number of accidents on the site. That can be done with good will. If the trade unions on the site are given enough facilities they will participate to the full. I hope that the project will be an outstanding success and that we can look back with pride when it is finished.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, at this time of night I shall be brief. In this Question the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has asked whether the Government are satisfied that the present powers of the Health and Safety Executive are adequate to safeguard those working on the Channel Tunnel. Accordingly, I have tried to get a closer idea of the nature of the conditions which need to be safeguarded. That they are dangerous is clear from the fact that up to last month, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, there have been six deaths on the British side of the Channel compared with two on the French side.
I understand that altogether 327 accidents were investigated by the executive between March 1987 and December 1989 in the United Kingdom and that there are no known figures on the French side.
Are the powers of the HSE adequate to deal with the situation? I have examined the relevant sections of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to find out whether they are. I have examined particularly Sections 2 and 3, which deal with the duties of the employer, and Sections 19 and 20, which concern the appointment and powers of inspectors. As the enforcing authority, the executive has power to appoint inspectors and it has exercised that power by appointing a permanent team of three inspectors who are based at Ashford in Kent.
It is plain from Section 20 of the Act that these inspectors have wide powers, including one in particular which appears to enable them to do practically anything to ensure that the duties of employers to their employees are carried out. Those powers have been used to considerable effect. In February of this year the contractors were warned that they must improve their safety procedures. The five companies forming Transmanche Link have been prosecuted three times for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of those working in the tunnel. Those prosecutions culminated, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said, in the imposition last March of fines totalling £50,000.
After the death of the sixth British worker, the HSE halted work in the tunnel altogether on 9th May last and banned all drilling until safety orders were complied with. I understand that two safety audits have been set in motion. One is an internal investigation which has particular reference to the maintenance of boring machines, and its findings will have to be sent to the HSE. The other is an HSE audit, and the Secretary of State has said that TML must comply with its recommendations.
That is a brief summary of the position as I understand it. To judge from that record, the powers of the Health and Safety Executive appear to be adequate in concept, and, to a large extent, in execution. However, there is one aspect of the matter to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. It concerns the standard of training on the British side of the tunnel, compared with that which exists in France. I do so because in a recent article the editor of a specialist magazine entitled Tunnels and Tunnelling wrote:
1032
"The French have spent a great deal of money training every Tunnel worker to a standard that makes each a technician. We" —
that is, the British—
"are basically sending labourers to the front".
I understand that French workers are regularly sent on refresher safety courses. Training in safety is also provided for British workers; but it is said to amount to little more than the induction course to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred. Therefore, I ask whether enough is being done on that front in the United Kingdom.
In the 1974 Act I could find only one reference to training. In Section 2 it states that the employer's duty extends to,
"the provision of such …training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees".
Among the powers accorded to the inspectors under Section 20, there is none that I can see which deals with safety. I know that it is the Government's policy that training in general should be employer-led. Nevertheless, I must ask the Minister whether they are satisfied that in this particular respect the powers of the Health and Safety Executive are adequate. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's reply to that question and indeed to other questions which have been and which may be raised during the course of this timely debate.
10.5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for giving us the opportunity tonight, even at this late hour, to debate this important and highly topical subject and in particular for giving us the benefit of his experience of a visit to the site. As my noble friend said, at the end of June 1989 employment in tunnelling stood at about 4,200 and on the project as a whole at about 6,300. By the end of February, tunnel employment had risen to 4,700 and the total employed to 7,500. We expect the figures to rise further and so we are talking about a substantial workforce.
Questions have already been asked in your Lordships' House about accident experience, and it is of course accepted —it was accepted at that time —that by its very nature tunnelling is a somewhat hazardous operation. Nevertheless recent experience does not seem to have been happy —that, despite the fact that health and safety is policed by the HSE and, from what my noble friend has said, is done effectively in consultation and co-operation with the unions. I understand that a principal inspecting officer and a team of health and safety inspectors are on site. That is a rather heavier HSE presence than on construction sites normally.
Safety committees exist and recognised trade union safety representatives operate on the site. Despite all that, there have been six fatal accidents since the tunnel began just over 18 months ago. There have been 502 reported accidents. Some of the fatal accidents have been horrendous and it

