Sitting of 1 March 1990

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February], That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate. further adjourned till Thursday 8 March.
  MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Monday 5 March at Seven o'clock.

  ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed 127 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate:further adjourned till Thursday 8 March.
  Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 14 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I will deal with them as a single group.
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL[Lords] ( By Order)
  EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL(By Order)
  HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL(By Order)
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL(By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL(By Order)
  PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL(By Order)
  SHARD BRIDGE BILL(By Order)
  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL(By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL(By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL(By Order)
  CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL(By Order)
  HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL(By Order)
  CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL(By Order)
  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITY (No. 2) BILL[Lords](By Order)
  Orders. for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Kincora Boys' Home
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the responsibilities of his Department in relation to the circumstances surrounding allegations concerning the Kincora boys' home.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): The Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland has the general duty to secure the provision of personal social services in Northern Ireland, including the provision of homes for children. The majority of, but not all, the statutory functions connected with this general duty are delegated by the Department to area health and social services boards.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister a question of which I have given him notice? On what date did the Northern Ireland Office first learn that the RUC, the Belfast social services department or the British Army in Lisburn were aware of alleged irregularities at the Kincora boys' home?
    Mr Cope: I am grateful for the notice that the hon. Gentleman gave my office before lunch. Allegations of criminal homosexual activity at Kincora became known to the Northern Ireland Office on 24 January 1980 as a result of the article in the Irish Independent newspaper.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Minister been made aware of the claim by Mr. Justice Hughes that not all the papers concerning Kincora were made available to him? What did those papers say, and what does the Minister have to say about it?
    Mr. Cope: I am not aware of Mr. Justice Hughes having made that claim or of any papers not having been made available to him for which he asked or which he thought were relevant.
    Mr. McNamara: The Minister of State will be aware of allegations that the Army informed the RUC of what was going on at the Kincora boys' home before the date that he has just given the House. Will he check those allegations? When may I expect a letter from the Secretary of State in reply to my point about forensic evidence to which he referred at the previous Question Time?
    Mr. Cope: I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question, although it does not change what I said in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been signed and, as far as I know, is on its way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will receive it today or tomorrow.

    Security
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security position in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am pleased to say that since I answered a similar question on 1 February, there have been no deaths in

    371
    Northern Ireland arising from incidents directly related to terrorism. In 1989, more than 430 people were charged with serious terrorist offences in Northern Ireland and large quantities of lethal weapons, ammunition and explosives were recovered, in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. That trend has continued so far in 1990.
    Mr. Ross: Is not the Secretary of State deeply concerned that the IRA has the capacity to impose its will on contractors not to carry out work for the security forces and on suppliers not to supply material that could be used in carrying out work for the security forces in Northern Ireland? That prevails especially in parts of my constituency, in south Londonderry and in Mid-Ulster. What effective steps will the Secretary of State take to resolve the problem so that people may go to work without fear and— —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question please.
    Mr. Ross: The position is a sad but true reflection on the present security policy.
    Mr. Brooke: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the IRA's threats against contractors. I pay tribute to the courage of the contractors and those who work for them, and I am delighted that the Government's building programme manages to continue despite those threats.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Secretary of State aware that a concerted campaign is being waged by the IRA and IRA sympathisers to discredit the Ulster Defence Regiment, many of whose members have given their lives gallantly in the fight against terrorism? Will he assure the House that he will not allow the IRA to win this propaganda battle?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments. The Government continue to place great confidence in the services of the UDR. The hon. Gentleman is right that it would be wholly wrong for IRA propaganda to be effective against the UDR, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I confirm our support.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the fact that, on "Panorama", the commander of the UDR, Brigadier Ritchie, said that UDR patrols were not briefed about Loyalist paramilitaries, but only about Republican paramilitaries? What discussions has he had since with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and with Army authorities to ensure that the UDR will be able to enforce the law impartially in all areas where it operates?
    Mr. Brooke: In the "Panorama" programme, Brigadier Ritchie said that the UDR was not routinely tasked in the context of Loyalist paramilitaries. I was asked questions about that which were not recorded in the programme. My answer, in what I describe as the invisible part of the programme, was that the RUC tasks the Army and the UDR in actions on patrol and against the terrorist threat.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to attract inward investment.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I look forward to an increasing trend in inward investment in the early 1990s.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that private sector involvement in the economy of Northern Ireland is on the increase? Will he give details of new jobs created as a result of inward investment and give us an idea of the countries from which that investment is likely to come in the future?
    Mr. Needham: Everyone in Northern Ireland will agree that there has been an immense upsurge in confidence in the private sector in Northern Ireland. Over the past eight years, the economy of Northern Ireland—probably for the first time this century—has been growing faster than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1989, for example, 4,017 jobs were created through investment of £263 million. There is every reason to expect that that trend will continue in the early 1990s. To give my hon. Friend an example, we believe that the numbers employed in computer software will increase from 900 now to 4,500 by 1995. If the policies of this Government remain, I am sure that the private sector will continue to improve.
    Mr. Beggs: We welcome the Minister's enthusiasm in his efforts to attract inward investment to Northern Ireland. Will he assure potential investors that the thousands in my constituency who are unemployed as a result of the closure of the synthetic fibre industry and of Carreras Rothman, and who face the pending redundancies at GEC-Alsthom would be happy to welcome any overseas company, whether British, European, Japanese, American or any other? Will he assure the House that the Industrial Development Board and the Northern Ireland Office will not unduly influence the choice of location by those investors?
    Mr. Needham: The Government will always try to encourage companies to go where there are major problems of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has had considerable encouragement and it will not be long before it will receive even more. The real question is whether we can continue to attract large inward investment into the Province. Looking at the potential over the next few months, I am sure that investment will be better than it has ever been.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Marshall.
    Mr. John Marshall rose——
    Mr. Speaker: No, not that Mr. Marshall.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Perhaps that was a demonstration of job creation in the House as well as in the Province.
    Does the Minister accept that we all want increased private investment in the north of Ireland to provide more jobs? But has he had time to read the recent report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which paints a damning picture of the record of the Industrial Development Board, especially on inward American investment? The Minister will know that the report says that it costs £30,000 to create one job in an American firm in the north of Ireland, which is an appalling figure.
    Does the Minister accept the conclusion of the council's report that what is required is a thorough examination of the Industrial Development Board's policy towards

    373
    inward American investment and an appraisal of the performance of American firms in the Province which, in the main, is well below average?
    Mr. Needham: I refute the hon. Gentleman's comments in the latter part of his question. It is not true that the 9,500 people employed in American-owned companies in Northern Ireland work at a lower level of productivity or quality than people in other companies——
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Read the report.
    Mr. Needham: I have read the report carefully, and the hon. Gentleman should do the same. The work done by United States companies in Northern Ireland is of a high quality and level of productivity.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the amount of inward investment from the United States is disappointing, but it is starting to increase and in the not too distant future we hope to be able to make major announcements of further increases.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that inward investment in Northern Ireland will take place only so long as internationally mobile companies wish to locate in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the adoption of the social charter, with the return of high inflation, would make that a much less likely prospect?
    Mr. Needham: Absolutely.

    Religious Tolerance
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage religious toleration in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Steps have been and are being taken to improve relations between the two sides of the community in Northern Ireland. These include measures directed at increasing contact and co-operation across the community; increasing greater mutual respect and understanding; and ensuring the existence of equality of opportunity and equity of treatment.
    Mr. Allen: I know that the Minister agrees that one of the main ways in which to combat religious bigotry is to ensure that it does not get a grip in schools. I thank him for the work that he and his colleagues have done in this matter. Is he aware of the problems being encountered by integrated schools? Can he assure the House that sufficient money will be allocated to the programme to ensure that it is fulfilled? Will he take time to look at yesterday's Belfast Telegraph, which highlighted some of the problems, and to write to me with his views on how to counter them?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his consistent support for measures taken in Northern Ireland to try to reduce community division. I am aware that one or two of the integrated schools are having difficulty financing the borrowing that they made before they were given maintained status. I shall certainly look at the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred and write to him.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members strongly support integrated
    374
    schools in the Province and that we are delighted with the measures that he has brought forward to ensure that they prosper?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Since we last discussed the matter the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 has become law and, for the first time, parents have a third schooling option—integrated education—available to them.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: As the question is one of religion, not of culture or nationality, which can also pose problems, does the Minister agree that tolerance can come about only if there is a clear understanding of how to teach the principles of the various denominations in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that those who teach children about religion are fully qualified in matters concerning theological inspiration?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I share with the hon. Gentleman the understanding that at the heart of the Christian gospel is an emphasis on tolerance. By way of encouragement" I remind him that under the new education reform legislation, for the first time school boards of governors can bring inspectors into schools to inspect the teaching of religious education. That is a major step forward and I hope that he will welcome it.

    Security Forces
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to improve public confidence in the security forces.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives he has authorised to improve public confidence in the security forces.
    Mr. Cope: The police and the Army need the support of all sides of the community to be fully effective. The Government, the Chief Constable and the GOC therefore continue to attach the greatest importance to the maintenance and improvement of confidence in the security forces by all appropriate means.
    Mr. Loyden: Can the Minister say whether Brian Nelson, who is helping in the Stevens inquiry, had any connection with the security forces before his arrest?
    Mr. Cope: Not without notice, but the inquiry is progressing; it is extremely thorough and is looking into all the matters that it has been asked to consider.
    Mr. Ross: Now that we know that the screening of members recruited into the UDR has been unsatisfactory, does the Minister accept the- suggestion of Sir John Hermon that screening should be done by the RUC?
    Mr. Cope: The RUC plays a considerable advisory role in such screening for the UDR and others. But in the end the decision about who joins the British Army must be a matter for the British Army.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: May I press my right hon. Friend on this? The "Panorama" programme made serious allegations against the UDR suggesting that it was biased in favour of the Protestant community. One point that it brought out was whether the RUC is always consulted in the vetting procedure. Will he give the House an assurance

    375
    that the vetting procedure is now conducted in consultation with the RUC and that no one is allowed to join the regiment without its approval?
    Mr. Cope: Yes. I thought that the "Panorama" programme was unbalanced in that it did not look at the entire record of the UDR. I assure my hon. Friend that the RUC is involved in vetting in every case. But the final decision on who joins the British Army must be a matter for the Army.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to restore and keep public confidence is for Members of Parliament not to make ludicrous statements about the actions of members of the security forces? It was unbelievable that a soldier was accused of planting an explosive device on a British Army lorry. It was an extraordinary and outrageous suggestion.
    Mr. Cope: Those who jump to conclusions immediately after an incident make a great error and can contribute greatly to the lowering of confidence.
    Mr. Molyneaux: When the Minister and the Secretary of State receive a copy of the Stevens report, will they publish it in the context of a Command Paper, setting out the number of persons arrested for questioning, the number of cases referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the number of persons against whom terrorist-related charges have been authorised by the DPP? Subsequently will they publish another report giving in full the number of convictions obtained in those cases?
    Mr. Cope: The Stevens inquiry will report to the Chief Constable of the RUC. As such, it would not be normal to publish it. Nevertheless, I am sure that the details for which the right hon. Gentleman asked will be forthcoming.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the Minister accept that the Stevens inquiry is a matter not merely of supplying information to the DPP but of gaining confidence in the security forces among all communities in Northern Ireland? Therefore, it would be advantageous for the Government to find at least part of the report that they could release to the public.
    The Secretary of State said that the RUC tasks all patrols. Did the RUC task the patrol that shot the two or three men outside the bookmaker's shop in Belfast? Why can we still not have the figures for the number of patrols accompanied by the RUC? As it is only a simple logging procedure and the Government inform us that the RUC tasks all UDR patrols, why cannot we have the figures?
    Mr. Cope: The Stevens inquiry will report to the Chief Constable. I have no doubt that the report will contain some information that it would not be desirable to publish, but which is for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Constable to consider. We have undertaken to consider those matters arising from the report that affect ourselves in the Northern Ireland Office. Although it is not a document for publication, I take the hon. Gentleman's points.
    The shooting in the Whiterock road and Falls road area is currently under investigation, so I do not wish to add anything on that subject. On the hon. Gentleman's point about accompaniment, it remains the policy of the
    376
    Government, the Army and the police to ensure that wherever possible patrols are accompanied to the maximum.

    Political Structures
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to develop further democratic structures in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: Plans for new political structures in Northern Ireland, if they are to work, need to be devised and implemented in consultation with the elected representatives who would participate in them. I should welcome talks between the political parties about these matters.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Now that the Conservative party is properly constituted in Northern Ireland, with over one third of all constituencies having associations up and running and with the selection of the first two parliamentary candidates under way, will my right hon. Friend confirm that in future discussions on democratic structures in Northern Ireland, local Conservatives will be represented and that if the leaders of parties in Northern Ireland are involved, our own Conservative leader will be involved, too?
    Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to advise as experienced a parliamentarian as my hon. Friend, but the candidates who have been adopted are prospective parliamentary candidates. On the second part of her question, the Conservative associations in Northern Ireland have suggested that if I consult the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland, I should be consulting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I can be assumed to know her views.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Might not the key to devolved government in Northern Ireland be for the Government to introduce a Bill of Rights to protect minorities, be they Protestant minorities in Catholic areas or Catholic minorities in Protestant areas?
    Mr. Brooke: It would be an unusual constitutional development to introduce a Bill of Rights for only one part of the United Kingdom. However, the Government do not rule out discussion of that in the later stages of such conversations.

    Drainage Schemes
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reassessments are being made of major drainage schemes; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Major drainage scheme proposals are subject to reassessment at various stages in their development to validate economic worth and to take note of their impact on the environment.
    Mr. Bruce: In view of the great problems of flooding and with sea defences in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, would my hon. Friend welcome, on behalf of the Province, a United Kingdomwide body to look after all our sea defences and flood relief schemes and

    377
    ensure that money was spent in the most cost-effective way to solve the problems of people being flooded out of their homes?
    Mr. Bottomley: We all need to learn the lessons of where sea defences are not fully protecting people and farming. I am delighted that Department of Agriculture drainage staff in Northern Ireland have managed to stop the threats to the Myroe embankment. It would have caused great chaos if it had been breached, although it is regrettable that the nearby burn flooded. I pay tribute to the staff who have been working for four or five days in near-freezing conditions. I am sure that they take it amiss if the odd journalist watches that work on television, with his or her feet up by the fire, and criticises their work.
    Mr. McGrady: Will the Minister confirm that, after the meeting on 28 November between officials of the drainage division and the planning department, he is actively considering the alternative drainage scheme to that at Altnadua, Castlewellan, and giving priority to the development and planning for the Newcastle area in general? When will the results of those discussions and negotiations be known?
    Mr. Bottomley: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman's question and others when we have further announcements to make. I can now say that we assess schemes even more effectively than in the past, and we want to ensure that we get the right balance between the interests of farmers, wildlife and the environment. People will appreciate the further improvements in schemes when they go ahead. Some suggested improvements may not meet the economic criteria, so that the environmental or green tinge does not need to be considered. If those improvements meet the economic criteria, that will be the time to ask whether they have an acceptable impact on the environment and wildlife.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the Minister aware that the drainage division attempted to carry out work on the beds of the Maine and Kellswater rivers during the recent fish-spawning season? Will he instruct the department's officers that that should not be done in the future? Will the Minister take urgent action to bring together under one officer all the departments concerned with drainage, including those involved with land, road, agricultural and river drainage, so that he can co-ordinate the drainage operations?
    Mr. Bottomley: It would not be right to have one officer, but it is right to recognise that my right hon. Friend has appointed the same junior Minister to look after both the agriculture and environment sectors, and we should be able to see some benefits from that. However, it will not be perfect and there will still be issues to argue out.

    Badgers
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any evidence exists of tuberculosis in badgers in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Department of Agriculture has been monitoring badgers for the presence of bovine tuberculosis over many years and has carried out a number
    378
    of field studies. Present evidence does not suggest that badgers represent a significant health risk to cattle in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for his reply. He must be aware by now of the excellent health record of Northern Ireland livestock and the good work that has been done to eradicate both brucellosis and tuberculosis from our cattle herds. Nevertheless, is not he concerned, as are many farmers who have clear herds, and have had clean herds for many years, who suddenly find an outbreak of TB with no identifiable source that can be connected with their farming operations? Will he undertake to seek the co-operation of the Department of the Environment and district councils to ensure that all badgers that are killed on our roads can be collected, taken to the Department's veterinary research laboratories and tested to eliminate the fear and establish any influence that badgers may have on the spread of TB? Will he ensure that all imported cattle from the Irish Republic are properly tested before they come into Northern Ireland and are also tested on Northern Ireland farms?
    Mr. Bottomley: We need to make sure, both north and south of the border, that TB is eliminated. There was a recent brucellosis outbreak which was, I think, tracked down and eliminated. Fewer than one in 50 of the TB outbreaks could possibly be attributed to badgers. It would be totally wrong to try to eradicate badgers in Northern Ireland, when 49 out of 50 of the TB outbreaks have other causes.
    By the time badgers become a significant issue, I hope that we shall have found some way of dealing with it other than eradication.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Minister agree that it would be an evasion of the truth if we were to blame the poor badger, which cannot answer back, for a problem that exists for many other reasons? I am sure that he is aware of the high incidence of bovine tuberculosis in the Newry and Armagh constituency. Will he tell the House when he will take steps to ensure that 100 per cent. compensation is given for herds with bovine tuberculosis with the same speed as 100 per cent. compensation was given for cattle with mad cow disease in Britain?
    Mr. Bottomley: Let us be absolutely clear that the incidence of BSE is dramatically lower in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. We shall try to keep it that way as far as we possibly can.
    Were we to have gone for 100 per cent. compensation on all animal illnesses, I fear that we would not have introduced compensation in the first place for any, so we must be careful about rolling it forward into every area. The main associations with tuberculosis are markets and nosing across boundary fences. Those areas are more important than eradicating brocks.

    Stevens Inquiry
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has raised in the Anglo-Irish Conference the allegations made in the Dail by a Cabinet Minister that the fire in the offices of the Stevens inquiry was deliberate.
    Mr. Cope: The matter has not been raised in the Anglo-Irish Conference itself, but we have made the facts clear to the Irish Government through the secretariat.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that as the joint chairman of the conference made the statement in the Dail, the matter should have been raised at the conference? I thought that the conference was designed to remove megaphone diplomacy, to get greater co-operation and, above all, to achieve the promotion of public confidence in the RUC, which has again been the victim of a smear campaign, without foundation, since the fire was accidentially started by a member of the Stevens inquiry team.
    Mr. Cope: There has not been a meeting of the conference since the fire. There is, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, no evidence that the fire was anything other than accidential. The Chief Constable and Mr. Stevens are both satisfied of that. The inquiry was not impeded in any way, and anybody who suggests anything to the contrary is doing a disservice to confidence in the security forces.

    Coleraine Hospital
    Mr. Ashdown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if any Ministers have visited Coleraine hospital; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale visited the hospital on 18 September last.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is not it a fact that when visiting the hospital, Lord Skelmersdale described the situation as "a shambles"? If it is a shambles, does the Minister accept the necessity to produce the new options appraisal as quickly as possible? Will he, in particular, give an undertaking that that new options appraisal will be produced before the end of the current term of the health board, so that the delays that would result from installing a new health board will not arise?
    Mr. Needham: I agree that my noble Friend used a phrase that sums up the present state of the Liberal Democratic party. At Coleraine hospital, the proposal of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy was not accepted by the board. The board must get a value for money appraisal—the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that—and that will be done as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Bowis: When the Minister is visiting that and other hospitals, will he note the number of patients suffering from lung cancer and analyse the number of those whose lung cancer was caused by childhood smoking? Will he redouble the Government's efforts in Northern Ireland to stop the availability of cigarettes to under-age children?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, and I shall pass on my hon. Friend's message to my noble Friend.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government's intention to provide quickly an acute hospital in Coleraine with the full range of services? Is he aware that that is a key part of the whole structure of acute hospitals in Northern Ireland and that a replacement for the present hospital is long overdue?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, it is the Government's intention to produce new acute care facilities across the whole range in Coleraine as soon as practicable.

    Rural Housing
    Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to improve housing in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am determined that the problems of rural unfitness shall be tackled successfully. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has now identified rural priority areas containing high concentrations of unfit rural housing. Rural action teams are being set up to provide increased assistance and advice to home owners so as to achieve improvements.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I congratulate the Government on the overall level of grants for housing in Northern Ireland. Has the Minister considered the feasibility of replacement grants for rural dwellings?
    Mr. Bottomley: The staff of the Housing Executive will welcome the tribute that my hon. Friend has paid, in effect, to its work and to its proposals which have been adopted. Just replacement would destroy some of the heritage, so that is one Housing Executive proposal that we have not automatically adopted.
    Much of the work of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society in trying to make sure that it is possible to rehabilitate housing in rural areas and elsewhere is greatly welcomed.
    Perhaps we can find an effective way of giving people in rural communities a proper choice, rather than saying that their old homes must be swept away.
    Mr. Hume: May I welcome the Minister's statement congratulating the Housing Executive on the work that it has done, particularly in urban areas? Will he acknowledge that public representatives of my party have repeatedly made representations about the unfitness of rural housing, and particularly about the suggested replacement grant? We have also suggested an integrated rural development plan—including industry—based on agriculture, alternative land use and tourism. Have the Government submitted such a plan to Brussels in the context of the five-year development programme?
    Mr. Bottomley: First, I shall do as the hon. Gentleman asks and pay tribute to the constructive suggestions that have come from his party and from other legitimate parties in Northern Ireland. The practical suggestions that have been put forward are being considered.
    I do not want to go into too great detail, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's initiative, in putting the departmental committee together, will bring forward ideas for rural improvement that will ensure that the work of the Government and their agencies will be better co-ordinated, so that there is a real improvement in rural areas, especially for women.
    Mr. Stott: May I also pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for the way in which it has developed a non-sectarian lettings policy and genuinely improved housing in Northern Ireland, especially in the

    381
    towns and cities? Can the Minister expand a little on what plans he has to stop the depopulation of the rural areas in which housing is an acute problem?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful for that Opposition tribute to the Housing Executive. It has achieved some dramatic changes over the past 10 or 20 years.
    It is not for the Government to decide how many people should live where. It is for the Government to find ways of helping people to earn their prosperity.
    That is the key to people going to live in rural communities and keeping the infrastructure—schools, hospitals and so on—going, so that people have a better life. We do not want a flight to Belfast or Derry.

    Republic of Ireland Ministers
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next proposes to meet Ministers of the Republic of Ireland; and what topics he will discuss.
    16. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: I plan to meet Ministers of the Republic of Ireland very shortly. Among the subjects for discussion will be cross-border security co-operation, political matters and the confidence of the community in the security forces.
    Mr. Hunter: In attempting to reassure those of us who are becoming increasingly cynical about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to explain what he regards as the main advantages or benefits to come from these discussions with Ministers of the Republic and from the agreement itself?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend maintains a persistent theme in the questions that he asks on these occasions. Anglo-Irish relations have been transformed by the agreement. There has been increased co-operation in a wide range of areas, including security. We shall continue to seek to enhance progress. The conference provides a valuable forum for the discussion and resolution of difficult issues.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the concern expressed by the Irish Government about the Ulster Defence Regiment, following the "Panorama" programme, and of the failure of the British Government to honour the commitment that all UDR patrols should be accompanied by a regular policeman, is it any wonder that the UDR is widely perceived as a sectarian force almost akin to the old B specials? Will the Government therefore abolish the UDR?
    Mr. Brooke: The Minister of the Irish Government who is my co-chairman of the conference expressed his views on the UDR during the programme, rather than after it. I look forward to discussing those views with him when I meet him shortly.
    As for the commitment to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I refer him back to the wording of the communiqué issued after the Hillsborough agreement.
    Mr. Gow: Is it the purpose of my right hon. Friend to strengthen or to weaken the union, or is he agnostic? If an assembly in Edinburgh would injure the union, why would an assembly in Belfast strengthen it?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend knows well that he and I are proud to belong to the Conservative and Unionist party, but he will also know from previous exchanges that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I consider that what is needed are the appropriate constitutional arrangements in the two countries.

    Larne-Corr's Corner (Dual Carriageway)
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to seek European Community aid to complete the dual carriageway between Lame and Corr's Corner.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The existing single carriageway section of the Belfast-Lame road is adjudged capable of carrying projected traffic flows for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Forsythe: With the importance of Larne to the economy of Northern Ireland, being the one real route between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, surely, after 20 years' waiting, we should have the continuation of the dual carriageway from Corr's Corner to Larne. As last year the port carried 90 per cent. of the traffic between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, it is time that we had that dual carriageway.
    Mr. Bottomley: The traffic flows will be reflected in the Department's proposals. I should also like to build dual carriageways all the way to Derry and Enniskillen, and probably round Lough Neagh as well.

    PRIME MINISTER

      Engagements
      Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
      The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had a meeting with the President of the European Parliament and I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. I also had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
      Mr. Watson: Does the Prime Minister recall saying recently that once people got used to the poll tax, they would wonder why they had not had it before? Is she so out of touch that she is unaware that in Scotland, where it has already been in operation for a year, it is as unwanted, as unaccepted and as unpayable for many families as it ever was?
      The Prime Minister: It is a very much fairer system than domestic rates, which preceded it. That was evident after the rating revaluation of domestic rates. It is patently unfair that under the previous system only half of those who had votes with local authorities paid rates. They had to carry the burden for the rest. That was the primary unfairness. The second was that under the rating system a

      383
      single person in one house paid the same rates as four or five people in the next-door house. That, too, was patently unfair.
      Mr. McCrindle: Has the Prime Minister noticed that both the London Business School and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have been predicting over the past few days that the level of inflation is likely to reduce to about 4·5 per cent. by the turn of next year, and that mortgage rates are likely at the time to be under 10 per cent.? Does the Prime Minister agree that at least as much significance should be placed upon those medium-term predictions as on the understandable gloom occasioned by a month of admittedly bad trade figures?
      The Prime Minister: In view of my hon. Friend's question, I am doubly glad to see him return to the House. The rate of inflation and mortgage rates will be likely to fall if we stick to a high rate of interest in the coming months in order to cut the money supply and get down inflation. We must do that until the rate of inflation comes down, when other things will follow.
      Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister any plans to make an official visit to West Oxfordshire?
      The Prime Minister: No; I rather wish that I did, to explain a thing or two.
      Mr. Kinnock: I hope that that signifies a new readiness on the part of the Prime Minister to listen. Perhaps she should reconsider her decision and go to West Oxfordshire to meet the Conservative councillors who resigned the whip last night, explaining that they were resigning
      "in protest at the Government's local government policies in general and those on housing and the community charge in particular."
      When her own councillors are blaming her Government, is not it clear that the Prime Minister is running out of friends and excuses?
      The Prime Minister: But not of explanations of the facts. Of course, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is never perturbed by facts. The facts are that the community charge of £412 is very high and that the situation is made worst of all by gross overspending by the Labour-Liberal-controlled Oxfordshire county council. The council's standard spending assessment, agreed by Government, was up by 12 per cent.—of course, revenue support grant is paid on that—but it is spending £96 per adult above that increase. That accounts for the larger share of the increase in the community charge.
      Mr. Kinnock: I hear what the Prime Minister says. Does she realise that she is merely proving the point made by a Tory councillor who resigned the whip last night, when he said that any tax that requires so much explanation must be bad?
      Hon. Members: Roof tax.
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman always prepares his supplementary questions before he has heard the previous answer. My explanation was very simple and very brief. The Labour-Liberal Oxfordshire county council is increasing its spending by nearly three times the rate of inflation. That is Labour-Liberal policy. They wanted to set the community charge at the highest possible
      384
      level, hoping that the people would blame us instead of themselves—the Labour-Liberal majority—on whom the blame should rest.
      Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 70 Conservative Members have said that they feel that education expenditure should now be transferred to central Government, and will she give further earnest consideration to the possible advantage of that move?
      The Prime Minister: First, I do not think that it would be right for the administration of education to be transferred to central Government. That would be a retrograde step. I prefer our own policy of having grant-maintained schools and of putting budgets to the local schools so that parents and teachers may have a bigger say. But if education were to be transferred, of course, a goodly proportion of the revenue support grant and of the business rate would have to be transferred with it; otherwise we should have a colossal increase in income tax, and that would suit no one. I fear that if we were to do without transferring the revenue support grant, the local authorities would only fill up that expenditure with other measures and we should finish up with both a high community charge and high income tax, which would be totally wrong.
      Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. McFall: In view of the popular uprising in West Oxfordshire by reformist elements in the Tory party against unjust and unresponsive government, will the Prime Minister grant the request for perestroika in regard to the poll tax? Will she, or did she, put a call through to the Foreign Secretary in Budapest this week and instruct him to consult the Communist old guard as to what to do in the present circumstances?
      Mr. Speake: Briefly.
      Mr. McFall: Will the Prime Minister be kind enough to say to the Foreign Secretary that it is now safer to walk in Budapest than in Berkshire or Oxfordshire?
      The Prime Minister: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman studied his question for a long time. My hon. Friends in West Oxfordshire are undoubtedly wishing that Oxfordshire county council was under good Tory control, in which case they would have a very much lower community charge. Had the spending been in line with the Government's assumption, the charge would have been £253, which is a great deal less than what is being charged, largely because of Oxfordshire county council.
      Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend remind those of our right hon. and hon. Friends who are opposed to the giving of British passports to certain key Hong Kong residents that Britain is obliged under the 1984 joint declaration to hand over Hong Kong in 1997 as a successful and prosperous place, as it is now, and that the

      385
      best way to ensure that is to give reassurance to the managerial, professional, administrative and entrepreneurial backbone of the colony?
      The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that our duty to the people of Hong Kong is, when the lease terminates in 1997, to hand over the colony of Hong Kong to China in a good and prosperous state. That will be most valuable to China and most likely to enable the people in the colony to continue their present way of life as under the Anglo-Chinese agreement.
      We have a duty—my hon. Friend is correct—to give passports and British citizenship to two groups of people——
      Mr. Allen rose——
      The Prime Minister: —those who have been employed by the British administration in Hong Kong, who will stay loyally at their posts until the lease is terminated——
      Mr. Bell rose——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This is intolerable behaviour.
      The Prime Minister: If I am asked questions, Mr. Speaker. I submit that I must be allowed to answer them.
      The second group is vital to the prosperity of Hong Kong. I refer to the entrepreneurs who built it up and who will keep it prosperous. For them to stay there, it is necessary to keep prosperity in the colony. For them to stay there, I believe that it is necessary to give them British citizenship.
      Mr. William Ross: If the Prime Minister is giving some consideration today to local government finance, will she reflect today and over the weekend upon the fact that although local government can manage to obtain quite a lot of central Government help when major disasters such as the present flooding strike, there is precious little for the individual, who in many instances suffers grievously from such natural disasters? Is not it long past the time when the Government and the nation should have considered setting up some form of emergency fund to help individuals who suffer grievous damage as a result of natural disasters? Surely that would be in the interests of the community. Far too much damage has been suffered already this year.
      The Prime Minister: I have three points to make in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. First, in so far as extra expenditure falls on the local authority, he will be aware of the Bellwin rules, which have been invoked in Wales, and of other specific grants that may be available under different headings. Secondly, in so far as there is great personal loss through the loss of household possessions or damage to houses, one would expect that to be covered largely by insurance. Thirdly, in some places there is a disaster fund, which meets exceptional difficulty and exceptional hardship suffered by local people.
      Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. King: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Government's commitment to a good roads programme and to the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport? Will she join
      386
      me in welcoming a balanced transport infrastructure, which is necessary for an economy such as ours, which is growing? Will she reflect on the statement by the Opposition spokesman on transport, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), that a Labour Government would abandon the entire programme?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is vital for economic growth that we have good transport systems. The roads report that was produced last week gave details of about 500 schemes that will assist the rate of economic growth and reduce the number of road accidents, which we are always anxious to do. The many bypasses that have been announced will help to keep heavy lorries out of our villages and towns. It is an extremely good programme.
      Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Canavan: When will the Prime Minister face the fact that she and her hated poll tax will be defeated by a combination of people power in Scotland and deepening electoral unpopularity in England and Wales? If the Prime Minister is not concerned about losing the Mid-Staffordshire by-election and about the resignation of 18 Tory councillors in Oxfordshire, will she at least listen to the increasing number of Tory Members who are beginning to realise that by voting for the poll tax they were like turkeys voting for an early Christmas?
      The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall what happened in Scotland when we had the result of domestic revaluation of rates after only some seven years. Of course, it would be 17 years if it occurred in England. There was such an outcry that we were bound to take some action to alleviate the result, and we were also bound to agree to change from the domestic rating system. We changed to a community charge, which on the whole is working well in Scotland, and is infinitely preferable to the Labour proposal for a roof tax based on capital values of houses, regardless of whether owner-occupiers or tenants live in them, modified by reference to income tax, which means that everyone's affairs will have to be revealed to the local authority. Labour's proposals are the worst of all, and people would welcome the community charge in comparison.
      Mr. Kilfedder: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Kilfedder: May I refer to an important matter that should have the support of the whole House—the visit yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Bradford, where she launched the people in cities programme and the allocation of a further £500 million for that problem? Will she ask the organisers to consider how radical changes have been made to Belfast, because I think that that would be advantageous when they consider what the Prime Minister has in mind for inner cities in Britain?
      The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Our action for cities programme, particularly

      387
      that introduced in the past two years, and now the launch of the people in cities programme, has been very successful. The inner cities have been transformed, unemployment is falling rapidly, we have close
      388
      co-operation between industry, commerce and the cities and I hope that more people will go to each city to see the transformation that has taken place and to applaud it.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill.
Motion on the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 6 MARCH—Opposition Day (10th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Balance of Payments Deficit, High Interest Rates and the Impact on Industry".
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH—Debate on the first report Session 1989–90 of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (HC 135).
THURSDAY 8 MARCH—Second Reading of the Food Safety Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 9 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I2 MARCH—Until about seven o'clock motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
Afterwards, motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order which is a consolidation measure.
Mr. Grocott: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the motion will be put down for the debate on the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests? It is an important issue and we need to know about it early.
Once again, the Government are raising the important issue of putting up prescription charges by means of a written parliamentary answer. That is totally unacceptable and we want the Secretary of State in the House to explain once again why the Government are putting this tax on people's sickness.
Is not it high time that we had a debate in the House to discuss the issues being debated outside the House by the people in the real world, in particular the Prime Minister's arrogance and incompetence on the poll tax, which she showed once again this afternoon? When can we have a debate on the poll tax? At least by resigning the 18 councillors in West Oxfordshire showed more guts than the Cabinet. Is not it time that we had the Prime Minister here to talk about the poll tax? It is her poll tax and she should be here to account for it. Is not it also high time that she came here to discuss other issues, particularly mortgage rates?
As the Prime Minister has spoken in debate in the House on only three occasions since the general election —from her performances, we can understand her reluctance to appear more frequently—is not it high time that she came to the House? This is her Government and these are her policies and she should be here to be accountable for them.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the matters that has been most striking to public opinion generally is that the Leader of the Opposition has made no significant major speech in public since last October. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gives an account of herself and the Government's policies, and very effectively too, twice a week at Question Time to hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the Opposition wished to debate the community charge, they could have selected it for their debate next week.
The proposed increases in prescription charges are modest and they are being announced in the same way as they were last year and on at least two previous occasions. The regulations that have been laid today could give rise to a debate if that were desired. It is important to emphasise that those who are least well off should be effectively protected. More than 75 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free of charge
I recognise that next Wednesday's debate on Members' interests is an important matter. I have already undertaken wide-ranging discussions about the form of the motion and I intend to table the appropriate motion on Monday.
Sir David Price: Following the splitting by the Government of the old Department of Health and Social Security, has my right hon. and learned Friend come to any conclusions to put before the House about the future of the Select Committee on Social Services, which monitors for the House more than half the Government's expenditure?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have come to no conclusion in support of any departure from the present arrangements. My hon. Friend will understand that the existing Select Committee structure has been functioning for some time. I have received no representations, certainly from the Opposition, about any change in the present structure.
Mr. James Wallace: As there has not been a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee so far this Session, here or in Edinburgh, as the Leader of the House will be aware, when might we expect such a debate? If he is looking for a subject matter, I understand that my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I suspect, the Scottish National party will happily discuss local government finance, even if, understandably, some other parties in the House are not so keen to do so.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman may not know that some weeks ago the Government offered the prospect of a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh this month, in two or three weeks' time. The Government specifically suggested local government finance as a topic for discussion there, but, not surprisingly, the official Opposition thought that that was not a suitable subject for debate, as the last thing that they want to discuss is the roof tax in Scotland.
Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove): In view of the constant attacks from the Opposition and in the press on the 24 million people who hold car driving licences, quite apart from the 1 million people employed in the motor industry, will my right hon. and learned Friend give us time for a debate so that we can set out what the motor industry is doing to meet the claims of the environment, how it intends to carry that work forward and how those engaged in business use their cars for business purposes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has a long and expert acquaintance with that subject and is right to bring it to the attention of the House. I cannot offer him the prospect of an immediate debate, but I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Dave Nellist: May I reinforce the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) for a debate in Government time on the poll tax? The Leader of the House has only 32 days to withdraw that hated scheme.
To my knowledge, no political party has ever lost 18 councillors through resignations, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that last night's events in Oxfordshire were just a little local difficulty, he will find that when the 1 million non-payers in Scotland are reinforced in four and a half weeks' time by 10 million non-payers in England and Wales, the skids really will be under the Government.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm to discuss the community charge does not seem to be reflected in the choice of debate made by the business managers of the Labour party. That is how he could most easily achieve his objective. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear a little while ago, the central cause of the concern expressed in Oxfordshire last night was the high level of community charge levied by Labour-controlled Oxfordshire county council.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As in reply to a written question from me yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for monitoring the cost to local authorities of all new or extended duties placed on them by Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments and departmental circulars, would my right hon. and learned Friend be good enough to arrange for the Secretary of State to give the House next week a detailed list of the extra costs resulting from Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments and circulars, as the level of rate support grant for the coming year was fixed by the Government as long ago as July 1989?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that I could arrange for that performance to take place as quickly as that. The answer could most readily be derived from tabling appropriate questions or writing letters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tries to watch these matters very closely.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply about the Prime Minister speaking in a debate about the poll tax? She often says how much the Government are doing for disabled people, but recently some hon. Members, including myself, have been inundated with letters from severely disabled people who are very upset because they are losing relief for essential adaptations to the home. As they cannot move around, they are prisoners in their homes. In addition, they are paying extra poll tax. Will the Prime Minister please participate in a debate on the poll tax?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance to certain people of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I repeat the point that I made earlier: the Prime Minister, perhaps more than any other Head of
392
Government, gives an account of herself; she answers questions twice a week from the Dispatch Box on a wide range of matters, including many on the community charge.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend promise an early debate on the latest report from the Select Committee on transport? Many of my constituents share the perplexity of members of that Committee about the negative attitude of the Department of Transport to planning the improved road and rail links that will be essential if the Channel tunnel project is not to be an economic disaster.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to that topic; indeed, he has raised it with me on these occasions more than once. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Does the Leader of the House accept that it is time for a major debate on the state of the fishing industry? Does he understand that this week the EC Commissioner has rejected the Government proposal for restriction of effort in the North sea, leaving the Government's proposals in total disarray? Would not a debate help by allowing hon. Members to explain to the Government why a package of assistance to catchers, merchants and processing workers is essential if we are to steer that vital industry out of its present crisis?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of our understanding that the fishing industry is facing a difficult year. The Secretary of State for Scotland is considering carefully a document that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation left with him recently.
Mr. John Marshall: It is now two and a half months since the House debated war crimes and voted in favour of the principle of legislation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that a Bill will be introduced in the current Session of Parliament?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told my hon. Friend on more than one occasion, the House expressed a clear view in favour of war crimes legislation and the Government are considering the form that legislation might take, in the light of the views expressed in both Houses. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be able to make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware of the deeply serious effects on Manchester's schools of the Education Secretary's capital expenditure policy? Even repairs that have been started cannot be completed and old and poor school buildings in some of the most deprived parts of the city cannot now be improved. Is he aware that next year Manchester will receive barely one tenth of what is needed and that the standard assessment could cost us more than 1,000 teachers? Can we have a statement next week about the effects of these policies on Manchester and on other hard-pressed local education authorities?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise specific questions about educational spending in Manchester, he should seek an opportunity of putting them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government have authorised substantial expenditure on the education service and are seeking to spread it around the country as fairly as they can.
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale): Has my right hon. Friend seen the British Rail publication entitled, "International rail services for the United Kingdom" and is he aware of the great disappointment of the North of England Regional Consortium which feels that the document does nothing very much for the north of England and that the necessary infrastructure and passengers services may not be in place in time to help the north of England when we have the Channel tunnel and the single European market? Can we please have a debate on that issue, as it is of vital importance to the north of England?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of that issue not only for the north of England, although I have seen the position well set out in the document entitled, "The Case for the North". My hon. Friend will understand that responsibility for that matter rests not with the Secretary of State but with British Rail, which is keeping its plans under review in the light of the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Allen Mckay: Is the Leader of the House aware of the serious disquiet and unrest among the majority of people in Britain about Government policies including the poll tax, mortgage rates, student loans, the exchange rate, the ambulance dispute and everything that affects life in Britain? Is not it time that we heard the majority of people who are saying to the Prime Minister and the Government, "Get out"? Let us test that in the House and in the country.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government are entirely happy for their reputation and record to be tested in the House as it has been already throughout this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman must understand, for example, that the ambulance dispute has been settled and we must now hope that people will return to work on the terms agreed, and the Education (Student Loans) Bill has been passed in the other place as well as in this House. No doubt the central concern of people is the level of inflation, which is why interest rates are high and will need to remain high until that is brought under control, as it undoubtedly will be.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. and learnd Friend recall that for a long time various Opposition Members have been calling for a debate on central America? Those calls seem to have disappeared in the past two days, perhaps as a result of the free and democratic elections on Sunday. Would not it be a good idea to have a debate shortly so that we can congratulate the winner of the presidential election and also the people of Nicaragua on throwing out the Left-wing Marxist Government, who were very much friends of Labour Members?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find it easier to agree with the observations of the undecorated MacKay than the
394
decorated McKay of the two who have just spoken. I agree with my hon. Friend that the result of the Nicaraguan elections entirely vindicates the position adopted by this Government and that we should congratulate the newly elected President of Nicaragua on her success.
Mr. Tony Banks: I shall gladly enter the list in defence of the Sandinistas any clay on which the Leader of the House wants to have an election. Sandino lives! I wear my badge with pride.
I want to ask the Leader of the House a question about elephant ivory for the simple reason that he gave me an assurance that all the Hong Kong ivory stock was legally acquired. Is he aware that I have now had a letter from the director of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department in Hong Kong which makes it clear that only 474 tonnes out of the 670 tonnes carries CITES certificates? In other words, about 200 tonnes of that elephant ivory was obtained illegally. Will he arrange for an urgent statement by the Foreign Office and an early debate so that we can discuss the discrepancies in the answer given from the Dispatch Box?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not tenancious in his pursuit of this cause. As I said last week—and perhaps the week before and the week before that—if he has any evidence on the matter, let him produce it for the Government and the appropriate authorities, who will investigate it.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's proud badge brandishing. He is renowned as one of the most tenancious defenders of lost causes, and long may he remain so.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): Is not there an inconsistency in that the Government and the House support and cheer the advance of democracy in eastern European countries, for which we have no constitutional responsibility, and yet deny it in Hong Kong, where we have constitutional responsibility? Is not it, therefore, important for the Government urgently, before we publish the Bill that is expected to come before the House, to give us a statement on why people in Hong Kong should be denied democracy or why they are unsuitable for democracy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Few issues have been more frequently and more fully discussed in the House than the issue raised by my hon. Friend. The background was set out most fully in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary which was sent to all parliamentary colleagues as recently as 9 February.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Leader of the House will be aware of the enormous damage done to many parts of England, Scotland and Wales by the recent gales and hurricanes. Is he aware of the devastating effect on the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, especially on the ports of Ardglass and Kilkeel in my constituency and on Portavogie in the neighbouring constituency? Since early December, three months ago, those fleets have not had a catch worth talking about. In addition, the Department of Social Security introduced new regulations on 10 December preventing the fishermen from claiming adequate supplementary benefits. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as a matter of urgency, to make a statement to the House so that the grave financial hardship of those fishermen and their families can be dealt with?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House is, of course, aware of the widespread adverse impact of recent storms and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House the concerns of his constituents in particular and of Northern Ireland generally. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate on the matter, but I shall bring his special concern to the direct attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay): Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in discussions with our hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities on the subject of transitional relief for the community charge in certain areas, especially centres of tourism, there has been identified what is now known as the Torbay anomaly? About half a dozen resorts have been penalised through the SSA because of the very low Government funding for, and recognition of, the very high standards those resorts provide for visitors both from this country and from overseas. Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who raised the issue a few moments ago, and to have the Minister come to the House next week to try to thrash out a new arrangement for transitional relief for community chargepayers in those places?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake a response precisely along the lines that my hon. Friend requests. No doubt he is more familiar with the details of the Torbay anomaly than I am. But I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. James Lamond: The Leader of the House announced that on Monday we shall debate a proposal to renew the regulations covered by the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers Compensation) Act. That Act also covers sufferers from byssinosis, which is a disease prevalent among textile workers. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a simple renewal of the regulations will not be enough to meet the complaints of many hundreds of textile workers, including 300 in my constituency, who have not been able to claim because the regulations are so tightly drawn? Is there any possibility of discussing the regulations properly so that they can be amended when they come before the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the debate on the regulations will not give the House an opportunity to amend them. The regulations apply to people disabled by diseases such as pneumoconiosis. I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how far that range extends. The regulations to be debated on Monday are intended to increase the amount paid under the relevant Act, although, again, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how widely that increase will extend. Given the hon. Gentleman's substantial parliamentary ingenuity, he should be able to find an opportunity to raise the matter during the debate.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Attorney-General has taken the unusual course this afternoon of publishing a statement on prosecutions arising out of the unpublished House of Fraser report by means of written answer to a question tabled late last night. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore think that it might
396
be appropriate—next week or any other week—to have a formal statement made by a Minister in the House, as there are a multitude of questions on this issue that must be answered at some time?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be answering questions in the House on Monday week and I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to his attention.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging for a debate, at the earliest possible moment that is suitable to the Government and the Opposition, on the abolition of hare coursing? Is he aware of the growing opposition to this practice? The polls have shown that the overwhelming majority of people oppose it, as do a growing number of hon. Members, including many Conservative Members. Is not it time that the Government gave us another opportunity—given the long period of time that has elapsed—to have a debate on the matter and to reach a decision? It is a vile and evil practice and Sir Thomas More, who is commemorated by a plaque in the House, said in his "Utopia" that it ought to be abolished. It was being opposed as long ago as that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If that view has been expressed for as long as that, I do not feel overwhelmed by the case for reaching a conclusion about it next week. More seriously, I know of the hon. Gentleman's long interest in this topic. He introduced a private Member's Bill on it many years ago. It is something which it would be appropriate to raise on the Adjournment or in a similar way.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon and learned Friend aware that since the subject was raised at business questions last week, a further 20 hon. Members have indicated their support for the transfer of educational expenditure? Will he take that point on board and arrange for a debate on the earliest possible occasion?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will remember that since the matter was raised last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has answered questions about it at least once. I come back to the central point that must face anyone who advocates the transfer of such burdens. If a burden is transferred from one place to another, that burden is not avoided. One must reflect carefully on the way in which it is done.
Rev. Martin Smyth: As one who has been taught to be thankful for small mercies, may I thank the Leader of the House for the extended time for the first two Northern Ireland orders to be debated on Monday week? Following the useful East-West debate last Thursday, does he hope in the near future to come to the House with means to provide funds for the emerging democratic parties in eastern Europe?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As one who has learned to be thankful for thanks, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appreciation of the arrangements that we have made for Monday week. The specific point that he raised was referred to in the debate on East-West matters. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is considering the matter carefully.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke): Further to the excellent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that we shall have a debate on the excellent election results in Nicaragua as soon as possible? In her message to the new President, did the Prime Minister point out that this will not be the last time that a good woman beats a cocky socialist who thought that he was ahead in the opinion polls?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to encourage people to draw that conclusion from the encouraging result in Nicaragua.
Mr. Ron Brown: The Leader of the House knows that many people in Britain are worried about the sinister activities of Colin Wallace and Oleg Gordievsky, but what about Nonna Longden? Not so long ago Mrs. Longden was arrested in my office. She was there illegally and shortly afterwards the contents of my House of Commons locker were removed. I can tell the House that Mrs. Longden was not an innocent——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for a debate or a statement, or something of that kind.
Mr. Brown: Mrs. Longden worked for Defence Systems, which has links with MI5 and MI6. Rupert Murdoch's minions paid £45,000 to bribe her to commit perjury and to concoct a smear story for the News of the World. Therefore, can we have a wide-ranging debate on the security aspects—[Laughter] it is a serious matter—of the state and about the threats and intimidation that hon. Members experience? It is an important matter.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I am not as well acquainted as the hon. Gentleman with the details of that lady's activities. The one answer that I can give with confidence to his question is, "Not next week".
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time in the near future for a debate on sea defences and flooding matters? I have been in touch with our local SCOPAC—the standing conference on projects associated with the coastline—which comprises 13 local authorities that have got together to ensure that sea defence matters are dealt with in an acceptable, unified way. In the three years that I have been in the House, we have never discussed flood relief and sea defences. As the subject has so many interdepartmental implications should not we have a national, unified approach to it so that all the money that the Government have voted for the problem will be properly used?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again, I cannot offer a promise of an early debate on that topic, but I assure my hon. Friend that his point is well worth making. The adequacy of sea defences is most often considered after they have proved to be inadequate in one place or another. I shall bring my hon. Friend's point to the attention of several of my right hon. Friends who are concerned with the matter and they will reflect on it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House yet discussed with the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee the wage levels in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have said on more than one occasion, and as you know well, Mr. Speaker, the House
398
of Commons Commission has a statutory obligation to keep the pay and conditions of its permanent staff, not only in the Refreshment Department, in line with those in the Civil Service. That obligation is fulfilled in respect of all permanent staff of the House, including those in the Refreshment Department.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question in connection with the business for next Tuesday. I have received information from the Conservative group on Lancashire county council that our community charge could be £16 less if the county had not chosen to top up its coffers; a further £20 less if the county council would face up to issues relating to the running of its old people's homes, and a further £3.50 less if it addressed matters relating to secondary education. To that end, and because the Opposition have chosen not to debate the community charge next Tuesday, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that such information could be obtained by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and printed in the record so that we can all learn the facts?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is extremely assiduous in raising the activities of Lancashire county council in the House. As a result of his skill in doing so yet again this afternoon, the facts that he has reported will be recorded in the Official Report.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that at last week's business questions I made a plea for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the consequences of the High Court judgment on the social fund? That judgment, along with the recent Appeal Court judgment in the case of McKiernon v. the Secretary of State for Social Security, has profound implications for many claimants. If a statement cannot be made on those two cases, could a copy of the advice that is to be sent from the chief adjudication officer to local adjudication officers also be sent to me and could another copy be placed in the Library?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer that specific question this afternoon. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be in the House to answer questions on Monday. He may or may not be confronted with that question then.
Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent): If, as he has said on two or three occasions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believes that the trouble with the poll tax is the high rates set by Labour councils in Oxford and elsewhere, why does not he have a debate about it next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because Opposition Members seem to be expressing a great deal more concern about it than do my hon. Friends—and they have Opposition supply days on which they can choose to debate the subject whenever they please.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the large and justified protests about the poll tax all over the country, and not least in Conservative constituencies, is it possible to have a debate and a free vote on the poll tax because undoubtedly in any free vote the poll tax would be overwhelmingly rejected by the House as it would by the