1033
would appear that some at least could have been avoided.
Let us take, for example, a case reported in the New Statesman and Society this week —the case of one Gary Woodward. He was crushed inside the tunnel boring machine in October 1989 when a cable was nipped, causing a machine to move and crush him. if the machine had been earthed, as required by British standard regulations, it could not have happened, but it was not. The risk of injury was "obvious and serious", as was said at the inquest in February, but there were no management witnesses from TML (the consortium of construction companies building the tunnel) and not one witness from the company that built the machine. The verdict was accidental death.
There was then the death of Keith Lynch, a grouter working on the tunnel. In January 1990 he was run over by a slow moving train operating within the tunnel. Evidence at the inquest last month indicated that it had happened because there was no proper system of banksmen, who are supposed to guide the trains. The deputy construction manager in charge of land tunnels who had overall responsibility for safety within the tunnel was not called. That was despite the fact that a year previously there had been another death of one David Simes in similar circumstances. Again the verdict at the inquest was accidental death.
There were two further fatal accidents on 21st April and 7th May. The first was of a fitter who died when a section of pipe fell, crushing him. He died later of his injuries. The second was of another grouter who was crushed by a crane when a section of tunnel lining was being moved into place.
It should be noted that while systems for reporting accidents are different on the French and United Kingdom sides and direct comparisons are therefore difficult, there has, as I understand it, been only one fatality on the French side during the same period. That fact was referred to by the two previous speakers.
The HSE has taken TML to court three times, as has been referred to by previous speakers. As a result of the HSE investigation into the second fatal accident which occurred on 6th February 1989 when a worker was hit by heavy lifting gear, the five companies that make up TML were each fined £10,000 —the £50,000 referred to by my noble friend. I agree with him that that seems to be a small amount when lives are in question. TML has recognised that its accident rate can and must be reduced although it continues to maintain that its performance, approach and standards are generally better and more developed than in civil engineering generally. That is probably true, judging by what my noble friend said this evening. It is clear, however, that TML's approach to accident investigation is not searching enough when looking at the causes and future prevention of accidents. This is surely demonstrated by the fact that two similar fatal accidents occurred within a year of each other.
1034
I was talking quite recently to a construction engineer who knows the site well. He told me that there was a culture among employees which was not sufficiently accident and hazard conscious. He said that in his view there was a masculine, macho culture where taking the necessary precautions was not regarded as sufficiently tough. It is a very tough industry. Therefore I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, that training is of paramount importance if we are to make sure that these accidents are not repeated.
I am informed, and indeed the Minister informed the House in response to a Starred Question last Thursday, 14th June, that the Secretary of State for Employment has recently invited representatives of Translink to a meeting to discuss health and safety management on the project. It is understood that the HSE accident prevention advisory unit has been asked to carry out a major review of the maintenance work.
It is the view of the Trades Union Congress which briefed me on the matter that a review of management procedures by the HSE must give attention to consultation and joint workforce involvement in health and safety through the operation of safety representatives and safety committees. The review should also look at the case for fast track procedures to deal with serious imminent risks. In view of the special nature of the project, there may be a case for a special high level health and safety committee under joint HSE/Translink joint venture chairmanship.
It is understood that this is a difficult and dangerous project. I agree with everything that my noble friend said about the importance of the project, how exciting it is and how unprecedented for this country. That being so, it behoves us to take all the steps that can be taken to ensure that it is not built on the blood of construction workers. We have, I should have thought, progressed from the days when it was taken for granted that massive public works involved the deaths and injury of workers who were regarded as expendable. That is not the Government's attitude since they are, I know, concerned about injuries and deaths on the project.
As for the comment about the alleged intimidation of workers, I noted what my noble friend Lord Dean had to say. When I made the point on a Question last week I had been briefed to that effect by the Trades Union Congress. I should not have made that kind of allegation out of the blue. In view of what the noble Lord had to say on the issue, I shall take the matter up.
As to the whole question of penalties, where serious injuries and accidents are involved, I welcome the fact that a major review is to be carried out. I hope that some positive results will arise from it. I am not generally in favour of sending people to prison, but I believe that it would bring home the need for safety to board members if they knew that they could be held personally responsible where fatalities arise because of negligent operations.
Again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for bringing the matter to our attention tonight. It is of

1035
enormous importance and we must make absolutely certain that this major project is carried out with the least possible injury and fatalities to the workers involved.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has given to discuss worker health and safety on the Channel Tunnel project. I do so particularly since he has had a certain amount of experience from visiting the site yesterday. That experience helps us in our deliberations.
The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, are committed to seeing that all workplaces enjoy the highest standards of health and safety that are reasonably practicable. This applies equally to the construction industry as any other industry. It is for this reason that we have been most active in promoting construction safety. The Channel Tunnel development is unique in its conception and scale. It is the most challenging civil engineering project in Europe today and is a complex project to manage and operate. Adding to this complexity is its international character.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, concerns the adequacy of powers available to the Health and Safety Executive to safeguard health and safety in the work environment. The Channel Tunnel Act applies UK law to the tunnel, even to an extension dug into French territory, until "effective connection" under the Treaty of Canterbury is declared. I should like therefore to outline briefly the factual position on legislation under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and other relevant legislation for the information of this House.
Health and safety is an area where a degree of common ground should and I believe does exist between all parties. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act is an outstanding example of that common ground. The legislation was drawn up by a Conservative Government and put on the statute book by a Labour Government.
The UK health and safety legislation is acknowledged as one of the best in Europe and is often used as a model for European Community directives. The Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act provides a model framework for the development and enforcement of safety standards by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive which it established.
The commission regularly considers developments on the Channel Tunnel project and is concerned with long-term safety issues such as action planned to develop and maintain higher standards, and the executive is responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of health and safety legislation on the site.
The Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act is clear on the duties it places on employers, employees and others in such matters. The Act requires employers to take every step that is reasonably practicable to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their
1036
employees. An employer must take full account of safety in the carrying out of his business.
The Act requires employees to take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work. In addition employees are required to co-operate with their employers to allow them to meet their health and safety responsibilities. The Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act gives to inspectors a wide range of powers including the powers of investigation and prosecution for failure to comply with any relevant health and safety legislation. Inspectors visit the Channel Tunnel project regularly for a variety of reasons and have not failed to use their enforcement powers whenever they considered it to be appropriate. Both improvement and prohibition notices have been served on the Channel Tunnel contractors requiring them to take specified remedial action. In addition the contractors, to date, have been prosecuted on three occasions —twice in the Crown Court. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will be glad to hear that.
As all noble Lords have recognised, the unions have played an active role in monitoring safety on the project. Almost all of the TML workforce is unionised. The unions have always been very supportive of TML's intention to take a firm line on safety-related disciplinary offences. I am grateful for the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I understood him to say that no workers have left the site either through intimidation or because of lack of safety on the site.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should say that was the information that was given to us. I accept that as factual information; but only the people involved would know whether it was factual information.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is quite right. I believe that I am right in saying that the HSE has received no allegations from the workforce about safety on the site. Those allegations can be received in confidence.
I have mentioned that this is a complex and challenging project, involving activities with a high inherent risk, and demanding careful management and attention to safety matters. It has been disappointing to note the accident record of the project, especially the number of fatal accidents. All noble Lords on all sides of the House would agree that we are dealing with people who have died, and that is regrettable and unfortunate. The accident rate of the Channel Tunnel project is apparently higher than that for the construction industry generally, and that is a matter for great concern which has been expressed both in this House and in another place, and which is shared by Ministers and the HSE. However, caution is required in interpreting the statistics. There is a high level of under-reporting in the construction industry generally, compared with the almost complete reporting by TML, and the industry statistics cover a wide range of work

1037
activities. That said, Ministers have made it clear that regard accident rates in the construction industry as too high.
Both the HSE and TML have recently carried out detailed studies of safety management on the site. The HSE's Accident Protection Advisory Unit has looked at procedures for the maintenance of the tunnel boring machines and has presented its initial findings to TML. TML has also recently completed a full internal audit of safety practices and procedures and is discussing the outcome with the five members of the UK consortium.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned mandatory prison sentences. The Health and Safety at Work Act already allows for prosecution of individual managers and directors of companies and imprisonment in certain circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about training. That is a very important issue. He quite rightly alluded to the fact that the Government believe that it should be the responsibility of employers. TML has attempted as far as possible to recruit experienced underground workers for the Channel Tunnel, going right across the world to do so. All employees, nevertheless, go through a three-day induction training course which includes a substantial safety element. Continuous training of operatives is also organised through a structured series of field safety talks in the workplace. TML attaches a great deal of importance to its training programme as it sees its success as being fundamental to changing attitudes to unsafe practice among the workforce. It also organises supervisory and management training courses and carries out a great deal of first-aid training.
I also know that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, wanted to play a part in the debate today but unfortunately had another engagement. He visited the tunnel a few months ago. When I spoke to him earlier today the main point that he wanted to make was that he was deeply impressed by the immense care being taken by the contractors to ensure that the operations were as safe as rules and practices can make them.
In conclusion, I should like to stress that Ministers and the HSE firmly believe that the great majority of accidents are preventable by positive management action. I am confident that the legal framework is adequate and that the HSE and its inspectors have sufficient powers to enforce health and safety laws and regulations. Inspectors have not hesitated to use those powers to enforce the law and will not hesitate to do so in the future.
It must not be forgotten that it is the responsibility of the employer, TML, to safeguard those working in the tunnel. The Secretary of State for Employment met senior management of TML shortly after the last fatal accident to remind them vigorously of that fact. They have acknowledged their responsibility and publicly committed themselves to giving safety the highest priority. In the end the only way in which safety can be improved is by full commitment of TML and its workforce to safe working practices.

Greenwich Hospital Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.

  SCHOOLS BUDGETS
  SCHOOLS BUDGETS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RAIL LINK IMPROVEMENTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RAIL LINK IMPROVEMENTS
  ANGLO-IRISH AGREEMENT: DIVORCE AND ABORTION
  ANGLO-IRISH AGREEMENT: DIVORCE AND ABORTION
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: RELEASE BEFORE RECOMMENDED PERIOD
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: RELEASE BEFORE RECOMMENDED PERIOD
  SUMMER TIME: RESPONSES TO GREEN PAPER
  SUMMER TIME: RESPONSES TO GREEN PAPER