399
Cabinet if it had a secret vote? Would the Secretary of State for Wales, for example, vote in favour of the poll tax in a secret vote in the Cabinet?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the community charge has been the subject of many debates in the House in the last couple of years and that it is on the statute book as a result of those debates. I repeat that it remains open to the Opposition to choose a date for the discussion of that topic whenever they please.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why will not the Leader of the House reconsider his decision to have a debate about the new disease, the galloping poll tax? Why will he not give his hon. Friends who are complaining about the poll tax a chance? Is he aware that in Derbyshire the rates have increased by 24·9 per cent. as a result of the standard spending assessment because the Government did not take into account inflation at 8 per cent., but used the figure of only 4 per cent., and because they did not take into account the police rent allowance or the massive loan debt from the 15 per cent. interest rates? Those are the reasons why the assessments are so low. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not have a debate, we shall have to consider a censure motion on the poll tax.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall consider no such thing. The most important factor that has emerged from the hon. Gentleman's contribution is his anxiety at the high rate of community charge that is being imposed by the Labour council under which he suffers.
Mr. Greville Janner: As a trustee for the Campaign for Homeless and Rootless People, known as CHAR, may I ask when we will have a debate on homelessness and the needs of organisations such as CHAR which look after homeless people? Meanwhile, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a humane man from similar origins to mine, be good enough to come across the river one evening, before or after a debate, to cardboard city at Waterloo, where I spent part of last night? He could then see the need for such a debate, and the anguish, hardship and destitution in which hundreds of people live so very near to the Palace of Westminster.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Government and hon. Members from both sides of the House are concerned about homelessness and wider issues affecting the inner cities. He will know that the spending on the Government's action for cities initiative will increase from just under £3·5 billion in the last financial year to about £4 billion in the next financial year. That is a measure of our concern about this subject.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a debate next week about election law and expenditure? We could then discuss the way in which the Prime Minister abuses taxpayers' money by mounting circus operations in, for example, Bradford, to try to prop up receding Tory fortunes by creative accounting of inner cities money, when the Government have refused financial assistance to the textile industry, which is in great difficulties because of the privatised water charge increases. The local education authority is in crisis because it has been denied necessary
400
capital expenditure, while the city technology college is being built with taxpayers' money and is costing more than the total amount received for capital expenditure in the current year by the other 300 schools in the area. Is not it time to discuss this abuse of taxpayers' money and to make the Prime Minister more accountable for it, so that it can be charged against election expenditure?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman is as impressed as he appears to be by the way in which my right hon. Friend draws attention to the successes of Conservatives in the city of Bradford, so much the better.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday was the closing date for the consultation period organised by the Department of Transport on the document, "Traffic in London" and the four traffic assessment studies? In that short period since 14 December, thousands of people have written in objecting to any road building in London and have instead requested that resources be put into improving public transport. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House soon and say that all the road-building schemes proposed in the assessment studies have been cancelled and the resources put instead into improving public transport and making London a clean and safe place to live, not a building site for motorway contractors and a city suffering from the pollution that will follow as more cars are attracted to the city?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend and the Government are concerned to secure effective arrangements for transportation in inner London, Greater London and the City of London. He is therefore seeking, in consultation with those concerned, to achieve and maintain a balanced policy. The one characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that it appears to be wholly unbalanced.
Mr. William O'Brien: In view of the Prime Minister's statement in West Yorkshire yesterday about the extra spending that will take place on the inner city programme, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a statement next week from the Prime Minister to follow up the points that she made in Bradford? We can then extract from her what will happen about housing in the inner cities particularly, and the urban and rural areas in general. Can we have a statement about how much of the money allocated for inner cities is designed to provide affordable houses in the inner cities, as well as the urban and rural areas?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will be glad that my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday on this topic has commanded such wide attention. The increases in expenditure, which I have just described, are giving rise to a massive growth in investment in new factories, roads, offices and housing in inner cities. In the two years since the Government launched the inner cities initiative, unemployment in inner cities has fallen by one third.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Labour party had the opportunity to choose the community charge as the subject for debate at the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee on Wednesday 14 March but chose not to do so? Does he

401
think that that might have had anything to do with Labour's alternative community charge or, rather, its lack of one'?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that it was due to the point that was helpfully made by my hon. Friend as well, no doubt, as to the great skill with which the Secretary of State for Wales and those who support him in the Principality are governing the Principality.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
4.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Hon. Members in all parts of the House will regret that this debate takes place today at a time when a number of people in the Principality are suffering from the dreadful effects of high tides and winds and the storm damage.
I begin by reporting on the latest situation. I am pleased to say that the tides today are far less than they were earlier in the week and that further flooding has not resulted. Many problems must be met. About 2,000 people have been evacuated, and hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to those who have worked hard and effectively in tackling the problems involved.
The Minister of State visited the site earlier in the week and discussed the problems with various people. We have sent from the Welsh Office the senior engineer, who I fed is the person most suited to give professional advice and to examine the detail of some of the problems that are, and will be, involved. Again, hon. Members in all parts of the House will be delighted that their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales have visited the distressed areas today. Their visit will be much appreciated and welcomed.
Some of the problems have involved the rail link, a matter of particular concern to Anglesey and elsewhere. We have been in contact with British Rail, which is determined to get the rail link in order and proceeding as quickly as possible. BR is unable yet to assess the full extent of the damage but has organised the resources that will be required to bring a speedy reconnection of the activities on that important link.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends totally with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the situation, about the splendid work of the emergency services and about the efforts that are being made by everybody to put everything right as soon as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman correctly says that the rail link is of supreme importance to, for example, the island of Anglesey. Can he say, from the communications that the Minister of State has had with British Rail, whether it will be days, weeks or months before that vital link is restored?
Mr. Walker: Neither I nor British Rail can give the hon. Gentleman a definite answer to that question. Until BR has assessed the nature of the damage, it is impossible to answer definitely. The line is, in parts, completely flooded. Depending on the damage, BR would hope that it would be a matter, if weeks, of one or two weeks, or days. but I do not want to commit BR when it has not properly assessed the damage and the extent of it. However, I know from having spoken to BR that it is determined to get the service back at the earliest possible moment and will commit all the necessary resources to achieve that purpose.
I shall be going there early next weeek to meet the local authorities concerned and to discuss, having had reports from our engineers, the nature of what is involved. As always, alas, in distressing cases of this kind, personal

403
hardship will be involved. There will be people who are uninsured or underinsured and serious damage faced by families in financial distress.
In that context, I am glad that the mayor of Colwyn has launched an appeal fund, and I know that he has had an early and good response. I felt that it was appropriate in the circumstances that the Welsh Office should make a contribution to that fund, and we have informed him of that. As yet, the trustees have not been appointed, and the trust deed has not been made. As soon as that is in place, the Welsh Office will provide a donation to that appeal of £50,000. I hope that our example will be followed by others so as to help some of the personal distress problems that will be involved in the area.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Having once experienced flooding myself I know precisely what it can mean, especially for old people. Will arrangements be made for local authorities to have gangs of workpeople who can clear up after the flooding has receded and make certain that the homes are reasonably habitable, even if they take a long time to dry out? It is all right for young people, but difficult for old people. Would my suggestion be a practical way of dealing with the problem?
Mr. Walker: I have some constituency experience of flooding myself. I represent a constituency in which there are floods most years, mainly of the cricket ground and race course, but frequently of housing, too. I know well the human problems involved, particularly for old people. I know, from what the Minister of State has said, the care that local authorities are taking with some of the problems of the old people who are involved. Early next week, I shall discuss with the local authorities the detail of what is taking place.
I need parliamentary approval for a donation to such a fund. That will be sought by means of a summer supplementary estimate. Pending that approval, the contribution will be met by a repayable advance from the contingency fund.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: On the issue of coastal defences, this is not the first time that we have seen the problem: British Rail constructs an embankment to protect the railway; the embankment then becomes a barrier to protect the community; it then gives way. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the need for a full review of coastal defences so that we can ensure that such a disaster does not happen again?
Mr. Walker: I shall certainly look into any lessons that may be drawn from these floods. The matter is not one only for British Rail; local authorities are also continually involved in standards of defence. Earlier this month, when there was some damage to part of a defence wall, quite rightly there was an immediate inspection both by British Rail and the local authority. Local authorities have a fundamental duty in this respect.
Mr. Keith Raffan: I am sorry to labour the point, but it is important. The wall at Ffynnongroyw, which has been breached, was a British Rail wall. Can my right hon. Friend undertake to give British Rail extra capital help, should it need it, because it will have to replace the walls with much more susbstantial walls?
Mr. Walker: Whatever is put in as a replacement must ensure that a proper defence is maintained. Although capital allocations for sea defences are important, in terms of the total capital programme of British Rail they are relatively small. British Rail would have to discuss the matter with the Department of Transport in the annual capital programmes discussions. I am sure that British Rail will fully carry out its responsibilities. A shortage of capital will not prevent it from doing so.
This is the first debate on Welsh affairs in this decade. I should like to review some of the changes that took place in the 1980s and, more specifically, to spell out the type of actions and developments that will take place in the 1990s.
The last decade was one of considerable change in the Welsh economy, primarily due to the enormous change in the employment pattern, resulting from the decline in the number of people employed in the coal and steel industries. Over the decade, 58,000 jobs were lost in those two industries alone. The Welsh economy, like economies throughout western Europe, suffered from the general world recession that took place at the beginning of the 1980s.
Given the dramatic change, it is encouraging that so many new businesses have emerged to transform the Welsh economy during the 1980s. On the latest statistics, there were at the start of the past decade, 3,600 companies described as production and manufacturing companies; now there are 5,700—an increase of 59 per cent., which is considerably greater than that in any other region of the United Kingdom. It is also encouraging that during that period the number of self-employed in Wales increased by 36,000. In some basic services of vital importance to Wales, there was considerable progress in the last decade.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Secretary of State talks about change. The word that he should use is decline. Is he not aware that we have lost 120,000 industrial jobs? In Llanelli, half the households have an income of less than £4,500 a year, well below any civilised definition of poverty. Wales receives a higher proportion of social security benefit than any other part of Britain. It is the poorest region. That is not change; it is decline.
Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman constantly does harm to his constituency and to Wales. I am glad that his own local authority does not share that description of the economy in his constituency. Many new firms have gone there. Many are expanding. If the right hon. Gentleman, for whatever purpose, wishes to continue describing his constituency as an area of depression and decline, he will do great damage to his constituents. He should think again.
In the same decade, there was an enormous increase in expenditure on health services in Wales. In real terms, in the coming year we will be spending nearly 50 per cent. more than at the beginning of the decade. There are 16 per cent. more doctors and nurses in the front line of the Health Service; 31 per cent. more in-patients and 22 per cent. more out-patients are being treated. The pay of nurses and doctors has been transformed from what it was when the Government came into office.
On housing, it is remarkable that, in that decade, one house in six in Wales benefited from improvement grants. That is why the most recent housing survey in Wales shows such a dramatic improvement in areas where housing and property were bad.

405
It was a difficult decade for agriculture, but, as a result of a combination of Government and other policies, milk, sheep and beef producers in Wales have been in a quite stable and tolerable position which it is vital to maintain if we are to protect the Welsh rural scene.
When I had the privilege of becoming Secretary of State, by far the biggest issue in Welsh politics was unemployment. At all Welsh Question Times and in every debate on Wales, it was the main issue. I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side of the House could have predicted the speed of the decline in unemployment that has been achieved. Certainly the Labour party could not have predicted it, because it made its own promise, which was to bring down unemployment in the United Kingdom——
Mr. John P. Smith: If the same method had been used to compile unemployment figures in Great Britain as the method used in September 1982, there would be 782,000 more people on the unemployed register. What would the position be in Wales?
Mr. Walker: The figures that I gave were on the same comparable bases. The Labour party's prophecy was that, over two years, it would reduce unemployment in the United Kingdom by 1 million. If that happened, and Wales had its proportion of the reduction, it would achieve a much smaller reduction in unemployment in Wales. In two years and nine months, unemployment in Wales has been reduced by 68,000. At the time of the last general election, unemployment in Wales was 80 per cent. higher than it is today, in spite of continuing coal mine closures.
I hope that hon. Members will recognise the position in which this puts Wales: in relative terms, its unemployment is far below the average unemployment in the European Community, far below that in countries like France, and now very close to the average for the United Kingdom. There has been a reduction of 68,000 in two years and nine months. If there is a further reduction of 39,000, unemployment in Wales will be lower than, currently, it is in south-east England.
That is a remarkable transformation of the unemployment scene, which has been achieved partly by a very successful programme of inward investment. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that in 1989 we achieved an average of two inward investments a week into Wales—altogether 100 projects, providing 7,000 new jobs and £520 million of investment. We are therefore continuing the trend of the past three years, as a result of which Wales, with 5 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, has been achieving 20 to 22 per cent. of the United Kingdom's inward investment. I should like the objective to be a further reduction of 39,000 in the number of people unemployed, so that, as a region, we shall have the lowest rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
Let us look at new investments, from which the benefits of employment are still to come. The three biggest investments that I have been able to announce are those of Ford, Bosch and Toyota. In all three cases, the factories are under construction. The firms have not yet taken on their labour force or started to place orders for the component parts that they will need when they are fully in production. I estimate that those three investments alone will comprise £1 billion and that when the companies are operating fully they will have a turnover of £1 billion. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to reflect on the
406
impact that that will have on the potential of components manufacturers in the Principality and its enormous impact on further job creation.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): Can the Secretary of State confirm that the majority of jobs created in Wales in the 10 years of Tory government have been low-paid, part-time jobs, and that more than half of the Welsh work force earn less than £135 a week? Does he realise that in my constituency 60 per cent. of people in work live in households whose income is £4,000 a year or less? Is this a record of which he is proud?
Mr. Walker: Current earnings figures in real terms for Wales, compared with those of 1979, would be a considerable embarrassment to the hon. Lady and her party. I have just mentioned the Ford, Bosch and Toyota projects that are in the pipeline. It is strange that an hon. Member should get up and say that they and the Japanese investments will all provide low-paid, bad-quality jobs. At present, the average total earnings of a full-time worker in Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan or South Glamorgan are very similar to the average earnings of a worker in the west or east midlands. That shows what a lot of nonsense the hon. Lady is talking.
I should like to turn to other things that are in the pipeline for Wales.
Mr. Alan Williams: We accept, of course, that, over the decade, there has been an increase in real earnings. If there had not been, it would have been the first such decade since the war. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the real increase to which he has referred is £33 a week, representing 16 per cent., or one sixth, whereas in the south-east—this is the important relativity point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was making—the real increase has been £84. representing 37 per cent., or one third. That is double what we have achieved.
Mr. Walker: The figures are published every quarter, and I am delighted to look at the earnings of Wales compared to those of any other region of the United Kingdom. We have done exceedingly well, and we shall continue to do exceedingly well. The figures are published., and anybody can look at them. They show a very fine. achievement in the case of the county in which the hon.. Gentleman's constituency is located.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I think that I may be able to help the Secretary of State. The right hon Gentleman has presented us with the average earnings in manufacturing industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has spoken of the average earnings of all earners. There is an enormous difference between the two sets of figures. It seems that the Secretary of State has forgotten that, in Wales, manufacturing earnings were higher traditionally than elsewhere because of the presence of heavy industry. We have, of course, lost that advantage. As we have a lower proportion of employees in professional, administrative and technical occupations than any other part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, our average earnings are severely depressed. There is a dependence upon low-paid, blue-collar employment. There is no white-collar employment to increase average earnings.
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It enables me to say that, since 1984, the number of people in manufacturing employment in Wales has, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, increased by 16 per cent. The number employed in the production of metal goods and in the engineering and vehicle industries has increased by 28 per cent. The number of new manufacturing plants in Wales has increased far faster than that in any other region in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Opposition spokesmen have made no reference to the inward investment to which my right hon. Friend is referring. An answer to a question submitted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) shows that, in 1979, only 854 jobs were either created or saved as a result of inward investment in Wales, whereas last year the figure was 7,941.
Mr. Walker: Under this Government, inward investment in Wales has been greater than in any other region in the United Kingdom, and probably better than in any other region in western Europe.
Financial services are a transforming part of the Welsh economy. The two major announcements that I have made —the coming to Wales of the National Provident Institution and the Trustee Savings bank—will result in the building of offices. The National Provident Institution still has 400 more people to recruit. Over the years, the TSB will be recruiting a further 1,600. A number of major manufacturing concerns and major new financial service industries will be coming to Wales—these are in the pipeline—and the consequent employment benefit is yet to come.
It is important that we look to the future. I shall outline eight areas of commitment for the 1990s that collectively will effect a significant transformation of the strength of the economy. First, I shall refer to the activities of the Welsh Development Agency. I am pleased to say that, in the coming year, the spending of the agency will be just over double what it was in the financial year 1986–87. As a result, the agency is able to proceed with factory building and land clearance programmes on an unprecedented scale in the history of Wales.
The agency has announced today a property development programme that will create thousands of new jobs throughout the Principality and take us further towards our objective of Wales having unemployment as low as any region in the United Kingdom. The agency's new property development programme for the coming year will lead to the creation of 2 million sq ft of new working space throughout north and south Wales. That will be enough capacity to accommodate 6,000 new jobs.
I am glad to say that the strength of the industrial and commercial property market in Wales will enable private developers to avail themselves of the tremendous opportunities presented by the Welsh property venture, which was launched by the WDA a few weeks ago. This new initiative, so recently launched, provides private developers with the opportunity to carry out factory and office development on land that is currently in agency ownership. It is hoped that, by the mid-1990s, over 6 million sq ft of new floor space will be provided through the partnership scheme. That will be capable of accommodating 18,000 new jobs.
408
Since the financial year 1986–87, we have massively increased the expenditure of the WDA. This has enabled the agency to carry out a land reclamation programme which is one of the largest of its kind in Europe. It has enabled it to implement a rural strategy that will bring a new dynamism to economic development in rural areas. It has enabled it also to announce plans to take advantage of the greatly improved communications in north Wales resulting from the development of the A5. This will be of great benefit to Clwyd and Gwynedd. The agency has substantially increased resources to attract inward development. Later I shall mention some of the important international developments that are about to take place. The first facet——
Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is very patient. He is making his speech in his own way, but will he consider telling the House, before he sits down, whether he will poll-tax-cap any Welsh local authority? Does he agree with the vice chairman of the 1922 Committee that the Government should think again about poll tax? Does he not agree that his right hon. and hon. Friends are punch drunk over the tax? Will he ensure that he answers those questions?
Mr. Walker: I will answer the hon. Gentleman in passing. I find that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends are, if anything, annoyed that Wales has done so well, compared with England and Scotland, as far as the community charge is concerned. Secondly, I shall decide later this week about capping authorities, when we have the full budgets and assessments. Obviously it would be wrong to decide before that.
One of the welcome facts about this debate is that it will give the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) the opportunity to spell out in detail his party's taxation programme for the 1990s. I hope that a considerable part of his speech will be devoted to explaining the roof tax, and all the other plans that will have an impact on the people of Wales. Also—this is of great importance to Wales—it will be significant to see whether he delivers an undertaking that, if a Labour Government came to power, the differential between local taxation in Wales and that in Scotland and England would remain as it is now. We will be very interested to hear his replies, and I will interrupt him two thirds of the way through his speech, if he has not answered those points.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a practical point about poll-tax-capping—it is now 1 March and all local authorities are faced with billing nearly twice as many people as they used to under the old rating system. Merthyr and Mid Glamorgan have declared their poll tax, and as the information must already be available to the Welsh Office, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman get up now and say that he will not poll-tax Merthyr or Mid Glamorgan?
Mr. Walker: The final figures had to be in later today, and until that time there is no firm position. When all the figures are in, I will carefully consider the matter and will make whatever announcements are required.
I shall now return to the type of subject that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is not so interested in. No. 1 in the programme for the 1990s is the substantial programme of the Welsh Development Agency. The second factor in the 1990s will

409
be the completion of the second Severn bridge, and the completion of the M4 all the way through to Swansea. And a combination ——
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: I will give way now, but I shall not give way for a time thereafter, as I have given way a great deal so far, and it is unfair to other hon. Members.
Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, after a gestation period of seven years, the Government are proceeding with the second Severn crossing project with all the speed of a tortoise in top gear? Does he also appreciate that there is also the question of tolls, which is nothing short of a scandal, and we do not know yet whether the new crossing will be in the private or public sector? Finally, in regard to the existing bridge, will he do something to get some protective covering at the sides of the bridge to prevent high-sided vehicles from overturning, because that is causing such disruption to the whole of the Welsh economy?
Mr. Walker: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's final point, I gather that there are considerable technical details involved, and I shall write to him.
I hope that orders for the second Severn bridge will be placed. There has been consultation on the route and tenders have been examined. We are now down to the last two companies and one of those will be chosen within the next few weeks. Certainly it is essential for the crossing to be completed as quickly as possible.
The combination of the second Severn bridge and the fact that British Rail intends to improve both passenger and freight services means that south Wales will have one of the best communication systems in the United Kingdom and in most of Europe. That will have a considerable impact on the economy of south Wales; that is the second factor of a committed programme for the 1990s.
The third factor is the impact on rural areas of north Wales of the completion of the A55 and other connected road schemes, and also the activities of the Development Board for Rural Wales. I should like to congratulate that hoard. At this moment, it is dealing with more inquiries from people considering locating small and medium businesses in Wales than has ever taken place in the history of the board. I congratulate it on the enterprise with which it has attracted the inquiries and the enthusiastic way in which it is dealing with them.
The fourth factor in the programme is the garden festival at Ebbw Vale. I hope that that will be the most successful garden festival that has ever taken place in the United Kingdom. There have been good festivals in Glasgow and elsewhere, and we have been able to learn from the good points of the exhibitions. Organisers of previous exhibitions have been very collaborative and have told people in Ebbw Vale of their mistakes as well as their successes. There is immense enthusiasm and there is colossal Government commitment to the festival, and I believe that in 1992 it will bring to Wales between 2 million and 3 million tourists and visitors and will bring to the attention of the world at large the considerable transformation that has taken place in the valleys.
The fifth factor in the programme is the development which is to take place in Cardiff bay, which is of a considerable scale and will have considerable impact on
410
jobs. Three million sq ft of office space, 4 million sq ft of industrial space and 25,000 potential new jobs will be created. Again, the government have made a massive financial commitment to the scheme, and we look forward to the development going ahead and making an enormous impact on the capital city in the 1990s.
The sixth factor which will have an impact in the 1990s is the valleys programme. I am pleased to say that, after Easter, I shall be announcing the details of what has taken place in the period in which the valleys programme has been in operation. We will compare the promises and the undertakings made in the original statement with the performance to date, as we do every six months.
I am glad to say that, since the valleys programme was adopted, unemployment in the valleys has dropped by 11,000. It is interesting that, in the same period, the drop in unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2·6 percentage points, but Wales did better than that. Unemployment dropped by 3·4 percentage points and the drop in the valleys was 4·4 percentage points. Therefore, I have decided to extend the programme for two years. and I hope that by the end of April we will be able to publish details of the extended programme and the events that will take place in those years which will continue this important trend.
The seventh important factor is financial services. To date, that initiative has been concentrated on south-east Wales. I believe that north Wales, with its communications and connections with north-west England, will see important developments in that sphere, as will the Swansea bay area. Some of the developments likely to take place there will benefit from the injection of new financial services.
As I have said before, the benefit is still to come from some of the major investments announced to date, but I pleased to say that there are many inquiries in the pipeline from overseas banks and insurance companies as well as United Kingdom companies. I believe that growth in financial services will continue, and will probably mean that, during the 1990s, employment in that area may reach 125,000 in Wales.
The international connections that Wales has developed and is developing are of immense importance. Wales probably has the greatest concentration of Japanese investment of any region in Europe of a similar size. That will continue, and I believe that the latest investments, such as Toyota, will bring to the Principality other Japanese industries that want a presence in the European market. We have a lively and good Welsh Development International office in Japan, which is dealing with many inquiries.
We have as yet had no success in Korea, not because of any failure to impress, but due to Korea taking an interest only recently. I am glad to say that two important delegations of Korean industrialists have been to the Principality and a number of Korean firms are making positive inquiries. I am anxious that during the 1990s we should establish the some close connection with Korea that we have with Japan.
Hon. Members will have read recently of the successful mission to Saudi Arabia. A small number of Welsh firms obtained substantial exports to that area and three or four are now involved in important joint ventures there. We already have a good connection with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, which will be beneficial to us in the 1990s. Our

411
relationship with the United States remains important, and Welsh Development International recently reorganised and strengthened its team there.
One of the most important developments, that will take place later this month and which I hope will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House is the close relationship that we shall be establishing with Baden-Wurttemberg, the most important state in the German Federal Republic in terms of its economy, industry and manufacturing, from which the Bosch investment came which made a considerable impact on the business community in Germany. We have had talks and an exchange of visits and we have now established an office in Stuttgart.
One result, among others, is that 16 Welsh firms wish to establish a joint venture and a presence in the German market and they are being positively assisted to do so. Talks are now taking place. Firms in Baden-Wurttemberg that are interested in establishing a presence in the United Kingdom market are now engaging in talks and negotiations.
The Prime Minister of Baden-Wurttemberg is anxious to establish a much closer relationship between the Principality and that important region of Germany. He will be coming to Wales on a two-day visit at the end of the month, accompanied by a strong industrial and ministerial team.
Swansea already has a twinning arrangement with Mannheim and Cardiff with Stuttgart, and that has resulted in important cultural and other connections between the two cities. I believe that we shall be able to reach a number of agreements with regard to commerce, industry, research and the interlinking of the universities between that important region of western Germany and Wales, which will be of immense economic and industrial benefit to both countries.
That is the international context for Wales during the 1990s. But central to all other areas, be it the development in the valleys, the Cardiff bay development or the WDA programme, and perhaps the most fundamental target for the 1990s is to improve facilities for training and education in the Principality.
Last year, £150 million of Government money was spent on training and education, by far the highest investment in training that has ever taken place in the Principality. In addition, I hope that the new training and enterprise councils will be operating by the end of this year. In my discussions with the chairman and the key members of the board and the education authorities, I have found considerable enthusiasm in Wales for those councils to succeed.
In less than three years, unemployment has been reduced considerably. It now stands at 6·7 per cent.—well below the level in Europe. It is still higher than in some regions in the United Kingdom, but way below many. What is in the pipeline will continue to improve that considerably, but the commitments that I have outlined to better communications, an enormous factory building programme, the Cardiff bay development, the valleys programme, the financial services programme and a positive international strategy will mean that, by the end of the 1990s, Wales will be one of the most prosperous and successful regions of western Europe.
4.54 pm
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): I congratulate the Secretary of State and those who helped to obtain the inward investment of Toyota, Bosch and Ford. I hope that we shall soon have confirmation that British Airways will be coming to south Glamorgan. Those are important developments, which mean a great deal to the future economy of Wales, and they show the adaptability, flexibility and welcoming nature of the Welsh people.
However, the Secretary of State's view of the Principality is not one that Opposition Members recognise. He did not mention how many Welsh budgets are being partially or completely destroyed by rising interest rates. Very soon, council rents will go higher and higher as a direct consequence of legislation pushed through the House only last year.
High interest rates affect business confidence, but the right hon. Gentleman glossed over that. Because of high interest rates, all small businesses in Wales are now threatened. They are under great pressure. When the right hon. Gentleman took office, he said that the economic miracle in Wales would be based on small business. But he and his Cabinet colleagues are crucifying the prospects of small businesses in Wales. Nor did the right hon. Gentleman consider for even half a minute the impact of the uniform business rate on small businesses in Wales. There have already been many and widespread complaints about that. Under the right hon. Gentleman, small businesses in Wales are having a tough time, and before long they will find the going even tougher.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that business in Wales will suffer great hardship in the next few months, will he explain why the director of the Cardiff chamber of commerce was reported in the Western Mail only two months ago as saying:
"Business prospects for this year in South Wales are good."?
He went on to say that no fewer than 76 per cent. of businesses are expecting a higher turnover in 1990.
Mr. Jones: That bears no relationship to what the CBI in Wales and the CBI in Great Britain said recently. I may as well take this opportunity to say that the hon. Gentleman will not be here for much longer. His time is coming to an end. We shall not have to suffer his injudicious interventions for much longer.
Before I was interrupted I was about to say that the Secretary of State did not mention the real problem in Wales of low pay. That will not go away because the Government's policies are not designed to achieve that. Average male earnings in Wales are the lowest in Britain and three tenths of women in full-time work in Wales earn less than £120 a week. That is a pretty miserable record after so many years of office. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to face up to such a stain on the Government's record in Wales.
For all the gloss and the hype that the Secretary of State is disposed to indulge in, he was not prepared to say that Government spending on social security, on sickness benefit and invalidity benefit in Wales is the highest in Great Britain. That points to real problems in the social fabric of our nation. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to paddle through an evasive speech

413
when he knows that so much is going badly wrong in the Principality. The Government are trapped by their dogma. They have short-term and short-sighted policies.
I should like to address myself briefly to the challenges to Wales of 1992, of the opening of the Channel tunnel, and to Wales and Britain of the changes and revolution in eastern Europe. Before long, the Secretary of State will have to admit that the economic map of Europe will be redrawn. There will be opportunities for Wales if it continues to be adaptive and if the Government are prepared to take the opportunities offered by the new economic developments and the burgeoning new technological climate.
As the Secretary of State did not mention this in his speech, will he say what assessment the Welsh Office has made of the impact of 1992 and the opening of the Channel tunnel and, most important, what surveys have been made of the opportunities that may arise in eastern Europe? Eastern Europe might be an alternative for inward investment from continents outside Europe. I should not like to see Wales lose out from those fundamental changes.
Has the Welsh Office or the Secretary of State made any assessment of the likelihood of more steel imports when parts of eastern Europe are integrated into western Europe's economic system? I couple with that the need to assess the possible impact of more and cheaper coal imports. Wales is still a steel nation and is still, just, a coal nation. I hope that the Minister of State, Welsh Office will answer those questions when he replies to the debate.
It is certain that a gap has opened between Britain and her competitors. As ever under this Government we are lagging behind. The Secretary of State did not address himself to that problem. The choice is between a low-wage, low-technology economy and a modern, high-wage, high-technology economy, particularly for Wales. The right hon. Gentleman was complacent about that.
Some of my hon. Friends responded with justifiable anger and perhaps even a hint of contempt when the Secretary of State spoke of skills. I think that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) say, "We have been deskilled." It is an injurious fact that Britain and Wales have so suffered.
I have criticised the Secretary of State, so I shall give him my view. If Wales is to be successful in the competitive environment of the 1990s and beyond, it will be vital to ensure that the right conditions exist. Wales must be viewed as a good place for business.
The Secretary of State should know that in the run-up to the single European market of 1992 and beyond a trade and technology gap has opened between us and our competitors. We shall see a new wave of advanced industries and services in the 1990s. Wales must ensure that it is ready and waiting to grasp those opportunities. We can meet the challenge of a modern high-technology economy, and of fulfilling our potential as a modern industrial economy within Europe. I emphasise what the CBI recently said:
"To maintain and improve Britain's position in an increasingly competitive world nothing short of a skills revolution is required."
But that has not taken place, and nothing that the Secretary of State said showed that the Government are determined to achieve that skills revolution. Indeed, only
414
last month we heard of the sell-off of the four skillcentres in Wales, which suggests that the Government think quite differently about the challenge of the skills revolution.
I beg the Secretary of State—I demand, for the people of Wales—for more investment in education and skills and training. Without it, we shall not meet the challenge of this decade and we shall fall hopelessly far behind in the next century. At that time, our current schoolchildren will have to find their way, but we think that the Government are selling short their prospects by failing to address themselves to the skills revolution.
Having mentioned the industrial base—I did not take much to the Secretary of State's views on it—I shall now deal with social infrastructure. Not content with neglecting our industrial future, the Government have neglected social infrastructure. If we are to have a healthy industrial base, we must have healthy social services provision. The crucial factor in the education service is the number of teachers in it, their morale and their qualifications. There is disturbing evidence that far too many of our teachers want to leave the education service. Too many of the most skilled and experienced teachers are clamouring to leave the education service in Wales. We have talked of the challenge of Europe, but there are not enough teachers of French, German and Spanish, which will be the language of industrial advance in the next century. The Government are doing nothing to ensure that Wales has sufficient teachers of those languages.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the vacancy rate among teachers in Wales is only 1 per cent.? Is he not aware that recruitment for initial teacher training is substantially above target in Wales?
Mr. Jones: I shall not take any lessons on teachers from the Minister of State. The trouble is that he is running the education service from behind a desk. He is not visiting schools, he is not taking advice from the profession and he has neglected to ensure that we have sufficient resources where it counts.
I am also concerned about housing. Our valleys communities are desperate for more investment in housing. I met the leaders of the valleys programme councils and it was clear from what they said that about £400 million must be invested in the valleys to modernise houses to a basic standard. Waiting lists for houses are growing and growing. Homelessness is rising and, most shaming of all at this stage of the Government's life, far too many people say that they cannot afford to buy and there are no houses for them to rent.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only is there serious homelessness in south Wales, but there is much evidence of homeless young people sleeping rough in the rural towns and villages of north and mid-Wales? Does he accept my estimate that there are at least 50 homeless young men with nowhere to sleep even in the apparently prosperous mid-Wales town of Newtown and that we cannot expect young people to take advantage of further education if they are out on the street with nowhere to live? That shows great neglect by the Government.
Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned a very sad fact. The manner in which he made his point was very telling, and I agree with him.

415
The Health Service in Wales still has large waiting lists and the health authorities believe that, if they are to bring their buildings up to acceptable standards, expenditure in excess of £100 million may be required. Many of our schools are crumbling and again expenditure in excess of £100 million is required. There is a colossal need for investment in housing. The Government's record in education, housing and the Health Service is poor and they must redouble their efforts.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I have already given way to him.
A healthy industrial base needs a healthy social structure, which Government policies are neglecting to provide. I want to give some brief advice to the ministerial team. Ministers should visit Brussels more often and fight their corner for agriculture. They must understand that there is unease in the upland communities; all is not well and Ministers must do more. They must redouble their efforts to improve housing. They must acknowledge that there is a crisis and that many families throughout Wales are getting hurt. They should champion the south Wales coalfield. I want the Secretary of State to secure the future of what is left of the south Wales pits. He should examine the impact on the coalfield of the proposed selling off of the electricity industry and of more coal imports.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that National Power and PowerGen are signing up deals every day to use gas instead of coal in future? If that continues, there will be no coal production going into power stations.
Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend is correct. The Government's policy on the coal industry and electricity generation is a dagger. It is destructive and Wales will lose what remains unless the Secretary of State stirs his stumps and attempts to protect the pits that remain.
Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the intervention by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), would it be Labour party policy to discourage the use of gas in power stations?
Mr. Jones: It would be Labour party policy to sustain what remains of the coal industry.
Mr. Rowlands: As the Secretary of State has intervened on that issue, does my hon. Friend recall that when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Department of Energy he abandoned the import of gas from the Sleipner field in Norway, but we understand from today's newspapers that PowerGen and National Power intend to buy in such imports? Is the Secretary of State proud of that aspect of energy policy?
Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State is evading the impact of all those issues on the future of the south Wales coalfield. To his shame, he and his Department did not agree to meet the coalfield community campaign from Wales. He should urgently change his mind, open the door of the Welsh Office and let a well-informed and most reasonable representative group of people—the coalfield
416
community campaign—put their powerful and moving case. He would learn a great deal about those communities.
There is no need for the Secretary of State to attempt to intervene in my remarks now as I am raising the issue of the poll tax. There are no irresponsible, profligate Welsh councils. If standard spending assessments were adhered to in Wales, our local education authorities would lose hundreds of teachers. They simply would not be able to employ them. The Secretary of State has given Welsh councils 3 to 4 per cent. too little for them to cope. He has neglected to give money to cover inflation and wage awards. He has neglected to cover the demands of legislation that the Government have steamrollered or are steamrollering through, such as the green Bill, the Education Reform Act and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The Government are now indulging in blame-gain politics. They are seeking an alibi by trying to shift the blame for the poll tax on to local authorities throughout Wales. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the problems relate to his Government's policies.
It is as well to state the objections to the poll tax. The poll tax is unjust. It is totally rejected by the Welsh people. It has no backing, no support and no friends. The poll tax attacks the family. It attacks the vulnerable; it is a tax and a policy that is totally at odds with the spirit of conducting government in Wales—which is fair play. It is against any concept of social justice. If I were to summarise the case in the most pointed way, I should put it like this:
"We argue for the cohesion of the family, yet it will be far easier for young people to evade the tax if they leave home and seek more anonymous accommodation. We urge families to look after their elderly parents, but the elderly relative pays a poll tax at home but none in a local authority home. We will have created a granny tax. Many mothers stay at home to look after their children. The poll tax will send…them out to work…to pay the poll tax."
That might be regarded as a fair summation of the impact of the poll tax. But those are not my remarks; they are the remarks of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in a speech in December 1987. The speech also contained this little nugget:
"I cannot remember a discussion of the option of the poll tax in which it was not rejected as expensive, ineffective and unfair."
It was clear from what the right hon. Gentleman, who used to be in the Cabinet, said that there had been a bit of a fight. Where was the Secretary of State for Wales? What did he do? Did he fight?
Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman does not approve of the excellent arrangements that I have made for Wales. We are all waiting for the alternative from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jones: No. The Secretary of State has been in the Cabinet for 10 years. The right hon. Member for Henley has let the cat out of the bag. There was a discussion and a fight. Every time that discussion took place, it was decided that the poll tax was not up to scratch. Did the Secretary of State fight?
Mr. Walkerros——
Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State may answer when I allow him to come to the Dispatch Box. I want him to tell me and the people of Wales from the Dispatch Box why he

417
supported the poll tax when the right hon. Member for Henley was fighting and telling the truth about it. Why did he support the poll tax?
Mr. Walker: I have taken part in discussions. I agreed a poll tax arrangement for Wales in which the people of Wales will pay 40 per cent. less than people in England and Scotland. I repeat: what is the hon. Gentleman's alternative to the community charge? Will he guarantee that a Labour Government will keep that differential for Wales?
Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman needs to give me the answers. Why did he resolve to support the poll tax in Cabinet? Why did he not fight against the poll tax? Why did he support the poll tax when the right hon. Member for Henley told the Cabinet that the poll tax should not be given to the people of Britain? Why did he agree to the poll tax in Cabinet? Why did he walk out of the Cabinet and go to Wales where he imposed the tax on our people? Why did he resolve to do that when the right hon. Member for Henley decided that the poll tax would not work? The Secretary of State will go down in the history of his office as the man who brought the poll tax to Wales and who could never come to the Dispatch Box to give the reasons why he supported it. Why did he support the poll tax in the Cabinet? His inability to give an answer is a sign of his unwillingness to give the House his reasons why he supported the poll tax. He is running away from the questions that we have put to him.
The right hon. Member for Henley also said:
"what will they"—
that is, the Government——
"use for arguments when facing the millions of people who will lose out heavily under authorities which are neither extreme nor extravagant?"
That is a fair question to put to the Secretary of State. Hundreds of thousands of people in Wales are now asking that question. The right hon. Member for Henley also said:
"Responsibility for the poll tax will now be targeted precisely and unavoidably at the Government who introduced that tax. That tax will be known as a Tory tax."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1139–41.]
The Secretary of State has brought that Tory tax to Wales. He will be remembered for that when the history of his actions is written.
Mr. Walker: The alternative?
Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State wants to know what our attitude will be.
Mr. Ray Powell: As my hon. Friend has been preparing his speech, he may not have had the opportunity to pose a question to the Secretary of State about the headline in the Evening Standard:
"Thatcher bids to stem the panic".
Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the Secretary of State whether he shares the view expressed in the Evening Standard.
Mr. Jones: Conservatives only panic in a crisis. The Secretary of State has given us no answers this afternoon. However, he has had the brass neck to ask us what we shall do when his Government have had 10 years of office—[Interruption.] After about 12 Acts of Parliament designed to bring in their policies for local government finance, the Conservatives have eventually brought forward a poll tax. The Secretary of State and his party are in deep trouble.
418
The Labour party will not make the mistake that the right hon. Gentleman made. Our proposals will be just, fair and efficient. They will be well thought out and better presented than the Government's poll tax. The Secretary of State must have a face of brass to avoid the questions that all of Britain is asking. He knows that his party has failed in the imposition of the poll tax and that it does not carry weight with the people of Britain.
I want the Secretary of State to understand that his policies for changing the National Health Service, for water privatisation and for the poll tax will guarantee the loss of his remaining parliamentary seats in Wales. There will be no escape for his colleagues in Wales and they will be doomed to disaster. When the general election takes place, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will be elected as Prime Minister.
5.26 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: I am especially fortunate in being called now to follow that shambolic demonstration from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). He has made some pretty bad speeches in the House, but that one takes the candle. He accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of an inability to answer the question, but he never answered ours. He accused my right hon. Friend of running away from the question, but he ran away from ours. My right hon. Friend asked him what was his alternative to the community charge, to which he replied that he would tell us his attitude. Even his hearing was not right. He would not say what his alternative was. There has been much discussion in the papers, but we do not know which alternative it is. That is all we are asking him to tell us. I am happy to give way to him, although in my six and a half years in the House the hon. Gentleman has never had the courtesy to give way to me. What is the alternative? Which variation is it? Is it the roof tax based on capital values or the roof tax based on capital value plus income tax?
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is greatly respected by Conservative Members and by Opposition Members, which is why the Opposition are in a shambles and will not announce an alternative. The hon. Member for Perry Barr is an expert in such matters and he said that the roof tax, whether based on capital values or on capital values plus income tax, was a non-starter. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside accused us of introducing an anti-granny tax and of attacking the vulnerable. What would a tax based on capital values do? It would attack the vulnerable. Many of his and my constituents—I can think of several off the top of my head—are elderly people with no great income living in a house that they inherited from their parents. It may be a large house with a high capital value, but they have no cash flow. They are house-rich but cash-poor. What will the Labour alternative do to them? It will attack them. The Labour tax is the anti-granny tax.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr has told his party to drop the idea of a roof tax and I hope that it will take his advice. In its current shambles, the Labour party could not do better than to turn to him. The hon. Member for Perry Barr and I served together on the Standing Committee that considered the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and the hon. Gentleman made some sensible comments. The Labour party was in a real mess then over its alternative to the community charge. Now the hon. Member for Perry

419
Barr has said that he favours a tax based on floor area because no revaluation would be required and because he is worried about the bureaucratic cost of the tax.
The Labour party attacks us about the cost of collecting the community charge, yet Labour Members advocate a capital tax based on the capital value of houses, which would require an annual revaluation. God almighty, we should need a huge district valuer's office to undertake that task; that would remove most of the remaining unemployment. The hon. Member for Perry Barr says that a tax based on floor area would need no revaluation and
"it would ensure that people in mansions paid more than those in a terraced house or flat."
That may be the case, but many elderly people live in large houses or flats with huge floor areas; they are house-rich or flat-rich but they are cash-poor. How will the hon. Gentleman's alternative help them?
Mr. Ray Powell: Watch your back.
Mr. Raffan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore, (Mr. Powell) for his compassion. I am overwhelmed. How extremely touching! Tears are coming to my eyes already that he should ask after my health. Labour Members must be in trouble if they do that.
The Labour party cannot attack the community charge unless they spell out what the alternative is. Labour Members escaped having to do that in Committee by saying, "We are not here to debate our alternative; we are here to debate your Bill." [HON. MEMBERS: "That's right."] I agree; fair enough. But the Opposition cannot go on like that for a whole Parliament. They must come up with some answers. We have asked them but they have not answered.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raffan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman who comes, like the cavalry, to the Labour party's rescue.
Mr. Wigley: I recall the Committee and all the problems that we faced. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only fair local tax is a local income tax? And if he has reservations about the way in which the poll tax will hit his county of Clwyd, will he say how he hopes the county council will reduce its expenditure? What jobs would he do away with in Clwyd?
Mr. Raffan: I shall come to that in the second half of my speech. If the hon. Gentleman feels that I have not answered the question then, I shall gladly give way to him again. I assure him that quite a large section of my speech deals with Clwyd and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has anticipated my point.
I shall deal first with one or two other major issues. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) once described the annual Welsh day debate as the "annual general meeting" of Wales and Welsh Members, and to an extent that is true. It gives us a chance to report on the past year and to look to the future.
Tragically, my constituency has experienced three disasters during the past year—one natural and two man made.
Mr. Ray Powell: The poll tax.
Mr. Raffan: First, the House knows that as a result of the severe weather conditions and the gales of the past few days, there has been extensive flooding and damage throughout north Wales—especially in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) but also in mine. I agree with hon. Members who have said—I said it myself on Tuesday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to a private notice question—that we need a review of our sea defences. The sea wall at Ffynnongroew in my constituency, which is the responsibility of British Rail, was extensively breached. As I said in my intervention on Tuesday, we need a much more substantial wall to be built there, and British Rail must be provided with the extra capital that will be necessary because it will be a fairly major operation.
The overtopping of the coastal protection works at Prestatyn—many of them newly constructed—also raises considerable concern, and they must be urgently examined to ensure that they are effective. There is a need, too, for the outstanding works there, at a cost of £5·6 million staggered over a three-year period, to be completed as quickly as possible. Welsh Office help may be needed to accelerate the construction of those works.
My second point about the events of the past few days concerns the Nova complex in Prestatyn. In the words of the chief executive of the borough council, it has been "devastated". It was renovated beautifully two years ago at a cost of £2·5 million and the damage exceeds £1 million. It is the principal tourist attraction in a town which is dependent on tourism; it is the linch pin of the local economy and its loss will affect the incomes of many shops, cafes and pubs.
The reconstruction will take at least nine months and, for the sake of the town's economy, the centre needs to be reconstructed straight away. But the question arises whether it can be reconstucted straight away and on that site because the sea defences may not be adequate. There is no point in rebuilding it on that site if the same thing is going to happen again. There is an urgent need for Welsh Office help to ensure that we can make certain that that site is properly protected so that the reconstruction of the complex—so important to the local economy—can be carried out as soon as possible.
The second disaster to which I shall refer is the salmonella outbreak in my constituency last July. It was the worst outbreak ever seen in Europe. More than 400 local people became ill and the outbreak claimed at least two lives. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will recall, I telephoned him on 28 July last year to ask for a public inquiry. He told me that he wanted to conduct an internal review as he felt that that would be quicker, that it would enable us to learn lessons rather than apportion blame—there had already been rather too much mud-slinging in the press between the authorities involved. He rightly said—and it struck a chord with me—that we had to learn lessons quickly, that a formal investigation would take longer to set up and it would be inevitably a lengthy business.
That was at the end of July, but the review was not set in motion until Monday 6 November. That was the day when I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when the review would be completed. It had not yet even been started but my hon. Friend did not say in his answer to me on that day that an announcement was being made that day that it was to start. He said that it was in progress, or

421
words to that effect. I now ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, "Why the three-month delay?" The review should have been carried out promptly and effectively.
To be fair, on 5 February my right hon. Friend wrote to me to say that he had thought that it would not be right to begin a review of the handling of the outbreak until it was under control. But in fact it was under control by the end of July, when I spoke to him on the phone. Medically, it had been under control for several days by then. I had already met the Flint GPs who told me as much.
My right hon. Friend went on in his letter to say that the authorities involved needed time to consider what had taken place and draw conclusions from it. That is no excuse for not starting the review. In fact, the authorities involved were not asked for evidence until 17 November. If the review had been announced and started earlier, they would have delivered their evidence to the Welsh Office a great deal quicker. Delyn borough council is only considering its submission in full council today.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Ministers at the Welsh Office apparently
"gave immediate, but careful, consideration to the form our investigation should take and how it should be conducted. Naturally, this took a little time".
But why three months? When I spoke to my right hon. Friend at the end of July he told me what format he felt the inquiry should take. I can understand a delay of two or three weeks, but not of two or three months.
I am not happy with the way in which the Welsh Office has handled the review. Ministers and officials have left themselves open to charges—however unfair—of complacency, dilatoriness and worse. They have also left themselves open, unfortunately, to continued renewed pressure in the media in north Wales for a public inquiry. We cannot have a public inquiry when we already have an internal review.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured me that the review will he completed with the minimum delay and has set his officials a target of one further month after Delyn borough council's submission has been received. But the report must be published in time for the lessons that have been learnt to be incorporated into the Food Safety Bill. For example, we require legislation to ensure that information regarding distribution outlets from food processing plants is easily available, which it was not in this case. A lot of time had to be spent gathering information. We need the report before the Bill starts its passage through this House so that we can incorporate the lessons learnt from the salmonella outbreak. We need to be able to handle such an outbreak better in future, because, however regrettable it may be, a further major food poisoning outbreak is almost inevitable. We need to know who should be in charge. Since the administration has changed and we no longer have chief medical officers of health, it was not clear in this case—and it will not be clear until we have the necessary guidelines issued by the Welsh Office and the Department of Health stating who should be in charge. In the Delyn salmonella outbreak, we ran into the problem of having no clear chain of command responsibility—a point that I made, forcefully I hope, in the House on Thursday 27 July.
I hope that we can have that important review as soon as possible. It is important not just for potential future
422
outbreaks, but for the Food Safety Bill. It is essential that we incorporate the lessons learned from that outbreak in the Bill.
When I mentioned disasters a wit on the Labour Benches—there must be at least one—said, "What about the poll tax?"—or, as we can call it, the community charge. He anticipated me correctly. The second man-made disaster was imposed on my constituency in the form of the highest community charge in Wales by Labour-controlled Clwyd county council.
Mr. John P. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raffan: No, not yet. The hon. Gentleman must be patient. I shall give way to him later. I have just embarked on this subject. I shall gladly give way to him once I have made my principal point. Perhaps he will just listen for a moment.
The high county council community charge is the biggest man-made disaster imposed on my constituents by the Labour party. The leader of the Labour group or' Clwyd county council—[Interruption.] How interesting it is that Labour Members listen in silence about salmonella, but not when we criticise their party.
Mr. John P. Smithrose——
Mr. Raffan: I shall happily give way in my own time after I have made my points.
Mr. John P. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the main point?
Mr. Raffan: No. The hon. Gentleman will not disturb my speech. I shall give way after I have finished this passage. The hon. Gentleman should be patient. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is always telling us to sit down and that he will give way when he is ready. Perhaps the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) will do that now. I know that he would like to disturb my speech and break up this section but I shall not allow him to do so. Labour Members are like Pavlov's dogs today. If one throws something out they jump up and bite. They are putting on quite a show; it must be for the cameras.
The leader of the Labour group on Clwyd county council, Councillor Elwyn Conway, has said that the highest community charge in Wales is all the fault of the Welsh Office. As Mandy would have said, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" He says that it is the low level and the reduction of central Government support. The facts contradict him and show that he has wilfully misled the people of Clwyd. The rate support grant for Clwyd increased by 9 per cent. which was more than inflation, in each of the past two years. This year it is up by £14·5 million, or 13 per cent., which is well above inflation. In addition to that, the Labour group on Clwyd county council has had an extra contribution through the business rate of £7·5 million. Central Government support has not been reduced; it has been increased well above inflation.
Mr. John P. Smithrose——
Mr. Raffan: I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman.
Councillor Conway says that people must not be misled into thinking that the high community charge is due to
"extravagant spending…we went through the budget line by line and cut all unnecessary expenditure out."
No one knows whether that is true because the Labour group did it in caucus. I shall come to that again in a moment. Once more, the facts contradict what he says.

423
Clwyd spending is to be increased by £28·9 million or 18 per cent. Only £14 million of that is accounted for by inflation. The remainder is new spending. Of course, Clwyd has not cut anything.
When the council was in financial crisis last July—a crisis that it should have anticipated because, as the largest group on the council, Labour was largely responsible for pushing through the previous budget—it said that it would
"programme a 10 per cent. cut in senior and middle management posts under the containment agreement with a potential saving of £15 million."
What has the council done? It has increased its staff by seven.
I and my hon. Friends know what Labour is up to. After all, we have the famous secret document from Southwark Labour group. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Southwark Labour group for letting us have that document. It shows precisely what Labour is up to. It asked Labour councillors to consider:
"What is more important—short-term protection of people by setting low poll taxes or longer term protection by getting rid of the poll tax?"
The document's advice was to set:
"The highest rate you can get away with."
That is what Labour in Clwyd has done. It is not being responsible, but simply playing politics, as it always has.
Mr. John P. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the same strategy has been adopted by my district council, Vale of Glamorgan borough council, one of only two Conservative-controlled authorities in Wales, which has set a poll tax levy of £36 when the Welsh Office recommended a target of £19? That is almost a 100 per cent. Increase.
Mr. Raffan: I wish that I had a £36 community charge in Delyn. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would send those councillors to me. Will he give them a free transfer? What is the charge in Delyn and Rhuddlan? I think that it is over £55 in Rhuddlan. In Delyn it is £45. Delyn borough council has done a good job because it is not Labour controlled. The Conservative group on Vale of Glamorgan council has done remarkably well. The hon. Gentleman will not be here very much longer; that is why I gave way to him. He will disappear down the chute at the next election. I am glad that he has brought us the good news that the community charge in his area is so low that he is likely to lose his seat when he next stands for it.
It would be remiss of me if I did not deal with the speech of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. He is my favourite politician in the Labour party. He is the favourite politician of all Conservative Members. He is much more popular among Conservative Members than among Opposition Members. We all know why. It would be discourteous on St. David's day of all days to spell it out. I shall not be nasty to him.
In a message to Alyn and Deeside Labour party on 20 December last the hon. Gentleman wrote:
"Many Clwyd people face a bleak New Year, with a poorer quality of life than for many years."
Just a few days later another quotation appeared in the press:
"I'm confident that the Welsh economy, quite surprisingly, is going to outperform the UK economy as a whole for the first two or three years of the 1990s"
424
That strikes quite a different note. Whose quote was that? It was from the general secretary of the Welsh TUC, David Jenkins. He knows what is going on in Wales.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside told the Minister of State to visit some schools. I know that my hon. Friend does so frequently, not only in his constituency but in mine. It is time that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside got round a bit more. Perhaps he should talk to the TUC. The TUC will tell him what is going on in Wales. We are outperforming the United Kingdom economy. Nowhere is that more evident than in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing more than the hon. Gentleman ever did when he was a Minister. We never hear the good news from the hon. Gentleman. In Alyn and Deeside since 1988—[interruption.] He is pointing at his watch now. He would prefer that this part of my speech was deleted. He will not have that luck.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am looking at my watch too.
Mr. Raffan: I shall be as brief as I can.
In Alyn and Deeside since 1988 unemployment has fallen by 47 per cent. thanks to Government policies. People there will benefit from the £300 million Toyota engine plant, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The place is bristling with private sector business parks such as that at Broughton and St. David's Ewloe. That shows that private sector business is confident in the Government's policies in Alyn and Deeside, where one finds the headquarters of one of the great entrepreneurial successes of the past 10 years—Iceland Frozen Foods. There is also there the major industrial park in north Wales, booming to such an extent that it is fast running out of land for industrial development. The Welsh Development Agency is even looking to reclaim land from the Dee estuary.
When the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is not stirring up gloom and doom, he tells us that the sun will come out under Labour. He calls for more teachers, environmental health officers, schools, hospitals—more of everything. He never tells us—Labour never does—where the money will come from.
I know that the hon. Gentleman's favourite Conservative politician is my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North-West. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen if I quote my hon. Friend. When he was asked during the leadership challenge why, despite his disagreement with many Government policies, he remained a staunch Conservative, my hon. Friend replied:
"However important it is to distribute wealth fairly, we have got to create wealth first and only the Conservative party is prepared to do that."
My hon. Friend was spot on as usual. The Labour party spends all its time telling us how it will spend money that it never creates.
I have a constituent called Carol Hughes. She describes herself as the press officer of Delyn constituency Labour party. Her letters to the press never fail to cheer me up. Her latest contribution is three columns long and is entitled,
"Our economy sweeps to the top of the agenda".
She wrote:
"People will be wondering what the Labour Party's answer is."

425
You can say that again, Carol. We are all wondering what the Labour party's answer is and I have a sneaking suspicion that Labour Members themselves are wondering, too.
Several Hon. Membersrose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless speeches are shorter, several hon. Members will be disappointed.
5.49 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak. However, I should like to touch on several subjects, some of which directly affect my constituency, but which also have larger implications for the whole of Wales.
We in Ebbw Vale hope and are extremely determined to make the garden festival a great success, not only for Ebbw Vale and Blaenau Gwent, but for the whole of Wales. I was glad to hear the terms in which the Secretary of State spoke about that today. I hope that he will soon take action to ensure that the prospects for the festival are not in any way injured by the proposals for the great opencast operation. That we oppose on general grounds. Although I am not saying anything against opencast generally—many such operations are carried out perfectly properly—the idea of having a great opencast operation at the entrance to the garden festival at this time is quite wrong. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that we oppose that proposition.
I am happy to welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Welsh Development Agency and its achievements. Some of us can remember the battles in the House to establish it. The whole principle was opposed by the Conservative party. We are therefore glad to see it go from strength to strength. I am especially glad about the fresh allocations for the two different parts of its operations. It was always wrong that the Welsh Development Agency should have to make difficult choices between new factories and new land developments, when we needed many more resources for both. We shall need such resources on an even greater scale in the 1990s. I am sure that a new Government formed by the Labour party would carry forward the work that it initiated in relation to the Welsh Development Agency, but for as long as the Government are in office, I urge them to act on an even bigger scale.
The fact that nobody can describe a new project with such embellishments as the Secretary of State means that we must immediately examine its consequences. At the very moment that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the most flowery account of its prospects, if one looks at the details, one discovers that the local authorities will be left to face some of the difficult consequences of the actions that the right hon. Gentleman has taken. My own local authority would be astonished to hear some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has said today about our housing programme. In the next year we have to face a cut of almost £4 million in our capital programme for housing. That means a big setback for our whole housing programme. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the details that we are presenting to him and try to restore some of the steady expansion for which we have been fighting in recent years.
The Secretary of State tries to present the picture of a
426
steady and certain expansion in the Welsh economy, but that is not the picture that he presents in the rest of the country. I have invited him previously to make in Wales the speech that he sometimes makes in England. When he speaks in England, he is an old Keynesian expansionist, which is a good thing to be, because I am a Keynesian expansionist also. However, when the right hon. Gentleman comes to Wales, he gives us all that monetarist nonsense which sticks so much in the throat—and so rightly—of his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who almost won the leadership of his party. What a great advantage it would have been to all of us if that had happened. We might have got on with some of these policies more quickly.
The Secretary of State knows the truth of what I am saying. He knows perfectly well that, if the speeches that he has made about the economy generally were applied to Wales, they would show that we have wasted huge resources and that hundreds of millions of pounds have been poured down the drain of mass unemployment—and nowhere more overwhelmingly or in such a flood as in Wales. The rest of the United Kingdom has not been hit as badly as we have in that respect.
The right hon. Gentleman is now trying to tell us that that is all over and that we have passed through that period. He quotes the figures that he gave in the House the other day. I am sure that that question must have been planted. The Secretary of State would not dare to answer such a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman would not ask his right hon. Friend such an innocent question.
The question related to the employment figures in Wales now as compared with 1979. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the figure today is 1,158,000 people, compared with 1,160,000 in 1979. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman was saying that they have just about caught up with the 1979 figure—although not quite, because they are 2,000 people short, and represents that as a great triumph. As he well knows—this is why the right hon. Gentleman asked the question to be framed in those terms the unemployment figures for Wales now are still far greater than they were in 1979. There is still a huge waste because of mass unemployment in Wales.
Of course we are glad that the employment figures for Wales have just got back to their 1979 level, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said several times, those figures also represent a different kind of employment. The right hon. Gentleman should not get so angry about the fact that we mention this, because there is now a different kind of employment which, in the main, does not give such well-paid jobs over such a wide area. I am not saying that many well-paid jobs have not come into Wales, but they are on nothing like the scale of the well-paid jobs that we have lost. The right hon. Gentleman tries to question that figure, but he knows perfectly well that I am telling the truth.
Many of the jobs are also part-time. Again of course we do not object to part-time jobs, but it is grossly misleading to include the figures for part-time jobs in the total figure for employment in our country. Indeed, no one knows how grossly misleading those figures are more than the Secretary of State because, as I have said, when speaking on the other side of the border a few years ago, the right hon. Gentleman would have applied himself exactly to the same problems to which I am now referring.

427
Nobody knows exactly what will happen in Wales in the next two or three years. Does anybody think—the right hon. Gentleman has no right to claim this—that Wales will not be touched by the general economic problems that we face in Britain, the problems that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having to face because of the collapse of the Government's general economic policy and, for example, the high interest rates, and all the other fearful weapons against which the right hon. Gentleman has protested for so long? If anything, those problems are even more injurious to Wales than to England——
Mr. Peter Walker indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we in Wales do not have immunity from the consequences of the Government's hideous and mounting economic problems. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government should accept some of the advice given in their recent electoral leadership contest and adopt an altogether new policy. That is what the Opposition are determined to achieve, in this area as in so many others.
I notice the time and will conclude with this. The Secretary of State was so proud of his achievements in relation to the poll tax that he would not have mentioned them this afternoon but for the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman—that is much the wisest and the best way to proceed. It shows that the right hon. Gentleman is as proud of the poll tax as he is of the other stupid measures that have been adopted by the Government. It is much better for him to keep quiet altogether. I advise him to continue on that course.
Above all, the right hon. Gentleman should try to determine how—for as long as he remains on the Treasury Bench—he can apply in Wales the expansionist policies that he says are necessary for the United Kingdom as a whole, because Wales needs those expansionist policies more than any other part of the kingdom.
5.59 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: St. David's day is a special day. In the days of our youth, we Welshmen and women used to celebrate it with leeks and daffodils. We were proud to wear them, as we are today. I am proud to be a Welshman, and proud of the Welsh nation and the Welsh people. I want them to get a fair deal, but I am not convinced that they are doing so.
We are undoubtedly an inquisitive, industrious, enthusiastic and, sometimes, a humorous people. There is still a welcome in the hillsides, and I hope that there will continue to be one. At present, we are in danger of finding no Welsh people in the hillsides to provide that welcome, and that is a depressing prospect.
There is no doubt that in the past week people have suffered, particularly in north Wales. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) in the Chamber. I do not agree with much of what he said, but he has certainly come from his sick bed fighting this afternoon. I agree with what he said about the needs of the north Wales coast. The people there deserve our great sympathy, and adequate resources to put right the problems in that area. The problem of drying out houses is particularly serious. Will Welsh Office Ministers take note that I believe, from
428
information that I have, that there are inadequate drying facilities in that area, particularly for old people, to dry their houses after the waters have receded? That important problem needs to be overcome.
The cry across Europe in the past six months has been for freedom and democracy, as European nations gain their liberty and experience practical democracy for the first time in 50 years. This spring, from Czechoslovakia to East Germany, Romania and other places, the citizens will experience blessed relief at being able to practise democracy in those countries. How lucky they are to have won the prize of liberty and democracy. If they have any sense, they will not follow the British model of democracy but will, I trust, follow the best model produced by British constitutional lawyers—the West German model which is designed on federalism and proportional representation.
It was not an accident that the Secretary of State mentioned the Premier of Baden-Wurttemberg, a beneficiary of that system of federalism. He has more powers than the Secretary of State for Wales; I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that he had the powers of the Prime Minister of Baden-Wurttemberg. It was significant that the Secretary of State said that he was pleased to be able to negotiate with a man who clearly had much more economic power than he has.
I ask a fundamental question: when will Wales get freedom and democracy, and how much of each will it get? Is there freedom to be housed in Wales? I think not, when there are 70,000 people on the housing list and a maximum of 4,000 homes per annum being built at present. That means misery and makes it impossible for many young people to be housed.
In the 1970s, 8,000 council houses per annum were being built. Last year, 750 council houses were built and Tai Cymru says that 3,000 will be built in the next 12 months. That is a serious deficit, and, in human terms, an appalling prospect. The housing planning rules need to be changed and affordable housing needs to be brought in.
Will there be freedom from the poll tax? I think not: the tax will engulf everyone, and ability to pay will not be one of its leading principles. How is it that it will cost two and a half times the figure for administering the rates to administer the poll tax? It costs more than £9·5 million for the rates, yet nearly £26 million to administer the poll tax. Will that mean increasing public expenditure or wasting taxpayers' money? I think it will be a profligate waste of taxpayers' money.
Is there freedom to work and earn a decent wage in Wales? I think not, when there are still 85,000 to 90,000 people unemployed in Wales. We may be glad that the figures have been reduced, but a further big drop must be brought about. We have the lowest wages in mainland Britain. I thought that it was particularly ironic to see a headline in one of the London evening papers last night proclaiming, "Sue BR". I thought that said everything about the cultural divide between south-east England and Wales. First, practically no one in Wales has the money to sue BR; secondly, in most parts of Wales there are no trains. When I was standing on Woking station recently, I found out that there were 156 trains a day going through the station. That is the culture difference that we are talking about.
We want freedom for the Welsh language to be spoken, when only 20 per cent. of the people speak the language. What will happen about a new Welsh language Bill? At present, the Welsh language has insufficient status, and

429
that certainly needs to be put right. I hope that, when the Minister sums up, he will say something about a new Welsh language Bill.
Will there be the freedom for young people to live, work and play in their home areas in Wales? That certainly does not seem a reasonable prospect while there is low pay and little housing, and that is a serious problem.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my hon. Friend share my experience? In my constituency, unemployment is decreasing, which is encouraging, and poverty is increasing, which is discouraging. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government cannot claim to have solved the social problems of Wales when, in areas such as mine, despite the fact that there are apparently more jobs, in real terms people are getting poorer and poorer? That is particularly true of young people, embarking on a life together and starting the families that will be the future of Wales, if Wales is to have any future at all.
Mr. Livsey: I could not agree more with my hon. and learned Friend. The position is serious; there are many people on £70 or £80 a week who see no prospect of obtaining a mortgage, given the unaffordability of housing.
Freedom of access to the National Health Service is endangered by the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. It will result in hospital trusts, and in rural GPs being cash-limited. Many of them say that they will not be able to get around the rural areas anyway.
Will there be adequate freedom for people to be educated at every level? There seems no opportunity to learn foreign languages in Wales, other than French. Our schools do not have the facilities, yet 1992 is coming.
Will there be freedom to travel around Wales? The road system is appalling, and we need a good north-south Wales road. Public transport in Wales is an absolute desert; in many places, pensioners are stuck and unable to move around as they can in many other parts of the country.
Sport is a problem for young people. There is a village in my constituency where, because of restrictions, only five houses have been built in the past 20 years. A little longer ago than that, I used to play football and cricket against the village teams. Now there are not enough young people in the village to get up a cricket or football team—that is serious.
What about democracy itself—that other cry from Europe? We live in a dependency culture. We have never had a time such as this past 10 years. There has never been a Conservative majority in Wales this century, yet we are ruled centrally by a Government with only seven Members representing Welsh constituencies. Indeed, Britain as a whole gave 44 per cent. support to the Conservative party at the last general election, and somehow, by magical arithmetic, the Government ended up with a majority of 101. That is supposed to be democracy. Britain is the only state in the European Community that does not have proportional representation.
We need reforms of many kinds. We suffer from government by diktat. To assist Wales, we should, among other things, have constitutional reform to bring freedom and democracy, with the introduction of PR United Kingdomwide, and create a Welsh senate elected by PR. We must introduce a Bill of Rights to protect the people, including the adoption of the European convention on human rights, for our minorities, be they Welsh-speaking
430
or English-speaking. We want an elected second Chamber in the Palace of Westminster. We want a Freedom of Information Act, and more power given to Members of the European Parliament. We want a proper relationship between Wales and Europe.
Today, in Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed, central Government are threatening to poach away £7·2 million, swindling us out of that money. Even Ministers in the Welsh Office and civil servants in that Department and in the European Community agree about that. But someone in central Government has his sticky fingers on the money, and that is not good enough. We want a Welsh Assembly with real powers to legislate and with economic powers. We want local government reformed into multi-purpose authorities having authority in local communities, with more power given to community councils. We must release the energies of the people of Wales so that we can help ourselves and have more confidence in ourselves.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he would also like the local assembly of which he is speaking to have powers of taxation?
Mr. Livsey: I did not mention taxation, although it is known that my party supports local income tax as a method of financing local government. I said that it should have more economic powers of the kind that the Minister already enjoys in relation to the Welsh Development Agency and similar bodies. Such powers are enjoyed by regions of the Federal Republic of West Germany.
The Secretary of State said that WDA funding had been doubled recently. That is not the experience of development in mid-Wales. The Development Board for Rural Wales needs more funding, particularly to tackle some of the social problems that have been mentioned in the debate. More power should be made available to enable us to ensure that our youngsters can live in the areas in which they were brought up. They must be able to work and earn a decent wage in those areas.
6.13 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: We had from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) an odd mixture of inspissated gloom and unsubstantiated theorising.
I shall stick closely to the situation in my constituency, and the House will understand why my thoughts are concentrated on that area. But before speaking of the catastrophe that has struck the north Wales coast and my constituency in particular, there are two matters of great importance to which I must refer.
The first is the facilities for cancer treatment in north Clwyd. At present, cancer patients there and in Gwynedd must travel all the way to Clatterbridge, in the Wirral peninsula, for treatment—a long and trying journey for them and their relatives and visitors. Up to now, the excellence of the facilities and the devotion of the staff at Clatterbridge went some way to offset those disadvantages. But the equipment and accommodation there are beginning to show their age and the balance of the argument has now shifted.
There is now a strong case for providing the full range of cancer treatment facilities at Glan Clwyd hospital, Bodelwyddan. There is no doubting the strong feeling in

431
the area in favour of that. The admirable Mrs. Smith of Old Colwyn has collected 15,000 signatures on a petition which the Under-Secretary received from me recently.
I am aware that there is no such corresponding demand for the provision of local facilities in south Clwyd, where they enjoy the admirable facilities of Christie hospital, Manchester. I should be sorry if recent statements by consultants in the Wrexham area, stressing the value of Christie hospital to their patients, in any way weakened the case for providing more local facilities for north Clwyd, where the balance of argument is different.
One of the finest schools in my constituency is Emrys ap Iwan at Abergele. Under tertiary reorganisation proposals, that school is liable to lose its sixth form. I have mixed feelings about that, but I do not support the demand now being made by some parents and governors at that school to opt out of local authority control.
Those matters are of long-term concern. Naturally, my mind and heart are full of the tragedy that struck my constituents living along the north Wales coast. I returned only an hour or so ago from a quick dash by train this morning to see the situation for myself, and I have returned briefly to take part in the debate. I apologise to hon. Members in all parts of the House for the fact that I shall be returning to my constituency by car tonight and will not remain to hear the rest of the debate.
It has been a comfort to my constituents, nearly 2,000 of whom have had their homes flooded, their possessions ruined, sometimes their pets drowned and who face many more days in makeshift accommodation, that the Secretary of State reacted swiftly to their plight by pledging Government support and by yesterday sending the Minister of State to see the situation for himself. I was sorry to learn that he had an uncomfortable flight.
Even more comforting has been the presence today of the Prince and Princess of Wales, who returned specially from Switzerland for that purpose. I was able to see for myself this morning how much their visit was appreciated.
There is universal praise for the actions of the rescue services—the fire, police and ambulance men and women —and for the efficient and caring way in which the local authorities have tackled the work of rescuing people. One old lady today could be rescued from her attic only by rescuers breaking open the roof. She had taken refuge in the attic, which was the only part of her home above water.
People are also grateful for the energy and determination that is being shown in the attempt to reconstruct the shattered sea wall. In view of allegations that may have been made, I should put on record the fact that the length of sea wall that collapsed was a long way from the place where a minor breach occurred a week or so ago. The mayor of Colwyn has launched a disaster appeal, which I am sure will be generously supported by those who have been spared misfortune.
The scale of the disaster is immense. Nearly 2,000 people have had to leave their homes and it will be many days before they can return, always assuming that the worst of the flooding is over, and even that is not certain. When they go back, they will find their carpets and decorations ruined beyond repair. Virtually all the furniture in their downstairs rooms—for bungalow dwellers, that means every room in the house, and it is an
432
area of bungalows—has been damaged or at best disfigured, including all their kitchen equipment, which is probably now unsafe.
Raw sewage is washing back up the drains. The drains must first be cleared and then all traces of the sewage removed. I hope that in many cases the insurance companies will pick up the huge bills, but that will mean even higher premiums having to be paid next year.
The farmers have suffered substantial losses. I do not yet have a reliable estimate of the number of sheep drowned, but it is certainly in excess of 150. Many uplands sheep are wintered on the salty meadows behind Towyn. Valuable fences have been swept away and land drains hopelessly silted up, and most of the fertiliser in the land has been washed out. There has, thank God, been no loss of life even though, understandably but pathetically, a number of people refused to leave their homes as the waters swirled around them. That apart, the scale of the disaster can reasonably be compared with an earthquake.
It may well be found that many of the houses have suffered structural damage, as did that of the leader of Prestatyn council. These houses will need to be completely rebuilt. The financial responsibility for the repair of the sea wall falls fair and square on British Rail. That, however, raises the question whether British Rail's capital allocation will be sufficient to meet that responsibility, although it is Colwyn's borough technical services department which is doing the work and making heroic efforts against the tide to get it completed.
Much of the financial responsibility for repairing damage to houses will lie with the insurance companies. They are showing an admirable promptness about settling claims and making advance payments, but a heavy financial responsibility will none the less fall on Colwyn borough council. It is too soon to arrive at proper estimates, but I have heard a figure of £5 million and I should be surprised if it were much less.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say, without waiting to be asked, that the Bellwin rules will apply, but I am becoming convinced that it will be necessary to go a good deal further than that. No one in Colwyn will object to paying the equivalent of a 1 p rate—about £22,000—but if the Government will reimburse only 75 per cent. of the excess above £22,000, Colwyn could be faced with finding £1 million more, which I would regard as wholly unacceptable.
Moreover, this is a singularly unhappy time at which to impose a huge additional burden on local authorities that are necessarily involved in the present rather unseemly wrangle over local government spending. If the extra money that Colwyn has to find takes its expenditure far above the standard spending assessment, will it be charge-capped? Presumably not, but it would be nice to be reassured. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the first possible opportunity to be both more generous and more explicit than he was able to be when replying to me on Tuesday.
I have spoken longer than I wanted to and than I usually do, but I must say a few words before I end about the more general and long-term aspects of— —
Mr. Ray Powell: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have just received a letter from the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, stating that a person in my constituency who owns and runs a post office in Maesteg road, Tondu, has gathered

433
together blankets to send to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but the Post Office has said that it refuses to accept the blankets unless the charges are paid. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we were collecting for the Ethiopia appeal the Post Office agreed to a freepost system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will take up this matter so that freepost will be extended to all who want to send help of this nature to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and glad that he has raised this matter. I hope that the Post Office will take due note of the strong point that he has made. I shall certainly seek opportunities of bringing it to the Post Office's attention. The mayor of Colwyn has launched an appeal: there are notices everywhere asking for blankets and warm clothes, which are desperately needed. One of the hotels into which people were put was not centrally heated, but that was not discovered until too late, so there is a great need for warm clothing and blankets.
I want to end with one general point. Whether it is the greenhouse effect or sunspots, there is no doubt that the level of water around our shores is rising. It will therefore be necessary to re-examine all Britain's sea defences. That will reinforce the need for the public, political parties and the Government to be prepared to invest a far higher share of the national wealth in capital equipment for transport, coastal protection and so on. We cannot buy these things with the money in our pockets, whether in cash or in the form of those nice little plastic cards. Government action alone can provide them.
As I drove this morning through the sodden, crumbling bungalows along the road to Towyn and saw the pathetic blankets hanging out to be dried and the forlorn people standing around, I noticed that quite often a shiny expensive-looking car was parked outside one of the sodden bungalows. That caused me to reflect for a moment or two on a possibly new twist to the concept of private affluence and public squalor.
6.26 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell (Gower): I have great admiration for the way in which the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) presented the case on behalf of his constituents and for the empathy that he showed for them in the disaster that they are facing. He eloquently put the case for the need for improved cancer services in north Wales, in the light of the long distances that many constituents have to travel to obtain the services at Clatterbridge.
I also agreed with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about coastal defences. Last week, at a conference of the Royal Society, it was said that all five predicted models of climatic change, including that of the Meteorological Office in London, showed that over the next 50 years rainfall levels in the United Kingdom between the months of November and May will rise by 30 per cent. It would be extremely good if the Government took note of that sort of prediction and made the necessary preparations.
I am disturbed that the Welsh Office has taken so long to respond to the Select Committee report published on 21 June last year and entitled "The Channel Tunnel: Implications for Wales". I am pleased that a Command
434
Paper is promised for later this month, but the Welsh Office should not take so long to respond to such an important report.
After more than 10 years of Conservative rule, as the Minister will know very well from past Welsh questions and other occasions, the missing link in the M4 remains. That is a disgrace. Although I am pleased that the Costain tender has been let at last, it is vital that the tenders be let for the second and third sections as soon as possible. I know that the Minister has said that that will take place early in the period April 1991 to March 1994, but I stress that it must be early in that period.
It disturbs me enormously, and it is another disgrace on the part of the Welsh Office, that circular No. 30, issued in 1986 and entitled "Housing for Senior Management", still exists. In it, the Welsh Office—not the Department of the Environment—discriminated in favour of senior managers by giving special planning preference to a certain group. The Welsh villages, where people wish to remain, are prevented from expanding by strict planning rules. It would be a tremendous feather in the cap of the Secretary of State if he withdrew the circular so that Welsh people were treated in the same way as the English.
It is a disgrace that there is not a Welsh Office Minister in Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill, especially as waste disposal is different in Wales. Under clause 39(6) Welsh district councils are precluded from providing plant and equipment for recycling purposes. That is disgraceful. I am not proud of the fact that there is not a Welsh Office Minister in Committee to put the Welsh case. The Welsh Office team should not be proud of that either.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that membership of such Committees is a matter for the Committee of Selection?
Mr. Wardell: I am sure that the Minister did everything in his power to get on to the Committee. At the most recent meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee I referred to the problem of contaminated land in certain sites in north Wales.
Mr. Ray Powell: On the point about membership of Committees, it should be said that the Government select their hon. Members to serve on Committees, whatever the Bill is. Likewise, we decide which hon. Members from the Opposition should be on Committees. If talks had taken place between the usual channels, no doubt there would have been a Minister from the Welsh Office on that Committee.
Mr. Wardell: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Committee of Selection, for explaining the position.
I refer to an environmental matter of great concern. In a report in the 1985–86 Session the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs dealt with pollution off Welsh bathing beaches. As the statistics relating to the detailed sampling programme of United Kingdom bathing waters, carried out between 15 May and 30 September last year, have just become available, it is timely to examine briefly the compliance of Welsh bathing beaches with the 1976 EEC bathing water directive. In doing so, it is worth bearing in mind the disgraceful behaviour of the Department of the Environment in deliberately avoiding the implementation of the directive by defining a bathing beach in such a way that not a single bathing beach existed in Wales.

435
I suggest that a new trophy be awarded in Wales, perhaps called the Edwards/Walker trophy, for the beach which tops the filthiest beach league for total coliforms and Escherichia coli. In the summer of 1989 it was a close call between two beaches—Llandudno west shore and Rhyl—for the trophy. For total coliforms Llandudno west shore pipped Rhyl, with five of its 21 samples failing to conform. Rhyl, however, had the consolation of knowing that it scored the highest for any individual sample, at over 40,000 coliforms per 100 ml of water—four times the EEC conforming level of 10,000. There is strong evidence—although I have not looked for it—that Llandudno west shore is peeved that Rhyl managed to force its way to the top position in the E. coli table, failing with six out of 21 samples, one sample more than Llandudno west shore could manage.
None the less, Llandudno west shore gave a sound beating to Rhyl for the filthiest individual E. coli sample, standing at 21,300 E. coli per 100 ml of water, Rhyl's filthiest sample being a mere 7,600. Llandudno west shore must guard against becoming over-complacent, for Rhyl's performance was considerably better than the standard of 2,000 E. coli laid down by the EEC. Perhaps the trophy could be awarded to one for six months and then passed to the other for the remaining six months.
In a class of their own, but none the less worth mentioning as beaches where urgent clean-up operations are needed for E. coli, are Trecco bay, Porthcawl, Jackson's bay and Whitmore bay, Barry, and Langland bay and Limeslade bay in my constituency, as well as Kinmel bay for total coliforms. It is only fair to point out that there has been a major upset for Rhyl, compared to the 1988 bathing season. Then Rhyl beat Llandudno west shore on both total coliforms and E. coli. Since then Llandudno west shore has taken a surprise lead in the total coliforms section, and punters are expecting a major reversal this summer if Rhyl is demoted to second place for E. coli as well. Only time and tide—spelt with a small 't' —will tell.
Of course, we have to put that in context, as it would be grossly unfair to turn a blind eye to a beach in England that easily makes the Ridley/Patten trophy a far more coveted prize. The outright winner—I am sure all hon. Members are waiting to hear—is Seaton Carew centre in the Northumbria region. Even Llandudno west shore and Rhyl pale into insignificance compared with that beach. There is little doubt that it is going for the record as the filthiest beach within the EEC, if not the entire world. Sixteen out of its 23 samples for total coliforms failed, with the filthiest being 2,700,000 coliforms per 100 ml of water. It did even better on the E. coli count where it registered the staggering figure of 4,100,000 E. coli per 100 ml of water, with 17 of its 23 samples failing the test.
The time has come for the Government to issue better advice to swimmers than, "Keep your mouth shut". I want to be able to tell my constituents that Langland bay and Limeslade bay are safe beaches off which to bathe. I cannot do that today. The Secretary of State and other Ministers in the Welsh Office should read again page 87 of the 10th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution:
"the Department of Health and Social Security does not rule out the possibility that sewage contamination of bathing waters and beaches could be associated with an increased risk
436
of travellers' diarrhoea and similar complaints. We believe that this is a prudent attitude to take in the light of current knowledge and that it is now necessary to modify the reliance hitherto placed on a report published almost a quarter of a century ago which in any case concentrated on a few serious diseases. We note, too, that besides infecting the digestive system some faecal organisms may cause infections of the eyes (conjunctivitis) or of cuts and abrasions: children, because of their playing habits, may be particularly liable to contact with infectious material."
There have been changes in the water industry, and the Government have set up a detailed inquiry into the survival of viruses in sea water, but it is vital that people bathing off British beaches, especially Welsh ones, be as safe as possible. We should be as close as possible to 100 per cent. certain that there are no health risks.
6.40 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am sure that nobody would disagree with anything that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has just said about the need to improve our bathing beaches. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not speak on that subject. The annual Welsh day debate is an opportunity for Members to speak about both constituency and Wales-wide issues. I want to do that, as I have done in previous years.
I want to begin by looking at the economy and at agriculture in my constituency. We are aware of the problems that continue to dog agriculture as a result of the over-valuation of the green pound. This matter has not been mentioned in the debate so far, although it is very important. I am sure that, on both sides of the House, there is considerable support for helping our farmers by reducing the value of the green pound and abolishing it by 1992. That is necessary if we are to have a level playing field on which to compete with our European partners in agriculture.
I welcome the recent decision by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to raise bovine spongiform encephalopathy compensation to 100 per cent. and to distribute an extra I per cent. in milk quotas. Those are welcome decisions. They will help the farmers in my constituency who are suffering as a result of increased interest rates and the fact that the green pound gap is so wide at present.
We must look also at the record of the Welsh economy between 1979 and 1989 and during the period of the last Labour Government. My own constituency has seen unemployment fall by 50 per cent. since January 1987. I welcome the improvement that has taken place in the local economy. The enterprise zone in Pembroke dock has led to a boom in industrial and manufacturing jobs in that area. In addition, there has been a resurgence of morale and spirit in Milford Haven as a result of the Milford Haven enterprise initiative, which was brought forward by the Welsh Office in the autumn of last year. That is particularly welcome, as Milford Haven is this year celebrating the bicentenary of its town charter.
It was depressing to listen to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) recite a list of statistics about the Welsh economy as he saw it. We heard nothing at all about the complete change that has taken place in the structure of the Welsh economy since 1979. We heard nothing about the fact that the Welsh economy is not now dependent on two or three heavy industries, that it has diversified so that we can get away from the old structural unemployment that bedevilled Wales since the beginning of the century.

437
The hon. Gentleman talked about coal mining. Let me remind him that his party, when in government, closed more coal mines in the United Kingdom than has any other Government. It is astonishing, therefore, that he should talk about mining. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke about the steel industry and unemployment. It should be remembered that, during the period 1974–79, when he was a senior Cabinet Minister, the steel industry was inefficient and unprofitable. It was losing about £2 million a day. Today, the steel industry is making a profit of £400 million a year—due in part to the excellent record of the industry in south Wales.
When considering the economy of Wales, we ought to look to the future, not to the past. If we are to have better mobility, it is particularly important that the road and railway systems in Wales be improved. I want to say a word or two about the transport system in my constituency. There is a long way to go before we will have improved the structure of the road system in Pembrokeshire to the standard of that along the north Wales coast. In the past, I have pressed my hon. Friend the Minister of State about improvements to the A477. I also want to see improvements to the A478, because that road causes particular problems to constituents in the south of the county, who, as the economy improves, have to put up with heavy vehicles trundling along roads that were not built for such vehicles.
It is also important that the railway network in Pembrokeshire be improved. Let me describe something that depresses me. One can get to Swansea in two and a half hours by InterCity 125. Apart from the train that leaves Paddington at 5·17 every evening, in the case of every train going to Pembrokeshire one gets to Swansea and then has to transfer to a two or three-car 30-year-old diesel multiple unit. Having waited 20 or 25 minutes, one spends nearly two hours trundling round the countryside before getting to Milford Haven.
Those trains are out of date and dirty. They are cold in winter and hot in summer, and they are overcrowded. Time and time again, British Rail has failed to keep its promise to introduce a completely new set of Sprinter trains on those lines. I say on behalf of my constituents that we shall be considering very carefully any way of pursuing British Rail if it does not provide its customers with the service they want. British Rail has a duty to my constituents to help to improve the local economy by upgrading the railway service that it provides in Pembrokeshire.
There is one more aspect of transport to which I want to refer, but I shall do so very briefly as I hope to secure an Adjournment debate on it in the near future. I refer to the toll on the Cleddau bridge in Pembrokeshire. For the last 20 years, there has been agreement among all parties that it is unfair and unreasonable that this little bit of the road network joining north Pembrokeshire and south Pembrokeshire should be subject to a toll. The time has come to stop trying to screw down people who happen to have to cross an estuary, demanding of them a toll that does not have to be paid on the rest of the national network. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will listen carefully to the representations that will be made to him in the near future about this subject.
I want to turn now to the Health Service in Wales. With the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I have just spent an
438
enjoyable three months on the Standing Committee that considered the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. During those debates, I was interested in the sheer hypocrisy displayed by the Labour party when it comes to the Health Service.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who was an Under-Secretary of State for Wales between 1974 and 1979, had the cheek to attack this Government on the Health Service. His hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on 20 December, put a series of questions to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about Health Service spending in Wales. The answers that my hon. Friend was able to give were very revealing. For example, total National Health Service gross expenditure in Wales, in the five years of Labour government, improved by £76 million; in the following 10 years—exactly double the period—it did not just double but went up by £364 million in real terms.
In the case of hospital and community health services, expenditure rose by £49 million in the five years during which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Welsh Office; it has gone up by £221 million in real terms in the 10 years of this Government. Expenditure in real terms actually fell by £15 million under the stewardship of the hon. Gentleman who is now wisely covering his head as he hears these statistics; it has increased by £18 million in real terms under this Government. Expenditure on family practitioner services increased by £32 million in real terms in the last five years of the last Labour Government, but has increased by £101 million in the 10 years of this Government.
Wherever one looks at expenditure on the Health Service in Wales, one sees that the record of this Government is superior by far to anything that the hon. Gentleman, who was Under-Secretary between 1974 and 1979, could boast about. It is no wonder he glossed very quickly over the whole issue of the Health Service. Other things that he did not tell the public of Wales are that spending on the Health Service there, as part of gross domestic product, is 7·1 per cent., compared with 5·4 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole; that we have 18 per cent. more medical and dental staff than we had in 1979, and 13 per cent. more nursing and midwifery staff; that we are treating 110,000 more in-patients and 100,000 more out-patients; and that there are over 58,000 more day cases than there were in 1979.
Wherever we look, we see the progress that the Government have made in helping the people of Wales to improve their health. In my constituency, the Withybush general hospital has recently won the Sunday Times award for the best district hospital in the United Kingdom. Since 1982, when the Pembrokeshire health authority was established, total throughput has increased by 71 per cent. There has been a 21 per cent. increase in in-patients and a 24 per cent. increase in out-patients. There has been a 112 per cent. increase in day cases. I am pleased to say that £130,000 from the waiting list initiative has been used to reduce the number of people waiting for hip operations in Pembrokeshire. The list has been reduced dramatically in the past three months.
That is the Government's record on Health Service expenditure in Wales. I am glad to say that the health authority in my constituency is leading the way in pioneering new techniques, reducing expenditure on cleaning and other services and providing more money for patient care.

439
When it comes to local government expenditure, I am especially concerned about the way in which Dyfed county council is going about its budgeting exercise. A report in the Tenby Observer on 16 February reported the words of the chairman of the finance committee, Councillor Tom Parry of Haverfordwest, which is in my constituency, when talking about Dyfed's budget. He said:
"this is not a standstill budget. Allowance has been made for extra spending. Enough is enough and I am obliged to tell you that this budget is more than enough."
The finance committee took no notice of Councillor Parry. Instead, it set up a special committee to find ways of spending yet more public money at the expense of the Dyfed community charge payers. That is because the largest party representation on the county council belongs to the Labour party. Having been warned by the chairman of the finance committee that the council was spending more than it should, it went ahead and increased the budget by yet another £1 million. That is irresponsible behaviour in the extreme. It is unfair to my constituents when the council, having been told that enough is enough and having already increased its expenditure, should ignore the chairman of the finance committee and insist on spending more.
Dyfed county council is being irresponsible because the largest party representation is that of the Labour party, but I am pleased to say that it is likely that the community charge in Pembrokeshire will be less than £200 per head. That is less than £5 a week for every citizen aged 18 years or over. The charge means that those who receive rebates of 80 per cent. will be paying about 80p a week towards the services which they receive as constituents and voters in my constituency.
The community charge is a fair charge. I have not yet heard from any Labour Member any reason why half the population should be able to receive the services of the local authorities and be able to vote in elections to determine how good those services should be and the cost of them but make no contribution towards financing them. That does not seem a fair system.
In the past, Labour Members have said that they do not like the rating system. They have acknowledged that it is unfair. It is indeed unfair that an old lady living on her own and using the local authority's services once should have to pay the same in rates as three or four adults who live in the house next door, who use the services three or four times as much and who have three or four votes. Surely that is—[Interruption.] Labour Members are jeering. They do not care about pensioners in their constituencies. I care about my elderly constituents who are suffering under the unfair rating system. I am glad that they will be much better off when the community charge is implemented.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman starred in a recent television programme about the miners' strike. He told us that Scargill was wrong and that he, the hon. Gentleman, had to force the Welsh miners to go on strike. He admitted that they did so against their will. This is the hon. Gentleman who wishes to intervene. I am sure that he will explain to the House the Labour party's alternative to the rating system and the community charge. I hope that he
440
will do so, because it seems that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has no idea what it is. Perhaps the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) can help him.
Dr. Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his marvellous trailer. It was terrific. Will he acknowledge that the jeers from my right hon. and hon. Friends and me were not the result of a lack of compassion for those who are in the predicament which he described? We jeered because we are constantly faced with the appalling cliché which he introduced. We would not have done so if the hon. Gentleman had expressed intelligent thought. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pick up his act as a result of our jeers.
Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that all the single old-age pensioners who live in my contituency are clichés, that shows that he does not understand the problems that they face. The elderly person who lives on his own provides the starkest example of the unfairness of the rating system.
It seems that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is about to leave us. Indeed, he is leaving.
Mr. Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend has had enough.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friends and I have not had enough of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. He promised to tell us what the Labour party's policy would be, and then there was silence. Will it be the roof tax, with its capital values and a local income tax? If it is, that will be manifestly unfair. Council tenants who have no control over the value of their assets will be charged more if they live in a council house that is of greater value than one which is occupied by another tenant.
Such a system will mean that, when the public have been fleeced once by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing street, they will be fleeced a second time by the 400 "chancellors of the exchequer" in town halls throughout the country. If the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside wants to be treated seriously, it is time that he stopped sitting on the fence and explained the Labour party's alternative to the community charge.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bennett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he has some ideas.
Mr. Williams: We have heard of the hon. Gentleman's concern for elderly people in his constituency who live on their own, and about the inequity of the rating system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said, we all share the hon. Gentleman's concern for those people. Dyfed has the lowest average male earnings of any county in Britain. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to the 20,000 or 50,000 people in his constituency who are on low pay, who live in ordinary houses but are not eligible for any rebate under the community charge system, and who will lose heavily when their community charge bills arrive in a few weeks' time?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. A married man with two children younger than 11 years who earns £157 per week will be eligible for a rebate on his community charge. [HON MEMBERS: "How much?"] Opposition Members should listen. People who receive

441
income support will be given an 80 per cent. rebate. Those people, and students, will pay about 80p per week in my constituency for local government services. I do not think that that is an unreasonable contribution to make for the services that the local authority provides and for their right to vote in local council elections. I think that we shall in future see greater accountability by local authorities. All the electors—not just half of them or, in some areas, a third—will be making a contribution towards the services which they receive. Voters will want to know why there are different levels of service and different charges in different parts of Wales.
I shall make one more reference to local government and then speak briefly about education before I resume my place.
Mr. Rowlands: Come on.
Mr. Bennett: I have been generous. Unlike the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who would not give way to most hon. Members who wished to intervene, I have given way to every Labour Member who has wanted to intervene in my speech. I am always willing to do that.
Mr. Morgan: Twenty minutes—
Mr. Bennett: I have spoken for only 18 minutes, not 20 minutes.
I believe that we should scrap the county councils. It has become clear during the debate on the community charge that it is absurd to have three tiers of local government. I am glad of the support of the Liberal party in Wales, which supported my ten-minute Bill on this issue last year.
Unfortunately, the Labour party, which first brought forward the idea, voted against it. It began with the same idea of having 16 or 17 all-purpose local authorities. It then took the view that there should be 25. Its latest suggestion is 37 all-purpose local authorities. That is because the Labour party does not dare to say boo to any sitting councillor in Wales who might be out of a job if it is decided to have 16 or 17 authorities. The Labour party wants as many all-purpose local authorities in Wales as the various authorities that already exist. I believe that we ought to cut the number of district councils in half by amalgamation and scrap the county councils. We could save the public in Wales a considerable amount of money.
Education is of great importance to my constituents, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, is here. Yesterday, in answer to a parliamentary question from myself, he announced that the consultation document on compulsory Welsh as part of the national curriculum had been issued. We have been waiting for more than a year to hear the results of applications made by schools in my constituency for exemption from compulsory Welsh.
I hope that my hon. Friend will listen carefully to the views expressed by teachers, governors and parents fron schools in south Pembrokeshire and mid-Pembrokeshire. They pointed out that there is no objection to the teaching of Welsh—every secondary school in Pembrokeshire teaches Welsh—but they object to the compulsory element in years one to three. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the arguments of my constituents on the need to encourage the growth of Welsh language and culture without making it compulsory, as that alienates people.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: To make the position clear, as my hon. Friend has said, we have issued a consultative document. There will be consultation on that document, and I hasten to assure my hon. Friend that there will be consultation on the order before it is made.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement, which will be widely welcomed in Pembrokeshire.
In the past 10 years we have seen a rapid transformation of the Welsh economy. We are no longer dependent on two or three heavy industries. A wide range of industry is now available. Morale is growing and excitement permeates the whole of Welsh life and the Welsh economy. In large part, that is due to the leadership given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. When I listened to the hon. Member for Alyn arid Deeside, there was no contest. The people of Wales will decide at the next election to return this Government with a resounding majority, and we will have more Conservative Members representing Welsh constituencies.
7.1 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I should like to respond lo the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), as distinct from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), because I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West. I am sure that all Opposition Members extend sympathy to him and to his constituents in the situation that they are now facing. We all appreciate the fact that he has had to leave the House to return to his constituents, and I should like to put on record our appreciation of his courage and honesty. He revealed his true personality today. He revealed the flaws in the leadership of the Conservative party and of the Government. Under extensive pressure, he exercised his democratic right and explained fairly his criticism of the Government, and I applaud his loyalty to the truth. If we read the banner headline in the Evening Standard—
"Thatcher bids to stem panic"
and how she is trying to convince some members of her Government and some of her Back Benchers to support the poll tax, I wonder what reward the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West would have got if we had had this situation then. After undoubted pressure from No. 10, within seven weeks he was deselected.
When I asked the Prime Minister at Question Time two weeks ago to explain how democracy works within her party, my question was ruled out of order, because it was not her responsibility. Whatever the reasoning behind that ruling—perhaps it was brought about by a flash of lightning—nevertheless I believe, as do a number of my colleagues, that it was her responsibility. Clearly it is her vindictive hand and brain that manipulated the very hon. Gentleman's deselection in Clwyd, North-West. It was typical of the tyranny that prevails under the right hon. Lady's dictatorship. I say that, knowing that tomorrow night I shall attend my final reselection meeting in Ogmore, and that I risk the wrath of my constituents and of hon. Members for saying such a thing.
We listened for a long time earlier this evening to the Secretary of State talking about the situation that the Government inherited in 1979.
Mr. Raffan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Powell: No, I do not intend to give way. I did not ask the hon. Gentleman to give way, so he can save his back.
In 1979, Ogmore was happy, industrial, prosperous, cultural and contented and it played its part in contributing to the wealth and prosperity of the Principality and of this country. The market town was booming, pits and industry were progressing and developing and were providing employment, education and training for the skills to meet the ever-demanding changes in technology from the new industries. I remind the House that those new industries, such as the Ford and the Sony factories at Bridgend, were brought in by a Labour Government. Numerous other factories were the product of the previous Labour Government.
In Ogmore at that time there was an electorate of 83,000, and an unemployment rate of 3·7 per cent., and most of the unemployed were unemployable because of industrial diseases such as silicosis and pneumoconiosis.
My constituents look back to the years of the previous Labour Government with memories of secure jobs, free education for their children and few worries over paying mortgages and rates. They were contented in the knowledge that their hospital needs and health care were guaranteed. The pensioners, the disabled and those suffering from pneumoconiosis, silicosis or other illnesses, caused by a lifetime's work in the pits, expressed pride and contentment in the knowledge that they were protected by a caring Government. It was a Government who were struggling with economic problems forced on them by world economic factors, but they still cared for the sick and the underprivileged.
North sea oil was on stream, but was not running into the Treasury coffers then. What a difference it would have made if a Labour Government had had all that bounty to distribute through the economy. The German and the Japanese industrial successes, as we know them today, would pale into insignificance by comparison.
Yet the electors, swayed by false promises of tax reductions, of no increase in VAT and of full employment —I could go on at length because I have the 1979 Conservative manifesto here—voted for the Government. What happened then? Overnight my constituency suffered some of the most cruel, instant, industrial rape. It could never have been envisaged by any political organisation other than by the Government. Thousands of steel workers were thrown out of jobs. Thousands of miners were thrown out of work. Factories, offices and shops closed down. That wilful political hurricane hit my constituency worse than the present series of hurricanes that have raged over the country.
My constituents are proud, industrious, adaptable and ready to build a new life, but they will never forget the decade of this Tory Government. We are picking up the ashes and preparing for a new Government who will clear out, erase and extinguish for ever the Thatcher era of the 1980s.
The 1990s will be open to the return of a caring, compassionate, responsible Government. I do not know what the Government Whip is laughing at. These are the promises that we are making. We shall carry out our promises, unlike the promises that the Conservative Government made in 1979, 1983 and 1987 and never carried out. Those who have deliberately exploited the cruel, coarse, brutal, dictatorial attitude of the prime
444
Minister and her henchmen will be exposed for creating a society with the stench of corruption, greed, selfishness and avarice, which is their only legacy of the 1980s.
We in Wales can blame the Secretary of State for most of the devastation because he was a member of the Cabinet throughout. I regret that he is not in his place. I have often asked, is it not passing strange, to say the least, that despite all the right hon. Gentleman's so-called wet colleagues having received the chop, the right hon. Gentleman has remained? The list is significant and I had better put it on the record. There is Lord St. John of Fawsley, Lord Pym, Lord Prior and Lord Joseph. Sir Leon Brittan has gone to Europe, and the right hon. Members for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), for Guildford (Mr. Howell), for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) have also left the Government.
The list of those who have disagreed with the diktats of the ayatollah and who have been sacked or forced to resign is endless and it could make up two Cabinets. But the Secretary of State for Wales is not on that list, so I beg the question: is he a wet or is he a weed? What has he accomplished in Wales? What was his role during the miners' strike—that bitter battle, not about wages, better and safer working conditions or any issue that would benefit the miners, but to save their pits and their jobs? That was what the struggle was for.
Last week we viewed once again televised extracts of the miners' strike, and the Secretary of State was in the thick of all the intrigue that went on then. He was involved in the appointment of Mr. MacGregor. Was his remit to crush the miners and his reward a Cabinet post of whatever sort during the Prime Minister's reign? It is passing strange, to say the least, that he is one of only two so-called wets—the other being a Welshman, the Leader of the House—who have survived in the Cabinet since 1979.
Personal abuse is not one of my specialities, so I want to speak briefly about the real issue affecting Wales. But my personal criticisms could be extended to most of the Prime Minister's henchmen. Chris Buckland, the chief political editor of the Daily Express, last Thursday in "Inside Politics" said:
"There are not many MPs you would choose as partners for a trip into the jungle and with Tory MPs even a journey to a safari park would be risky—start limping and most of them would throw you into the lions' enclosure, if only to claim a refund on your admission ticket."
That is from a Tory paper.
It is only on rare occasions that we can pose questions to the Secretary of State. Numerous Tories have infiltrated recent Welsh questions. Last Tuesday Scottish Tories were called. Wales has 25 Labour Members of Parliament, three Welsh Nationalists and three Liberals, but only seven Tories. The number of Opposition Members called in the 35 minutes available was deplorable. There is a desperate need for that imbalance to be remedied.
The Secretary of State cannot possibly be aware of the problems of the people in Wales, representing Worcester as he does. When does he hold a surgery in Wales to discover the problems and the worries of the Welsh people? We who represent constituencies in Wales are well informed of and well acquainted with our constituents' worries, hopes and aspirations. The very least that we

445
demand is the opportunity to question the Secretary of State on matters of concern. We do not want merely 35 minutes for 38 Members every five weeks, a Welsh Grand Committee three times a year and our one debate a year on St. David's day. It is not the Secretary of State's fault, but it would have been far more reasonable to appoint a Welsh Member of Parliament to his office, not a Member from outside the Principality with little accountability to the House. He has little contact with the Welsh people and their problems and worries. Only if he came from Wales could he and his advisers appreciate the frustration, hardship and despair that many are facing, from the bankrupt business man to the small trader, the one-parent families, the teachers, the sick, the elderly, the poor, the disadvantaged and the homeless. Some desperate people cannot afford their mortgage payments and they face the even more frightening problem of paying the iniquitous poll tax. Will the Government and the Welsh Office gain financially from the introduction of the poll tax?
We still have the problem of the unemployed, yet the Secretary of State simply reels out figures dismissing the real problems of people without jobs. He tries to tell us that unemployment is coming down, but he does not appreciate that the Government's policies since 1979 were responsible for the high unemployment in the first place.
One thing on which I must congratulate the Secretary of State is his high profile engineered by his public relations team. Reams of statistics have been sent to us in the past week or so, but I was disappointed with one document that landed on my desk yesterday. The Secretary of State had better bring someone to task for it. I do not know whether the Minister of State is listening, but the document was entitled "Welsh Industry and Commerce". It has 48 pages, plenty of pictures and a lovely glossy cover but, astonishingly, there is not one photograph of the Secretary of State, despite the thousands that British Rail and everywhere else have been flooded with. He must take note of that and draw it to the attention of his public relations people.
We should have a day's debate on the poll tax, but as many of my hon. Friends want to speak, I shall be brief. The right hon. Member for Henley was once a prominent Minister who constantly told us how we should run local government and defence, and who decided to quit over the Westland affair. He said that he opposed the poll tax in Cabinet 10 years ago.
The new-found friend of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), appeared in the press last week. It presented photographs of a pleasurable, pleasing, practically plausible and plantonic prelude to his celebration of 40 years in the House. But what did that loyal friend of the Prime Minister say about the poll tax? He said that it should never have been introduced, that it is unfair and iniquitous and that it is flawed because it is unfair. I wonder whether their new-found friendship will continue after that.
I should like to make a few comments about the well-known "Tarzan"—the Mace weightlifter—who is now drugged with ambition to replace the ayatollah. I am sure that everyone is aware that the right hon. Member for Henley resigned over Westland, but this week he revealed that he should have left the Cabinet in 1981 because he disagreed about the introduction of the poll tax and claimed that it would not work. It has taken him 10 years to reveal his innermost thoughts, yet he was prepared to accept the office of Secretary of State for the Environment.
446
What sort of people have been running the country over the past 10 years who cannot stand up to the Prime Miniter and speak the truth?
My final comments are from another ex-Minister, the right hon. Member for Brent, North. He warns of a return to Rachmanism because of landlords compelling tenants to pay their own poll tax and rent, which at present includes rates. He says that if tenants complain, they will be out on their heels. What will the Government do about that anomaly? What will the Secretary of State for Wales do about that problem in Wales? We have 100,000 homeless people, but how many more will there be when that form of Rachmanism is introduced?
7.22 pm
Dr. John Marek: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), to whom I listened with much interest.
My hon. Friend made a pertinent point about what the Secretary of State for Wales is doing about the poll tax. He mentioned many right hon. Members who are no longer Cabinet Ministers because of their opposition to the ayatollah. The people of Wales would like to know what the Secretary of State has been doing about the poll tax.
The Labour party is committed to introducing a new tax that is fair, that is easy to collect and not bureaucratic, that is not paid by people who are too poor and that is less onerous; and it is certainly possible to introduce such a tax. It will not be easy to introduce such a tax after the fiasco of the poll tax, but it will be based broadly on the value of property. It will be easy to collect; it will be fair because poor people will not have to pay it; and it will not be onerous. That is as far as Labour Members need go. because the argument is not what Labour will do when it takes office but what the Government have done.
I was amazed that the Secretary of State had nothing to say about the poll tax. Until he was asked about it by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), all he could do was mouth, "What is the alternative?" The alternative is clear and is perceived by the Welsh people; it certainly is not the poll tax. I have no worries about arguing that the poll tax should be abandoned as quickly as possible.
I was amazed by the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He pleaded for improvements to the A477, for the removal of tolls on the Cleddau bridge, for a better rail network and for better Sprinters, yet he condemned Dyfed county council for levying a poll tax to try to provide those services.
Unless I am mistaken, the A477 is a county road and the responsibility of Dyfed county council. Cleddau bridge is the responsibility of Dyfed county council, which, in co-operation with British Rail, also has responsibilities to provide grants to improve railway services. It is a pity the hon. Member for Pembroke is not present, yet we hear such speeches day in and day out from members of the present-day Tory party. They condemn local authorities for trying to maintain public services, yet make special pleadings: "In my back yard, I want no tolls across my bridge; in my back yard, I want decent railway services; in my back yard, I do not want potholes in my roads." Making such statements will do the hon. Member for Pembroke no good whatever, because the public in Wales are not daft and will see through them.

447
I agreed almost entirely with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), in particular with his comments on cancer treatment. He was right in what he said about people from Gwynedd and north Clwyd. He had the sense—it is not always obvious in speeches made by Conservative Members—to realise that people in south Clwyd see their priorities slightly differently, but I do not want to detract from what he said.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West rightly argued for capital infrastructure for British Rail. We must spend from capital to renew our infrastructure. British Rail will have to pay for all the damage in north Wales from its own revenue. That means that passengers will have to pay, and I wonder what the hon. Member for Pembroke would say to that. Our road and rail systems must be funded properly from general taxation. Ministers should be arguing for a first-class road and rail system throughout the Principality. Costs should not always fall on the backs of the commuter or passenger through extra fares.
Clwyd county council's standard spending assessment is £50 less than that of other counties in Wales. When I asked the Minister why, he said, "Unemployment is lower in Clwyd." He failed to realise—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) made this point —that people in Clwyd are poorly paid. Just as Dyfed may have the lowest male wages in Britain, so Clwyd has the worst female wages. According to recent statistics, women are paid less in Clwyd than anywhere else in Britain.
It is no use pretending otherwise, because people in Wrexham, Alyn and Deeside and Delyn understand that the going rate in a screwdriver industry is £2.30 an hour, that one receives no training and that one has no career prospects. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent that at least we have that instead of unemployment and the dole queue, but let us not make any mistake: we are becoming a deskilled nation; our people do not have the opportunity to learn skills and are generally far worse paid than they were 10 years ago.
I hope that the Welsh Office will take seriously the problems of Clwyd county council. If the standard spending assessment is less for spurious reasons, it should be no surprise that the poll tax is higher there than in the rest of Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I intervene only because the hon. Gentleman said that the standard spending assessment is less for spurious reasons. The formula on which it is worked out was agreed by the local authorities themselves.
Dr. Marek: That is exactly what the Secretary of State for Wales said. But it was not agreed by the Clwyd representative, and, of course, it was not freely agreed by the local authorities in Wales. There was also the heavy hand of the Welsh Office telling them to agree it along those lines, or else. It was not entirely as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
However, the principle is clear: if some of the figures that are used for deciding the standard spending assessment are faulty and the standard spending assessment is less than it should be, necessarily the poll tax figure will be higher than it should be to maintain the standard of service. That is the problem. It is a great pity
448
that the Secretary of State for Wales did not accept my request during Welsh questions that he meet a deputation from Clwyd county council to sort out the problems.
Let us make no mistake. Clwyd county councillors and Members of Parliament representing Clwyd constituencies are desperately worried for their own people. They do not want their people paying a pound more than is necessary in poll tax. Unfortunately, they will have to do so because of mistakes by the Welsh Office and by central Government in London, and worst of all because of the leadership of the Prime Minister.
It is not just Labour Members who are worried. On 13 February, the hon Member for Clwyd, North-West said:
"It so happens that the county I represent and part of my constituency have both, in their separate ways, been clobbered very heavily by the change in the formula used for assessing the Government contribution to the revenue support grant."
He went on to say of Clwyd county council's £223 poll tax:
"I do not think much of this can be attributed to extravagance or mismanagement. A great deal of it is due to the reduction in the level of the revenue support grant coming through this new formula."—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 181.]
I know whom the people of Clwyd will believe. They will believe the explanation of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West and Labour Members representing Clwyd constituencies for what is happening in Clwyd at the moment. They certainly will not believe the hon. Members for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). If Welsh Office Ministers had any integrity in the matter, they would talk to Clwyd county councillors to try to sort out the problem, make a proper realistic assessment and admit their mistakes.
I hope that the Welsh Office will address the problem of flooding in the north of the county. It is a serious problem and a social fund, crisis grants and cash payments must be freely available to people who have suffered. In his answer on Tuesday to a private notice question from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, the Secretary of State for Wales did not address that problem.
The worries of farmers in Wales need to be taken into account, and compensation paid. It is available in Scotland, so why not in Wales? Is the Secretary of State for Wales a Thatcherite, or does he have freedom of action to look after the people of Wales? That is a serious question, and I should like to know the answer.
I shall not speak for too long, as time is limited and I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. I hope that the Welsh Office does not take what I have said lightly, because we are in a serious position. The poll tax is about to be foisted on the people of Wales and none of them wants it. Even the militants in the Tory party in Clwyd, North-West do not want the poll tax. But if we have to have it, it should be mitigated as much as possible. Welsh Office Ministers can do something about it. They could start by meeting local authority associations. They could certainly meet Clwyd county councillors. Most important of all, if we are to believe that the Secretary of Wales is not simply a Thatcher clone and a faceless man in the Prime Minister's Cabinet, we want to hear something from him pretty quickly.
7.34 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: For a moment I thought that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was going to be very brave and tell us the Labour party's

449
alternative to the community charge. But after a few weasel words he dodged away from the issue and, like the rest of his party, refused to answer. Is not he demonstrating that, as we have come to realise, the Labour party does not have an alternative—or at least nothing like a clearly thought out, comprehensive answer?
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) say that he did not specialise in personal abuse. Surely he meant that it comes naturally to him so he does not have to specialise in it. I appreciate what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who is a man of the greatest integrity and has acted honestly throughout. While I reject with total contempt the unworthy and unfounded suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had any part in the matter, I shall be very sorry if my hon. Friend is not here representing Clwyd, North-West after the next general election.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell us about the Welsh Development Agency's announcement of a new property development programme to provide 6,000 new jobs in Wales. I share my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the future of Wales and specifically his target of a further fall in unemployment figures in Wales of 39,000 to give Wales a lower rate of unemployment than the present rate in the south-east of England. That is a most admirable target and I wish him all good speed.
The 6,000 jobs from the Welsh Development Agency are in addition to other important developments that are already under way—the expansion of Ford, the arrival of Bosch and Toyota and the valuable developments in the financial services industry with National Provident Institution and the Trustee Savings Bank coming to south Wales. I admit to being glad that four of those developments—Ford, Bosch, NPI and TSB—are coming to the effective travel-to-work area of my constituency of Cardiff, North. I am pleased that my constituency has one of the lowest unemployment rates—if not the lowest—for any constituency in Wales. I give credit to all that has been done by my right hon. Friend and everyone who has worked so hard.
Wales continues to have a tremendous record of attracting inward investment. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) began by congratulating my right hon. Friend and everyone else who has worked so hard to achieve that tremendous record. That was a very positive opening paragraph. What a pity and what a sad shame that it was the only positive contribution in his entire speech, which included the most amazing contradiction. He blithely demanded higher wages for workers—a policy which can only lead to pricing workers out of employment in Wales— -and went on to express his apprehension that Wales would lose out to eastern Europe in further inward investment. Clearly he has no awareness of the impact of what he says, when he is prepared to say something. On major issues, such as Labour's roof tax, the hon. Gentleman will not say anything. He refuses, he dodges, he squirms and he wriggles. What is the beef? He cannot answer.
We hear sedentary comments from Opposition Members about, "When Labour comes to power." They speak about "when" not "if". I suppose that we shall be told next, "When the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside becomes Secretary of State for Wales." I bet that the hon. Gentleman secretly dreads that prospect and joins me in
450
being grateful that it will never come about. If he had to come to the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State, he would have to provide answers, which he cannot and will not do now. Perhaps he would prefer that the job of Secretary of State for Wales might yet be offered to one of the 23 other Welsh Labour Members who, the Western Mail told 'us, turned the job down last time it was touted around. The hon. Gentleman should not become downhearted and he should carry on in his own way. He has all our encouragement because we know that he is the best that Labour has.
The current level of interest rates is significant for the Welsh economy. All of us are aware of high interest rates and their consequences. I firmly believe that the policy on interest rates has been right, but it will not be a surprise if I say that I am not looking forward to a further 1 per cent. increase in lending rates. The medicine has been right, but we must avoid any overdosing which might kill the patient, however well-intentioned that dose was. I am not thinking here primarily of all those of us who are paying mortgages. Building society lending represents about 80 per cent. of total lending, so it cannot be ignored and all of us who pay mortgages must be aware of the significance of interest rates. It would be fair to describe mortgages as painful, but not as catastrophic.
I am especially concerned with the effects on business and industry in Wales. I have the benefit of many contacts in business and industry throughout Wales. My own company, Messrs Bowring Wales Limited, is probably the leading insurance broker in Wales. I listen especially to what people in banking tell me. They tell me that an increasing number of companies are on what they call their critical list. Little movement is involved between profit and loss and a little more movement again may be all that it takes to move from loss to liquidation.
We know that our economy is fundamentally sound, but we cannot avoid contemplating the downside of what an overdose of interest rates might do to damage that fundamentally sound economy. Already there is a disincentive to investment. Anyone considering further investment has to think long and hard about the rates of about 15 to 17 per cent. Any company with money of its own which it could have ploughed into expanding its OA n business could reflect that it could presently earn more by leaving the money on deposit with a bank than by making the expansion which we should all like to see.
We must consider whether that threatens the better future which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelled out. It is widely appreciated that higher interest rates are a price we have had to pay for inflation and for the balance of payments deficit. However, many Welsh business men are asking why British interest rates have to be significantly higher and have to contain a differential over the interest rates being charged by our rnajor competitors: Germany, Japan and the United States of America.
I do not look forward to another 1 per cent. increase in interest rates, but I look forward to a narrowing of that differential. I know that we have to be concerned that there should be no premature reductions in interest rates. We have to be concerned about any withdrawal of investment money from Britain to overseas chasing superior interest rates. I have even heard the comment that we should be concerned that so much hot money is moving around and that we might lose it. Should we properly be concerned about hot money?
Dr. Marek: There would be a run on the pound if we lost it.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right. We must avoid a run on the pound. I am not advocating a panicky and incautious approach, but I want to speculate about the possibility of a narrowing of the differential between the interest rates that we charge and those in other countries. Have we a shortage of investment money in Britain? No. We have an overseas portfolio second only to that of Japan and we have money invested around the world. We still have a strong pool of investment money here for investment in Britain. We have a strong pool of investors. Let us consider the success of the water flotation and the way in which the man in the street gave his endorsement to the idea that the people can now own the water industries of Britain. Let us consider the enthusiastic way in which the offer was taken up, and the oversubscription and constant movement in the share price. That is one more indicator of the desire to invest in Britain.
Welsh business men also have questions about the exchange rates between the pound and other currencies. I detect here that there is far more a note of approval, with the position of the pound being somewhat more favourable against the deutschmark and thus being a great aid for Welsh business men who are involved in exports. They are the business men, to whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier, who are contemplating expansion and other opportunities in Germany. However, is there not scope for more movement in exchange rates? Is there scope for reducing the interest rate differential which would inevitably be counterbalanced by an appropriate movement in the exchange rate? If, as now seems inevitable, we are to join the European monetary system, might it not be better if we were locked into the EMS at a lower rate than we have now?
My last subject is the burden that many people in Wales are having to face because of the actions of their local councils in setting, in too many instances, ridiculously high community charges. That is very inflationary. The community charge is a far fairer system than the rating system it replaces. I have called some councils in Wales "crazy". I think that I may have been wrong to use that description because it implied that they were irresponsible and needed only to be certified to be found not guilty for their actions. They are certainly the guilty councils. The councils in Cardiff and South Glamorgan, for example, which are close to home, are being condemned by their peers. On 20 December 1989, the Council of Welsh District Councils produced its own summary of the figures that it felt would be appropriate for community charges. The council estimated that the figure for Cardiff, including the precept of South Glamorgan county council, should be £193. In fact, Cardiff council levied £253. Its guilt is proved just by that.
I appreciate that in the major change from rating to the community charge there will be some natural confusion in the minds of the ratepayers, now the community chargepayers. Inevitably, there will be an increase of about 7·7 per cent. as we are moving from one financial year to another. However, several councils in Wales, especially those in Cardiff and South Glamorgan, are taking rank political advantage of the confusion and are attempting to blame it on the Government.
In Cardiff, the budget process was proceeding quite normally until it was found that there was not enough
452
expenditure to justify the intended community charge. There was desperation in trying to find ways of soaking up the extra money. Committees were circulated and asked to find extra spending. Other devices were used to try to boost expenditure up to the figure that had been announced nine months previously. I say as strongly as I can to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Cardiff and South Glamorgan, in particular, and other councils in Wales, must be capped or there will be a ridiculous increase in spending.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that the county councils have to file their expenditure plans today—1 March—and the district councils will have to do the same in a few days' time. I hope that as soon as my right hon. Friend sees the spending assessments he will publish figures showing what the equivalent rate increase would have been. We should then be able to see on the old basis of comparison what changes have taken place. I am afraid that my own council—Cardiff—will still be the worst nigger in the woodpile, with an increase of at least 110 per cent. There is no justification for an increase of 110 per cent. It is ludicrous.
I ask my ministerial friends not just to cap but to take action so that councils that make illogial decisions in setting the community charge cannot then interfere with essential services. I see that as the obvious danger. We all know where the money has been hidden. Let me give the House one of the best examples of that. As a way of soaking up the money, South Glamorgan increased its contingency fund from £7 million to £15 million at the last minute. Without that, £20 could immediately have been taken off the community charge in South Glamorgan.
Fortunately, the political consequences lie with the Labour party. We have had this before in Cardiff. Last time the rates were increased by almost this much—by 94½ per cent. —the people of Cardiff reacted by delivering the Left such a hefty blow that they brought the Conservative party in by a landslide. The Labour party has done us a great favour by placing the firmest footstep for Cardiff and South Glamorgan moving back into Conservative control. The people of Cardiff will not forget this savage attack.
I entirely dismiss what I read in the opinion polls. It is nothing more than an Ardennes offensive being feverishly directed from the bunker by the leader of the Labour party. We know that it is blighted, as the last Ardennes offensive was because you cannot fool all the people of Wales all the time, and that is what the Labour party has been expecting. I am confident that, come the next general election, we shall have fewer Sandinistas on the Opposition Benches than we have now.
7.52 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): I shall not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) because it is not worthy of being followed. I shall only give him a little advice. If he thinks that the political consequences of the poll tax will not be visited upon him and his Government, he has not learnt much in his few years in the House.
On St. David's day last year, I had the privilege to represent a constituency in which there were four working pits. Next door, there were Oakdale and Marine, which were about to be closed. Now, a year later, two of the four

453
pits in my community and two neighbouring pits have been closed. Two other pits—including one in my constituency—are now in jeopardy.
It has become a curious feature of Welsh political and industrial life that anyone who speaks about the coal industry is regarded as a Neanderthal man who speaks for interests marginal to the Welsh economy. But in our communities those pits mattered economically and socially and because of the wages, powers and rights that they gave our communities. The fact that in the 12 months from one St. David's day to the next I have lost four of the pits in the immediate vicinity of my constituency, which lies in the heart of the south-east Wales coalfield, is not a matter for great rejoicing. Nor should it invite the observation, as I expect it will, that there are alternative jobs. It is a matter of profound regret, and we should say so.
Traditionally, the Secretary of State reacts in pavlovian manner every time anyone mentions pit closures. He says, "But there were pit closures under a Labour Government." The Secretary of State is in danger of becoming unique. He could become the Secretary of State for Wales who presided not over pit closures in Wales but over the complete closure of the south Wales coalfield. There are only six pits left and two pits are in jeopardy —Blaenant and Deep Navigation. We may have two more St. David's days to go before the next general election—it seems probable in the light of opinion polls. Perhaps the Secretary of State will set a new record, which he cannot claim for a previous Labour or Conservative Secretary of State. He may preside, as I said, over the closure altogether of the coalfield.
Let us make one plea. By all means, chase the Koreans and the Japanese. Obviously there is a lot of political sex appeal in going round the world encouraging inward investment. But please also pay attention to the industry that is already there—to the industry that is at home and to the jobs that are available. I think that the Secretary of State was genuinely taken by surprise by the actions of Mr. Wheatley—a person alien to our society—who was brought in with the specific job of butchering the south Wales industry to prepare British Coal for privatisation. The Secretary of State did not realise the speed or the vehemence with which he would pursue the pit closure programme, and nor did the Under-Secretary of State, who will remember our conversations last summer about the pit closures. The Welsh Office was taken by surprise. But, having seen Mr. Wheatley at work, Ministers must not be taken by surprise any more. Two more pits are in jeopardy and I want the Secretary of State and the Welsh office to spend some time thinking and worrying about the existing industry.
It is interesting that in every article—in the Western Mail and elsewhere—that I have read recently, the Secretary of State and others have been quoted as saying that some marvellous transformation of the Welsh economy has taken place because we have only 6,000 miners but 60,000 bank employees. I do not know whether it is a matter of regret that we have only 6,000 miners left and, in the process, we have locked off millions and millions of tonnes of good reserves that we shall never get back.
It is a rather superficial notion that we can build our new Welsh economy on the service sector. Of course, the service sector has brought many good things to our communities—especially my own, where we have the business park at Pentrebach, the regional office of the
454
Welsh Development Agency and the Heads of the Valley industrial estate at the top of Rhymney. That is great encouragement because infrastructure and investment matter for the future. The Secetary of State can claim credit for it; my local authorities are perfectly entitled to claim credit for it and in a modest way even I might claim a piece of the credit for it. It does not matter who claims credit for it. All the developments are positive, but the notion that somehow the service sector, the service economy, the bank employees represent a good, firm basis for a new future for the local economies of our communities is a matter of doubt.
I want to raise two other matters concerning the service economy—not in relation to the Cardiffs of this world but in relation to the Merthyrs and Rhymneys of this world. The service society and service industries and economies of the valleys communities are not about having sophisticated banking systems. We have had no influx of sophisticated banking systems. Nor have we seen any signs of the computer software industry that supposedly symbolises the service economy. Nor have we had highly skilled modern office employment—with one notable exception when Hoover's headquarters moved from Perivale to Rhymney. That was an adjunct to a manufacturing operation.
For Merthyr and Rhymney, those great terms mean, not a sophisticated aspect of the service sector, but nothing more nor less—I say it in a completely neutral way—than creating retailing jobs. The two characteristics of all the new retailing jobs in out-of-town superstores and so on are that they are part time and poorly paid. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and others challenged the Secretary of State for Wales at the beginning of the debate about the number of jobs and the quality and wages that went with them. They were right to do so. We have swapped well-paid skilled jobs in manufacturing for semi-skilled or unskilled, poorly paid jobs. That is not a fair swap, nor is it necessarily the basis on which to create a new, sound economy.
I am deeply worried about the predominance of the service economy. It is not and cannot be immune from the trends and movements of the wider economy. The thrust of mainstream Government policy of high interest rates is that we must cut consumption because the economy has got out of hand. If consumption is cut, what happens'? Where does consumption take place? It takes place in the retail service sector, which is supposed to be our new salvation.
Mr. Barry Jones: It is next.
Mr. Rowlands: As my hon. Friend says, it will be next, Indeed, there are terrible tell-tale signs that it will be next. Is it not a matter of anxiety to anyone who believes that the service sector is the future that Mr. Ashcroft, the man who personified the Thatcherite revolution, and his company Coloroll are now in the deepest financial difficulties? Habitat, represented by Terence Conran, is also in difficulties.
Mr. Barry Jones: And Laura Ashley.
Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend mentions Laura Ashley. The service sector—the basis on which jobs were created—was utterly dependent on the consumption power of the local communities. If benefits are cut and wages reduced, if the Government say that wage inflation

455
of 10 per cent. is wrong and must be cut to 4 or 5 per cent., and if mortgages go up by £30 a month, consumption is sucked out of the local community. The very money that is supposed to sustain the service sector, on which the new economy is based, is sucked out.
When the Secretary of State, again in pavlovian fashion, responded to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, he cursed us for talking down our communities. None of us does that. We are proud of the communities that we serve and represent. We spend all our time preaching their virtues and potential. But we are entitled to warn that if our new local economies are built on the shifting sands of the service sector, it could lead to as many difficulties as the dependence on the old traditional, dirty industries of coal and steel.
Another curious side effect of building an economy on the service sector is the impact on local society. One of the most striking aspects of representing a community such as Merthyr is that it has a highly developed local district centre. The Woolworths, B and Qs and Asdas have managers who have few roots. They are transient people. They do not belong to the local society. It may sound old-fashioned, but the collapse of local chambers of trade is a reflection of the decline and fall of people who run the local society and economic community. We are losing not only our traditional character, represented by our coal industry, but a sense of identity and roots in those who manage our so-called new local economy.
I look forward to an alternative economy for our communities in the 1990s, based not only on bank employees and the right and proper role of the service sector, but on something that we were good at and must become good at again—that is, making things. The community that I represent was built on making things, not on servicing things. It was built on developing skills of one kind or another. The tragedy of the past decade is the deskilling of our local communities.
Despite all the effort and considerable sums of money that were poured in through what was the Manpower Services Commission and various other systems, we ended the 1980s with not only fewer jobs but less-skilled, lower-quality and lower-paid jobs. One of the real worries from the 1980s is that, as a result of all the so-called investment and the hype of the Secretary of State, we have not prepared the community that I represent for the new challenges and opportunities of the 1990s.
8.5 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am conscious of the fact that this is our annual St. David's day debate. I cast my mind back to this day last year when with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I had the privilege to introduce to the House my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). That by-election marked a turning point in British politics. I date it back to January of last year. I was heavily involved in the by-election and it was a privilege to be so. In January of that year, at the launch meeting of the by-election campaign at Treforest at the polytechnic, the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), said that a pendulum swings over a period of time. The background to the by-election was that we were 10 points behind in the
456
opinion polls. My right hon. Friend felt that the pendulum was about to move. Move it did and we had a superlative result in the Pontypridd election. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd has made a tremendous impact in the House since then. We have moved on from there and have not looked back since. We had another superlative result in Vale of Glamorgan, and the rest is history.
In 12 months we have moved from being well behind in the opinion polls to being 10, 12, 15 or 17 points ahead. The gap is growing day by day. I am proud that on St. David's day we can look back to the recovery in the fortunes of the Labour party and see that it was based on and came about in Wales.
One old wag told my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) at a rugby match in Twickenham that if he could do for Welsh rugby what he had done for the Labour party he really would be a hero. If we get a Labour Government, perhaps those crowds and grand slams will start happening again in the 1990s. Meanwhile, we have 12 or 18 months during which we must put up with the present Government.
The main anxieties of my constituents are the Health Service and the poll tax. There is one major hospital in my constituency in Glagwill, in Carmarthen. It is going through a period of crisis as we reach the end of the financial year. The hospital has overspent its budget by £125,000. It has to face cuts of one kind or another. That is set against the background of a modernisation programme. I am pleased to say that the programme is going ahead. Over a period of five years all the main ward blocks will be renovated and modernised. Modern medical technology will be introduced. I very much welcome that, although it will mean a loss of 50 of the 500 beds. That modernisation is therefore at a considerable cost.
In the next two or three months that hospital will have to work on an insufficient budget. It is also understaffed in nurses. It should have an extra 28 nurses, but it cannot afford to employ them and we obviously have the people who want to work. Is it fair to the existing nursing staff, to the doctors, but most of all to the patients, that the hospital is short-staffed?
Because of our overspending or lack of finance, in December the health authority announced that patient throughput at the hospital would be reduced to the 1988–89 level, despite the increasing demand. People are moving in to my area of Dyfed. We have an influx of retired people because it is an attractive rural area in which we live. They put more demands on the Health Service at a time when the proportion of elderly people in the population is increasing, yet at this time of increasing demand patient throughput is to be reduced to the 1988–89 level. I have asked the hospital administrator exactly what that will mean. Frankly, it means increased waiting lists, cancelled or postponed operations, out-patient appointments taking longer and perhaps fewer tests being carried out on patients. Generally, it means a lower quality of care per capita than last year. That is what is actually happening in the Health Service, despite the boasts of the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends. In my area we are living with the fact that the Health Service is not safe in the Government's hands because the quality of that service is being cut.
My constituents' other major concern is the effects of the poll tax. We are all aware of the anomalies of the rating system whereby an elderly person living on his or her own in a large family house had to pay a rates bill that was out

457
of proportion with that person's income. We accept the anomaly of that, but the community charge is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am sure that it would have been perfectly possible to remedy that anomaly without introducing something as appallingly unjust as the poll tax. It is obvious to every citizen in Britain that the fundamental injustice of the poll tax is that it is not linked to the ability to pay. Apart from the few people who are caught by the rebate system, generally the further down the income level—or the poorer the person is—the greater the penalty and the harder that person will be hit when the bills arrive.
I shall quote one paragraph of a letter that I received last year from a constituent. An elderly couple retired to my area to live in a small cottage in Clansawel near Llandeilo and the husband wrote:
"My rate demand this year for this small cottage is £61. Next year, on Mr. Walker's assessment, my wife and I will be required to pay £175 each at least. Can you explain how this huge increase can be justified? After all, we are told this new imposition is more fair. What's fair about that? Will it result in improved services, or even of the resumption of services that have been withdrawn through government action during the past decade?"
That is the unfairness of the poll tax. I know that there is transitional relief, but ultimately the bill that will arrive in that household is twice £175 for an elderly couple who live in a cottage with a rate bill of £61. That means nearly £300 extra for people who cannot afford it. The poll tax system throws up such anomalies all the time.
When I was canvassing a few month ago, I came across a young girl of 19 and asked her about her work. She was a hairdresser. As we were canvassing specifically on the poll tax, I asked her about it and encountered 100 per cent. opposition. I then had the cheek to ask her about her take-home pay. It was £47 per week, yet that young girl will have a poll tax bill of nearly £200 in a few weeks. That is the unfairness of the poll tax.
Earlier I asked the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) the same question that I asked the Secretary of State last Monday—what about the problems of low-paid people? Dyfed has the lowest average male earnings of any county in Britain. I am sorry about that, but set it out as a fact. In Carmarthen we have low unemployment, but we also have low pay because we have mainly service industries and low-paid public sector work. What about the low-paid people who live in ordinary houses and who will not be eligible for rebates? They will suffer huge losses when the poll tax bills arrive. I estimate that between 20,000 and 30,000 of my constituents will be in that position.
There is no question but that the poll tax is an evil tax. It is identified absolutely with the Government and the Prime Minister. It is very much the right hon. Lady's tax. It will become known as a Tory tax. It is one of the main reasons why the Government will be driven out of office when the next election comes, which we hope will be next year.
8.16 pm
Dr. Datydd Elis Thomas: I always follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) with pleasure because I was born there, but my pleasure is increased by the fact that his wife was born in my constituency, so that makes us all square.
This is a day on which we can talk about local issues and about the national and international perspective. It is
458
now the time of day when one's daffodil begins to wilt a little, so I shall not speak for too long. I see that some hon. Members have been seeking sustenance for their daffodils and that some hon. Members, including the Minister of State, have leeks which were never alive in any case—as far as I am aware, anyway. Perhaps it came back with him from Brussels yesterday when he was on one of his many missions—in which case it is a Brussel sprout. [Laughter].
Let us get on with the main substance of the debate. I want to talk about the way in which Wales is governed. Next month we shall celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Welsh Office—what a wonderful celebration. I put on record the fact that I am still waiting for my invitation, just in case any party has been missed off the invitation list. We remember with great affection the 10th anniversary party of the Welsh Office. I see several hon. Members in their places who were present at that party——
Mr. Foot: We had better parties in those days.
Dr. Thomas: I am not going to be drawn into an argument about whether the parties of the late lamented Labour Government were better than those of the Conservative Government. We have heard enough from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) about the record of the last Labour Government as compared with that of the Conservative Government.
I want to talk about the way in which Wales is governed as it would appear to an outside observer. For the purposes of discussion, let us imagine a European country —an ancient nation with a population of 3 million that is about the same size as one of the Baltic states. That nation is governed——
Mr. Morgan: I have heard this speech before.
Dr. Thomas: Well, it has not been in Hansard before. The hon. Gentleman might have read it in the Western Mail.
Mr. Morgan: It is a good speech—I like it more every time I hear it.
Dr. Thomas: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman follows my speeches. It will do him no harm to listen to it again.
That nation of 3 million people is governed by a party with less than 20 per cent. support in the opinion polls in that state. It has three Ministers. They are not area Ministers. One of the Ministers crosses the border when he visits, but the other two Ministers are very much part of the culture of that country. That has always been the case with colonial systems. In addition to those three Ministers, there is a budget of £4 billion, which is spent by central Government. There are also 3,000 civil servants working in that system, who commute between the two capitals on a fast train——
Dr. Kim Howells: Not so fast some days.
Dr. Thomas: All right, not so fast some days. Perhaps Labour Members will stop interrupting me.
Civil servants also occasionally appear on a video screen so that they can speak to each other without having: to travel up and down. Occasionally they make forays to the northern part of the territory. Indeed, one of them. who lives there, makes forays into the Ministries and Civil Service every week.

459
That is how Wales is governed. If one were to look at that from outside, one would say, "Good heavens, this nation needs perestroika and glasnost. This place needs democracy. How is it that the people put up with this kind of government?" The answer is quite simply that Wales operates within the context of a unitary state of the United Kingdom which has been centralised, with most of its activity in the metropolitan centre. Except for the North of Ireland, where there was an elected assembly for a period, and Scotland, where there is a similar system to that in Wales, only the people of that unitary state have had to put up with the system of having the day-to-day affairs of all the nationalities, ethnic groups and regions within the state run from the centre.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman talked about the formal structure in the Welsh Office as governing Wales. Did he know that, within six months of taking office, the Secretary of State gave an answer to a question that I submitted, saying that he had made 300 appointments to public bodies in Wales in six months?
Dr. Thomas: I am grateful for that intervention because I missed that part of my script. Not only do we have the Ministers and elected Members of this Chamber, but we have a sort of intermediate Government whereby the Secretary of State appoints public bodies. I think that there have been 600 direct appointments to quangos and 1,200 advisory bodies in which the Welsh Office is consulted. I shall not read out the list or we shall be here all night, and all our daffodils will wilt.
We have had a unitary state in the United Kingdom, but that is becoming an increasingly outdated model. Throughout central and western Europe and in the Soviet Union, federalism is becoming the major issue in politics. For how long will the United Kingdom be the exception to that system? How long will Wales be the exception to a system that is generally spreading throughout Europe? I see the future in terms of increasing the lateral links, of which the Secretary of State spoke this afternoon. I see it in terms of economic and political relationships between regions and nations on a lateral basis throughout Europe.
The people of Wales, the business community and those in the trade union movement in Wales must look carefully to the way in which having an elected, political, small nation of regional governments is a major enterprising aspect in itself. One thing that the Secretary of State has discovered since he became the Prime Minister of Wales —having failed to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom he has become a surrogate Prime Minister of Wales, and I am pleased that he is meeting the Prime Minister of Baden-Wurttemberg and whoever else he wishes to meet on state visits—is that within that system, having a political relationship laterally between regions and smaller nations is an important economic development. The way in which the Welsh Office is pursuing its policy, not just in western Europe within the Community, but in regions in Japan and the Soviet Union, such as the Ukraine, shows how Welsh Office economic and political thinking should progress.
The Welsh people are gaining a new self-confidence. The argument is not merely about whether we swap manufacturing for service jobs and whether we still have poverty. Whenever there is serious economic disfunction
460
and disjunction, there is poverty. Wealth is created, but so is more poverty. Therefore, it should not surprise us that low pay still exists as a major problem alongside the high and intermediate technology that has come in. Economic disjunction takes place when there is further growth.
We should look at the overall impression that Wales creates for itself and gives to others. I am not entirely influenced by the propaganda sheet of the Welsh Office, otherwise known as the Western Mail. However, that newspaper tends to print more good stories about what is happening. I do not blame the editor for doing that because he has editorial freedom to do so and we welcome good news.
Mr. Morgan: And he has a grant from the Welsh Office.
Dr. Thomas: Yes, he had a grant from the Welsh Office. We have all had grants from the Welsh Office at one time or another.
Welsh consciousness of itself, and the Welsh people's consciousness of themselves as an enterprising nation, has, ironically, changed in recent years. The growth of the media industry is one good example of that. That optimism is also catching on culturally, in terms of our English language culture, in our valley communities and in terms of the Welsh language culture.
This is my final point because I want to make sure that all my Labour colleagues speak because I am a kind and generous boy. After 16 years in this place, today I am still kind and generous. Having said that, I hope that I get a quango if Labour is ever in government.
Mr. Morgan: The Welsh String Bean and Leek Marketing Board?
Dr. Thomas: What would I like? I shall draw up a list for the hon. Gentleman.
The optimism, which is part of the enterprise culture, is also a cultural optimism with regard to the Welsh language community. I was pleased to see that Professor Harold Carter had got his figures right at last. He has been making a bit of an industry recently out of predicting when, and whether, the Welsh language would finally die.
I am pleased to end by quoting from the greatest book of Welsh history ever written, which is published today. It is called "Hanes Cymru" and is by Dr. John Davies. In the penultimate paragraph he lists all the people throughout the history of Wales who predicted the end of the nation. I shall not go as far back as Tacitus in 100 AD because it would detain the House and would be tedious repetition. I can say that Rhygyfarch, who was reputed to be the author of the "Life of St. David", round about 1094, considered the early extinction of his people. In 1247 it was predicted that the whole of Wales had been drawn down. In 1282 it was predicted the whole of Wales had been struck down. The scholars of the renaissance period believed that the identity of the Welsh was on its way out. In 1682, William Richards said that the Welsh language was about to die. In 1688 Thomas Jones was afraid that the Welsh would be removed from history. The majority of Welsh leaders in the last century did not think that Welsh would continue much beyond that century. The "Welsh Outlook" in 1916 stated that the Welsh language would cease to be a living language by 1950. And yet, says Dr. John Davies:
"Eto, fe oroesodd y Cymry holl argyfyngau eu hanes, gan ailgreu eu cenedl drosodd a thro".

461
The Welsh people managed to overcome all the crises of their history and recreated their nation over and over again.
My prediction on this St. David's day is that in the 21st century the Welsh nation will be recreated as a building block of a federal Europe and I hope to see the Minister of State, Welsh Office still with us to celebrate that occasion.
8.27 pm
Mr. Robert Hayward: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). He started by saying that one should stand back and look at Wales and see how it is evolving. When I first moved to Wales just under 20 years ago, I lived in Pembrokeshire. The economy was, to some extent, as it is today in terms of low wages. But it was also dominated by three industries: agriculture, steel and coal. Two of them have undergone substantial changes, but the Wales that I see now when I visit it reasonably regularly —because I represent a constituency just across the Severn —has also undergone substantial changes over that period.
The coal and steel industries have been dramatically slimmed down. The Secretary of State said that they had shed 58,000 jobs in the past few years. In the process of evolution, the Welsh economy is on a much broader base now. Previously it was accepted that unemployment in Wales would be about one third above the United Kingdom national average.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am wondering who makes the selection of speakers. I submitted my name to speak. I represent the constituency of Rhondda, and considering that I have the largest majority in Wales and in the United Kingdom, I should have thought that I should be called to speak in a Welsh debate. Yet the hon. Gentleman——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member will be aware that this is the United Kingdom Parliament. Any person democratically elected to it has a perfect right to speak in any debate.
Mr. Hayward: When I moved to Wales, the economy was dominated by three major industries. The economic base has since been broadened dramatically. At that time unemployment was about one third higher than the United Kingdom national average. Because the Welsh economy now extends to a wide range of industries, unemployment is about 17 per cent. above the national average. I hope that it will come down to, and possibly be lower than, that average. I believe that that is achievable because we have on either side of the River Severn economies that are evolving together. Indeed, we are to a large extent becoming mutually dependent.
Mr. Rogers: Oh dear.
Mr. Hayward: If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will listen to me, he will recognise that there is a mutual development of the two economies. I have no desire, as the two sides of the Severn grow together, to see the diminution of the Welsh nation. It is important that the Welsh identity should remain. At the same time, local authorities and agencies in Wales should look across the River Severn and recognise that there is a mutual interest.
462
That interest is growing, not only in the broadening base of the economy on both sides but in other matters, for example, the development of a second Severn bridge. Although some may not regard it as a happy event, there is increased house purchasing and commuting with people obtaining jobs in Cardiff and moving to Bristol, and vice-versa.
It is important for organisations responsible for Avon and Gloucestershire on one side and for the Welsh economy on the other not to look at one area in isolation. To do so would be to the detriment of the area. For the sake of everybody, we must look at both sides. A good example of that is the issue that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) raised when she first entered the House, that of Rhoose airport and its possible expansion. At present we have two airports which almost consider that they are competing against each other, although to a large extent they supply a common population. We should try to attain a sense of community so that both sides of the economy can grow together.
I have spoken briefly because I am anxious that other hon. Members should take part in the debate. It is important to recognise the potential for growth on both sides. There is a mutuality of interests and it is in the long-term interest of both sides that we should recognise that.
8.33 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I add my sympathy to that expressed by other hon. Members for the people who have been affected by the flooding in Towyn. It has been a dreadful occurrence. As one who represents part of Colwyn, I hope that the after-effects of the flooding will not manifest themselves in increased poll tax for the residents of Colwyn who are unaffected by it.
As many of my hon. Friends said, the poll tax is not fair. Even the Duke of Westminster, the richest man in Britain, acknowledges that. For the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to trot out the old chestnut about the old lady living in a house by herself paying enormous rates to a council that is overspending is an utter fabrication produced by Conservative Central Office, and even there the story is getting low priority now.
When such an old lady lived in a large house by herself, under the old system, she could, if she was poor, claim rate rebate. In any event, she had a choice, which is not available to poll tax payers. Under the poll tax system, even those on the lowest incomes must pay 20 per cent., and they have no choice but to pay or to go to court.
Nor will poll tax make local government more accountable, despite what the hon. Member for Pembroke claimed. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to ensure that Dyfed's poll tax is the lowest, he cannot at the same time claim that Dyfed county council is overspending and will be accountable to the local electorate. If that were the case, the electors would think, rightly, that they should continue voting for those in power to achieve a low poll tax. The two factors are mutually exclusive.
We must consider the effect of that bit of the rates which has not disappeared and to which reference has not been made. I refer to the uniform business rate. That system is still based on the old unfair system of rates, and it is 2p higher in Wales than in England. That has led my local chambers of trade to complain bitterly to me about the effect that that will have on small businesses in Wales.

463
Add to that the VAT on electricity and the phenomenally high interest rates, which are likely to rise even further, and we have a disaster on our hands in towns such as Llangollen in my constituency, which relies on small businesses.
People are also worried about job losses. We have heard much about the way in which the number of jobs in Wales is increasing. That does not seem to be happening in rural areas. On several occasions I have tabled written questions asking the Secretary of State to provide figures of unemployment in rural Wales. Not only has he not provided them, but it seems that he is not even thinking about ways to obtain them. The Rural Development Commission in England is able to provide such figures. If we had them for Wales, they would show up what is happening in our rural areas.
Mr. Livsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one cannot obtain statistics about wage levels in rural Wales? I have been unable to obtain from the Welsh Office such statistics for Powys. That has concerned me for some time. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) said that wages in Dyfed were the lowest, but I suspect that they may be even lower in Powys. Unfortunately, we cannot obtain the information.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which demonstrates that without adequate statistics it is difficult to get a complete picture. It seems that certain statistics are unavailable or that no one is anxious to gather them.
Jobs in rural areas are a problem and I welcome the proposals of the Welsh Development Agency to examine the situation in Denbigh and Corwen in my constituency. They are black spots and I welcome the WDA's efforts. There is a particular problem in Denbigh, where the factory of James Seddon is likely to close with 125 job losses. That closure is due to problems in the clothing industry, mainly because of high interest rates on the investment that has been made in that industry.
Such jobs as exist are poorly paid, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) pointed out. I agree with him that the figures are not available, but some figures have just become available for Clwyd. They are based on the decency threshold figures issued by the Council of Europe, and for my area the decency threshold wage is £160 a week.
In Clwyd, East, the part of Clwyd about which Conservative Members brag in relation to numbers of jobs and development investment, 29 per cent. of people in full-time employment earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold. In Clwyd, West, the rural area that has been neglected, 38·5 per cent. earn less than that threshold.
Agriculture is also going through the problems of high interest rates and VAT on electricity—problems that will affect it as much as they will small businesses. We also have the problem of the Welsh Office Agriculture Department —I know that other hon. Members are concerned about it —which provides a service not only for Clwyd but for the eastern parts of Gwynedd and the northern parts of Montgomery. The Department is being shrunk by 35 members of staff and will give a much worse service.
464
Then there is the problem of roads. We were told in the Welsh Grand Committee that the A55 would be the answer to all the problems of north Wales, which is nonsense. There are no connections from the A55 to my area, and even if there were they would not be used without proper investment and some sort of development area status for the rural areas.
Furthermore, we have no more deregulated buses and very few post offices. Even magistrates courts are closing in my area of Llangollen. I submit that the toxic waste dumps that seem to proliferate in my patch and in others are no substitute for the jobs that we need.
Hon. Members will have noted the host of golden daffodils being worn by Opposition Members today—we have rather more Welsh Members than do the Conservatives. Even if all the Conservative Welsh Members wore their golden daffodils they would not amount to a host, and they certainly will not after the next election.
8.42 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I want to take the opportunity of this St. David's day debate to raise in some detail a serious issue affecting the Health Service in Wales. I have raised it already in early-day motions 407 and 540 and in some written and oral questions. I refer to the dangerous commercial conflicts of interest when Health Service employees are also shareholders and directors of private companies, operating in sectors in which there are opportunities for income generation in the Health Service.
I want to make it quite clear that the general right to private practice of consultants, doctors, nurses, medical laboratories, scientific officers and other NHS employees is not at stake in the two cases that have been drawn to my attention. This issue concerns a specific area of private practice in which there are opportunities for Health Service income generation. I believe, as the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Health are both aware, that the Government need to lay down clear and specific guidelines to prevent such commercial conflicts of interest.
The first case arose in my own constituency of Bridgend, at the Princess of Wales hospital. I received a letter shortly after Christmas from a doctor in west Glamorgan, drawing my attention to the fact that Dr. Joan Williams, a full-time consultant biochemist, employed by the Mid Glamorgan health authority at the Princess of Wales and East Glamorgan hospitals, and Mr. David Else, a chief medical laboratory scientific officer at the Princess of Wales hospital, had established a company, Healthcare Diagnostics Limited, in January 1989, of which they are chairman and secretary respectively, as well as being the majority shareholders with 3,249 shares apiece. The company has three other shareholding directors and a further shareholder, Dr. Rhys John, a clinical biochemist in the pathology laboratory of the University of Wales hospital in Cardiff.
On making inquiries I discovered that, during the course of 1989, at no time did Dr. Williams or Mr. Else make it generally known to their colleagues in the pathology department that they were so intimately involved in their own private pathology laboratory. I understand that when establishing this laboratory at the science park in Bridgend and applying for financial and other assistance from local government and the Welsh

465
Office, they claimed that the work that they would be doing would not compete with work being done in the NHS pathology laboratory.
That may have been their honest intention, but the truth is that the brochure of Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd. sets out, with prices, the tests and services offered by the company and virtually all, if not all, of these tests and services can be carried out at the NHS labs in the Princess of Wales hospital, Bridgend. These tests and services—category 2 work, screening for drug trials, cervical cancer screening and biochemistry or haemotology tests—are worth thousands of pounds annually to the Princess of Wales hospital. Either one third of the fees charged go to the hospital or 100 per cent., as in the case of screening for drug trials.
The potential conflict of interest, which could so easily be tantamount to commercial espionage, is, I hope, clear for all to see. Dr. Williams and Mr. Else are senior personnel in the pathology department and have access to privileged information on the customers and charges of the NHS pathology department, while at the same time they are directors and shareholders of a potential competitor to the NHS pathology department.
In private industry such a situation would not be tolerated. Apart from specific contractual obligations which often extend years after retirement to prevent staff from working for competitors, there was also a case—Hivac v. Park Royal Scientific Instruments Company—which established that, in the absence of any contractual term, an employee may not work for a competitor in his spare time. In that case an injunction was granted against a competitor, restraining him from employing the plaintiff's employees who were making valves for him in their spare time.
Additionally, I believe that Dr. Joan Williams has broken her contract with the health authority. In DHSS circular PM(79) 11 of November 1979, in the section entitled
"Whole Time Contract, a) Private Practice,"
the second sentence in paragraph 7 reads:
"The representatives of the professions have accepted that this extended right to private practice should not be exercised in such a way as to damage working relationships with other NHS staffs".
I believe that this has happened and that Mid Glamorgan health authority should interview all its pathology department staff, guaranteeing them privacy and anonymity, for their views. Such an inquiry would reveal the concern of many of the staff at all levels about the role of Dr. Joan Williams and Mr. David Else in Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd.
I further discovered to my amazement that those two were not only content to establish this company quietly but had the audacity to use, without permission, photographs of equipment taken by health authority staff in the Princess of Wales hospital pathology laboratory in the brochure publicising their services. Although this is essentially a side issue, I believe that it further underlines the misrepresentation, secretiveness and underhandedness of Dr. Williams and Mr. Else in promoting activities which endanger the wide-ranging and efficient services provided for the public good by the pathology department of the Princess of Wales hospital, Bridgend.
Following the publication of my early-day motion 407 on Dr. Joan Williams, Mr. David Else and Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd., which appeared on the Order Paper on
466
31 January 1990, I received four anonymous written submissions concerning a similar situation in Cardiff, involving Dr. Keith Davies, Dr. Stephanie Matthews and Lifecare Advanced Medical Ltd. I can do no better than to read the three submissions into the record, with the deletion of information which could possibly help to identify my anonymous informants:
"Dear Mr. Griffiths,
I am writing to you as a consequence of reading a report in the South Wales Echo on 31 January in which it was stated that you had called for the resignation of senior biochemistry staff at Princess of Wales Hospital in Bridgend, accusing them of 'misrepresentation, secretiveness and underhandedness'.
We have a situation in our department where the lab manager, Dr. Keith Davies, a top grade Biochemist, is also a director of `Lifecare Advanced Medical' a company which provides private health checks. Dr. Davies has the main responsibility for generating secondary income for the department (e.g. drug trials). In the past this has amounted to thousands of pounds a year. Lifecare has the equipment to do much of this work, so that Dr. Davies is now in the position of being able to tender for work for either his own private lab. or for the NHS lab. There is some evidence emerging, two years after the setting up of Lifecare, that the health service is coming a poor second.
Dr. Davies spends very little time in the department, has used the supplies system at the hospital to order equipment for Lifecare and, after interviewing for a MLSO post in the hospital, has telephoned the successful applicant and offered her a job at Lifecare (which was accepted). It is also true that the work done by our department for the Clinical Trials Unit, Pharmacology Dept. U.H.W., was taken from the department and was done for a time by Lifecare. Dr. Davies was at least partly responsible for setting the charges made by the department for this work.
Although Dr. Davies was given approval to set tip the company by the District General Manager, Mr. Gordon Harrhy, it was never sanctioned by the D.H.A. and is viewed by virtually the whole department with a mixture of anger arid amazement that he should be allowed to hold two jobs involving such glaring conflicts of interest and offering, as they do, such potential for the gain of Lifecare at the expense of the health service."
The second letter said:
"I was most pleased to hear the Early day Motion by Mr. Win Griffiths on Wednesday, 31 January 1990. You may well be aware that a similar situation exists in South Glamorgan, where a company known as Lifecare Advanced Medical was set up by two employees of South Glamorgan Area Health Authority about two years ago.
Over the last couple of years I have become more and more amazed at the conduct of this company and in particular one of its directors, Dr. K. W. Davies. Dr. Davies is Top Grade Biochemist in Medical Biochemistry, U.H.W. and as such has been responsible for setting charges for private work carried out within the department. He is employed on a full time contract. Two years into the existence of Lifecare several points should now be made:

1. Very few of Dr. Davies' contracted hours are actually spent within the department. Some of the `lost' time could of course be spent on other Health Service business.

2. The supplies system at U.H.W. has been used to take delivery of an air conditioning unit for Lifecare. One would presume this was also ordered through the hospital ordering system.

3. A potential employee of Medical Biochemistry was approached by Dr. Davies after being offered a post. She is now working for Lifecare. Dr. Davies was a member of the interviewing panel which agreed to offer her the Health Service post.

4 Work performed for the Clinical Trials unit U.H.W. by Medical Biochemistry and generated up to £100 a day for the laboratory ceased soon after the opening of Lifecare. This work was then performed for a period of time by Lifecare. Dr. Davies was, at least in part, responsible for the setting of charges by our laboratory to the Clinical Trials unit.

467
I believe that income generation from private work has become an unpleasant necessity and that we should be able to compete for this work fairly. This is obviously impossible when our own senior management have a vested interest in ensuring that this work is performed by their own private companies."
The third submission is:

"Name of Company:

LIFECARE ADVANCED MEDICAL

Address:

Cardiff Business Centre

Senghennydd Road

Cathays

Cardiff CF2 4AY

Tel. 0222 372311

Directors:

Dr. Keith Davies

Top Grade Biochemist

Department of Medical Biochemistry

U.H.W.

Dr. Stephanie Matthews

Consultant Pathologist

Llandough Hospital

Dr. Anthony Campbell

Reader in Medical Biochemistry

Welsh National School of Medicine

University of Wales College of Medicine."

I found out that there is a fourth director, Dr. Anthony Berlyn Davies of 17a South road, Sully, South Glamorgan. The letter continues:
"The private laboratory is to be part of a 'well person' centre, where it is possible to walk in and have a health check (ie BP, Hb., Cholesterol etc.) The equipment includes a Technicon RA500 analyser and a Coulter. As far as I can gather, Gordon Harrhy, the District General Manager, has given the go ahead but there has not been any official sanction from the Health Authority.
My head of department, Prof. Elder, called a meeting of chief and senior MLSOs and informed us that we were not to process any samples for this laboratory and suggested that there may be direct competition for work between the laboratory and NHS laboratories in the future. He also pointed out that at present our 'secondary income' which is generated from private sources (eg drug trials) makes an important contribution towards the Departmental staffing budget and there will be competition for this work.
Keith Davies, as our departmental manager, is often responsible for obtaining this work for Medical Biochemistry, UHW. He has now put himself in the position of being able to tender for work for either his own laboratory or the NHS laboratory. I would assume that Dr. Matthews is in a similar position at Llandough. I know that, in the first instance, any 'drug trial' work is to come from sources which do not wish to use NHS laboratories, but it does not take too much imagination to see the eventual situation.
At this time everything is 'above board'—apparently! But many of the laboratory staff at UHW are suspicious because of the conflict of interest that these NHS laboratory managers have. We await the time when these people are compromised.
He and Dr. Matthews attempted to process a large number of samples, taken from a group of medical students, for full biochemical profiles to 'establish reference ranges'. Prof. Elder allowed only the cholesterols to be measured as that was apparently part of a lecture which Dr. Matthews had given to the students."
The fourth letter states:
"Dear Mr. Griffiths,
May I applaud you making public the activities of Drs. Davies and Matthews in South Glamorgan H.A. It is my hope the ensuing enquiry will reveal the truth with regard to their misuse of their positions.
Regretfully, it appears the general manager, Mr. Gordon Harrhy, is more concerned with the source of your information, rather than its accuracy, and I fear a 'cover-up' will take place. Some of the questions the enquiry should ask are:
468
Why does Lifecare use equipment from the same manufacturers as the U.H.W. laboratory?
Where do Lifecare's consumables come from?
Why does Mr. Davies pay frequent visits to the U.H.W. laboratory reagent store room?
Why is Dr. Davies frequently at Lifecare during working hours?
Another matter of concern is that of the Pathology budget. At a recent presentation, Mr. Harrhy stated that the 'overspend' of half a million pounds by Pathology will be cut from next year's Pathology budget. This and the loss of many profitable contracts by S. Glam. N.H.S. laboratories (presumably to Lifecare), have given staff the feeling a 'carve-up' of Pathology is taking place.
Is Mr. Harrhy deliberately running the service down to such a level it will be unable to meet an ever-increasing N.H.S. demand? Certainly the way the regrading of M.L.S.O. staff has been handled in S.Glam., little has been done by management to try and retain staff. Presumably when the N.H.S. Pathology Service fails, Mr. Harrhy will then have no option but to go to private tender, (probably to Lifecare!?). I would like to be able to sign this letter, but given the 'macho' and vengeful management in S.Glam., I regret I cannot.
In any event, I thank you for your efforts."
Those four submissions make it absolutely clear that staff in the University of Wales hospital medical biochemistry department are deeply aware of and gravely concerned about the conflict of interest which exists between the NHS work of Dr. Davies and Dr. Matthews and their private pathology laboratories, of which they are company chairman and secretary respectively. This, indeed, is the insiduous part of the operation. They have a very direct personal interest in attracting work to their own private laboratory, while at the same time they are involved in either getting work for the NHS laboratories in which they are employed or setting charges for that work. All that is against the background of their access to privileged information in their role as senior staff members in the NHS laboratories.
I believe that South Glamorgan health authority needs to investigate the allegations rigorously. Some questions and lines of inquiry present themselves very obviously. How did an air conditioning unit destined for Lifecare Advanced Medical Ltd. of the Cardiff business centre, Senghennydd Road, Cathays, Cardiff, get delivered to the University of Wales hospital, The Heath, Cardiff? Can Lifecare Advanced Medical Ltd. produce its original paperwork to show that this was all a grotesque mistake, or did it indeed use the hospital's supplies system to order its equipment?
With regard to the person interviewed for the MLSO's job in the hospital, who was afterwards offered, and accepted, a job at Lifecare Advanced Medical Ltd. by Dr. Davies—who was on the hospital's interview panel—inquiries could be made about the advertisement of the Lifecare Advanced Medical job, when the interviews for it took place, who the other people on the shortlist were, and what paperwork exists in connection with all of this activity.
Finally, as to the loss of work carried out for the clinical trials unit, senior staff in the medical biochemistry department should be able to provide all the answers. It is a tragedy that Dr. Joan Williams, Dr. Stephanie Matthews, Dr. Keith Davies and Mr. David Else do not seem to be able to see the difference between, on the one hand, going to a private pathology laboratory, and being paid to carry out tests on behalf of the laboratory owners who have attracted this work, and, on the other hand, being directly involved in attracting work to their own

469
private pathology laboratories while having a similar role in getting work for the NHS laboratories in which they are employed.
This commercial conflict of interests will become even more stark and intense when health authorities are able to go out to tender for this work. How can NHS staff with responsibilities for setting the NHS pathology laboratory charges, or with access to the information on which the tender is based, have the same responsibilities as shareholders and directors of a company making its own tender for the same health authority work? Unfortunately, this malaise has first come to light in Wales—the home of the builders of the NHS. I hope that by publicising these pernicious activities we shall stop their potential damage to the NHS in its tracks, that Dr. Williams, Dr. Matthews, Dr. Davies and Mr. Else will resign either from the NHS or from their private companies, and that the Secretary of State for Wales, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Health, will issue clear and specific guidelines to ensure that the dangers of conflict of interest and commercial espionage do not blight the NHS and working relationships within it.
9 pm
Dr. Kim Howells: It is exactly a year, Madam Deputy Speaker, since you were kind enough to call me for the first time, on my first day in this House. I thank you belatedly.
I want to address the House on what is, perhaps, a very different note from the kind of song that we have heard so far tonight, serious though it has been. I want to draw attention to the transformation of the Welsh economy and to draw out of that transformation something that may be of interest to some hon. Members, and about which I feel particularly strongly. Over the past five years a curious feature of employment patterns in Wales is that the number of people employed in non-print media has been greater than the number employed in the coal mines of the Principality. Indeed, Cardiff has boasted of being "media city".
Mr. Morgan: Seedier city.
Dr. Howells: Seedier, perhaps, but certainly "media city". In addition, we have media villages in places like Caernarfon and Carmarthen. The transformation has been welcomed by many as evidence of the security of Wales's position on the frontiers of the new communications industries—the new technological industries that are transforming the economy of the world. To many members of the general public, though not necessarily to the people in the industry itself, the television industry in Wales may appear to be a glamorous occupation and, moreover, one which, in Wales at least, is run by a rather select troupe of cultured, educated individuals, who, as often as not, are related to each other, and who celebrate that relationship very often by adding one or two barrels to their surnames.
Still, Wales is a small country, and it is to be expected that a television director's son or a producer's nephew should be found employment in the creative corridors of BBC Wales or HTV or S4C. After all, that was so often the way in which miners' sons were found employment on fix nearest stall or heading on the coal face. It is refreshing to discover that this quaint old Welsh custom has not
470
disappeared and that the cultured, educated little group that I have mentioned is looking after its own, especially during this age of transformation and uncertainty.
It will be interesting, for example, to see who replaces the controller of programmes at the BBC, Mr. Gareth Price, who has announced that he will be leaving his post to take up a new challenge elsewhere. I wish Mr. Price well. I hope that his successor will be chosen strictly on the basis of his or her professional television talents, and not on the basis of certain of the traditional criteria, which have so often loomed large in the making of such decisions. I refer to criteria such as having an uncle or aunt, or a brother or sister, or a son or daughter already performing somewhere in the troupe. By the way, I hope also that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson will not be appointed. He seems to have been taking up every job going vacant.
I hope that, whoever is chosen, his or her perspective will be coloured at least as much by a desire to fight for more English language programmes to be made in Wales for a Welsh audience so as to protect the status quo, which unkinder critics have denounced as reflecting more than anything else the broadcasters' own linguistic bias.
The House decided some time ago that the Welsh language would benefit from the existence of a television station that would broadcast entirely through the medium of Welsh, and it created the foundations of S4C. That station has done sterling work and, deservedly. has received from the public purse the money it has needed to fund an entire range of television programmes. I believe that it has earned for Wales a reputation abroad as a nation which takes seriously the task of addressing Wales creatively. I am glad that the Broadcasting Bill seems not to threaten that good work. I am glad, too, that S4C's funding will not be threatened either now or in the foreseeable future.
I am much less sanguine about the other side of the Welsh cultural equation. Over 80 per cent. of the population of Wales does not speak Welsh. I understand that annual spending by BBC Wales and HTV on English language programmes in Wales is between £15 million and £20 million compared with about £65 million that is spent on Welsh language programmes. I wrote to the Minister of State, Home Office with responsibilities for broadcasting about this anomaly. He replied, "What are you whingeing about?", although he expressed himself in more parliamentary language. "After all", he wrote, "English speakers in Wales have the opportunity to tune to the same national channels as the rest of us. What more could you want?" I should be most grateful if the Secretary of State would inform the Minister that English-speaking viewers in Wales need more sustenance than the thin gruel of "Neighbours", "Wogan" and "That's Life", which is brewed in Shepherds Bush and down in Sydney.
There should not be two standards applied to the expression of culture by the medium of television in Wales. Soaps—I have mentioned one that I loathe especially—are, heaven help us, but I have been informed of this, a means of celebrating our identity and existence. If that is so, how can Welsh speakers through S4C witness each week four or five soaps made in Wales for Welsh viewers while English speakers can witness not one made in Wales for Wales? Where are the English language equivalents of the excellent news and documentary programmes that are made day after day in Welsh for S4C?
Good luck to the Welsh language speakers. They have conducted a highly successful political propaganda

471
campaign, which has enabled them to enjoy their present status, or the present status of S4C. I want them to continue to enjoy it, and there must be no threat to funding. But what of the rest of us? What of the cultural prospects and priorities of those appointed to head our English language broadcasting services in Wales? Will they continue to remain as silent as generally they have been until now for more funds for programme making and for greater access to prime-time broadcasting slots of existing channels? Perhaps they could even speak up for a new English language channel.
Will we continue to suffer the results of the silent acquiescence to the status quo that will allow the cultural identity of 2,300,000 non-Welsh speakers in Wales to be perceived, interpreted and fed back to Wales by the broadcasting gurus of the metropolis? Are we to continue to witness an erosion of the number of English language programme makers and their facilities in Wales to the point where we shall no longer be able to mount the excellent series which emerge just occasionally from Cardiff? Is that expertise to dwindle away while Ministers whistle about the joys of the Welsh language programme-making capacity as if Wales needed no other capacity?
It seems that a modern people with industries that, as the Secretary of State has told us so often, are at the frontiers of contemporary technology need the means of defining themselves culturally and of developing and expressing their creativity and aspirations. In Wales, only a minority are able to do that through the medium of television. It is time that the majority also enjoyed that access. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider carefully the need to ensure this provision when he next surveys the plans for appointments and redundancies in Welsh broadcasting.
9.8 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) will forgive me if I do not follow him by saying that he has a good idea, because I must declare an interest as a former employee of the BBC in Wales. It would be invidious of me, as a Welsh speaker, to comment too much on what he said, except to say that one of the best experiements recently carried out in Britain was carried out by the BBC in my constituency. We had a closed service community television programme for an entire week. It was an excellent experiment, which was entirely in the English language, and was much applauded by people in my constituency, who hoped that it would continue. However, sadly, the BBC did not have the money to continue the experiment, and I think that that is a great pity. Many of the valley communities, in particular, in south Wales would benefit from such programmes in the future.
I did not think that I would start my speech in a St. David's day debate here by congratulating Tory councils. However, I think that it is in order to congratulate, in particular, the councillors in West Oxfordshire who have deserted the Tory party as a protest againt the harshest, the most regressive and unfair tax to be imposed for almost 400 years in this country's history. It surely must be an example that many Tory councillors up and down the
472
country, and particularly in Wales, will be eager to follow. Many local Tory councillors are scared stiff at the thought of having to face the electors at the ballot box in May.
When I listened to the hectoring tone of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), I realised that he obviously does not understand that Tory supporters do not share his apparent enthusiasm for the poll tax. The worrying message for Tory Members of Parliament in marginal seats throughout Wales, according to the latest opinion poll, is that more than one half of their traditional voters believe that the new system will leave them worse off financially.
The Health Service and the poll tax are far and away the two main issues worrying Welsh voters. Of course, the poll tax has been the Prime Minister's own personal crusade. She has described it as the flagship of her Government. Apparently, it was the idea of the present Conservative party chairman—back in the far-off days when he was Secretary of State for the Environment—and he is now engaged in a desperate bid to lay the blame elsewhere. The chairman of the Tory party is today urging all Tory constituency agents and chairmen to go out and campaign hard. He is urging them to use a "strong and positive message". I put it to them that the strongest, the most positive message that they could give in Wales today is for Tory councillors to follow the example of the West Oxfordshire councillors.
The eight county councils in Wales have repeatedly told the Secretary of State that he has got his figures wrong, and that they have got theirs right. The financial adviser to the Welsh Counties Committee said:
"We have consistently made the point to the Welsh Office that their expectations fell 3 to 4 per cent. below what was needed to reflect pay and price increases. The sums now being levied bear out what we have been saying all through the last months of last year."
He went on to criticise the Secretary of State for Wales for basing the expected poll tax levels on an impossibility—the 100 per cent. collection of the tax. We all know that treasurers expect to collect no more than 95 to 96 per cent. of the amount levied—a significant increase in missing cash—compared with the 99 per cent. or more collected through the present rating system.
The Government's figures are also off target because Ministers have assumed that council spending will rise by only 3·8 per cent., but everyone knows that inflation is nearer 8 per cent. That is apparent to everybody, apart from the Government. The Government's figures are even more unreal in the light of the pay award to the teachers of 7·9 per cent. The Government have reduced even further the proportion of council spending financed by the Government; even under their own underestimate, grants from Whitehall will cover only 38·6 per cent. of council spending, compared with 43 per cent. last year.
The Secretary of State also chooses to ignore the fact that the Government's policies are costing councils extra money. He tells councils to get on with implementing the national curriculum, their new responsibilities for clearing up litter and the collection of the poll tax itself without giving them the extra cash. In Cynon Valley, one of the poorest district councils in Wales, it will cost £300,000 to administer and collect the poll tax.
The Conservative party has made an incredible mess of introducing the poll tax—after its best brains have been exercised during the past years in producing three Green Papers, and two Acts of Parliament and while five

473
Secretaries of State for the Environment have been exhausted in trying to stitch up this unjust and unworkable system of local taxation.
Whatever the Secretary of State for Wales and the Prime Minister say, there is no escape from the truth that wealth is being transferred in communities such as the Cynon Valley away from those who have least to those who have most. There are few Tory fat cats in the Cynon Valley, but the few that there are will be paying 23 per cent. less in poll tax compared with the household of four living in a terrace house who will pay 480 per cent. more.
The average poll tax in Wales will be at least £220–25 per cent. above what the Government and the Secretary of State said that it would be. As the Committee of Welsh District Councils has told the Secretary of State, the Government have substantially underprovided for inflation, statutory charges and other demands on council services. Despite the excellent record of Welsh local government in keeping annual spending growth close to the Government's target year after year, the Secretary of State threatens the councils with penalties unless they obey him. He ignores, as always, the reality that higher social and economic deprivation demands additional resources. It is the Government and not the local councils who are to blame for high levels of poll tax.
In the Cynon Valley 60 per cent. of those at work live in households with incomes of £4,000 a year or less. By any measure, that is poverty in Britain today. What will the poll tax mean to them? Take, for example, a family of four consisting of a grandmother, a father, a mother and a student son living on one wage in a terraced house in Mountain Ash. The rates that they pay now are £217 per year. When the full rate of poll tax is brought in they will have to pay £868 per year, an increase of £651 per year, compared with the Government's estimate of £692. Even with transitional relief, which is to be phased out over three years, that same family will have to pay £748 this year.
Compare that with the billionaire Duke of Westminster who will pay a personal poll tax of £417 per year instead of his present rates bill of £10,245. The Duke is so embarrassed that he is giving the money that he saves to his tenants on the Eaton Hall estate. The Duke, who is said to be worth £3 billion and earns £3,000 an hour, plans to hand over to them his poll tax savings. The Duke, of course, is president of the Chester Conservative association.
But the Prime Minister continues to insist, without the charm of Edith Piaf, that she has no regrets about imposing the tax. She said on television that several widows living alone have thanked her. How many more are not thanking the Prime Minister? They include at least 18 Tory councillors in West Oxfordshire, innumerable Tory councillors standing for election in May and those Tory Members who have expressed concern about this terrible tax.
The Labour party continually warned that the poll tax posed a threat to civil liberties, but the rebate application form produced by Tory-controlled Plymouth city council exceeds our worst fears. One question on the form asks:
"If you share a bedroom, state with whom you share it."
Conservative-controlled Wellingborough council in Northamptonshire is running a competition for prompt payers of the poll tax. Prizes include a Ford Escort and an overseas holiday. It is one thing running a raffle to
474
persuade people to buy a newspaper or to support a charity, but it shows what a mad concept the poll tax is if councils have to offer prizes to persuade people to pay it.
9.20 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: May I apologise to the House and to Wales for not wearing a daffodil tonight? As I am a severe asthmatic, the pollen being too close to my nose makes it impossible for me to do so. If I were ex-president Gerald Ford, people would say that I could not speak and wear a daffodil at the same time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said that he would sing a different song from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I do not want to sing a song, but I understand that, at 2.15 pm, evidence was given in song, which was appropriate on St. David's day, to the Committee considering the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. Dave Burns, the lead singer of "Cardiff", sang "The Grangetown Gondolier" as part of his evidence when called as an expert witness as a folk singer. That makes a change from the usual boring expert witnesses such as chartered surveyors, accountants and lawyers. He was called by one of my constituents, Sheila Llewelyn, and I think that that makes appropriate history on St. David's day.
Labour Members are not yet completely sold on the Secretary of State's vision of the new Wales. He described a country that we do not recognise. When making the speech that he makes all around the country, which I call his "Stranger in Paradise" speech, he referred to a country that is flowing with milk and honey, where unemployment is on the point of disappearing, where within a few years the only people unemployed will be clerks in the dole office, where waiting lists in hospitals do not exist but doctors are waiting to treat patients even if they so much as pass the door—and if they do not pass the door they will come and treat them for an illness that they do not have —and where our schools have new textbooks and paint on the walls.
Those who live in and represent Welsh constituencies do not recognise that country. The annual budgets of our health authorities are £7·5 million less than they reasonably demand. We know that our school system is experiencing perhaps the most severe crisis in morale for more than 10 years, and we wonder what land the Secretary of State visits, surrounded by his press officers and photographers, which so insulates him from reality that he tries to sell us his vision of a new Wales where everyone is prosperous, where everyone has a job, where everyone can get medical treatment and where the school system is such that even if one had enough money to send one's child to a private school one would be proud to send him or her to a state school. That land certainly is not Wales on this St. David's day.
Let me give the House a couple of examples. This week I received a letter from the director of education of South Glamorgan county council. It states:
"Thank you for your letter of 16 February 1990. This year, 120 teachers, including 29 Heads or Deputies, applied for early retirement. Six teachers have since withdrawn their applications and 100 have already accepted the terms. The applicants for voluntary premature retirement involve some 3–4 per cent. of the total teaching workforce. Last year 84 teachers, (some 2–3 per cent.) accepted early retirement, including 22 heads and deputies and 1985, 59 (some 1–2 per cent.) accepted, including 13 Heads or Deputies."

475
In the past five years the number of people at the top of their profession in terms of responsibility who are asking to leave early has virtually doubled. That shows a serious crisis in morale, for which we will pay, as our children and our constituents' children will not get the benefit of those experienced people.
The Under-Secretary of State, the Minister of State and, if he were here, the Secretary of State should realise what that means in South Glamorgan. I challenge the Minister who replies to the debate to tell the House, if not tonight, through his officials at a later date, the figures for the other counties in Wales. Are they also experiencing a doubling in the number of experienced teachers, including heads and deputy heads who want to leave the profession early because they have had enough?
The teachers tell me that they have had enough hassle, paper work, not being able to teach, not being able to talk to the children or the staff but having to fill in forms invented by the Government. That is the crisis in our schools that ordinary people in Wales have to attend. It is a crisis of morale when people at the top of the profession are asking to leave in droves.
Let me say a few words about the hospital service. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend spoke about some of the aspects of creeping privatisation and worse within the hospital service and the crisis that may well strike the pathology service in South Glamorgan if the £500,000 cut goes ahead. I am particularly worried about the tendency for hospitals to resort to financial measures which are the rocky road to ruin. In South Glamorgan there is a £7·5 million deficit in the financial year that starts in one month's time. It is selling a hospital to cover that revenue deficit. It is selling a capital asset not to fund a capital project but to fund a revenue deficit. How long can it continue doing that? What would the Prime Minister say if a Labour-controlled local authority attempted to do that?
In a panic, South Glamorgan has proposed that six hospitals should be closed in the coming financial year to cover a revenue deficit. That was a panic, last-minute decision. It was not planned six months ago when next year's budget was being calculated; it has all appeared in the past month. That shows that inflation is far worse than the Government admit, and they will not make good the undershoot in last year's inflation in the way that they promised, although it has proved at least 2 or 3 per cent. higher than the figures for which the Government allowed. That caused South Glamorgan to budget in a panic for the coming financial year and therefore to close next year six hospitals that it had not planned to close. That cannot work.
Finally, I wish to refer to the Secretary of State's inspiring words about bringing Mr. Spath, the Prime Minister of Baden-Wurttemberg, to Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State is well surrounded with press officers when Mr. Spath is taken around Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State does not have to tell him about industrial training in Wales. I understand that more people receive engineering apprenticeships in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg than in Great Britain. Baden-Wurttemberg has a population of only 6 million people compared with nearly 60 million in Britain, yet there are more engineering apprenticeships there than here. In
476
Stuttgart, which has a population of only 600,000, there are many more engineering apprenticeships than in Wales, which has a population of 2·8 million. Is the Secretary of State going to tell Mr. Spath that as part of his image building for Wales to his worthy partner for Baden-Wurttemberg, the land of precision engineering in Germany?
Mr. Peter Walker: Five times as much is being spent on training now as in 1979.
Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State may be talking about training including rehabilitative and probationary training, which was counted as just starting a job in 1979. If he is now about to tell the House that there are more apprenticeships and more recognised training leading to City and Guilds or other recognised training qualifications than there were in 1979, I shall gladly sit down and let him intervene again. Silence is sometimes golden. I hope that he will have something far more positive to say on the matter which relates to the reality of life in Wales and not to the image building in which he and the Western Mail indulge.
The Western Mail was provided with a £900,000 grant by the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State went to the wonderful opening ceremony with the editor. He has been richly rewarded for that in the pages of the Western Mail whenever he wants good publicity. Whenever there is bad news, such as the resignation of 18 councillors in West Oxfordshire, it is put on four lines on the side of page 1, whereas the visit by the Prince of Wales is given 6-inch-high headlines. That is his reward from the local newspaper to which he gave a grant of £900,000. We do not want to see such a Wales in the future.
9.30 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: I want first to refer to the devastation in Clwyd, which has been referred to several times in the debate, partly because I grew up in a constituency there and partly because of the need for adequate aid which we have experienced in the past. Government quibbling in the early 1980s after the floods in Cardiff brought home the need for that aid to be given quickly, without reservation and without bureaucracy in the process.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) raised the wider issue of the examination of sea defences generally, and I hope that that point will be answered. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State also look at the longer-term needs of environmental research, which has been undermined in Wales in recent years? I especially commend a rethink by the Government on the excellent environmental research station in Bangor, and on the future of Research Vessel Services in Barry and the extent of environmental research in Wales as a whole.
This evening, we have had a balanced and detailed debate in which my hon. Friends have spoken with authority and detail about a series of issues. I especially commend the economic analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthry Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), the detail on low pay from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), where the figures tell a devastating story which Ministers should take seriously, and the cameo of the Tory model for the Health Service which was exposed today by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). That matter and the

477
way in which he raised it should be taken seriously by Ministers, and should be subjected to an independent inquiry and a public report. I call on the Minister to promise that in winding up.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) was unwise to intervene in a debate with a speech which demonstrated his lack of knowledge of Wales and his lack of sensitivity to the serious issues raised by Opposition Members. I should take his remarks more seriously if he were still present at this hour and if he were to demonstrate mutual support by signing the early-day motion calling on the Post Office not to downgrade the parcels service in south Wales by turning it into a branch line of a Bristol-based service, which we have often come to fear.
In this debate, Conservative Members have been foolish and foolhardy in their defence of Government policies, especially in relation to the poll tax. It has taken 15 years from the Prime Minister's promise to do away with the rates system to come up with the total mess of the poll tax. I am confident that Labour's plans for a charge based on property value with a system of rebates to look after the poor and the elderly will be fair and practical. It will improve on the old rating system and will be infinitely preferable to the poll tax.
The poll tax is the issue today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, this is the day on which the news has broken that 18 Conservative councillors in West Oxfordshire, who are described by the Foreign Secretary as "good Tories," have resigned. If the Secretary of State for Wales will not listen to us, to his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West or to the Association of District Councils, will he listen to them?
The Secretary of State tried to avoid the issue today. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) rightly nailed him for his responsibility for bringing the poll tax to Wales. The Secretary of State also tried to avoid the challenge to say whether he would cap any local authority in Wales. [Interruption.]The Secretary of State would be wise to listen. He was wise, too, not to answer the question whether he would cap local authorities in Wales. I advise him to think carefully before taking that course.
As a Cardiff Member myself, I am ashamed of the way in which the city's two Conservative Members have supported the poll tax and attacked both the local council and their own electors, its ratepayers. They are both now vulnerable when the general election comes. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), in particular, appalled me when he failed to defend the council on which we have both served from an hysterical attack by the Secretary of State, and his gross caricature of the city's rate-making process repeated those distortions today. With the economic uncertainties and increased inflation —an attack on the people of Cardiff—they need more than a contingency fund.
The problems of the poll tax bear heavily on every community in Wales, but, as the Secretary of State chose to concentrate his recent vitriol on Cardiff, let me give the House the facts, confirmed not just by the political leader of that hung council but from the careful objective neutrality of the treasurer's office. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North has not done his homework, let me tell the House why the city council's revenue spending this year is £32 million and why next year it has to be £40·6 million.
First, there is the legislation introducing the poll tax and so on, which increases the need for finance for the city council by £2·7 million. Then we have land appropriation
478
legislation, which to begin with the Welsh Office itself did not understand, although I believe that it now does and which gives rise to an unavoidable cost of £2·1 million for the transfer of land.
In addition, we have an adjustment for inflation of £2·1 million, which includes interest and assumes an interest rate of only 7·5 per cent.—although it is higher than that at the moment as a result of the Government's abuse of our economy. Without capital from revenue of £1·8 million, there would be delays in important schemes. That is a modest figure when one realises that the capital available to the council is now grossly reduced because of the Government's cuts—£23 million down on the previous year—and the limits on the use of capital receipts that the Government have introduced. Those are the reasons for the increase, and they do not take into account extra costs in dealing with homelessness and in discharging the obligations that the Government have piled on local authorities.
Cardiff and other councils in Wales are acting modestly and realistically, and the Secretary of State for Wales should accept what we have told him for a year, what the Association of District Councils in Wales told him six months ago in Newport and what many Conservatives have told him: he got the figures wrong, and it is his mess. Instead of attacking our councils and our councillors, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North should be keeping his head down and meeting the Secretary of State for Wales to tell him of Cardiff's needs, as well as the way in which his own seat and those of the few remaining Tories in Wales. will be threatened by the poll tax. He should tell him to forget poll tax capping because neither our councils nor our people deserve the chaos that would follow such an unjust decision.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman wants his intervention to be taken out of the Minister's time, of course I shall give way to him.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Cardiff. Will he say why the Committee of Welsh District Councils says that the community charge in Cardiff should be £193 and not the ridiculous, crazy figure of £253?
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not appreciated all the facts that I have put to the House, which I now invite him to consider. [Interruption.]The Secretary of State would do better to consider them than to laugh.
The burden of the poll tax will be bad enough on its own—throughout Wales that burden will bear heavily— but it is far from being the only burden for which the Secretary of State is responsible. The list is horrifying. Improvement grants, of which the right hon. Gentleman boasted, are to be means-tested from 1 April, although he denied that the last time we debated the matter.
The uniform rate has been condemned by business men. The increase in interest rates, for which the Government are responsible, eats into people's pockets and affects their everyday lives, increasing mortgage repayments, undermining businesses, having a devastating effect on local government and increasing the prices that ordinary people have to pay. The increase in inflation caused by

479
Government policies bears down most heavily on poorer employees, especially in the public sector, who are losing as a result of the Government's decisions.
Gas and electricity charges are at or above the level of inflation and the 12·2 per cent. increase in water charges —60 per cent. above the rate of inflation—has been caused directly by the Government's policy. Investment in the water industry is needed because of the Government's neglect over the past 10 years—because they cut investment in the water industry when they came to office.
That burden of responsibility for investment is being spread away from the well-off in society to ordinary people and communities throughout Wales. I warn people in Wales and in the Chamber that that is a forerunner of a water poll tax that will be as unpopular as the poll tax, which figured so large in the debate.
Yesterday's devastating news about the trade figures underlines the Government's manifest failure to manage the economy properly. This is not, as the Secretary of State tried to suggest, a litany of despair. It is simply a list of problems and burdens which must be borne by our people and from which the Secretary of State has failed to protect the people of Wales. I should be happy to concentrate on the news that we have to tell about Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, many of us have played our part in bringing about that good news. If only the Secretary of State would balance that by admitting to the problems created by the Government of which he is a member, and begin to talk to us seriously about tackling them.
Many other Tory policies are coming home to roost —such as the appalling student loans scheme, their failure to provide the education and training that would enable us to compete properly in the world, their determination to undermine local authorities which are trying to tackle that issue and, above all, their savage attack on the National Health Service. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill has emerged from Committee with its inconsistencies exposed. There is now no doubt about the serious attack on the NHS that it involves. The Vale of Glamorgan by-election will prove the first swallow of a Labour summer.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), in a Thatcherite outburst of the sort that we experienced in Committee, tried to rewrite history. He cannot have listened to the way in which his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health was demolished in debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as recently as Tuesday. As time is short, I merely commend to him, to my hon. Friends and to the public, columns 1330 to 1334 in the report of Tuesday's Committee.
In my area of South Glamorgan, the Health Service is descending into chaos in advance of that crazy Bill becoming law. A cut of £7·5 million has to be found to keep within the funds that the Secretary of State has allowed. That problem is replicated throughout Wales. Every health authority is running around looking for money.
Tomorrow I shall visit two hospitals in Gwynedd. They too are under attack. Among the drastic cost-cutting exercises recommended by officers is the temporary closure of Madoc memorial hospital in Portmadoc pending
480
permanent closure, or a reduction of nine beds at Bron-y-Garth hospital at Penrhyndeudraeth. Welsh Office Ministers are responsible for that. It is no use referring it to health authorities. Ministers are responsible for providing inadequate funds for the Health Service and for undermining the health of our people of Wales.
There is no time to list the problems facing every authority in Wales, but the list is devastating. Morale among family doctors and others is low. Welsh Office Ministers are to blame now and have responsibility about which the Secretary of State for Wales has been as silent as he has about the poll tax and the Water Act 1989. Despite the twisting and turning of Ministers, their pleas to us to trust them and the lack of detail in a shell Bill, it is now clear not only that people mistrust the Government's plans, but that they are right to do so.
Without wasting time in Committee, Opposition Members staged a series of effective debates which exposed the confusion and accountant-led bureaucratic chaos into which our National Health Service is to be plunged. That will be taken a stage further on the Floor of the House in two weeks.
Tagged on to the NHS Bill at the last minute were the Government's half-baked plans for care in the community. It is not the concept outlined in the Griffiths report which is half-baked, but the Government's failure to plan properly for care in the community. Again, that was well exposed in Committee. It has been said that a civilised nation should be judged on the quality of its care for the elderly, sick and disabled. On those criteria, the Secretary of State and his Government are guilty of an attack on our claim to be regarded as a civilised society.
On the eve of the 1983 election, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, as he now is, issued a series of predictions and warnings of the price that we would pay for Conservative rule. All of them have come true but I shall mention only three. He said:
"I warn you that you will have pain when healing and relief depend on payment."
The Health Service is not safe in their hands.
He said:
"I warn you that you will have ignorance when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right."
But that is what the Conservatives are delivering to us now.
My right hon. Friend also said:
"I warn you that you will have poverty when pensions slip and pensions are whittled away by a Government that won't pay in an economy that can't pay."
My right hon. Friend's words in 1983 correctly reflect the results of the Ministers' rule.
In the conclusion to his speech, my right hon. Friend warned:
"If Margaret Thatcher were to win on that Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary, I warn, not to be young, I warn you not to be ill and I warn you not to get old."
Those predictions have a chilling sound now. Then they had the ring of prophecy, but it has taken the Conservatives to turn that prophecy into fact and truth today. For their part in that process of bringing those words into reality, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the Conservative Members representing Welsh constituencies stand condemned in this St. David's day debate, and they will be judged and sentenced at the next general election.
9.45 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I am sure that we are all saddened by the fact that our Welsh day debate had been overshadowed by the flooding at Towyn in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and that we all extend our sympathy to his constituents. I went up there on Tuesday and saw the terrible devastation that was caused by a combination of wind and sea.
I am sure that the House will be interested to know the latest situation there this evening. I am told that there is still a strong wind over the area and that the next high tide is due at 2.30 am. However, earlier today I was told that the tide levels are lower than earlier this week and that they are receding further each day. That will mean that the engineers who are working day and night to repair the wall will have access throughout, thus enabling them to accelerate the work. I hope that it will also mean that water will not flow regularly through the breach and that the flood water can be pumped out. That point was raised earlier. The process of pumping out will not be rapid because the main land drainage pumps have been put out of action by the floods and, although emergency pumps have been brought in and are in use, it will be some time before the others that are on the way can be set up. However, knowing the people who are there, I am sure that they are doing everything that they possibly can.
There has been a major programme of work to improve sea defences in north Wales. A £10 million programme was started in Prestatyn in 1985, of which £5·5 million has been spent. A scheme costing £2·6 million was completed in Aberconwy this year and other schemes are planned for Llandudno's west and north shores. At Colwyn Bay, schemes in excess of £1·7 million have been completed to protect Rhos-on-Sea and a £1·3 million scheme for Colwyn promenade is due to start this spring.
If further work is required as a result of the lessons learned from the present emergency, my Department will be ready to consider grant aid for that work in the usual way and under the appropriate legislation.
I am sad to note that the Opposition have been as negative as ever in this debate. I wonder if they ever realise just how damaging their gloom and doom is to the morale of the people of Wales, and especially to our young people. Of course, the Opposition have a vested interest in misery, but it never ceases to amaze me how they can ignore every item of good news.
Did the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) not see in today's Liverpool Daily Post the story headlined:
"Ten Million Pounds Vote of Confidence at the Sharp End"
and another headline
"Tsuda Gets Bigger Ahead of Schedule"?
Both related to the expansion of Japanese companies in north-east Wales. Is he not aware of the increased prosperity in his own constituency?
Mr. Morgan: That £10 million investment is in Oxford.
Mr. Roberts: Of course, I know that, but there is a Sharp factory in north-east Wales and the research expenditure in Oxford will back up that plant's future.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is also fortunate is having the Toyota plant coming to his
482
constituency. He seems to have all the luck in the world but it does not do him any good. There are equally bullish stories in today's Western Mail.There is one headed,
"Wales set to cash in on the 1990s Boom".
That expresses the views of David Kern, the chief economist at the National Westminister bank.
The hon. Gentleman muttered about the plight of small companies and businesses under the Government. Is he not aware that our stock of new businesses is up 16 per cent. since 1982 and stands at 82,000? Wales has had the highest growth in stocks of businesses in the United Kingdom. Its production industries were 59 per cent. up between 1979 and 1988. There have been 660 manufacturing plants set up since 1979, creating 44,000 jobs.
I say to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), because both of us remember 1979 only too well, that the difference is that in 1979 Wales and Britain were running downhill and there was an enormous amount of hidden unemployment in the coal and steel industries. Even the right hon. Member had to face up to the necessity of closing uneconomic pits and making the steel industry viable by reducing capacity.
Much has been made today of wage rates in Wales. However, between 1988 and 1989, the increase in average adult weekly earnings in Wales was 9·9 per cent. above that for Great Britain as a whole, and the fourth highest regional percentage increase. I should have thought that that would cheer up Opposition Members. No fewer than six Welsh counties had increases slightly higher than the average for Great Britain.
Some industrial historical comparisons are also valid. I shall give hon. Members this one to think over. Between 1974 and 1979, average gross weekly earnings for full-time adults in Wales increased by 6·1 per cent. in real terms. Since 1984, the figure is 12·2 per cent. in real terms—exactly double the increase that the Labour Administration were able to achieve. I am sure that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) will be delighted with that because it will add to the confidence that he has been talking about creating among the Welsh people.
Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State frequently quotes to me the success of manufacturing in my area and exemplifies it by the Bluebird company. Will he give the average weekly wage of the women who work in that factory, compared with the average so-called weekly wage of £234 that he keeps quoting?
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman picks on a particular. He knows only too well that to argue from the general to the particular just does not hold water.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have emphasised the importance of education and training. Of course, expenditure per pupil is 13·6 per cent. more in real terms for 1987–88 compared with 1979–80. The pupil-teacher ratio overall is now down to 17·1:1. We hear a lot about teacher morale and so on—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke about that—but it is a fact that the teacher-pupil ratio is as good now as it has almost ever been.
As for training, the Secretary of State said what was absolutely true of the last Labour Government. This year, we are spending five times as much on training as they were spending in 1979–80. The figure then was £31 million and this year it is £149 million.

483
Hon. Members have spoken of skill centres. They have been transferred to Astra and will continue to provide training. That was the basis of the sale. The expertise of that management buy-out team, its proposals to development training provision and the advent of the training and enterprise councils should result in more responsive and effective training for the unemployed and employed in Wales.
It is clear that we should not easily be prepared to take lessons from Opposition Members when we are spending so much more than they spent on training and are taking training much more seriously, especially as we have now established a complete training and enterprise council network in Wales.
The community charge was mentioned by virtually every hon. Member who took part in the debate. It is clear, if only from the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, that Opposition Members support local authorities that are levying community charges higher than the Government believe are justified, and in spite of the 8·6 per cent. increase in aggregate external finance. That is the total of revenue support grant, national non-domestic rates and the most specific grants. Despite all of that being made available to local authorities — [Interruption.]The excellent settlement achieved by my right hon. Friend put the authorities in a very good position.
The increase in teachers' pay of 7·5 per cent. was fully allowed for, as were other burdens arising from legislation and other Government initiatives. I hope that electors will hold their councils accountable for their high spending, as the Government certainly will when we review local authority budgets and when my right hon. Friend considers whether to cap their spending to protect charge payers against unreasonable demands.
That we have heard so much about the community charge in Wales, where the percentage of Government grant is so much higher than in England that the charge should be about £100 less, suggests that it is the egalitarian principle that everyone should pay something towards the costs of their local authorities that is under attack.
During the debate we came across two points put to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. He was asked to guarantee that in the event of Labour Members coming to office they would maintain the differential of grant between England and Wales. It is about 20 per cent. But he failed to give that assurance.
I must now press the hon. Gentleman extremely hard on that. Is he saying that the next Labour Government would not preserve that 20 per cent. differential? He knows
484
that the rate of grant in Wales is 66 per cent. compared with 46 per cent. in England. I am now giving him every opportunity to say——
Mr. Michael rose——
Mr. Roberts: I am putting the question to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who is a member of the shadow Cabinet. Will he tell the people of Wales whether that differential will be preserved? Yes or no?
Mr. Barry Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me at 9.59 pm. I want to tell him in all sincerity that, whenever there is a Labour Government, they always give Wales a much better deal than do the Conservatives——
Mr. Roberts rose——
Mr. Jones: I can tell the hon. Gentleman without a shadow of doubt——
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Local Government Finance (Basildon)
  10 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I ask leave to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents in Basildon. They draw to the attention of the House the fact that, last year, Socialist-controlled Basildon district council imposed the highest rate increase in the country —57·2 per cent. My constituents are especially worried because, since the imposition of that increase, the council has continued to spend huge amounts of ratepayers' money.
  My constituents are concerned about money that has been spent on area management and leisure facilities, and about the council's voting another £1·6million to subsidise the Towngate theatre to prevent it going into liquidation.
  Finally, my constituents are concerned about the money that has been spent on the new civic centre. Last week the council spent £46,000 on sending every person in Basildon a Valentine card. The petition reads:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to use his powers of influence to ensure that local authorities such as Basildon do not set excessively high rates of community charge, the average of which should be no more than £278, and if they do, that he should cap the community charge. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Fostering
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. John. M. Taylor.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to discuss the important subject of the adoption and fostering of black children, generally from the ethnic minorities, by white parents. This has been the subject of controversy and of some public interest. Last year it was connected with a great deal of apparent injustice and unhappiness, and I believe that the issue has an important influence on the way in which the country develops as an integrated, multiracial, assimilated and tolerant society.
  I shall argue that Government policy on this matter needs clarifying, and that the advice that the Government give to social services departments and other fostering agencies, many of which are independent, should be more rigorous. Secondly, I shall argue that much of the advice behind present Government policy has been based on a view of racial identity that owes more to ideology and a divisive form of anti-racism than to reason or scientific evidence, particularly in connection with fostering. Thirdly, I shall argue that additional guidelines on fostering and adoption are required, particularly on monitoring adoption policies and the time limits appropriate to them.
  I start by emphasising that 80,000 children in this country are in care or foster homes, one third of whom require placement in a given year. There is no doubt that the vast majority, whether placed through council social services departments or through specialist agencies, are put in good homes which are right for their future development.
  In the last two or three years there have been two significant retrograde developments. The first is that a same-race fostering and adoption policy has taken hold in many adoption agencies and social services departments. The argument is that a child can only develop properly with foster parents or adoptive parents of the same ethnic or racial origin. That policy is being applied more rigidly throughout the country. Secondly, not only have there been the appalling cases that we saw last year, where black children were taken away from white foster parents, sometimes after nine years of living together effectively as a family, but there is evidence that because of the same-race fostering policy, young black children are having to wait longer for places.
  Hilary Chambers, who is a founder of Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services, says:
  "Since 1987 the number of under five year old black children on the BMI parent register"—
  a significant register—
  "has quadrupled."
  In 1987 she did a small survey. She found that only four of 22 children had been waiting for more than six months for placement with a family, and none longer than a year. Yet only two years later no fewer than 36 out of 75 young black children had been waiting for longer than six months; 17 had been waiting longer than one year, and four had been waiting longer than two years for a foster placement which should be regarded as their right in a civilised society.
  486
  More significantly, Mrs. Chambers thought that that was just the tip of the iceberg and that hundreds of black children were waiting for the right to a foster home, and were living in institutional care in the meantime. She said:
  "Whatever the different views on same race placements it is terribly dangerous for a child to be shunted around shoat term foster parents or to be institutionalised in a council home."
  Even more damaging and more distressing are the cases of black children who are taken from white foster parents largely because of the implementation of the same-race policy. In August last year in Croydon we had an example where a 17-month-old mixed race boy was taken from his white foster mother and placed with the black family who already had children but who wanted a boy. In the home counties a 14-year-old black boy was taken from a white family by the social services department, despite the fact that he had been living there for no less than eight years.
  In Birmingham two white foster parents —reasonable and sensible foster parents—were told by the social services department that they would never be allowed to adopt the black children they were caring for. The Independent on 31 October last year reported the case of a two-year-old Asian girl in Birmingham:
  "Social services officials want to place this girl with an Asian family.
  Her foster mother said: 'She thinks everyone who comes to the door is going to take her away. She says she wants to stay here with her mummy and daddy.'
  `We're the only family she has ever known. We took her when she was just a six-day-old baby, and we've brought her up as our own. She is just so attached to us both, and we love her very much.'"
  All the social services department had to say was:
  "We intend to find her another family. She is an Asian child and that is one of the criteria we use."
  I can scarcely conceive a more inhuman approach to a social services problem than that exhibited by that department in the west midlands.
  Again, even those cases may be just the tip of the iceberg. Children First, another group in this field, has estimated that there are 20 cases in which white foster parents are battling to keep their black children living with them. So far, in only three cases have they been successful. Although the circumstances of these cases are difficult to verify—very often they are sub judice or confidential, or reports are not publicly available—the fact is that this is a widespread problem which has been recognised by the Department of Health. Indeed, in January this year the Department felt it necessary to issue guidelines on this aspect of fostering policy, and the Commission for Racial Equality has done likewise.
  It is my contention that the Government's guidelines, although well meaning, are not rigorous enough and that they allow social services departments to make rigid interpretations of same-race adoption policy and still feel that they are within the guidelines that have been laid down. Equally, I believe, interpretations are based on the sort of advice that has been given to the CRE and, indeed, has been coming from the CRE—advice that is anti-racist, divisive, segregationist and, therefore, wrong for race relations in this country in the long term.
  On the face of it, the Department of Health guidelines are fairly anodyne. They say:
  "Each case must be considered on its merits having regard to the needs of children requiring placement. Racial origin is an important factor in placements."
  Then, more dubiously, they say:
  "In the great majority of cases"—

  487
  I find that difficult to believe—
  "placement with a family of similar ethnic origin or religion is likely to meet a child's needs as fully as possible and best safeguard his or her welfare."
  Of course, the guidelines quote the Children Act 1989, which imposes responsibilities on the Government, or the boarding-out regulations. Only when reference is made to the CRE document does one see a less balanced version of this advice. I believe that the CRE's advice is steeped in this anti-racist, rather than multicultural, philosophy, which, as I said earlier, is divisive. Michael Day, in his introduction to the CRE document, says:
  "Love and care is essential for a foster placement but is not the only component of good parenting for ethnic minority groups."
  I wonder why he should have to make a differentiation between ethnic minority groups and other groups of children. He goes on:
  "One of the essences of fostering should be to allow black children to affirm a racial identity…A child's overall welfare will be decisively affected by the issue of race."
  I find that that has not been proven. Mr. Day then talks about
  "inherent difficulties of transracial fostering"
  and, even more dubiously, he says:
  "There is a strong body of opinion"—
  acutally there is not, as I shall demonstrate in a moment—
  "that same-race fostering is conducive to a child's confidence and sense of identity."
  Possibly worst of all, this document, on page 13, says that if a black child who has been with a white foster family, for however many years, says, "I should like to remain here" he should be interrogated, and the attitudes and feelings underlying this perfectly legitimate preference should be talked through to ensure that the child understands the issues before such a decision is made. So a social worker will sit down with that black child and say, "Although you know these people as your mother and father, the fact is that it may not be right. We think that, because you are black, you may have to go elsewhere." That is a policy which simply cannot be justified.
  Given such advice, it is scarcely surprising that the same-race policy, at a more rigorous level, is reflected in the policies of the agencies. For instance, the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, as it was, said:
  "The placement of choice for a black child is always a black family."
  When the organisation became Families for Ever, having changed its name and, apparently, to a certain extent, its policies and guidelines, it said:
  "We believe that the placement choice for a black child is always a black family."
  When one looks at "Be My Parents" one sees the photographs that are given to potential foster parents. Under the photographs of the black children—not the others; just the black children—are the words "Black parents are required". Children First tells me that white foster parents are finding it difficult to adopt a black child even when they have already fostered a black child. Whatever the intention and advice of the Department of Health, the practice of fostering agencies is much more rigid and inflexible.
  Why do I regard the practice as extremely dangerous? First, and possibly most important of all, it is evidence of an anti-racist ideology that seems to be obsessed with racial identity, with emphasising the difference between
  488
  people rather than what they have in common. The result is a tendency to ghettoise sections of the community into particular kinds of ethnic minorities and others. That is a form of apartheid. We have seen that in South Africa and we have not regarded it as acceptable there. Sadly, it is seen too often here.
  Secondly, there is the assumption that because someone has a black skin he or she will automatically face significant racial discrimination at a certain time in life and as a result he or she should be trained to combat that in an appropriate family.
  Thirdly, as Conor Cruise O'Brien said, the practice tends to treat children not as children with different needs but as racial units. Fourthly, there is no scientific evidence in favour of same-race fostering. The CRE report states that the commission could not find any evidence in Britain or in America that it allowed children to develop more fully. Doctor Dora Black of the Royal Free hospital, who is a psychologist specialising in child matters, has said that race is only one element, and not necessarily the most important, in a fostering decision. She said that the most important element is attachment. The director of social work at Edinburgh university said that the quality of relationship between child and carer is paramount, not race. Christine Pickering of Glasgow university said that those who favour rigid same-race fostering show evidence of a fashion that is a fantasy, and polemic, rather then reason, is governing their judgment. Most important of all, I submit that it is the evidence and experience of hundreds of families, perhaps thousands, throughout the country that white parents who have fostered black and other ethnic minority children have become happy and well-adjusted families in a real sense that militates against a rigid same-race adoption policy.
  What are the implications for Government policy and advice to agencies and social service departments? First, it should be made plainer that fostering policy should not be used as an instrument of racial or social policy or as a means of bolstering black identity. It should be stressed that it should be used purely for the benefit of an individual child. It should be made clear that the colour of a child's skin is only one of the many factors that should be taken into account, especially when dealing with the youngest children where no attachment to a cultural or linguistic identity is evident. Far more important is the environment—emotional, social and intellectual, irrespective of colour of skin—into which the child is to be sent.
  Secondly, the Government must recognise, as Una Cottingham, another child expert recognised, that delay in fostering means damage:
  "An infant needs to attach".
  There is no excuse for any delay. The Government must set a time limit outside which delays, whether they be for same-race reasons or not, are unacceptable. A limit should be set irrespective of colour.
  Thirdly, there should be limits on temporary fostering. It is unrealistic to say to a foster parent, "Don't worry. Take this child in. You will have her on a temporary basis and we, the social service department, will take her back from you whenever we feel like it." The bonds that inevitably develop between the child and the parent—whether a foster parent or the real parent—are too strong and too natural to allow that kind of temporary contract, which should be monitored more carefully.
  During the Government review of adoption policies, there ought to be a presumption of a time limit beyond

  489
  which foster parents would have a right to adopt, all other things being equal, and if they have the agreement of the child, and possibly of the natural parent.
  The fourth point is that adoption panels and social workers should monitor placement delays. At the moment adoption panels decide whether a child is suitable for adoption and leave the time scale to the social workers. I believe that adoption panels should have a statutory interest in how quickly a child is placed. Thus, in a crucial area of child care, one could avoid the great cruelties—and I use that word advisedly—that were evident last year. We could reduce the delay that is increasingly evident when finding homes for these unfortunate children and we could increase the quality of placements. Most important of all, we could promote a society which is genuinely inter-racial, as much as multi-racial, which is integrated as well as multi-cultural and which is respectful of race, but conscious of our common identity as British men and women.
  10.20 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I think that the House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for raising this sensitive and important subject. There has been widespread and understandable concern, over the past year particularly, about the extent to which children's individual needs and circumstances, their emotional well-being and their whole stability were being jeopardised by adherence to the rigid principle of same-race placements. It is a very important matter, and I think that my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on outlining it so clearly and forcefully.
  In the Department, we have been carefully considering the guidance which is given to local authorities. We wanted to make it unequivocally clear that it is the child's welfare that should be considered in all cases of fostering and adoption. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) steered the enormously important Children Act 1989 through the House last year. We also updated the new foster placement regulations, and we have been reviewing and considering the directions and the regulations concerning children and their well-being.
  It was in that context, and following the cases which caused such concern last year, that in January the chief inspector of the social services inspectorate wrote to all directors of social services setting out the principles which should inform family placement work in relation to the issues of race and culture, within a legal and professional framework.
  I must briefly summarise the Government's view, which is that both race and culture are important factors in selecting foster parents and adoptive parents for children in care. The Children Act specifically requires local authorities to have regard, in all decisions concerning a child that they are looking after, to the child's religious persuasion, cultural and linguistic background and racial origins. That requirement formalises an approach which should already be a central element in child care practice.
  Certainly we encourage efforts to persuade those from ethnic minorities to come forward, so that children from an ethnic minority may be more likely to have a choice of parents from a similar background. However, we strongly and clearly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend that rigidly and dogmatically applied policies, which place
  490
  racial and cultural factors above the needs of the child, are not appropriate. Children are children. They have their own particular needs and circumstances. Those circumstances and their wishes should be fully taken into account. A child of an appropriate age should be able to express his own wishes and feelings. It is quite clear that there are many circumstances in which a placement with a family of different race can be in a child's interests, if that family can understand and meet the child's needs, including those needs which arise from racial and cultural background.
  It is important to stress that the child's welfare and all the other factors involved must be considered when finding the most appropriate placement. No one separate factor should be abstracted and converted into a precondition that overrides all the others. The only general policy that is acceptable in making decisions about placing children in adoptive or foster homes is that all the factors should be considered and that their welfare should be paramount.
  There may well be circumstances in which placement with a family of a different ethnic origin is the best choice for a child. A child may have formed strong links with prospective foster parents or adopters, or be related. 'There may be step-brothers or sisters, not all of the same ethnic origin, who may need placement together. A child may prefer and need to remain close to his school, friends or family, even though the foster parents are not of the same ethnic origin. A child with special needs may require carers with particular qualities or abilities. In those circum. stances, the choice is limited.
  None of us would consider that any parents have a right to a child. In all circumstances, it is the child whose needs must be fully and properly considered and his welfare made paramount. My hon. Friend spoke of his anxiety that an over-rigid policy can condemn children to a lengthy wait for a placement, during which time the local authority can be searching for what it deems to be the ideal ethnic match for that child. As my hon. Friend pointed out so clearly, delay, indecision or change of placement can often be enormously damaging to a child's fragile welfare and identity. There are many times when a decision and a clear plan for a child's future is in his best interests.
  In recent years, considerable progress has been made on the welfare of children and their placements. Many fewer children are in children's homes or subject to care arrangements that are essentially temporary. Timing is a matter of critical importance in planning and providing for children. Time limits must be set which are appropriate to a child's age and circumstances, and they must be kept under careful review. A child should not be left indefinitely in an interim placement or, even worse, in a series of interim placements, while a permanent placement is sought. It is part of the task of the agencies to set and to monitor proper time limits.
  I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern about reports of cases where children seem to have been removed from foster parents solely on account of ethnic origin. However, I urge caution because it is easy to take a simplistic view of a case on the basis of press reports. Children are sometimes removed from foster homes, often for a variety of good reasons which are in the children's interests. But it is important that, when a child is placed with a temporary foster parent, that foster parent should be taken through the process. As my hon. Friend rightly

  491
  said, there is a process of bonding and it can be extremely painful if the foster parent is not aware of, and fully involved in, the long-term plans for the child.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will read again the recent guidance issued by the Department. The chief inspector of social services has taken a great deal of time and trouble to consult on and to talk through the new guidance. It makes it clear that the points to which my hon. Friend addressed himself should be incorporated in good practice. As he rightly said, children are not "racial units". It is important that adoption and fostering policy should not be an instrument of racial or social policy. The colour of an individual is only one aspect of a child, an important aspect, but one among many, and his emotional, social and intellectual well-being should most clearly and
  492
  strongly be taken into account. One of the most important points is that delay for children so often means damage to the child's well-being.
  We intend to follow up the guidance to ensure that the adoption and fostering practices of local authorities adhere to good practice. This evening's debate has been a useful further opportunity to clarify precisely the aims and intentions of the Government.
  Above all, it is essential that children in the care of a local authority, and children who need fostering or adoption, have their needs fully and fairly met, without rigid and ideological adherence to one aspect of their welfare. The guidance, and the helpful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, will ensure that we can make greater headway in ensuring that children's needs are paramount.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Roads (Ireland)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the list of approved and unapproved roads between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Ryder
  The list of routes approved for traffic with the Republic of Ireland is being reviewed by Customs and Excise at the present time. This is linked to the introduction of computer-assisted processing of customs declarations.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of those families with children will receive more in child benefit than they pay out in income tax in the current financial year.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1989–90, an estimated 2·3 million families will receive more in child benefit than they pay in income tax. This represents about a third of all families with children. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987 family expenditure survey and are subject to revision.

  Corporation Taxes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total take for corporation taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product, and of company incomes for each year from 1979–80, including his estimate of the outturn for 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  The available information is as follows:

  Year

  Corporation tax1 as a proportion of

  Gross domestic product2 Percentage

  Company incomes3 Percentage

  1979–80

  2·3

  11·7

  1980–81

  2·0

  12·0

  1981–82

  1·9

  11·7

  1982–83

  2·0

  12·2

  1983–84

  1·9

  10·5

  1984–85

  2·5

  12·5

  1985–86

  2·9

  14·1

  1986–87

  3·5

  18·6

  1987–88

  3·7

  17·7

  1988–89

  4·0

  18·4

  1 Mainstream plus Advance Corporation tax, Excluding Public Corporations.

  2 At Market Prices, calendar year.

  3 Total company income in the calendar year as defined in the national accounts, net of interest payments.

  Reliable estimates for the current year are not yet available.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the median mortgage for residential property in each year since 1970 and the ratio of that median to the median annual earnings of the full-time adult male manual and non-manual worker, respectively.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information for 1978 to 1988 on median mortgages issued by building societies on residential property is published by the DOE in "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988", table 10.13. Tables 10.20 and 10.22 in the same publication contain information on the size distribution of bank and insurance company mortgages respectively, from which medians may be calculated. Earlier information for building society mortgages only is contained in previous editions of "Housing and Construction Statistics". Median gross weekly earnings in April of each year for full-time adult male manual and non-manual employees are published by the Department of Employment in table 15, part A, of the new earnings survey reports. Figures for 1970 to 1978 can be found in the 1978 report and for 1979 to 1989 in the 1989 report.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year from 1970 his estimate of the number of mortgages for residential property together with (a) the average amount of mortgage, (b) average earnings of full-time adult male manual and non-manual workers, respectively, (c) average earnings of full-time adult female manual and non-manual workers, respectively, and (d) the number of workers in (b) and (c).

  Mr. Ryder
  Information on numbers of mortgage advances on residential property and average advances is published by the DOE in "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988", table 10.4. Information for years previous to 1978 is available for building societies only in previous editions of "Housing and Construction Statistics". Average gross weekly earnings in April of each year for full-time adult male and female manual and non-manual employees are published by the Department of Employment in table 15, part A of the new earnings survey reports. Figures for 1970 to 1978 can be found in the 1978 report and for 1979 to 1989 in the 1989 report. Disaggregated data on employment are published in the Employment Gazette, December 1989, table 1.10, and in previous editions of the Gazette.

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for each year from 1970 the number of conveyances of residential property, the average value, and the ratio of that value to median earnings of(a) all full-time adult male workers and (b) all full-time adult male manual workers.

  Mr. Lilley
  Annual information on the numbers and value of conveyances in England and Wales is not available for years prior to 1986. Figures for 1986 to 1988 are available in table 15.1 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1989". Figures for the average price of dwellings purchased with a building society mortgage can be found
  265
  in table 105 of the 1969–79 and table 10.11 of the 1978–88 editions of "Housing and Construction Statistics". Median earnings figures can be found in section 6 of the 1977, 1986 and 1990 editions of "Annual Abstract of Statistics".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for 1978 and 1983 the number of conveyances of residential property in each region, the average value, and the ratio of that value to median earnings of all full-time adult male workers.

  Mr. Lilley
  Annual information on the numbers and value of conveyances in England and Wales is not available for years prior to 1986.

  Figures for the average price by region of dwellings purchased with a building society mortgage can be found at table 10.11 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1977–1987". Median earnings figures by region within Great Britain can be found at table 116 of part E of the 1978 and 1983 editions of the new earnings survey.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the average rateable value of the highest and lowest 5 per cent. of rated dwellings.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information could not be produced without a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for England and Wales the total rateable values of residential property at the time of the last revaluation together with the estimated capital value; and whether he will provide in each case the proportion accounted for by the half with the lowest values.

  Mr. Lilley
  As the book "Inland Revenue Statistics 1989" shows, the total rateable value of residential property in England and Wales at 1 April 1973 is £4,032 million. The information on capital value is contained in the book "UK National Accounts 1989." The other information could not be produced without a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the highest and lowest 5 per cent. of gross incomes the percentage of gross incomes paid in income tax and national insurance contributions in (a) 1978–79, (b) 1988–89 and (c) 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information is given in the table; estimates are based on the distributions in 1978–79, 1988–89 and 1989–90 of the gross earnings and investment income of married couples and single people aged under 65 who would be liable to pay income tax or national insurance contributions. The estimates for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.
  266

  Married Couples and Single People Aged Under 65 Liable to Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions Ranged by Gross Income

  Distribution by Gross Income

  Proportion of Gross Income paid in income tax and NIC

  1978–79 per cent.

  1988–89 per cent.

  1989–90 per cent.

  Lowest 5 per cent.1

  9

  6

  5

  Highest 5 per cent.1

  34

  29

  29

  1 The lowest/highest 5 per cent, each contain (a) 970,000 married couples and single people in 1978–79, (b) 990,000 in 1988–89, and (c) 1 million in 1989–90.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many households will gain as a result of the proposals for independent taxation; how many could potentially gain because of the ability of husband and wife to swap investment income; and what is the income distribution of these households;

  (2) how many households will pay less in taxation as a proportion of household income as a result of the introduction of independent taxation; and what is (a) the income distribution and (b) the regional distribution of these households.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Available information is given in the table. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Independent Taxation 1990–91

  Total income of married couple

  Married couples1

  Married couples2

  £'000

  '000

  '000

  0–5

  —

  —

  5–10

  370

  210

  10–15

  510

  530

  15–20

  390

  620

  20–25

  220

  400

  25–30

  160

  280

  Over 30

  1,350

  940

  All ranges

  3,000

  2,980

  1 With reduction in income tax liability. Makes no allowance for possible behavioural changes and the effect on Capital Gains Tax receipts.

  2 Who could reduce their income tax liability by transferring income bearing assets from husband to wife or vice versa.

  I regret that information on the regional distribution of gainers is not available.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sale price received and the net asset value of each public undertaking sold since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 February 1990, c. 963]: I regret that the table relating to my answer was omitted; it is as follows:
  267

  £ million

  Company1

  Date of privatisation

  Gross proceeds from sale

  Net asset value at privatisation2

  British Aerospace

  1981

  3150

  296

  1985

  4551

  445

  Cable and Wireless

  1981

  5224

  152

  1983

  275

  117

  1985

  933

  166

  Amersham International

  1982

  671

  28

  National Freight Consortium

  1982

  753·5

  45·3

  Britoil

  1982

  549

  113

  1985

  449

  234

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  22

  73

  1984

  52

  77

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  392

  117

  British Telecom

  1984

  3,916

  3,007

  British Gas

  1986

  5,434

  5,181

  British Airways

  1987

  900

  619

  Royal Ordnance

  1987

  190

  227

  Rolls-Royce

  1987

  1,363

  789

  BAA

  1987

  1,281

  694

  British Petroleum

  1983

  566

  638

  (residual sale)

  1987

  87,240

  3,199

  National Seed Development Organisation

  1987

  27

  15·4

  Professional and Executive Recruitment

  1988

  6

  1·2

  Rover Group

  1988

  9150

  10881

  British Steel

  1988

  2,500

  3,594

  General Practice Finance Corporation

  1989

  15·7

  5·6

  Shorts

  1989

  30

  30

  Harland and Wolff

  1989

  6

  6

  1 Excluding sales of subsidiaries by Nationalised Industries.

  2 Historic cost basis. For sales of less than 100 per cent, the net asset value for the proportion sold has been given.

  3 £50m to HMG.

  4 £363m to HMG.

  5 £189m to HMG.

  6 £65m to HMG.

  7 Net £6·5m after Government funding of pension liabilities.

  8 £5,725m to HMG.

  9 To be received by 30 March 1990.

  10 Includes Government cash injection of £547m.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Malicious Communications
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what criteria the Crown prosecution service follows when deciding whether to bring a prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The criteria which the Crown prosecution service follows when deciding whether to prosecute any offence, including any under this Act, are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors promulgated under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. These are that there is sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence to afford a realistic prospect of a conviction and that the public interest requires a prosecution.

  Authorised Practitioners
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what will be the extra manpower involved in carrying out the new responsibilities proposed in the Courts and Legal Services Bill in respect of authorised practitioners; and what is the anticipated extra financial cost.

  The Attorney-General
  The annual cost of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, the conveyancing ombudsman and the conveyancing appeal tribunals is anticipated to be approximately £0·9 million in its first full year. The secretariats and support staff will 268
  require about 15 staff and the board itself, the ombudsman and the tribunal members will total a maximum of 13 individuals. It is intended that the board, the ombudsman and their secretariats should be self-financing and that any initial Government funding should decrease as quickly as possible. It is not possible, however, to estimate at this stage how much of any Government grant might be recouped from fees.

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I frequently meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters of departmental interest. Such meetings are arranged as and when necessary.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the criminal investigation into matters raised by the report by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors into the House of Fraser has been concluded; and when he expects the Serious Fraud Office to reach a decision on prosecution.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office have today issued the following statement:
  269
  "The Report of the Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office on 14th July 1988. After careful consideration of the Report and the accompanying evidence, the Directors jointly referred the matter to the Metropolitan Police on 24th November 1988 and asked for necessary enquiries to be carried out. Following the request of the Directors, the Secretary of State witheld publication of the Report.
  The Directors are now satisfied that all lines of enquiry have been pursued and that the evidence available is insufficient to afford a realistic prospect of conviction for any criminal offence relating to any matter of substance raised in the Report.
  The Secretary of State has accordingly been informed that the Directors withdraw their objections to the publication of the Inspectors' Report."

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Court, Crawley
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to build a new magistrates court in Crawley.

  Mr. John Patten
  West Sussex county council has sought Home Office grant approval for the extension of Crawley magistrates courthouse to provide an additional courtroom. The council has not yet submitted a first stage investment appraisal, and will need to do so before a building start date can be considered.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each category of parliamentary questions which it is his policy not to answer.

  Mr. Waddington
  Of those questions not transferred, none.

  Violent Crime (Compensation)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the nations that have signed the European convention on reciprocal compensation for victims of violent crime, and give details of the representations that have been made to those European nations which have not yet signed the convention.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Council of Europe convention on the compensation of victims of violent crimes, which lays down minimum standards for national arrangements for payment of compensation, was signed by the United Kingdom when it was opened for signature on 24 November 1983. The other signatory states are Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Turkey.

  The convention came into force on 1 February 1988. On 7 February 1990, we joined Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden as contracting states. The convention will come into force in relation to the United Kingdom on 1 June 1990, and we shall take every opportunity to encourage other countries to adopt it.

  There have been various calls in both the Council of Europe and the European Community for states to sign and ratify this convention.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East on 19 February,Official Report, column 595, what was the cost of the contract awarded to the PA Consulting Group for its review of the prison service organisation above establishment level from its commencement until the end of its first extension in December 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  The projected price of the contract was £271,230, and £255,740 has been paid to date. Both sums include VAT.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the role of the PA Consulting Group on the studies which led to changes in working practices in prison establishments, known as "fresh start"; and what was the cost of their work.

  Mr. Mellor
  PA Management Consultants were engaged by the prison service in September 1985 to assist in studies of complementing in prisons and of the shift systems worked by prison officers. PA's role was limited to that of bringing to bear knowledge and skills, for example in the complex area of adapting shift arrangements to the grouping of work arrangements which, at the time, were unavailable within the Home Office to the extent required by the exercise.

  As part of this work, PA advised the prison service on the development of its "fresh start" proposals, which were put to prison service unions in February 1987, although they took no part in the subsequent negotiations. PA consultants also provided advice on the implementation of the proposals, including development work and training, and they assisted in the running of an evaluation of "fresh start" during November 1987. Their further assistance was used in the drawing up and implementation of an action plan, based on the evaluation, to ensure the development and establishment of best practice across all prison establishments.

  The total cost of PA's services for work undertaken over a four-year period in respect of "fresh start" was £948,720·90. This amount includes expenses and VAT as well as fees.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of males under the age of 17 years appearing before the courts in England and Wales during 1988;

  (2) what was the total number of males under the age of 17 years who appeared in courts in Wales during 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1988 in England and Wales, 43,600 males under the age of 17 were prosecuted for indictable offences, of whom 3,300 appeared before the Welsh courts.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of males under the age of 17 years who were remanded into prisons and remand centres in England and Wales during 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on the number of males aged 14 to 16 received on remand into prison service establishments in England and Wales is published
  271
  annually in "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (table 2.6 of the latest volume, for 1988, Cm 825) copies of which are in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to reply to the letter of 13 June 1989, and the reminders of 14 September 1989, 25 October 1989 and 21 December 1989, from the hon. Member for Livingston on behalf of his constituent Mr. Wali Mohammed, his reference M29441 1.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 27 February.

  HGVs (Roadside Checks)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces co-operate with local authority trading standards officers or environmental health officers in roadside checks of heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All police forces participate in roadside checks of heavy goods vehicles where resources permit, and, where appropriate, roadside check sites are available.

  Terrorist Suspects (Interviews)
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the tape recording of interviews with suspected terrorists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Tape recording of summaries of interviews with suspected terrorists, and of their comments on the summary, is to be introduced on an experimental basis by the Metropolitan and Merseyside police from Monday 5 March. The experiment will run for two years and will be monitored by the research and planning unit of the Home Office, reporting to a steering committee which includes representatives of the police, the Crown prosecution service, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society. I have placed a copy of the relevant notes of guidance in the Library.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service Unions
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take steps to improve communications with the Civil Service unions.

  Mr. Luce
  I believe that in general the present arrangements for communications with the Civil Service unions work well.

ENERGY

  Atomic Energy Development (Files)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he requested that any files relating to atomic energy development should be withheld from release on 1 January under sections 3(4) and 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958.
  272
  Mr. Baldry
  In accordance with established criteria, my Department has requested that certain files in the category referred to by the hon. Member should be withheld. It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose the contents of records which are so withheld from public release.

  Reactor Projects
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current United Kingdom involvement in, and future financial commitment to(a) the international thermonuclear experimental reactor, (b) the next European Torus and (c) the compact ignition Tokamak fusion reactor projects.

  Mr. Baldry
  The proposed new framework programme for Community research and development for the period 1990–94 includes provision for continuing work on a "next step" fusion reactor. The international thermonuclear experimental reactor is the subject of collaboration in conceptual design between Euratom, Japan, the USA and the USSR which is due to be completed at the end of 1990. The United Kingdom is involved only through Euratom.

  The design of the next European Torus is being defined by a small team based at Garching in Germany. The UKAEA is a party to the agreement setting up the team and makes a modest contribution by providing staff. Extension of either project to engineering design would require a further decision by the Council of Ministers.

  I understand that the compact ignition Tokamak fusion reactor is a United States project in which the United Kingdom is not involved.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he is reviewing his policy on the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation to 12 GW of coal-burning electricity generating capacity;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to deal with coal-burning power station emission problems by means of combustion process controls as distinct from importing low-sulphur content coal;

  (3) what effect he envisages on the make-up of British Coal, after the current three-year contract with the principal generators, if flue gas desulphurisation proceeds only at the 4 GW Drax project.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are determined to implement in full the EC large combustion plants directive. This directive commits the United Kingdom to reduce its emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from existing plants, such as fossil-fuelled power stations, but does not specify the means by which this has to be done. It is for the electricity industry to plan how it will achieve its share of these reductions. The fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment will play an important part. Other measures, such as the burning of low-sulphur fuels, including gas, are also likely to contribute.

  The scale of future purchases of British coal by the generators will be a matter for their commercial judgment. The best protection for the United Kingdom coal industry would be for it to produce secure supplies of coal at competitive prices.

  Low-sulphur Coal
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to consider the sustainability of supplies, long-term price, and balance of payments effects of low-sulphur coal as part of a review of his Department's policy on coal-burning power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The source and cost of low-sulphur coal is a matter for the electricity generation industry.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what forecasts he has made of the long-term effects on British Coal(a) nationally and (b) in the east midlands region, of a policy of importing low-sulphur content coal.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. Such forecasts are a commercial matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  Oil Imports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the proportion of oil imports to the United Kingdom used(a) in the manufacture of automobiles, buses and road haulage vehicles and (b) for fuelling road transport.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The information requested is not available.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when flotation of National Power and PowerGen will take place.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 28 February 1990 at column 226.

  United Kingdom Petroleum Production
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the Government's latest forecasts of levels of United Kingdom petroleum production.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The latest forecasts for United Kingdom petroleum production in the years 1990 to 1994 are as follows:

  Million tonnes

  1990

  85–110

  1991

  80–110

  1992

  80–110

  1993

  85–115

  1994

  80–120

  As in previous years, the forecasts are presented in the form of a range of outcomes for each year. These take into account the many uncertainties involved. The figures comprise stabilised crude oil, natural gas liquids and condensates. NGL and condensate production is expected to contribute between 5 and 10 million tonnes annually to the above.

PRIME MINISTER

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister which of the conditions which were agreed at the Madrid meeting of the European Council as a basis for the United Kingdom joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system have not yet been met; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been significant progress on capital liberalisation, in competition policy and liberalisation of financial services, but further important decisions have yet to be taken. Further progress is needed to get inflation down.

  German Unification
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has held recent discussions with(a) Chancellor Kohl and (b) other European Community state leaders on the subject of the unification of the two German states.

  The Prime Minister
  I last met Chancellor Kohl at the European Council in Strasbourg in December. Other EC Heads of State or Government were also present. We had a useful discussion of the question of German unity. This was reflected in the Council's declaration.

  Walderslade, Chatham
  Mr. Rowe
  Q.116 To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Walderslade, Chatham.

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

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  Q.125 To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for St. David's day.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had a meeting with the President of the European Parliament and presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. I also had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Environment
  Mr. Hunter
  Q.142 To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on environmental issues.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have received very many positive representations, particularly in relation to the proposals in the Environment Protection Bill.

  Confederation of British Wool Textiles
  Mr. Cryer
  Q.164 To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to the Confederation of British Wool Textiles office in Bradford.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited a textile mill during my regional tour to Bradford yesterday and was most impressed by the quality and enthusiasm of the staff and the excellence of the products.

  European Community
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the programme for establishing the single market; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the trade which certain members of the Community have secured during the period of agreed European Economic Community sanctions; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Community has trade sanctions in place against South Africa only. Beyond the very limited scope of these, it is for individual member states to pursue trading relationships with South Africa as they see fit.

  Policy Unit Staff
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the professional background of those joining her policy unit since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Those joining my policy unit since 1979 have had a variety of experience in a range of professions including:

  Accountancy

  Administration

  Banking

  Business management

  Company directorship

  Economics Engineering

  Finance Industry

  Investment analysis

  Journalism.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will take steps to establish a ministerial working group to study the problems of coastal protection and sea defences and to co-ordinate the work of the various Departments concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  The policy responsibility for coast protection and sea defence rests, in England, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and elsewhere with the territorial Departments. There may be direct or indirect implications for other concerns but such co-ordination as may be necessary is already carried out with the relevant Departments.

  Office Running Costs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will detail the reasons for the increase in the costs of running her office from £6·55 million in 1988 to £7·9 million in 1989; and what steps she is taking to reduce this increase.

  The Prime Minister
  The estimated increase in costs is due almost entirely to capital expenditure on refurbishment work and security improvements. The increase in the normal running costs of my office is less than one half of one percentage point in real terms.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to ensure the security and non-infiltration of the Ernie draw by unauthorised persons.

  The Prime Minister
  All payments of premium bond prizes are made to winning investors, selected at random. The relevant accounts are audited by the National Audit Office, and the Department for National Savings is satisfied that there is no scope for abuse of the system.

TRANSPORT

  A31, West Moors
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long it will take to intall safety fencing along the A31 trunk road at West Moors between Pinehurst roundabout and Boundary lane; and what are the reasons for the time taken.

  Mr. Atkins
  The work will take about three months. This is because of the need for carriageway works to enable the central reserve to be widened to accommodate the 850m long safety fence without interfering with statutory undertakers' services.

  Traffic (London)
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many communications he had received at the close of 28 February of consultation on traffic in London and the London road assessment studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It will take a little while to collate and analyse the responses received. We shall make a statement as soon as possible.

  A41, Apex Corner
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects the road works on the A41 at Apex corner, where the turning into Mount grove has been closed, to be completed; and if he will take steps to ensure that, once the central gap has been reopened, it will remain open on permanent basis.

  Mr. Atkins
  The works are expected to be completed in spring 1991. The right turn into Mount grove will then be restored. There are no plans to close it permanently. I shall continue to have regard to the safety of the trunk road network and will take appropriate safety measures wherever they are shown to be necessary.

  "A Change in the Air"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain a copy of the transcript and video cassette of the television programme "A Change In The Air", on transport pollution, broadcast on 25 February, for his departmental library.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have already ordered the video. We do not need the transcript as well.

  Channel Ferries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review transport safety conditions and emergency rescue plans for cross-Channel ferries carrying toxic chemicals and spent nuclear fuel unable to dock in channel ports due to storms during the past month.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Ships which carry dangerous goods conform to the international maritime regulations regarding construction, equipment and manning, and are capable of riding out storms of the type recently experienced in the English Channel. It is the decision of the ship's master whether or not to leave port.

  Contingency arrangements already exist to deal with pollution arising from chemical spillages, or to recover irradiated fuel flasks from the seabed.

  Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives he has taken to inform the public of the various transport options available with regard to their comparative pollution effects.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department publishes annually in "Transport Statistics Great Britain" trends in emissions of pollutants from different transport modes. Pollution emitted by road vehicles is related to fuel consumption. My Department regularly issues a booklet about the fuel consumption of new cars which also advises motorists on how to save fuel when driving. It is generally well known that pollution may be reduced if people use public transport instead of private cars.

  M1 (Congestion)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a service advising motorists of those times on each day of the week that they can drive in either direction between junctions 6 and 12 of the M1 without being subjected to delays through congestion; and if he will make it his policy to update this advice each time a significant roadwork is commenced or completed and in any event once every three months.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department regards the provision of travel information as extremely important, and is considering with interested organisations ways of improving the reliability and availability of information through better arrangements for its collection, co-ordination and dissemination.

  Congestion on the Ml between junctions 6 and 12 occurs more commonly during peak periods, of which the travelling public is generally aware. It can also arise for a number of unforeseen reasons, for example after an accident. The police, the media and motoring organisations provide an important service in disseminating news about congestion when it occurs.
  278
  Information is already made widely available when roadworks are in prospect, in operation or about to finish. Only on Tuesday I gave a press conference about works due to commence on both the M1 and M25 in Hertfordshire. I am concerned that drivers should receive more information about delays and the reasons for them. With this in mind, new signs are being displayed in advance of roadworks advising drivers of the work being undertaken.

  Hackney Cabs
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to reform the hackney cab knowledge test outside London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Outside London, district councils are the licensing authorities for hackney carriages. It is a matter for them whether to require prospective hackney carriage drivers to undertake a geographical knowledge test for the area in which a licence would apply. The Government have no plans to propose the removal of that discretionary power.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hungary
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Hungary.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is currently in Hungary. He arrived on 27 February and will leave on 1 March. He will be holding talks with Dr. Horn, the Foreign Minister, and other members of the Government, and will be meeting representatives of the major opposition parties.

  South Africa (Sanctions)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) submissions have been received and (b) meetings have been organised with Government representatives from each Commonwealth country since August 1989 on the subject of trade sanctions and South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There were wide-ranging talks on South Africa at CHOGM in October 1989. Since then, there has been discussion of South Africa at both official and ministerial level as part of our normal contacts with Commonwealth Governments.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the procedures adopted by the European Economic Community to ensure that Community sanctions legislation relating to South Africa is adhered to by member states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As with any legislation adopted by the EEC, the Commission has the duty under the treaty to ensure that it is enforced and applied by member states.

  Angola
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to enforce the ceasefire agreed last year between the warring parties in Angola.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The terms of any settlement of the dispute in Angola are for the MPLA Government of Angola and UNITA to decide. We have consistently stressed to both sides the need for an early ceasefire and negotiations without preconditions, and we support President Mobutu's work as mediator.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the civil war in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  After a long lull in the fighting in Eritrea, the Eritrean People's Liberation Front launched a major offensive on 8 February. The fighting is still going on, but it appears that the port of Massawa is in EPLF hands. In their statement of 20 February, the Twelve expressed deep concern about the implications of the renewed fighting for the famine relief operations which are urgently required, and for the prospects for peace negotiations.

  South Africa
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the Government of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We maintain regular contact with the South African authorities on a wide range of issues, both here and via Her Majesty's ambassador.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to the provision of funds to the African National Congress and other political parties in South Africa to assist with the development of democracy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is a case for practical assistance to those in South Africa who have previously been excluded from the political process. We are considering what practical help we can give in a non-discriminatory way.

  Arms Reductions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the position of the Bush Administration on the exclusion of certain air-launched missiles from the strategic arms reduction talks negotiations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Both the United States and the Soviet Union take the view that since these negotiations concern only strategic weapons, air-launched cruise missiles below a certain range should be excluded. The difference is that the Soviet Union want all such missiles with ranges of more than 600 km to be accountable, while the United States wants a higher range threshold.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's280
  Government support the position of the Bush Administration on exclusion of air-launched missiles with a range of less than 1,500 km from the strategic arms reduction talks negotiations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United States and the Soviet Union have not yet agreed on the range at which strategic nuclear air-launched cruise missiles would become accountable under a START agreement. The START negotiations are between the United States and Soviet Union, and it is for them to reach an understanding on this issue.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the position of the Bush Administration on exclusion of air-launched missiles with a range of less than 1,500 km from the strategic arms reduction talks negotiations has been discussed in any official NATO meeting.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United States regularly briefs its allies at official NATO meetings on progress in the strategic arms reduction talks, including the situation regarding air-launched cruise missiles.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff in his Department are currently allocated to work on nuclear non-proliferation; and if he has any plans to increase the departmental commitment to this work.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are 11 members of this Department working full-time on nuclear nonproliferation, including missile proliferation. In addition, there are a number of staff, both home-based and at posts abroad, who contribute to this work. There are no plans at present to increase the number of staff devoted to this issue.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to disseminate information to schools, colleges, universities, non-governmental organisations and other interested parties on the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The arms control and disarmament research unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes notes on arms control on an approximately monthly basis, and a quarterly review. Both documents are circulated to a wide range of educational establishments and other organisations on request. Information about the non-proliferation treaty and the fourth review conference is regularly included.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his recent visit to Czechoslovakia, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), or his accompanying officials raised the forthcoming fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with his hosts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of any improvement or deterioration in the human rights situation in East Timor in recent years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have received diplomatic and other reports which confirm that there has been a sustained improvement in respect for human rights in East Timor in recent years. We have received reports of incidents which give rise to concern during the second half of 1989. We are watching the situation closely.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received concerning the execution of four people who had been in detention for over 24 years in Jakarta on 17 February.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Indonesian Army confirms that four persons were executed on 16 February (Syryanto, Surono, Soleiman and Rohayan). There are unconfirmed reports of the execution of two others. On 21 February, the Twelve expressed their regret in the Presidency address to the UN Commission on Human Rights that these executions were carried out so long after conviction.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the occupation of East Timor by Indonesia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our policy with regard to the annexation of East Timor by Indonesia is to support the UN Secretary-General's role in promoting a settlement between Indonesia and Portugal. We believe that both parties will be concerned to find a settlement which fully protects the interests of the people of East Timor.

  Namibia
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures Her Majesty's Government propose to take to help the Namibian economy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are actively discussing with the future Government of Namibia how we can best help them after independence, in particular through the aid programme.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Brazil
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there has been further progress on the approval of projects under the memorandum of understanding with Brazil since the Minister for Overseas Development's reply to the hon. Member for Fylde of 15 February,Official Report, column 350.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As I announced earlier this week, the first project has now been approved by the Brazilian Government. This is an important five-year climate research project, involving the Institute of Hydrology. We 282
  are contributing some £2·5 million. The first field mission will start this September. We are continuing our discussions with the Brazilian Government on other project proposals.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have any plans to cut their aid to Indonesia in the light of continued human rights abuses there.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In determining the appropriate level of United Kingdom aid to individual countries, the Government take account of a number of factors, including the importance of human rights. Indonesia is in the low-income group of developing countries and we believe that the current level of British aid to Indonesia is appropriate in current circumstances.

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tutors are employed in a full-time capacity in Wales to teach the Welsh language to adults; and whether his Department has any plans to increase the number of full-time tutors of Welsh for adults.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally. We are making available some £305,000 this year to colleges, voluntary bodies and other providers of adult education to help support activity in this area. We are currently considering the level of support for 1990–91.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any further plans to help and sustain the Welsh language and culture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The proposals for the introduction of Welsh in the national curriculum in Wales will provide the single most important boost to the Welsh language over the years to come. All other policies in support of the language will therefore complement and support what is happening in schools.

  In addition, the Government provide financial support for Welsh language and culture by way of grants to a wide range of organisations involved with the use and promotion of the language. Direct grant support in 1989–90 amounted to some £4·4 million. This figure will increase next year by 30 per cent. to a total of £5·9 million. My right hon. Friend will continue to look to the Welsh Language Board for advice in relation to all matters to do with the language and on how these grants can be harnessed to the greatest effect.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been dispensed to Welsh local authorities in grants for bilingual education under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 in each year since that Act came into force; how much he anticipates will have been granted by the end of the present financial year; and how much he has allocated for this purpose in the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Health Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to set up a fund to help meet the additional travel expenses of relatives of patients who have been referred to treatment centres outside their own health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  It will be for the patients concerned to assess the relative benefits of earlier treatment at the centres, including the possibility of additional travel for themselves and their relatives, compared with waiting for treatment more locally. As with any other hospital services, visitors on low incomes can apply for help with their travelling expenses to and from the centres from the Department of Social Security. We do not propose to introduce any additional assistance for the relatives of patients in treatment centres.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on general practitioners' clinical responsibility of the decision to exclude general practitioners from referring their patients directly to treatment centres.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of general practitioners regarding his decision not to allow general practitioners to refer patients directly to treatment centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has received no requests to meet representatives of general practitioners to discuss treatment centres. The centres will not impinge on general practitioners' clinical responsibility. GPs will continue to refer new patients direct to hospitals of their choice, which will in turn continue to treat the majority of patients. Treatment centres are an additional resource to offer patients already waiting the choice of earlier treatment.

  This principle would be undermined if general practitioners were to refer new patients to treatment centres direct since the centres would then be likely to build up their own waiting lists. However, the operational policies of the ophthalmology and general surgery centres provide for re-referrals by general practitioners of patients who have been waiting on inpatient lists for more than four months. The policy of the orthopaedic centre in this respect will be kept under review.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities have agreed contracts with private companies for the provision of health services to National Health Service patients in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra cash he will allocate to each of the Welsh health authorities to maintain current levels of services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 11 January at columns 725–27, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the revenue and capital allocations to health authorities in Wales for 1990–91.
  284
  I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North on 12 February at columns 12–13 in which my right hon. Friend announced the distribution of almost £10 million which had been reserved for schemes to be centrally funded under the programme for the valleys initiative.

  Further announcements will be made in due course about the distribution of other sums reserved for centrally directed developments in 1990–91.

  Finally, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 1 February at columns 260–62, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that further revenue provision would be made available to health authorities in 1990–91 (over and above the sum announced on 11 January) in respect of pay awards to staff covered by the review bodies arrangement. The distribution of this additional provision will depend upon staff in post and will be notified to authorities as soon as possible.

  South Gwent Health Unit
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to have discussions with the trade unions involved before authorising proposals for revised management arrangements for the South Gwent health unit.

  Mr. Grist
  No. We are satisfied with the existing arrangements for the consideration of DHAs' revised management arrangements involving consideration by the executive committee of the Health Policy Board.

  I understand, however, that in formulating its proposals Gwent health authority has consulted trade unions and this will be borne in mind by the executive committee. After further local consultation the authority will submit the proposals to the Department for approval.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to improve the teaching of religious education in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Education Reform Act enhances the place of religious education in the school curriculum, and central support is available to local education authorities which undertake in-service teacher training in the subject.

  Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instigate investigations into the rates of incidence of cancer near nuclear installations in Wales following the recent report on Sellafield.

  Mr. Grist
  Analysis of the data available from the Wales cancer registry is under way. The data require careful scrutiny and validation. When the results are ready, I will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what trends he is able to identify in respect of the incidence rates of various forms of cancer(a) in Wales as a whole and (b) in each district in Wales; and what information he has on trends in such incidence rates in the United Kingdom generally.
  285
  Mr. Grist
  Information on the individual incidence rates and trends of cancer within Wales is presented in the Welsh Office publication "Cancer Registration in Wales, 1974–1984".

  Figures for England and Wales are available from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication "Cancer statistics: registrations", while data for Scotland appear in "Scottish Health Statistics" published by the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service. Information on cancer registrations for Northern Ireland appear in the Department of Health and Social Services "Statistics and Research Bulletin".

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in the light of the Gardner report, he will commission fresh independent research into the incidence of leukaemia in north Wales and into the causes of high incidence of specific types of cancer in any part of Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh cancer registration data are kept under regular review. Where it appears that the rate of incidence of any particular form of cancer is significantly higher than would be expected consideration is given to the need for, and the most appropriate form of, investigation into possible causes.

  Additionally, as announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health on 15 February, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment plans detailed epidemiological studies to obtain more information on the possible health effects in the offspring of parents occupationally exposed to radiation. These studies should start in the near future.

  Community Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he will make a statement setting out his proposals for independent inspection units for community care services in Wales;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy that independent inspection units for community care in Wales shall regularly review and report on the provision of services within the boundaries of each district authority in their area of responsibility;

  (3) whether he will make it his policy that there shall be an independent inspection unit for the area of each local authority in Wales which has responsibility for social services.

  Mr. Grist
  A consultation paper on the setting up of independent inspection units in Wales has recently been widely circulated. Copies have been placed in the Library. Policy decisions on the establishment and operation of these units will be taken following consideration of the comments received as a result of the consultation exercise and the deliberations of a working group comprising representatives of the independent and public sectors which has been set up to consider the issue.

ENVIRONMENT

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the application of the new uniform business rate arrangements to the sale and purchase of small businesses.
  286
  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the question of the cessation of transitional protection when the rateable occupier of a business property, large or small, changes.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further advice is being given to householders affected by radon gas as to how to tackle the problem; and what efforts are being made to ensure that builders etc. contacted by the public to tackle radon problems give correct advice to the householders.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The advice already available to householders affected by concentrations of radon in "The Householders' Guide to Radon" is still valid. A second edition is currently being prepared to take account of the new action level.

  The building research establishment is engaged in a continuing programme of research on tackling radon problems and the results of this will be published in the form of practical advice for builders and others as they become available. Meanwhile, where owners of buildings are uncertain about the best way to proceed, they should consult the building research establishment.

  Household Waste (Incineration)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities in England and Wales use incinerators to dispose of suitable household waste; and what plans he has to encourage more disposal of such rubbish by this method in the future.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are 30 municipal incinerators currently operated by local authorities in England and Wales and these dispose of some 8 per cent. of household waste. There is, however, no centrally held information on the number of local authorities which make use of these incinerators.

  The Government encourage local authorities to employ the best practicable environmental means for the disposal of their waste. It is for them to determine what that may be in the light of local circumstances.

  Industrial Pollution
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his departmental library a video tape and copy of the transcript of the "Northern Eye" programme on industrial pollution in Teesside, broadcast on 15 February.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department already has copies of the transcript. It is unnecessary to have a copy of the video.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of contracts awarded by the Property Services Agency for each of the last three years were carried out by private building contractors; and what were their total values for each year.

  Mr. Chope
  All new construction work for the Property Services Agency is undertaken by private sector contractors. In the last three years, the proportion of maintenance work undertaken by the private sector has remained steady, at about 85 per cent.
  287
  The aggregate value of all of this work, at cash prices, was:

  £ million

  1986–87

  1,794

  1987–88

  1,827

  1988–89

  1,978

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of his Department towards attribution of liability for the community charge in respect of persons resident in buildings bisected by a district boundary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The rules for such buildings are set out in part V of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/438). Broadly, a building is deemed to fall within the area of the charging authority which contains its greater or greatest part. Any person subject to a community charge by virtue of residence in the building will be subject to the community charge of that area only.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his written reply dated 14 February,Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable per adult for each region and so on, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for Humberside the estimated percentage of the adult population, including spouses, now paying rates; the percentage expected to be chargeable to the poll tax; and the percentage expected to contribute the same or less than at present as a result of the proposed increase of 29 per cent. in the rate/taxpayer's contribution.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not available.

  Westminster Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the figure of the equivalent of £60 per head was arrived at for Westminster council's land drainage grant.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no knowledge of any "land drainage grant" for Westminster council.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the National Rivers Authority was consulted about Westminster's contribution to flood control expenses before it was decided how much central Government's grant to Westminster council would be.

  Mr. Chope
  The standard spending assessment element for flood defence is based on net current expenditure in 1989–90, as defined in annex A of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). This information was available without consulting the National Rivers Authority.

  House Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the ratio of house prices to earnings in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) France.
  288
  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Personal Transport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental effects of increased personal transport opportunities in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department of Transport's recent publication "Trunk Roads, England—Into the 1990s", and in particular to chapter 5.

  "A Change in the Air"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to obtain a copy of the transcript and video cassette of the television programme "A Change In The Air" broadcast on 25 February.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Automobile Manufacturing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual output of chemical toxic emissions from the automobile manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not collected or held centrally in the Department.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what volume of environmentally damaging solvents are typically released into the atmosphere from the paint spraying of an automobile on the production line; and what policies he has to reduce this pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested on the specific solvent emissions from automobile spraying is not available.

  The United Kingdom Government are engaged with other signatories to the UN Economic Commission for Europe convention on long-range transport of air pollution in the production of a draft protocol for the reduction of volatile organic compound emissions.

  Within the European Community we are discussing measures to reduce photochemical pollution. These will include reductions of VOC emissions.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is preparing guidance defining the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs to reduce solvent emissions from large-scale automobile spraying.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what volumes of toxic wastes are created annually from the manufacture of automobiles and road haulage vehicles in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held centrally.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 411, whether all existing power stations will, in time, be required to be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation.
  289
  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regard the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment as the best practicable means for limiting emissions of sulphur dioxide from coal or oil-fired power stations. Existing plant is required eventually to attain new plant standards if its lifetime justifies this.

  Common Land
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 27 November 1989,Official Report, column 89, when he will make a statement on the Government's intentions on common land legislation.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 11 January 1990, at column 683.

  Combustion Plants
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce a stated timetable for upgrading existing registered large combustion plants.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have already made clear our commitment to the timetable for reducing emissions from large combustion plants enshrined in the European Community directive. The detailed plan will be published at the time required by the directive.

  Emission Reduction Plan
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish the consultation paper on the proposed national emission reduction plan prior to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes.

  Pollution Abatement Technology
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the emission reduction plan will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fitting pollution abatement technology, in terms of cost per tonne of sulphur abated, for differing sizes of plants.

  Mr. Trippier
  The emission reduction plan will contain the details specified in the large combustion plants directive (88/609/EEC).

  Sewage Disposal (Torridge Estuary)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a decision has been made as to the type of sewage disposal intended for the Torridge estuary.

  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that a decision has not yet been made. South West Water Services Ltd. has carried out intensive environmental studies over the past three years in order to develop a comprehensive water quality plan for the Taw/Torridge estuary and to assess the long-term options for improved sewage disposal arrangements. Under the provisions of the Water Act 1989, any such improvement plans and related discharge applications will require the approval and formal consent of the National Rivers Authority. This is a matter, therefore, for South West Water and the NRA.

  Special Needs Grants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many valid applications for special needs grants under the social fund were made to Grimsby and were refused because of cash limits on local expenditure; what advice his Department will give to applicants in the light of the recent High Court ruling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the period April 1989 to January 1990, 1,112 applications for community care grants were processed at Grimsby social security office. Of those applications 647 resulted in an award; of the remainder none was refused on budgetary grounds.

  Our advice remains that any person who has a need which he considers might be met from the social fund should make an application to his local social security office in the normal way.

SCOTLAND

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to issue any guidance to the proposed Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland for the purposes of conserving land which is of national importance for nature conservation as provided for in section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides powers to the Secretary of State to make nature conservation orders. Such an order is made only where there is a dispute between the Nature Conservancy Council and a landowner about land notified by the council as a site of special scientific interest under section 28 of the Act. There are no powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the council under either section 28 or section 29 of the Act.

  Children (Tumours)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all children with solid malignant tumours known to the health services are recorded in the Scottish health statistics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes.

  Wind (North of Scotland)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations his Department has had with the Forestry Commission in respect of wind conditions in the north of Scotland; and what representations he has received from them in this matter.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission has three wind-monitoring stations in the north of Scotland—on Skye, at Leanachan near Fort William and at Rosarie in Moray—where wind speeds are recorded and the effect of wind on forests is studied. The commission has advised that the pattern of winds in this area has not been unusual in the first two months of 1990 and that there has been no significant damage to forests since the gale of February 1989.

  New Towns
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of houses built by new town development corporations are now privately owned in each of the new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  As at 30 September 1989, the total number of corporation houses sold in each of the towns, as a percentage of houses completed by development corporations, is as follows:

  Percentage

  East Kilbride

  49·0

  Glenrothes

  46·5

  Cumbernauld

  51·7

  Livingston

  29·8

  Irvine

  24·0

  Primary Teaching Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much the intake for primary teaching students is to increase in 1990 for each of the colleges under his control; and by how much he intends to increase the resources of these colleges to assist them to train these students.

  Mr. Lang
  The planned intakes for session 1990–91 to primary teacher training courses are shown in the table. The allocations of grant in aid for 1990–91 which I introduced on 22 February,Official Report, columns 869–70, include funding for all these students. Having regard to the benefit of changes in rates relief for charities, colleges of education will receive overall increases in public funding of 14 to 15 per cent. over 1989–90.

  (£ million)

  Business1 income

  Investment income

  Public dividend capital

  Borrowings from: National loans fund

  European coal and steel community

  1984–85

  38·7

  3·9

  1·1

  3·5

  —

  1985–86

  36·5

  2·1

  0·9

  0·8

  0·5

  1986–87

  41·7

  3·0

  2·1

  —

  —

  1987–88

  41·5

  5·6

  2·3

  0·3

  —

  1988–89

  52·2

  4·0

  —

  3·5

  —

  1 Derived mainly from property rents and sales.

  Note

  The figures do not include repayments from sub-borrowers in respect of loans made from National Loans Fund and European Coal and Steel Community monies.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State Scotland if he will state the grant in aid given to the Scottish Development Agency in cash terms and also indexed for inflation in each of the years of the Scottish Development Agency's existence.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table:

  £ million

  Cash

  At 1988–89 prices

  1976–77

  8·9

  24·7

  1977–78

  32·0

  77·9

  1978–79

  48·2

  106·0

  1979–80

  58·4

  110·0

  1980–81

  77·4

  123·1

  292

  Recommended intakes to primary teacher training courses in Scotland—1990–91

  BEd target

  PGCE quota

  Craigie

  120 (100)

  45 (30)

  Jordanhill

  240 (210)

  1157 (75)

  Moray House

  200 (170)

  100 (70)

  Northern

  240 (205)

  110 (75)

  St. Andrew's

  200 (165)

  80 (50)

  Total

  1,000 (850)

  450 (300)

  Note: Figures for session 1989–90 in brackets.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons training agents are paid £10 under the employment training scheme for trainees directly recruited by training managers and to whom training agents give no service.

  Mr. Lang
  Training agents provide an independent source of guidance and support to trainees recruited directly by a training manager on, for example, issues causing dissatisfaction or where trainees wish to change their training objectives. To ensure that this independent brokerage role is fully accessible to trainees who have been directly recruited by training managers, the Training Agency pays a flat fee of £10 to training agents in respect of each such trainee who remains in employment training for more than six days and for whom an action plan has been lodged with the training agent.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the income, not grant in aid, received by the Scottish Development Agency in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table:

  Cash

  At 1988–89 prices

  1981–82

  76·2

  110·4

  1982–83

  94·2

  127·3

  1983–84

  83·6

  108·0

  1984–85

  74·5

  91·6

  1985–86

  92·6

  108·1

  1986–87

  87·1

  98·4

  1987–88

  91·4

  98·0

  1988–89

  87·6

  87·6

  1989–90

  95·8

  189·5

  1 Estimated.

  293
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what happens to the proceeds of the sale of equities by the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  It has been the practice for some years to allow the agency to use such income to finance new investments; in the current year there will be more income than is required to finance new investments and the surplus will be used to reduce the total amount of public dividend capital owing to the Exchequer. Public dividend capital has been drawn down by the agency over the years as the principal means of financing new investments.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will happen to the proceeds of the Scottish Development Agency's property portfolio sale.

  Mr. Lang
  The agency's budget has always been funded to a significant extent by business receipts, within which income from selling premises to tenants has been a substantial element. The receipts from the disposal exercise will likewise be taken into account in setting the level of the agency's budget and the proportion of the budget to be met from grant in aid.

  Teachers (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for monitoring the numbers of teachers from the ethnic minorities in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  As my hon. Friend the then Minister with responsibility for education announced on 25 May 1989, column 657, there are no plans to survey the ethnic origins of school teachers in Scotland.

  Crofting Estates
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the disposal of his crofting estates to community ownership.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am issuing a consultation paper today seeking views on the possibility of transferring my crofting estates to trusts including representatives of crofting interests, or to some other form of community ownership. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consortia bids for local enterprise company status the local enterprise company unit is currently considering; and which areas of Scotland they come from.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: Twenty-four applications for development funding have been received to date. The areas to which they relate are listed in the table.

  Area covered

  (i) Development funding approved

  Grampian Enterprise

  Grampian Region

  Lanarkshire Enterprise

  District Council areas of Hamilton, Clydesdale, Motherwell, East Kilbride and Monklands

  Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise

  Lothian Region

  294

  Area covered

  Renfrew Enterprise

  District Council areas of Inverclyde, Renfrew and Eastwood

  Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  (ii) Under consideration

  Ayrshire Enterprise

  District Council areas of Cunninghame, Kyle and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  Borders Enterprise

  Borders Region

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise

  District Council areas of Dumbarton, Clydebank, Strathkelvin, Bearsden and Milngavie, Cumberland and Kilsyth

  Fife Enterprise

  Fife Region

  Forth Valley Enterprise

  Central Region

  Glasgow Local Enterprise Company

  City of Glasgow District Council

  Kingdom Enterprise

  Fife Region

  Perthshire Enterprise

  District Council area of Perth and Kinross

  Scottish Enterprise Tayside

  Tayside Region

  Argyll Enterprise

  District Council area of Argyll and Bute

  Argyll and the Islands Enterprise

  District Council area of Argyll and Bute

  Caithness and Sutherland Local Enterprise Company

  District Council areas of Caithness and Sutherland

  Inverness and Nairn Enterprise

  District Council areas of Inverness and Nairn

  Lochaber Ltd.

  Lochaber District Council

  Mid-Highland Enterprise

  District Council area of Ross and Cromarty, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and West Moray

  Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey

  District Council area of Badenoch and Strathspey and West Moray

  Ross and Cromarty Enterprise

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Skye and Lochalsh Enterprise

  Skye and Lochalsh District Council

  Western Isles Local Enterprise Company

  Western Isles Islands Council

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list his official visits to British industrial companies in each of the last three months;

  (2) if he will list his regional visits in the last three months.

  Mr. Ridley
  My visits round the country, and my meetings with and visits to industrial companies are numerous, and do not lead themselves to the sort of precise classification suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  Company Audits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend the Companies Act 1989 so as to require companies' annual returns to state whether or not a close personal relationship exists between the auditor and any officer of a company.
  295
  Mr. Redwood
  No. The professional rules that the relevant supervisory bodies are required to have under the Companies Act 1989 are sufficient to provide against conflicts of interest.

  East Germany (Pollution)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to offer assistance in the form of environmental clean-up technology developed in the United Kingdom to the German Democratic Republic.

  Mr. Forth
  On 22 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced that a know-how fund would be set up for eastern Europe. This would embrace our existing commitments to Poland and Hungary, and make available help for other east European countries once they are firmly committed to reform. It is too early to indicate the distribution of such funds by country or sector.

  United Kingdom manufacturers of equipment for environmental improvement are being encouraged to develop links with prospective users in eastern Europe, including the German Democratic Republic, through a number of mechanisms. In particular, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, to be held in Bonn between 19 March and 11 April 1990, will include opportunities for business men from eastern and western European nations to identify requirements for environmental protection equipment. United Kingdom associations in the environmental field have been asked to inform their members of this event.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the establishment of the Patent Office as an executive agency.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am today establishing the Patent Office as an executive agency. The Patent Office is the fifth executive agency to be established within the DTI.

  Establishing the Patent Office as an executive agency will assist the Patent Office further to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of its services. Accordingly, I have set the Patent Office the following productivity and quality of service targets for the next five years:

  to increase the productivity of patent examination by an average of at least 1·5 per cent. a year;

  to issue at least 90 per cent. of patent search reports within 12 weeks;

  to increase the productivity of trade mark examination by an average of at least 3 per cent. a year;

  to register at least 90 per cent. of unopposed trade mark applications within 24 months of receipt; and

  to reduce the cost of common services within the Patent Office by at least 20 per cent. in real terms.

  Taken together these targets represent a requirement to improve efficiency by an average of more than 4 per cent. a year.

  In addition, I expect the relocation of the Patent Office to Newport, Gwent, which is due to be completed in September 1991, to produce substantial savings in the running costs of the Patent Office.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the purpose of the European Economic Community directive on capital adequacy;296
  what will be the impact of the directive on the Financial Services Act; whether he has made any assessment of the impact of the directive on independent financial advisers in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The proposed EC directive on the capital adequacy of investment business is at an early stage and no draft has yet been presented to the Council of Ministers. It will set out the capital requirements with which those doing investment business must comply. It complements the investment services directive, which will allow an investment firm authorised in one member state to do business throughout the Community without the need for further authorisation.

  Implementation of the provisions of the directive, once adopted, is likely to involve changes to the relevant rules of the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations and changes to the Bank of England's supervision of banks.

  I am aware of the concern among independent financial advisers that the directive should take account of the way financial services business is done in the United Kingdom. We have made our position clear to the Commission on the aspects of the proposals which are of special concern to this group.

  Soviet Union
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, when he last met his Soviet conterpart, they discussed the establishment of free market systems in the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: I am preparing to meet my Soviet counterpart, Mr. Sitaryan, the chairman of the state foreign economic commission, for the first time in Moscow next month, when I hope to discuss a wide range of trade and economic subjects.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding publication of the report on House of Fraser.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his answer, 17 January 1990, c. 286]: I have been informed today by the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions that they have withdrawn their objections to the publication of the report by inspectors of their investigation under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 into the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc. I intend therefore to publish it on 7 March. I do not intend to take any further action.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Statistics (Shropshire)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what has been the total number of people employed by Shropshire education authority in each of the past five years;

  (2) what has been the total number of pupils and students enrolled in Shropshire in each of the past five years;

  (3) what has been the total number of teaching staff employed by Shropshire education authority in each of the past five years.
  297
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The total numbers of teachers and pupils in maintained schools and colleges in Shropshire in each of the past five years are given in the table. Data on the total number of people employed by Shropshire education authority are not held centrally.

  Teaching staff employed and pupils-students enrolled in schools and colleges maintained by Shropshire LEA (full-time equivalents)1

  Teaching staff employed

  Pupils-students enrolled2

  1985

  4,207

  68,827

  1986

  4,258

  68,737

  1987

  4,221

  67,805

  1988

  4,245

  66,944

  1989

  4,222

  67,901

  1 Figures relate to January of the year shown, except that the data on students enrolled in maintained colleges of further and higher education (FHE) included in the pupils-students row are for the preceding November.

  2 In 1989 there was a change in the factors used to convert numbers of student enrolments in maintained FHE colleges to full-time equivalents, which had the effect of increasng the total full-time equivalents.

  Beechem Cliff School
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of people who were signatories to the 38 statutory objections to the grant-maintained proposals for Beechem Cliff school, Avon.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The signatories to the objections comprised 397 individuals and the governing bodies of 17 schools.

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the tuition fee for postgraduate students will be in the academic year 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The levels at which higher education fees are set is for individual institutions. The maximum tuition fee that will be reimbursed through the awards system for eligible home students and those from other European Community countries on full-time postgraduate courses will be increased from £1,890 in the current academic year to £1,985 in 1990–91.

HEALTH

  Anaesthetic Drugs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have(a) died and (b) suffered adverse side effects, from general anaesthetic drugs used in National Health Service hospitals for each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table gives the available information. It shows the number of deaths in England and Wales with an underlying cause of death attributed to general anaesthetics between 1979–88 and where the death has occurred in a National Health Service Hospital. Information relating to the number of adverse side-effects is not available.
  298

  Number of deaths from general anaesthetic drugs, NHS hospitals, 1979–88, England and Wales

  Category of death

  Year

  E855.11

  E938.1 to E938.41

  1979

  —

  1

  1980

  —

  —

  1981

  —

  2

  1982

  —

  1

  1983

  —

  2

  1984

  —

  3

  1985

  1

  —

  1986

  —

  1

  1987

  —

  —

  1988

  1

  1

  Source: OPCS death registrations.

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision codes: E855.1: Accidental poisonings by other drugs acting upon the central and autonomic systems: includes ether, gaseous anaesthetics, intravenous anaesthetics, halogenated hydrocarbon derivatives, thiobarbiturates.

  E938.1 to E938.4: Other central nervous system depressants (general anaesthetics). Correct drug properly administered, but adverse reaction to it.

  Hospital Laundering
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received urging health authorities be referred for unfair practice in competitive tendering for laundering facilities from the industry's trade association; and what response he has given.

  Mr. Freeman
  There has been continuing dialogue between the Department and the laundry trade association about the competitive tendering initiative since 1983. Some of its representations relating to problems about the process and its implementation by health authorities were met by guidance issued in January 1986 and November 1987, including a practical guide and handbook on monitoring of contracts following an independent study sponsored by the National Provincial Hospitals Trust and partially funded by the Department.

  A report issued by the association in mid-1988 highlighted a number of areas of continuing difficulty. The Department investigated the complaints made and consulted widely on the report's recommendations before responding fully to the association. In summary:

  Its proposed short model contract was seen as unacceptable because it failed to safeguard health authority interests. The association has been invited, however, to send in contract documents used by hospitals in Holland for consideration.

  General concerns about capital accounting will be met by the new arrangements for capital charging and asset registers. Regarding a specific complaint about capital investment in laundering equipment by a district health authority, a rigorous scrutiny by the region at the time concluded that this represented best value for money.

  Independent scrutiny of tendering arrangements, tender exercises and costs was already provided by the statutory process of external audit.

  Where contractors had firm and factual evidence of unfair practices, this should be taken up at the time with the district health authority's general manager and if necessary with the appropriate regional health authority.

  The association has also been invited to provide specific examples of completed tender exercises where, in its view,

  299
  the in-house team's costings were manifestly incomplete and this has operated to the detriment of a competitive contractor's bid. Such evidence is awaited.

  We welcome the fact that the competitive tendering initiative for laundry services has improved value for money and generated savings of over £9 million.

  Rates
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount paid in lieu of rates for 1989–90 for each district health authority and special health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is reported in the annual accounts of health authorities. Information from such accounts for 1989–90 will not be available until the autumn.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what terms and conditions of employment within the National Health Service will apply once a self-governing trust is established.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS trusts will remain firmly in the NHS. Staff who transfer from health authority to NHS trust employment will retain their existing contracts and all rights arising from them, subject to the substitution of the new employer for the old and any consequential technical changes. It will be open to NHS trusts to seek to introduce changes in existing contracts at any time after transfer. In doing so, they will be free to decide whether to continue to adopt NHS Whitley council conditions or to make alternative arrangements if they so wish.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places are currently provided by health authorities for the elderly in nursing homes in each health authority in England.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally.

  The Government consider continuous nursing care services to be an integral part of NHS provision for those elderly people who require them. However, the actual level of service to be provided by a health authority is a matter for that authority to decide for itself based on local needs and priorities.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about National Health Service prescription and related charges and spectacle vouchers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I will shortly be laying before the House regulations for increases in prescription charges in the National Health Service in England and Wales to come into effect on 1 April 1990. The prescription charge will increase by 25p from £2·80 to £3·05. The increase of 8·9 per cent. reflects the higher cost of the pharmaceutical services and will provide about £13 million extra income to the resources available to the Health Service in England and Wales.

  The new charge will continue to represent less than half the cost of an average prescription to the NHS. Under
  300
  existing exemption arrangements over three quarters of prescription items are provided free of charge and these exemption arrangements will continue. The four-monthly and annual prepayment certificates will continue to be provided, the fees for which will increase from £14·50 and £40·00 to £15·80 and £43·50 respectively. A prescription charge will be paid in respect of less than 20 per cent. of all items dispensed in the NHS as a result of the exemption arrangements and continued availability of prepayment certificates. The charges for elastic stockings and tights., wigs (with the exception of the charge for a full bespoke human hair wig) and fabric supports supplied through the hospital service will also be increased from 1 April, as set out in table A.

  I am pleased to announce a significant move to help those who receive vouchers for spectacles. The value of the vouchers will be increased from 1 April and some definitions changed so that more prescriptions fall into the higher bands. In all, the amount paid in spectacle vouchers is expected to rise by some 10 per cent. As from 1 April, spectacle voucher values will be increased by around 4·7 per cent. overall with the value of the most frequently prescribed A and D vouchers rising by 5·9 and 6·1 per cent. respectively. Voucher values for the hospital eye service will also rise by the same amount. In addition to the general increase, the specification of the higher spectacle voucher bands B and E will be more widely defined to take in more optical prescriptions. Those affected by this change will benefit by receiving significantly more money from which to buy the spectacles of their choice. The revised voucher values are set out in table B.

  Table A New hospital service charges from 1 April 1990 (present charge in brackets)

  Elastic stockings and tights, wigs and fabric supports

  £

  £

  Each elastic stocking

  3·05

  (2·80)

  Tights supplied through the hospital service

  6·10

  (5·60)

  Surgical brassiere

  13·00

  (12·00)

  Abdominal or spinal support

  17·00

  (16·00)

  Stock modacrylic wig

  26·00

  (24·00)

  Partial human hair wig

  67·00

  (62·00)

  Full bespoke human hair wig

  97·00

  (97·00)

  Table B

  National Health Service spectacle voucher values

  From 1 April 1990 £

  Present value £

  Voucher

  A

  18·00

  17·00

  B

  28·75

  28·00

  C

  47·00

  46·00

  D

  34·75

  32·75

  E

  59·75

  58·00

  F

  100·00

  98·00

  G1

  100·00

  98·00

  H1

  228·85

  226·50

  Complex lenses

  Single vision

  3·50

  3·25

  Bifocal

  18·75

  18·00

  Prisms per lens

  Single vision

  4·00

  3·75

  Bifocal

  5·00

  4·75

  Tints per lens

  Single vision

  2·00

  1·90

  Bifocal

  2·50

  2·40

  Photochromic per lens1

  Single vision

  2·00

  1·90

  Bifocal

  2·50

  2·40

  301

  From 1 April 1990 £

  Present value £

  Small frame supplement

  34·50

  33·00

  Supplement for special facial characteristics1

  34·50

  33·00

  1 Hospital eye service.

  2 Per lens.

  National Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when further guidance on National Health Service contracts will be published.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today had copies of "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts" placed in the Library. This includes "specimen" contracts, which have largely been developed within the National Health Service with financial support from the Department. These contracts are first efforts at those which will be necessary to stipulate the nature of the service to be delivered, the quality to be achieved and the resources to be provided for every aspect of National Health Service services across the country. They are not blueprints, nor do they set precedents to be followed by every district health authority. The contracts and the further guidance, together with the previous document "Contracts for Health Services: Operational Principles", are intended to stimulate further detailed work across the country by clinicians and managers to develop useful forms of contract for every part of the service. We intend to implement contract funding in April 1991.

  Child Cancer
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of child cancer, including leukaemia, patients recorded in each of the paediatric hospitals in the United Kingdom each year over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The exact information requested is not available.

  The data shown are collected from cases reported to local cancer registries (based at regional health authority level), and are not subdivided into those recorded from paediatric hospitals. The data cover the years 1980 to 1984, later data for the United Kingdom as a whole not yet being available.

  Number of cases of (a) all malignant neoplasms1 and (b) leukaemia2, ages 0 to 14 years

  United Kingdom, 1980 to 1984

  Year

  (a) All malignant neoplasms

  (b) Leukaemia

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1984

  690

  563

  224

  190

  1983

  699

  549

  246

  198

  1982

  642

  518

  210

  182

  1981

  662

  560

  217

  184

  1980

  688

  534

  213

  169

  1 Assigned to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision codes 140 to 208.

  2 Assigned to the 9th revision ICD codes 204 to 208.

  Gay People(Adoptions)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy concerning the fostering or adoption of children by individual unmarried lesbian or gay persons who fulfil all the requirements of suitability and fitness to adopt or foster.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In reaching a decision relating to the fostering or adoption of a child by any person, courts and child care and adoption agencies are required to give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the child's welfare. There is no prohibition on fostering or adoption by single people, who are equally subject to the statutory requirements for thorough investigation and assessment as prospective foster parents and adopters.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will seek to exempt, with immediate effect, all retirement pensioners from eye test charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pensioners as a group have never been automatically exempt from the payment of optical charges since NHS charges were first introduced in 1951. The Government are keen to focus help with sight test charges on those who need it most, and we have therefore ensured that pensioners who are on a low income or who have certain special medical needs, will continue to be entitled to a free NHS sight test. We have no plans to extend entitlement to NHS sight tests to all pensioners regardless of income.

  Tuberculosis Vaccine
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether regular supplies of tuberculosis vaccine are now being received; and whether the health authorities have been advised on whether to resume their routine school immunisation programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  Temporary supply difficulties arose last year whilst our source of supply moved production facilities to a new site. This necessitated conserving remaining stocks by restricting vaccination to those at particular risk of exposure to tuberculosis. These include children who may be contacts of people with pulmonary tuberculosis as well as recent immigrants from developing countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis and any infants born to them subsequently. Adequate stocks remain for that purpose.

  Fresh supplies should be available by the end of April 1990, so routine school vaccination could commence from that time. In October 1989, the Department asked health authorities to make plans to vaccinate the missed 1989 cohort of children at the same time as the 1990 cohort. The Department will be writing again in March to all health authorities suggesting that they can now resume the routine BCG schools' vaccination programme, in the summer or autumn terms depending on local arrangements.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the reports from health authorities about the hours worked by junior hospital doctors in September
  303
  1989 were provided by regional health authorities or district health authorities; and whether these reports cover all junior hospital doctors in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 8 February at column 770. The reports relate to junior hospital doctors in England.

  Hospital Complaints
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether hospital trusts will be subject to the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Community Care
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will be responsible for co-ordinating and supervising at a local level health and community care for persons in care both public and private.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  District health authorities and local authority social services departments will be responsible for assessing the health and social care needs of their resident populations. Each will then commission a range of services to meet those needs. DHAs will secure their services through a system of contracts or service agreements, as will local authorities when not directly providing them. In agreeing contracts, DHAs and SSDs will wish to satisfy themselves about a number of factors including the quality of treatment and care. It will be important for both district health authorities and local authorities to ensure that services are integrated and co-ordinated: they will need to ensure there is close and effective collaboration between the various elements which make up community care.

  Alcohol Research
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on animal experiments related to alcohol reseach since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: The Department is not currently funding any such research. Readily available information about research for previous years is contained in the DHSS handbooks on research and development published annually. Copies are available in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers and pupils are currently in Northern Ireland schools; what were the comparable figures for five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1988, the latest year for which information is available, there were 18,491 teachers and 339,741 pupils.

  The comparable figures for five, 10 and 15 years age, for teachers and pupils respectively, were 18,887 and 352,557; 19.116 and 372,380; 15,983 and 358,801.

  Dogs
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the control of dogs in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Northern Ireland has its own separate legislative provisions in relation to dogs under the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. The legislation is administered by the 26 Northern Ireland district councils. The system is working well.

  Londonderry
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on new commercial and industrial developments in Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  Since 1983 private sector commercial investment in Londonderry has totalled some £40 million either spent, under way or projected on local retail, offices, shops, restaurants and hotel developments. The most welcome recent proposed commercial development is the announcement of a substantial investment in a major town centre shopping complex together with a proposed new hotel development.

  Laganside
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions are proposed for the regeneration of Laganside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I am pleased to report that the Laganside corporation has made good progress in the regeneration of Laganside.

  County Towns
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions he is taking to revitalise county towns in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) on 1 February 1990,Official Report, Vol. 166, c.337.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Government of the Irish Republic about article 4(b) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I discussed political matters with Mr. Collins most recently at our meetings on 4 and 21 February. Both Governments have made clear that they wish to encourage political dialogue in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent ministerial discussions within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I met Mr. Collins on 4 and 21 February and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met Mr. Burke on 15 February. At these meetings, discussions
  305
  centred on important issues with which it had been intended to deal at the postponed conference on 31 January.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has had any recent discussion regarding the dismantling of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. The Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the principles it embodies. However, we remain willing to examine any proposals concerning the agreement, particularly if they are likely to command widespread support.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he plans to take to encourage small firms.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government in Northern Ireland continue to encourage the promotion of enterprise within the Province's small business sector.

  Railways
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of Northern Ireland railways; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On 16 January 1990, when policy, financial and operational matters were discussed.

  Conservation
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to conserve the environment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Northern Ireland has an up-to-date legislative code for nature and countryside conservation.

  There are 45 national reserves, nine areas of outstanding natural beauty and 24 areas of special scientific interest. We are taking steps to ensure that further designations will be made over the next few years.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has embarked on the first stages of the designation of Northern Ireland's first marine nature reserve at Strangford lough.

  The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside provides valuable advice on all these aspects. The Department of the Environment encourages conservation by means of grant aid to voluntary bodies and others and by the provision of educational literature and information in particular at its seven country parks and at countryside centres.

  The listing and scheduling procedures for historic buildings and monuments are continuing, and 7,612 buildings have been listed. One hundred and sixty-seven historic monuments have been taken into state care while 1,000 have been scheduled.

  The Department of the Environment exercises control over water and industrial air pollution in the Province and has responsibility for oversight of the environmental health functions of the district councils. In general, water and air quality are of a high standard in Northern Ireland.
  306
  The Department of the Environment, as sole planning authority for Northern Ireland, is aware of its responsibilities in the area of conservation. This is reflected in its rural planning policy, in the preparation of development plans and in its consideration of planning applications which involve proposals that would affect the environment.

  The Department of Agriculture also has a significant influence on environmental conservation in the countryside. Among other things, it carries out a wide range of environmental research work and gives conservation advice to farmers. It provides positive incentives to farmers to engage in environmentally friendly farming practices under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. Two such areas have been designated and consideration is being given to further designations.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations were held between the Department of the Environment and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive about the internal rationalisation proposals and subsequently about the reduction of the regional offices from six to four which is proposed to take effect from 1992.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that the rationalisation proposals will ensure that the services provided by district offices, which are the normal point of contact for the executive's clients, will be fully maintained and the operation of additional sub-district offices is being considered as a means of bringing services even closer to them.

  The Department of the Environment has not yet been formally consulted about the proposals currently being developed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. We know that the executive is considering such a reduction as part of an organisational review for the new decade and has consulted the Northern Ireland housing council, district councils, voluntary housing bodies and the Northern Ireland public service alliance. The Department encourages the executive to improve its organisation to provide its services in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any further information on the Kincora boys' home and the Wallace file that was lost.

  Mr. Cope
  I have nothing to add to the information contained in the answer given in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 30 January 1990,Official Report, Vol. 166, columns 110–13, and in a letter written by the Secretary of State for Defence to the same hon. Member, a copy of which was placed in the Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment.
  307
  Mr. Needham
  At 11 January 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 100,413 unemployed claimants in the Province, representing 14·2 per cent. of the work force. Seasonally adjusted unemployment, which gives a better indication of trends, has fallen by an average of 1,100 per month during the past six months and is now at 14 per cent., which is its lowest level for over seven years.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current rate of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The latest unemployment figures for January 1990 show that there were 100,413 persons claiming unemployment benefit in Northern Ireland and this represented 14·2 per cent. of the total work force. The seasonally adjusted figure, which gives a better indication of trends, is at its lowest level for more than seven years and shows that the strong underlying downward trend in unemployment in the Province is continuing.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently self-employed in the Province and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The most recent estimate derived from labour force surveys and the June agricultural census is that at June 1989 the number of self-employed in Northern Ireland was approximately 70,000.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are unemployed in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  At 11 January 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 100,413 persons darning unemployment benefit in Northern Ireland.

  Electricity Exports
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to offer electricity for export to the Republic.

  Mr. Needham
  None at present. The interconnector between Northern Ireland and the Republic was put out of action by terrorist attacks in the 1970s and has not been restored.

  Mutual Understanding
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to promote education to improve mutual understanding between the communities in the Province.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Major steps are already being taken in this direction through the education for mutual understanding (EMU) programme which is incorporated as a compulsory cross-curricular theme in the new common curriculum. EMU enables young people to learn about and value their own culture and traditions and the culture and traditions of others.

  Grant aid under the cross-community contact scheme, introduced in September 1987, has supported joint programmes by about a third of schools and 300 youth groups. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland also supports a number of organisations which promote reconciliation in school and youth groups.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State far Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his proposals for community care.

  Mr. Needham
  Our proposals will be set out in a paper to be published shortly.

  Organic Food
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland is taking to encourage the development of organic agriculture in Northern Ireland in response to the increasing demand for organic food.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Northern Ireland's food is usually more natural since our agriculture is based upon low input with high health standards in livestock and plants.

  We are also setting up a demonstration organic farming unit which should encourage and benefit those interested in organic farming.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to promote rural development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is a need for a better focus and co-ordinated action towards social and economic development in the most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland. The inter-departmental committee on rural development will oversee Government policies and programmes in these areas to ensure the maximum impact of existing expenditure with due sensitivity to identified needs in the areas themselves. Opportunities for further action will be consulted. There is a determination to achieve rural improvement.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effects of the ambulance workers' dispute on the emergency services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Full accident and emergency care has been maintained by the ambulance service since the dispute began. Some services to outpatient clinics have been affected, but all patients requiring urgent treatment have been transported. No outpatient clinic has been cancelled because of this dispute. It has not been necessary to seek assistance from the RUC or from voluntary aid societies.

  Security
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
  309
  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).

  Road Closures
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on road closures between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the closure of cross-border roads.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government recognise that many crossing points between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland serve a valuable social and economic purpose. We are also aware that some crossing points are particularly valuable to terrorists. No crossing point is closed unnecessarily. But the first duty of Government is to protect life. In accordance with that duty, we will continue to support action by the police, assisted where necessary by the Army, to close or reclose border crossings when we are satisfied that this is necessary to protect the lives of those, including many particularly vulnerable members of the community, who live or work in border areas.

  Irish Prime Minister
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Irish Prime Minister; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no current plans to meet the Taoiseach.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to stop the sales of tobacco products to children.

  Mr. Needham
  The sale of tobacco products to children who appear to be under 16 is illegal. Responsibility for enforcing the law rests with the police.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council on the performance of the Industrial Development Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council on the performance of the Industrial Development Board was published on 22 February. The Government welcome the report as a valuable contribution to debate on industrial development in Northern Ireland and will be giving full consideration to its detailed recommendations.

  Police Operations
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when public confidence in policing policy and operations was last discussed with Ministers from the Republic of Ireland within the Anglo-Irish Conference.
  310
  Mr. Cope
  This matter was raised at the last conference meeting on 30 November.

  Devolution
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in consultations regarding devolution.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 1 February, I and my colleagues have had a number of exploratory meetings to discuss the scope for political progress within Northern Ireland, both with the leadership of the main constitutional political parties and with the Irish Government. I expect to have further such meetings.

  Vehicle Examinations
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the waiting time for an official vehicle examination; and if he will make a statement on procedures for such examinations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The average waiting time for a vehicle inspection appointment has been reduced from six weeks in August 1989 to four weeks at the present time. The annual inspection of private cars, heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles is carried out by the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, in 15 purpose-built centres.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the trend of growth of the economy in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  The Northern Ireland economy, like the United Kingdom economy, has experienced sustained growth since 1981. Latest figures show an impressive growth of manufacturing output recently. The prospects for 1990 are substantially dependent upon economic conditions in the United Kingdom economy as a whole.

  Belfast
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on commercial and industrial development in Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  I am pleased to report that in recent years commercial and industrial development in Belfast has reached unprecedented levels.

  Terrorism
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of terrorist incidents since 3 November 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  Since 3 November 1989 there have been 137 terrorist-related incidents, 13 of which resulted in fatalities.

  Integrated Education
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he proposes to offer opportunities for integrated education; and if he will make a statement.
  311
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Part VI of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which came into operation on 20 February 1990, makes provision to facilitate the development of integrated schools.

  Under the new legislation, it is now possible for the Government to give financial support to integrated
  312
  schools being set up from new and for parents of pupils at existing schools to vote that integrated status should be sought for their schools.

  The statutory duty is also placed upon the Department: of Education to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education.

  Nuclear Magnetic Facilities
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when nuclear magnetic resonance and X-ray facilities will be available in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  An assessment of need is at present being undertaken by the Eastern board. Subject to satisfactory completion, a magnetic resonance imaging service will be considered with other priorities for funding in the 1991–92 year.

  Drug Education
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on drug education in schools.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Schools have an important role in discouraging young people from getting involved in drugs.

  Months waiting

  Reference source

  0to2

  3 to 5

  6 to 8

  9 to 12

  13 to 23

  24+

  Totals

  Armagh

  —

  5

  3

  —

  —

  2

  10

  Ballymena

  7

  10

  4

  9

  12

  6

  48

  Ballymoney

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  BCH

  12

  19

  10

  14

  16

  10

  81

  Coleraine

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Con Ref

  —

  1

  7

  1

  —

  —

  9

  Craigavon

  4

  7

  4

  5

  5

  4

  29

  Downpatrick

  7

  7

  —

  4

  5

  1

  24

  Dungannon

  —

  5

  —

  1

  5

  5

  16

  Enniskillen

  5

  15

  5

  13

  11

  —

  49

  Larne

  3

  11

  4

  3

  3

  3

  27

  Lisburn

  2

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  10

  Magherafelt

  6

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  10

  Mater Hospital

  4

  2

  3

  —

  —

  2

  11

  Musgrave Park

  2

  5

  1

  1

  —

  3

  12

  Newry

  4

  6

  5

  4

  5

  8

  32

  Newtownards

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Rheumatology

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  4

  RVH

  16

  44

  12

  17

  13

  6

  108

  UHD

  4

  5

  2

  2

  3

  2

  18

  Whiteabbey

  5

  6

  4

  —

  6

  —

  21

  Totals

  88

  154

  68

  76

  87

  56

  529

  European Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of the European Commission; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Cope
  My colleagues and I frequently have meetings with EC Commissioners, but no such meetings are currently planned.

  Health Service
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to take a decision on the provision of a new hospital for the Coleraine, Ballymoney and Moyle district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  A decision will be taken when the further appraisal initiated by the Northern board has been completed.
  314
  As part of health education, which recent legislation includes as a compulsory element of the common curriculum for all schools in Northern Ireland, children will be taught about the serious risks inherent in the misuse of drugs and other harmful substances. This will build on what is already good practice in many schools.

  Musgrave Park Hospital
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current waiting time for those residing in each of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland for hip replacements and other similar orthopaedic operations at the Musgrave Park hospital, Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available in the form requested. Details of the waiting list and times broken down by referring hospitals are as follows:

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many handicapped children are in residential care in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  There are eight mentally handicapped children aged under 16 years currently in residential care in Northern Ireland. There are no physically handicapped children in residential care.

  Licensed Premises (Metric Measures)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the consultation procedure on the introduction of metric measures on licensed premises.

  Mr. Needham
  A consultation paper entitled "Metrication: Sales of Spirits for Consumption on Licensed Premises" was issued on 18 September 1989 to 35 trade and other bodies; five replies were received. As required by article 48(2) of the Weights and Measures
  315
  (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, interested parties will have a further opportunity to comment when the draft amending legislation is published.

  Business Failures
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the levels of business failures in Northern Ireland in 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  During 1989, 176 companies went into liquidation compared with 174 in the previous year. Two hundred and twenty one bankruptcy orders were made in 1989 compared with 146 in 1988.

  Community Projects
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in the development of community projects between schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the cross-community contact scheme was introduced in September 1987 to promote contacts across the community divide, about a third of the schools in Northern Ireland have received assistance towards the costs of structured, ongoing joint programmes.

  In addition, the education for mutual understanding programme is incorporated as a compulsory cross-curricular theme in the new common curriculum.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for inward investment into Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The attraction of inward investment is a crucial factor in the economic development of Northern Ireland, but the prospects for investment are always difficult to predict.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the distribution of the additional milk quota.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 13 February that he had submitted to the European Commission for approval the United Kingdom proposals for the allocation of the extra 1 per cent. quota.

  The proposals include allocation to new entrants; to small producers; to producers in remote areas; and to producers whose tribunal awards had not been granted in full because insufficient quota was available.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of employment training.

  Mr. Needham
  Some 2,764 persons are now participating in the job training programme which is the equivalent of employment training and I plan to expand the programme next year.

  Football
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he is making to the Irish Football Association following incidents at a recent football match at Windsor Park.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: The Irish Football Association is aware of and shares my concern at the crowd disturbances at Windsor park. The Association is undertaking a thorough investigation and I shall receive a copy of its report.

  Mushrooms
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance LEDU has given in each of the last five years towards the development of the mushroom industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: LEDU grants paid to the mushroom industry over the past five years were as follows:

  Amount (£)

  1984–85

  90,997

  1985–86

  209,948

  1986–87

  95,899

  1987–88

  154,907

  1988–89

  293,981

  Total

  845,732

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many single pensioner households in Scotland are in receipt of income support or have been in receipt of income support or supplementary benefit for each of the past five years, expressed as a percentage of all single pensioner households and as a numerical total.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information is in the table. The figures relate to single people aged 60 and over. The information requested is not available for single pensioner households.
  317

  Single people in Scotland aged 60 and over

  Thousands

  1983

  1984

  1986

  1987

  1988

  (a) Total

  2,195

  2,192

  2,178

  2,174

  2,168

  (b) In receipt of Income Support

  131

  138

  135

  150

  149

  Percentage in receipt of Income Support

  5·97

  6·30

  6·20

  6·90

  6·90

  Note: The population figures are mid-year projections from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The numbers of benefit recipients are taken from the Annual Statistical Enquiries (ASE) in December 1983, December 1984, February 1986, May 1987 and May 1988. No ASE was produced in 1985.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those organisations whose evidence as to the cost of providing care in voluntary and private residential and nursing homes is taken into account in setting national income support limits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We receive a considerable number of views and representations from a variety of interested organisations and individuals who are entitled to have their communications treated in confidence. They are of course free to publish this evidence themselves if they wish.

  Social Fund
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate for social fund spending on loans and grants for the next two years.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 10 November 1989 at column 813. An announcement regarding the budget for 1991–92 will be made nearer the time.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals have so far benefited from social fund loans.

  Mr. Scott
  Since the beginning of the scheme in April 1988 over 1·7 million budgeting loans and crisis loans have been awarded. It is not possible to say how many individuals have benefited as an applicant may have received more than one loan.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking, following the High Court judgment on 21 February on the operation of the social fund, to ensure that every social fund application which has been refused is reviewed in the light of the judgment and in accordance with direction 31 in the social fund manual.

  Mr. Scott
  Our intention is that the revised guidance to social fund officers to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on 26 February at column 58 should be accompanied by any necessary advice on the question of reviews.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether social fund officers are free to disregard the paragraphs of the social fund manual in which they are told they should under no circumstances make an award which cannot be paid from the local office budget.

  Mr. Scott
  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 26 February 318
  at column 58, a letter was sent by electronic mail on the day of the High Court judgment which advised social fund officers that the local office budget and the level of priority that might usually be met are factors to be taken into account in reaching a decision and that the state of the local office is not the overriding factor. We intend to issue revised guidance shortly.

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the effect on the income support of participants in the action credit pilot scheme who receive financial help in kind towards their travel-to-work and meal costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The rules for the treatment of payments for travel and meal costs are the same for participants working under the action credit scheme as for anyone in part-time employment and receiving income support. Financial help with these expenses is normally treated as earnings and taken into account in the usual way. However, any payment in respect of expenses which are incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment is fully disregarded. Similarly, payments made in kind, such as the provision of a meal or a bus pass, are completely ignored.

  Family Benefits
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving family credit in the areas covered by the(a) Poplar, (b) Stepney and (c) Shoreditch Department of Social Security offices; and how many in Tower Hamlets as a whole.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of families receiving family credit who were living in the areas covered by the local social security offices in Tower Hamlets at the time their award was made is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Poplar

  490

  (b) Stepney

  260

  (c) Shoreditch

  1,010

  Total

  1,760

  Women Claimants
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of women in part-time or full-time employment who receive benefits excluding child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table.
  319

  Estimated numbers of women in full-time or part-time employment in receipt of benefits excluding child benefit and one parent benefit in Great Britain in 1987

  Number in receipt of benefit (000 's)

  Part time

  375

  Full-time

  405

  Total

  780

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are derived from the 1987 Family Expenditure Survey which is a sample survey, and may be subject to sampling errors. Only benefits personally received by women are counted.

  2. The table is confined to employed and self-employed women under pension age. Full-time work is defined as 24 hours or more per week.

  3. Benefits include all State Benefits (including Widows Benefit) except child benefit and one-parent benefit.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to adjust pension and income support payments in light of the increases in the price of food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Increases in food prices are taken into account in the indices used to calculate annual increases in these benefits.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage increase in real terms in the incomes of pensioners receiving supplementary benefit or income support between 1979 and 1987; and how much of the increase was accounted for by(a) social security benefits, (b) occupational pensions, (c) income from savings and (d) earnings, respectively.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.

DEFENCE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those categories of parliamentary questions on which it is the policy of his Department not to answer, together where known with the date of the blocking answer.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is our policy to answer all parliamentary questions. However, successive Governments have judged that there are a number of defence-related matters on which it would not be in the national interest to offer detailed comment; among these are operations, intelligence and security.

  It would involve disproportionate cost and effort to list the dates of past answers which reflect this policy.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from members of the public in respect of low-flying aircraft.
  320
  Mr. Neubert
  During January 1990, the Ministry of Defence received 381 inquiries or complaints about military low-flying training in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he has received over the past 12 months about low-flying military aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  Between 1 February 1989 and 31 January 1990, the Ministry of Defence received 7,896 inquiries and complaints about military low flying in the United Kingdom.

  Disarmament Conference
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part his Department is playing in the Geneva conference on disarmament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence contributes in a number of ways to the conference on disarmament, particularly through the provision of military, technical and scientific staff and other assistance to the United Kingdom delegation in Geneva.

  Laser Targeting Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what distance is the United States Air Force laser targeting system, Pave Tack, hazardous to the sight of an observer viewing with (i) the naked eye and (ii) binoculars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These distances are classified. However, the military laser safety committee issues strict safety instructions on the use of all military lasers in the United Kingdom and these are observed at all air weapons ranges when Pave Tack is being used.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents of temporary blindness have been reported by range staff and civilians that may have been caused by laser targeting systems for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No such incidents have been reported.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ranges in the United Kingdom are cleared for use by the Pave Tack laser targeting system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following ranges in the United Kingdom are cleared for use by the Pave Tack laser targeting system:

  RAF Holbeach; RAF Wainfleet; RAF Donna Hook; RAF Jurby; RAF Cowden; RAF Tain; RAF Rosehearty and Garvie Island.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is provided for the range staff and the local civilian population in the area of ranges cleared for use by aircraft operating the Pave Tack laser targeting system regarding the dangers of observing aircraft on practice bombing runs using this equipment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Instructions on laser safety are contained within the station standing orders for each air weapons range. Staff are instructed not to use magnifying optical devices, such as binoculars, when lasers are in use, unless the devices are fitted with filters or staff are wearing
  321
  goggles. Visitors to the ranges are briefed on these requirements. No specific information is provided to the public. However, warning signs instruct people to keep away from danger areas when the range is in use. If any unauthorised person is identified within the danger area, all use of the range will cease.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations cover use of the Pave Tack laser targeting system over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of joint and single service publications, together with air weapons range orders, cover the use of the Pave Tack laser targeting system at ranges in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which laser targeting systems, other than Pave Tack, are cleared for use on United Kingdom training ranges.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Three laser targeting systems, other than Pave Tack, are cleared for use on United Kingdom training ranges. These are an airborne laser ranging and marked target seeker (LRMTS); a ground-based laser target marker used in conjunction with LRMTS; and Pave Spike, a system similar to Pave Tack.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence police person-days are involved in(a) escorting vehicles involved in an off-base dispersal exercise in support of the ground-launched cruise missile system from Greenham Common to the Salisbury Plain training area, (b) guarding the Salisbury Plain training area for the duration of the exercises and (c) escorting the vehicles for their return to RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice, for operational and security reasons, to give information of this kind.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many off-base dispersal exercises in support of the ground-launched cruise missile system at RAF Greenham Common are scheduled for the next 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These exercise deployments will continue for about a further year until the withdrawal of ground-launched cruise missiles is substantially complete. However, for operational and security reasons it is not the practice to give details of future such exercises.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many off-base dispersal exercises in support of the ground-launched cruise missile system at RAF Greenham Common there have been in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Eleven.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all areas of special use airspace within 15 miles of RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Neubert
  The following categories of "special use" airspace lie within 15 miles of RAF Greenham Common: airways and the London terminal manoeuvring area, military aerodrome traffic zones, restricted areas and a military avoidance area.
  322
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the implications for flight safety of the existence of(a) a Hilton hotel and (b) a Tesco superstore under the flight path at the western end of the runway at RAF Greenham Common;

  (2) whether his Department was consulted before planning permission was given by Newbury district council for (a) a Hilton hotel and (b) a Tesco superstore under the flightpath at the western end of the runway at RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Neubert
  In both cases the Ministry of Defence was consulted before planning permission was given but, as the established criteria for safe runway use of RAF Greenham Common were satisfied, no objection was raised.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for flight safety of the unreported light civil air traffic in the area of RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Neubert
  All aircraft in the immediate vicinity of RAF Greenham Common come under the control of the base's air traffic controllers. I know of no problems concerning civilian light aircraft.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the reasons why no practice approaches are allowed at RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Neubert
  There is currently no operational requirement for aircraft to make practice approaches to RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state what restrictions there are for aircraft using visual flight rules landing on runway 29 at RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Neubert
  No general restrictions apply within the military air traffic zone at RAF Greenham Common, but the air traffic controllers at the base will regulate the use of runway 29 according to circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has formulated a disaster response plan for responding to an accident involving an aircraft crashing into(a) a Hilton hotel or (b) a Tesco superstore under the flightpath at the western end of the runway at RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Neubert
  Like other operational RAF stations, RAF Greenham Common has formulated accident response plans, covering accidents both on and off the base. These are co-ordinated as appropriate with the local authority and local emergency services.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the ground-launched cruise missile system at RAF Greenham Common is still subject to NATO unit assessments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The ground-launched cruise missile system at Greenham Common will remain subject to NATO evaluation until its withdrawal is complete.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the cost per annum to his Department of the ongoing off-base dispersal exercises in support of the ground-launched cruise missile system at RAF Greenham Common;
  323
  (2) what is the cost per annum to the Ministry of Defence police of the ongoing off-base dispersal exercises in support of the ground-launched cruise missile system at RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice, for both operational and security reasons, to give information of this kind.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States Air Force makes any financial contribution to the costs of escorting vehicles involved in off base dispersal exercises in support of the ground-launched cruise missile system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Apart from payments in lieu of rates to the local authority in respect of Greenham Common, the United States Air Force does not contribute to meeting the costs incurred by the civil police and Ministry of Defence police in escorting the ground-launched cruise missiles in off-base training deployments.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Lands Tribunal has started work on deciding levels of compensation for commoners with rights on RAF Greenham Common; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following our decison to proceed with the full extinguishment of the rights of common over RAF Greenham Common, we have now made a specific offer of compensation to the chairman of the commoners' committee. If we cannot agree appropriate levels of compensation it is then open to either party to refer the case to the Lands Tribunal.

  RAF Exchange Pilots
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force exchange pilots are currently serving with units in the United States of America; and which aircraft types they are flying.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 32 RAF exchange pilots serving with units in the United States of America. Of these, 24 are in flying appointments. The aircraft they fly include fast jets, trainers, transports, helicopters, and refuelling aircraft.

  US Air Force Exercises
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all exercises that are scheduled to take place in(a) the Coronet, (b) the Volant and (c) the Busy Brewer series of exercises at bases in the United Kingdom during 1990.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Planning for these exercises is not yet complete. The Busy Brewer series of exercises is now known as Busy Warrior.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all exercises that took place in(a) the Coronet, (b) the Volant and (c) the Busy Brewer series of exercises at bases in the United Kingdom during 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The list of exercises is as follows:

  Coronet Exercises 1989

  Base

  Coronet Hoop

  2 to 21 April

  RAF Alconbury

  Coronet Pine

  20 May to 17 June

  RAF Sculthorpe

  Coronet Diamond

  1 to 26 June

  A&AEE Boscombe Down

  324

  Base

  Coronet Venom

  22 June to 18 July

  RAF BentWaters

  Coronet Python

  25 August to 21 September

  RAF Woodbridge

  Volant Exercises 1989

  Date

  Volant Gopher

  4 to 7 June

  Busy Warrior (former Busy Brewer) Exercises 1989

  Base

  15 to 25 April

  RAF Fairford

  7 to 25 September

  RAF Fairford

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he, or any official in his Department, is consulted by the United States Air Force about scheduling of Coronet and Volant series exercises before the United States Air Forces Europe consolidated tasking schedule for the relevant year is produced.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Air-to-surface Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirement for tactical air-to-surface missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Alliance has long made clear its commitment to keeping its forces, including nuclear forces, effective and up to date. Part of this process is the replacement of ageing free-fall nuclear bombs. The United Kingdom is considering both French and American options to replace its WE177 but, as yet, no decisions have been taken.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirement for tactical air-to-surface missiles was(a) first and (b) most recently publicly stated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Alliance has long made clear its intention to maintain adequate, effective and up-to-date nuclear forces and most recently reaffirmed this strategy at the October 1989 meeting of the nuclear planning group in Portugal.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any studies into the replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb have included air-launched missiles of a range greater than 400 km.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on the detailed specifications for weapons systems under consideration as possible future replacements for the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.

  F117A Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received any proposals regarding a permanent or temporary deployment of F117A aircraft o r the United States Air Force at any base in the United Kingdom or any United Kingdom-operated base overseas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  RAF Chicksands
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether RAF Chicksands is assigned to NATO.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Chicksands provides communications support to United States armed forces in Europe, but is not itself assigned to NATO.

  Submarine Personnel
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regular medical checks are carried out on service personnel who have served on Her Majesty's submarines(a) during their service and (b) after they have left the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Before entering the submarine service Royal Navy personnel undergo various medical checks to ensure that they are fit to do so. Throughout their service they undergo regular routine preventive medical examinations, in common with all other RN personnel. About 10 per cent. of those submariners who serve in nuclear-powered submarines are classified as radiation workers, and they undergo routine medical surveillance as required by the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985.

  Prior to leaving the service, a full assessment of the individual's naval medical history is made and a thorough medical examination is carried out. Subsequently, full medical records are available to the individual's general practitioner on request, including the classified radiation worker history where applicable.

  Financial Planning
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he has made in(a) the role of the financial planning and management committee, (b) the chiefs of staff committee and (c) the long-term costings review for his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Cypriot Ferry Attack
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence following the attack on 25 February on a Cypriot ferry which RAF Wessex helicopters attended to rescue wounded, what information he has on the type, calibre and origin of the rounds which struck the ferry and the estimated size and nationality of the attacking vessel; which navies operating in the area have vessels of this size, carrying such armaments; why the RAF was scrambled to respond to this particular emergency; and what assessment he has made of the implications of this attack for British shipping in this area.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The car ferry Baroness M was attacked in darkness on 24 February during one of her regular journeys between Larnaca, Cyprus and Jounieh, Lebanon. My understanding is that the ship is believed to have had Syrian markings but I am not in a position to confirm this. I am not able to comment on the size or type of vessel involved or the type of ammunition used in the attack. The RAF Wessex helicopters based in Cyprus include a search and rescue role among their duties and were well-placed to respond to the request for 326
  humanitarian assistance from the Baroness M. As to the implications of this attack for British shipping, I understand that as far as the General Council of British Shipping is aware, no British flagged ships trade with Lebanon or operate in the area where the attack took place.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the details and nature of the series of administrative errors, to which he referred in his letter to his hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 30 January, a copy of which was placed in the Library, and which led to Mr. Colin Wallace's file of documents being mishandled.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the information given in the letter to which the hon. Member has referred.

  Submarines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how deep in the ground the cables for wires in the experimental trial ELF transmitter at Glen Garry forest will have to be buried: and if they will need to be buried in any particular medium;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a map showing the area to be covered by the experimental trial ELF transmitter at Glen Garry forest including all access routes, and any areas from which the general public may have to be excluded;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of a permanent installation based on the trial experimental ELF transmitter at Glen Garry forest;

  (4) which roads will be used for access during the construction of the experimental trial ELF transmitter at Glen Garry forest; and whether any existing forest roads in the area will need to be extended, widened, or altered in any way.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 19 February, column 573.

  The detail of any proposals would be addressed in full in the notice of proposed development and supporting environmental impact assessment which would be submitted to Highland regional council, a copy of which would be placed in the Library at the appropriate time.

  If a permanent installation were planned, a further environmental assessment would be made at the time.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Irradiated Food
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will place in the Library a summary of the evidence he has about the safety of food irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the following reports, all of which are already in the Library of the House.Report on the Safety and Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food by the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods (published by the HMSO 1986).

  327
  Report of the Scientific Committee for Food (Eighteenth Series) (published by the Office of Official Publications of the European Communities, 1987).
  Report on the Irradiation of Foodstuffs by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities (published by the HMSO, 1990).

  Food from Britain
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his plans for the future of Food from Britain.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to continue financial support for Food from Britain beyond the end of 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  I was pleased to announce on 9 February that the current arrangements for Government funding of Food from Britain would be extended until 1992–93. Under these arrangements Food from Britain will receive £3·5 million a year to cover establishment costs plus up to a further £1 million a year on the basis of £1 for every £3 contributed by industry in the previous year. It is now for the industry to demonstrate its commitment to Food from Britain by making full and best use of the services it offers.

  Veterinary Product Licensing
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the new scale of fees for veterinary product licensing.

  Mr. Maclean
  The fees charged for veterinary medicines licensing operations have been reviewed to ensure that they recoup the full economic costs involved. Following informal discussions between my officials and the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH), I have received through hon. Members representations from several pharmaceutical companies criticising the proposed fee increases. Statutory consultation and further informal discussions are in hand.

  British Apples
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Food From Britain will conduct an information campaign in schools to promote awareness of the readily available types of British apples.

  Mr. Curry
  Food From Britain's promotional activities are a matter between it and its prospective clients. However, I have no doubt that it would be more than happy to explore with the British apple industry the possibility of a joint venture to promote awareness of quality British apples.

  Pesticide Data
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where he stores his records of pesticide data following evaluation at Harpenden; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Data supporting evaluations are retained at Harpenden.

  North Sea (Dumping)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library any correspondence he has received from other countries concerning his applications to the Oslo commission to dump(a) waste waters from the synthesis of antibiotic and anti-ulcer medicines and (b) the chalk solution from sugar refining in the North sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department has received letters from the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway concerning my intention to give a further licence for the first waste.

  I am arranging to place copies in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library any correspondence he has had with the companies that dump industrial waste in the North sea concerning the agreements of the second North sea conference in 1987.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the meetings he has had with the companies that dump industrial waste in the North sea to discuss the agreements of the second North sea conference in 1987, giving the name of the company and date of meeting in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have not held any such meetings.

  Food Imports (Cyprus)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions or correspondence he has had with the Cypriot authorities concerning pesticide residues in imported fruit and vegetables; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have asked the Cypriot authorities for comments on recent reports about pesticide residues in their fruit and vegetables.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give the results of all tests on imported fruit and vegetables from Cyprus for pesticide residues in 1989, giving the type of residue found and the quantities;

  (2) what tests he is currently carrying out on imported fruit and vegetables from Cyprus for the levels of pesticide residues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government undertake a continuous monitoring programme of fruit and vegetables from all sources, including Cyprus, to ensure that residue levels of pesticides do not exceed statutory levels contained in the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988. The results are published; the latest report covering the period 1985 to 1988 was published by HMSO in 1989 (food surveillance paper No. 25).

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the fruit and vegetables that were imported into the United Kingdom from Cyprus in 1989, giving the quantities in each case.
  329
  Mr. Gummer
  Provisional figures show that the quantities of the main fruit and vegetable crops imported from Cyprus during 1989 were as follows:

  Quantity (tonnes)

  Potatoes (fresh or chilled)

  90,746

  Grapefruit (fresh or dried)

  32,989

  Citrus fruits

  22,881

  Lemons and limes (fresh or dried)

  12,336

  Vegetable products, chiefly used for human food, eg. locust beans

  10,813

  Grapes fresh

  8,759

  Grape juice (including grape must)

  4,498

  Carrots, turnips, salad beetroot, celeriac, salsify, radishes and similar edible roots

  2,342

  Mandarins (fresh or dried)

  2,047

  Citrus fruit (prepared or preserved)

  1,042

  Source: Customs and Excise.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts of money received from(a) farmers, (b) agro-chemical companies, (c) other parts of the agricultural industry and (d) other sources for the operation of (i) the farm and countryside service, (ii) the state veterinary service and (iii) the research and development service of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service for each year since 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Sources of Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) income are not recorded in the form requested but in any event to provide them in that form would raise questions of commercial confidentiality.

  Charging for ADAS services on a general scale was introduced with effect from April 1987 and the present service structure of ADAS also dates from that time. Income for the ADAS services for financial years since April 1987 is as follows:

  1987–88 (£ million)

  1988–89 (£ million)

  1989–90 (10 months) (£ million)

  Farm and Countryside Service

  8·9

  10·4

  10·6

  State Veterinary Service

  2·3

  4·9

  4·7

  Research and Development Service

  5·5

  5·8

  5·1

  Total

  16·7

  21·1

  20·4

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of participating farms have received a site inspection after acceptance on to the set-aside scheme; and how many of these site inspections have revealed breaches of(a) the set-aside regulations and (b) the guidelines for the management of fallow land.

  Mr. Curry
  The Community set-aside rules require member states to inspect a minimum of 5 per cent. of holdings on which land is being set aside under the scheme. It is not departmental policy to indicate the expected or achieved levels and inspection in the interests of proper enforcement. Information on the results of inspections in the first year of the scheme is not yet available.
  330
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers indicated on their set-aside application forms that they had(a) applied for and (b) obtained planning permission for land entered under the non-agricultural use option of the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  Applicants for set-aside are not required to give this information. However, the scheme literature draws attention to the requirement to obtain planning permission before the land is used for certain nonagricultural purposes.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area and what percentage of land set aside in each county in 1989 falls within less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is available by MAFF division but not by county. It is as follows:

  Division in which LFA land has been set-aside

  Area of LFA land set-aside (hectares)

  Percentage of Division total of set-aside land

  Carlisle

  15·4

  12·7

  Newcastle

  561·7

  47·3

  Northallerton

  50·5

  3·3

  Truro

  25·7

  6·0

  Taunton

  14·8

  1·5

  Note: The information relates to 1989 entrants only and is provisional.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the reduction in the 1989 United Kingdom cereal harvest due to the operation of the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The area of arable land set aside in the 1988–89 season represented about 1·2 per cent. of the United Kingdom arable area. The effect on the cereal harvest depends on assessments of what crop would otherwise have been grown on the land concerned and what the yield per hectare would have been. I shall be able to form a better view on this matter when I have the results of an evaluation of the scheme which has been commissioned by my Department from Reading university.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the impact of the set-aside scheme on agricultural employment in 1988 and 1989; and what is his estimate for 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Levels of employment in agriculture are influenced by a number of factors, of which the existence of the set-aside scheme is only one. I will be in a position to form a judgment on the employment effects of set-aside when I have the results of an evaluation of the scheme being carried out which has been commissioned by my Department from Reading university.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of land in the non-agricultural use option of the set-aside scheme is being used for enterprises connected with(a) tourism, (b) recreation and (c) leisure.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is not available in the form requested. The information I have suggests that the majority of the land set aside to non-agricultural purposes is being used for horse-based activities, golf courses and sports fields.
  331
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will produce a breakdown by county of the number of participating farms and total set-aside areas for the second year of the scheme and options chosen per county for both years of the scheme.

  Mr Gummer
  The table shows a breakdown by English county of 1989 entrants and figures of United Kingdom uptake for 1989 compared with that for 1988. Information on land use options is not available broken down by county, but overall percentages for the two years are given in the table.

  (a) Breakdown of 1989 entrants into set-aside scheme by English county

  County

  Number of participants farms

  Total area set-aside (hectares)

  Average area per farm (hectares)

  Avon

  13

  384·75

  29·60

  Bedfordshire

  31

  1,125·00

  36·29

  Berkshire

  21

  1,152·43

  54·88

  Buckinghamshire

  53

  2,063·95

  38·94

  Cambridgeshire

  48

  1,695·00

  35·31

  Cheshire

  11

  207·67

  18·88

  Cleveland

  3

  59·34

  19·78

  Cornwall

  18

  421·48

  23·42

  Cumbria

  6

  120·07

  20·01

  Derbyshire

  11

  143·42

  13·04

  Devonshire

  30

  820·23

  27·34

  Dorset

  18

  467·64

  25·98

  Durham

  6

  297·67

  49·61

  Essex

  65

  2,346·45

  36·10

  Gloucestershire

  38

  2,526·73

  66·49

  Greater London

  1

  26·32

  26·32

  Greater Manchester

  3

  62·04

  20·68

  (b) United Kingdom uptake of the set-aside scheme distributed by country

  No. of farms

  Hectares of land set-aside

  1988 entrants

  1989 entrants

  Cumulative total

  1988 entrants

  1989 entrants

  Cumulative total

  England

  1,327

  1,157

  2,484

  41,175

  46,379

  87,554

  Scotland

  374

  172

  546

  12,617

  8,567

  21,184

  Wales

  31

  11

  42

  701

  413

  1,114

  Northern Ireland

  14

  10

  24

  137

  72

  209

  Total United Kingdom

  1,746

  1,350

  3,096

  54,630

  55,431

  110,061

  Note: Figures are provisional.

  (c) Percentage of set-aside land used for the different land use options: United Kingdom figures.

  Percentage of total area set aside by entrants in each year

  1988 entrants

  1989 entrants

  Permanent fallow

  79

  80

  Rotational fallow

  12

  7

  Woodland

  2

  2

  Non-agricultural use

  7

  11

  Veal Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by volume, value and country of origin imports of veal into the United Kingdom for each of the last four years.

  Mr. Curry
  The following table shows imports of veal into the United Kingdom between 1986 and 1989 by country of consignment. Figures for 1988 and 1989 exclude cuts of veal because of changes in the commodity coding.
  332

  County

  Number of participants farms

  Total area set-aside (hectares)

  Average area per farm (hectares)

  Hampshire

  37

  3,640·71

  98·40

  Hereford/Worcs

  31

  839·64

  27·09

  Hertfordshire

  24

  1,044·52

  43·52

  Humberside

  24

  924·49

  38·52

  Isle of Wight

  3

  130·02

  43·34

  Kent

  58

  2,301·57

  39·68

  Lancashire

  6

  95·74

  15·96

  Leicestershire

  19

  1,059·44

  55·76

  Lincolnshire

  76

  1,942·10

  25·55

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  3

  88·36

  29·45

  Norfolk

  64

  2,263·35

  35·36

  Northamptonshire

  33

  2,000·00

  60·60

  Northumberland

  13

  555·22

  42·71

  Nottinghamshire

  12

  348·96

  29·08

  Oxfordshire

  66

  3,912·43

  59·28

  Shropshire

  9

  241·62

  26·85

  Somerset

  15

  493·34

  32·89

  Staffordshire

  15

  542·01

  36·13

  Suffolk

  86

  1,943·11

  22·59

  Surrey

  16

  1,062·38

  66·40

  East Sussex

  30

  956·29

  31·88

  West Sussex

  27

  2,164·53

  80·17

  Tyne and Wear

  4

  179·70

  44·92

  Warwickshire

  27

  758·07

  28·08

  Wiltshire

  38

  1,572·17

  41·37

  North Yorkshire

  36

  1,326·40

  36·84

  South Yorkshire

  5

  44·19

  8·84

  West Yorkshire

  4

  28·17

  7·04

  Total England

  1,157

  46,378·72

  40·09

  Note: Figures are provisional.

  Tonnes

  £000

  1986

  France

  42

  112

  Netherlands

  3,699

  12,648

  Federal Republic of Germany

  76

  154

  Irish Republic

  248

  441

  Denmark

  38

  85

  Uruguay

  12

  21

  1987

  France

  11

  22

  Netherlands

  2,925

  10,954

  Federal Republic of Germany

  9

  27

  Irish Republic

  294

  599

  Australia

  27

  59

  1988

  France

  300

  713

  Netherlands

  1,066

  4,630

  Federal Republic of Germany

  290

  585

  Italy

  57

  104

  Irish Republic

  4,071

  10,418

  Denmark

  22

  70

  Bahrain

  2—

  1

  Australia

  12

  51

  Canada

  2

  5

  United States of America

  104

  277

  333

  Tonnes

  £000

  19891

  France

  208

  668

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  8

  18

  Netherlands

  765

  3,095

  Federal Republic of Germany

  167

  335

  Irish Republic

  3,734

  10,437

  Denmark

  14

  60

  Spain

  19

  38

  Sweden

  2—

  2—

  Australia

  6

  32

  United States of America

  22

  76

  Source: Customs and Excise

  1 Figures are provisional and cover the period January to November (the latest for which data in this detail are readily available).

  2 denotes less than half units shown.

  Low-fat and Dairy Spreads
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received any representations for a change in the law to bring the contents of low-fat and dairy spreads into line with current laws covering water and vitamin content of butter and margarine; and whether he has any plans to discuss the subject with interested parties.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received numerous representations from interested parties during the recent consultation period on the Ministry discussion paper on yellow fats legislation. The views of the food advisory committee are being sought before I decide how to proceed, but interested parties will be given an opportunity to comment on any proposed changes to existing legislation.

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep farmers in each of the counties in England have flocks of over 1,000 ewes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on flock sizes is not available in the form requested.

  Food (Pesticide Residues)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence he has had since 1 February with food retailers and manufacturers about pesticide residues in food.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Food Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he has allocated on research into food spoilage and applied nutrition for each of the last five years, including the current year; and how much he estimates will be spent in 1990–91.

  Mr. Gummer
  Details of my Department's expenditure on food spoilage and applied nutrition in 1988–89 are contained in a report to the priorities board for R and D in agriculture and food which I have placed in the Library of the House. For 1989–90 and 1990–91 I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 19 February,Official Report, column 576. Information for earlier years is not readily available.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
Earl Temple of Stowe Earl Temple of Stowe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

Post Office: Sunday Collections
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
In what districts the Post Office has now introduced Sunday collections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I understand that Sunday collections have now been introduced in Edinburgh, Newcastle, Darlington, Cardiff, Belfast, Gloucester, Perth, Glasgow, Inverness, Aberdeen, Carlisle, Bolton and Nottingham postal districts.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat miscellaneous reply. Will he tell the House when it is anticipated that that service will cover the whole country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Post Office now expects Sunday collections to be available nation-wide by the autumn.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the bringing into force of Sunday collections throughout the country will not affect the service from Monday to Saturday? Is he aware of the suspicion that Sunday collections will simply reduce the resources available for proper deliveries on Monday to Saturday? The Union of Communication Workers is worried about the matter. We look forward to an assurance from the Minister.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is a great doubter of the Post Office's ability to provide a good service. I have no doubt that he is aware that the Post Office is committed to an average 3 per cent. peformance improvement this year. That includes Sundays and of course Mondays to Saturdays.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I received a letter yesterday morning—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Kinnaird:—which was posted on 12th December 1989?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we all have stories to tell of how bad the Post Office's service sometimes is, but generally speaking it is a good service and is continually improving.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, to put the point on the record, is the Minister aware that some of us dread the idea of letters being put through our letterbox on Sundays?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has missed the point. We are talking about Sunday collections, not Sunday deliveries.

Electricity Generating Capacity: Nuclear Power
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether having cancelled the proposed second nuclear reactor they are satisfied that under the delayed privatisation of the generating industry sufficient stations can be built in time to prevent blackouts.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not order power stations. They have, therefore, not cancelled any order for the proposed Hinkley Point C station to which I believe the noble Viscount refers. The CEGB's proposals for that station were the subject of a public inquiry, the report of which is expected in the next few months. The Government have, however, made it clear that the non-fossil fuel obligation will be set at a level which can be satisfied without the need for new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B. The Government intend to review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. In the meantime, there is ample time for new generating capacity to be built to meet the expected increase in demand foreseen for the latter part of this decade.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. However, has he seen the recent report of the CEGB which estimated that by the year 2010 our generating capacity would be reduced to half simply taking into account the expected life of our power stations? I am concerned—this is the point on which I seek assurance—that we should do something now. Will the Minister address himself to that point?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, obviously, if no further capacity is built, there is a rundown of existing stations. That is to be expected. The noble Viscount will understand that the next nuclear power station will be commissioned sometime during the earlier part of the next decade and that the number and type of new power stations will now be determined in the market-place by a variety of factors including projections for the future electricity supply-demand balance made by both generators and public suppliers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in view of the Gardner Report, would it not be undesirable to proceed with any further nuclear power stations, given that the risks to personnel operating the stations and to those living in the surrounding area appear

829
to have been seriously underestimated? In those circumstances, would not the Government be well advised to concentrate on and to reactivate their research into wind and wave power rather than to resign themselves to the inevitability of nuclear power, which seems to hold out greater risks than they have hitherto believed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that the completion of the first PWR reactor is important. It also keeps our nuclear option open. No doubt the noble Lord will be pleased to know that the department has received no less than 300 applications for consideration for renewable source supply. These have meant that the department requires another two months before setting the tranche of that non-fossil fuel obligation at a level which can be undertaken by some of those projections.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the time would now be opportune to put more emphasis on forms of energy which are environmentally satisfactory—for example, combined heat and power, a barrage scheme and other possible projects? It seems that these are still moving forward fairly slowly. In the circumstances does he agree that they should be stimulated?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that at the moment some 2 gigawatts of energy are already being produced by combined heat and power plants. There is an interest in a number of others. I have details of some which are now just up and running. The Department of Energy is keen to see renewable energy taking its place among all the other sources.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount take this opportunity of clarifying government policy on the PWRs? Is he aware that we had a Statement from the noble Lord the Leader of the House saying in effect that the Government were to continue with Sizewell B and not continue with Hinkley Point C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C? That was the Statement as we understood it. Yet is he not aware that the Hinkley Point inquiry into Hinkley Point C is still continuing at great expenditure of public money? Do, or do not, the Government intend to continue with Hinkley Point C?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Nuclear Electric will not build any new stations before 1994 when the review of nuclear energy will be undertaken. Its immediate priority is to run its existing stations safely and efficiently and to complete Sizewell B. To turn to the other part of the noble Lord's question, my right honourable friend is awaiting the inspector's report on Hinkley Point C. In view of his quasi-judicial position, I cannot comment on the application.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if Nuclear Electric is not to build any more PWRs, why does it persist in making an application under the terms of the public inquiry on Hinkley Point C?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe I have already answered that question. My right honourable friend is awaiting the inspector's report on Hinkley Point C.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, referring to the CEGB report to which the noble Viscount also referred, when he says that Sizewell B will be proceeded with, is he aware that the report shows that the estimated costs of decommissioning were doubled before the PWRs and nuclear energy were taken out of privatisation? Has he any idea now what the cost of completing Sizewell B will be and what will be the future costs of decommissioning Sizewell B and other nuclear stations?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. As I explained to the noble Lord on a previous occasion, a review of the costs of Sizewell B is being undertaken and is not yet complete. I gave him on a previous occasion the figure of £1·87 billion.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, would the noble Viscount confirm that there is now nobody who is legally responsible for ensuring that we obtain an adequate replacement for power stations of any sort?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the licence conditions on all suppliers will enshrine the current standards of security. They will also ensure that suppliers provide sufficient information to the Director General of Electricity Supply to enable him to take a view on the levels of security provided. If he believes that levels of security must be increased, he can seek modifications to the licence conditions.

Housing: Mortgage Arrears and Repossessions
3.17 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest available figures for mortgage arrears and repossessions in the owner-occupied housing sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the building societies and the Abbey National had 70,480 mortgages more than six months in arrears at the end of 1989. The same lenders took 13,780 properties into possession in 1989.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, is the Minister aware that although the first half of last year probably produced the best figure since 1984, the second half showed a very serious deterioration as the increased payments started to bite? We are now at the point where repossessions in the last six months of last year increased by 17 per cent. Does he agree that there is at present a very serious situation which is deteriorating even faster?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is important to remember that in the past 10 years there has been an increase in home ownership of some 3·5 million. To use the noble Lord's benchmark figure from 1984, in that year the percentage for recoveries of properties on which mortgages had not been paid was 0·171. In the six-month period to which he has just referred as being of a precipitous nature, it was 0·093.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that factor shows how important and essential good, independent legal and financial advice is in any of these agreements?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend. I can assure him that as at 1st February on certain financial documents clear instructions are spelt out warning of the risks of home ownership.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what percentage of the figures that he gave to the House relate to former council tenants who are trying to buy their houses and are unable now to do so?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the figures are collected on the basis of total home ownership and not on the breakdown for which the noble Lord has asked.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to me the Minister seemed to draw some laughs from the noble Lords behind him. Does he consider that the other figures that are being produced by the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that 58,000 households are more than six months in arrears? That is an increase of 28 per cent. Does he consider it laughable that 12,000 home buyers are now a year or more behind with their mortgages? That is an increase of 31 per cent. Does he also think it is laughable that repossessions show an increase of 17 per cent.? When one takes into account that for those same people water and electricity payments will increase by a minimum of 13 per cent. and the poll tax is 33 per cent. higher than the Government predicted, what messages of comfort has he for them? Some of them are now going into home ownership bankruptcy. Do they just have to bite the bullet and get on with the business even if it means that to get out of debt they have to move from their houses in order for the building society to put the house back on the market?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is certainly not a laughing matter. I think that certain noble Lords were surprised at the comparison in the figures when I produced them. It is a fact that those who suffer most from inflation in our society are the weak and the poor. We are determined to break inflation, and to do that we are having high interest rates.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what is the point of spreading misery? These people are weak and poor. Why create more misery by having increases in mortgage rates, with all the worries that that is bringing to ordinary people? All the Government seem to be concentrating on is making everybody weak, poor and upset.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is clearly not the case.

Social Fund: High Court Judgment
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes are proposed in the operation of the Social Fund following the High Court judgment of 21st February 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, a letter was sent to all DSS offices on the day of the judgment advising Social Fund officers that the local office budget and the level of priority that might usually be met are only factors to be taken into account in reaching a decision and that the state of the local office budget is not the overriding factor. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to issue revised guidance shortly which will take into account the court's decision.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that constructive reply. Does he accept that it does not go anywhere near enough to solve some of the problems? He has not helped and will not be helping the 45,000 claimants whose applications were refused last December and for these desperate people the Social Fund is a last resort. Unless he can say that the Government are introducing some element of retrospection in their directives to the local fund officers, those people will not be helped. Would it not be more honest at this stage to lift the cash limit altogether and to change the directives so that they state that future applications are dealt with on the basis of needs and circumstances, not just on the discretion of a local fund officer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked about retrospection. We are seeking legal advice on this point and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will issue guidance to Social Fund officers shortly.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that essential needs payments, which were running at £400 million a year in 1987, were cut under the Social Fund to only £140 million last year? In that respect it is hard to see how the Social Fund officers were supposed to exercise the flexibility and discretion that the Government required when the total budget for essential needs had been cut by 65 per cent. and the guidance from the department was illegal. Will the Minister inform Social Fund officers that they cannot now withhold payments for essential needs on the grounds that their budget is exhausted or is likely to be exhausted? Will he also confirm that the Government are prepared to pay the compensation to all those who were wrongfully denied help as a result of the illegal guidance from the department?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already answered the noble Lord's second point in my second answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I said that we are seeking legal advice on the question of retrospection.

833
On the first point, I refer back to my original answer. The local office budget is not the overriding factor; it is nevertheless a factor that a Social Fund officer must take into account.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord make clear to the House what he meant by "seeking legal guidance" on the retrospective action that the Minister is to take or not to take following the High Court judgment? Is the legal advice being sought on the basis of how the Minister can make it retrospective because he wants to or is it being taken on whether he has to?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is seeking legal advice on the question of whether there is a retrospective element. I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord might care to glance through the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf, which is some 50 pages long. He will understand that my right honourable friend cannot immediately come to his own judgment on it without taking legal advice.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has possibly misunderstood my question. It has nothing to do with the 50-page judgment, which was very clear in what it said. Is he saying that the Minister is seeking a legal opinion because he wants to make it retrospective in sheer justice or is he seeking the legal opinion on the basis of whether he has to?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may make myself perfectly clear. My right honourable friend is seeking legal advice on what the judgment will mean with regard to the question of retrospection.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question. What will be the position of those people to whom payments have been refused?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already answered that question. It is a question of retrospection. My right honourable friend is seeking legal advice on that.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Gaming (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
834
Perhaps I should say a few words of explanation. The order referred to in the Motion vests in the London Docklands Development Corporation certain land currently vested in the London Borough of Southwark. The order is hybrid and a petition against it from the London Borough of Southwark was accordingly considered by the Hybrid Instruments Committee last July. The role of this committee is to report to the House whether or not there ought to be an inquiry by a Select Committee into the matters complained of in any petition.
Southwark's petition was based on the fact that it had itself applied for planning permission to develop a part of this land. Its application had been refused by the development corporation, which is the local planning authority for the area, and Southwark had appealed to the Secretary of State. The vesting order made by the Secretary of State would have pre-empted the public inquiry arising from this appeal.
That seemed to the Hybrid Instruments Committee to be a justifiable grievance. Accordingly it recommended that it should be considered by a Select Committee. The House agreed to that in November last year.
Since then, however, the public inquiry has been held and Southwark's appeal was dismissed. It would seem desirable therefore that the Hybrid Instruments Committee should now reconsider its recommendation in the light of the changed circumstances. If the House agrees to the Motion today, the parties will be invited to submit fresh representations to the committee if they so wish, and the committee will in due course make a further report to the House. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the orders of 9th and 15th November last be discharged and that the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989 be referred again to the Hybrid Instruments Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 48 [Right of barrister to enter into contract for the provision of his services]:
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 181:
Page 38, line 3, leave out ("with his client").
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the Report stage of the Bill was adjourned last week we were discussing Amendment No. 181 moved by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The amendment

835
is important and it is linked with the next amendment tabled in my name which is mutually exclusive. As a result of a kind suggestion made by my noble friend the Leader of the House it was decided that further consideration of the amendment should be adjourned. I had already spoken briefly to the amendment and in the particular and unusual circumstances I seek the leave of the House to speak briefly again.
The amendment would mean that a barrister would be entitled to enter into a contract for the provision of his or her services not only with a professional or lay client but with anyone. If that means that he automatically ceases to be an independent practising barrister and becomes an employed barrister, no problem would arise. It would merely reflect the present position in which barristers sometimes give up practice and enter into contracts of employment. They cease to be independent barristers.
However, if the amendment means that a barrister who contracts with anyone can remain in practice and continue to provide a legal service, the person with whom he contracts appears to become a client, whether professional or lay. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could say whether that would be the effect of his amendment. If so, I suggest that it would be better to keep the word "client" in the Bill.
We must then consider whether an independent barrister should enter into any kind of contract for his services. I realise that my comments appear to relate more to a discussion on clause stand part but they are relevant to my noble and learned friend's amendment. Under the present rules of conduct and the long-standing practice of the Bar a barrister in independent practice cannot enter into any kind of contract for his services. The nearest we ever came to that was in accepting retainer fees. They were abolished some years ago because they were considered to be a restrictive practice. If we are to revert to a similar situation we should be entering into restrictive practices. One of the purposes of the Bill is to abolish any kind of restrictive practice and therefore we must not introduce a new type.
It may be better to get rid of Clause 24 even at this late stage. I do not believe that the clause was discussed in Committee owing to the lateness of the hour. However, if the clause remains I suggest that it should be limited to contracts between barristers and professional clients. That would be the result of my Amendment No. 182. As was said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when we discussed the matter briefly last week, the two amendments are mutually exclusive.
I invite my noble and learned friend to enlighten the House and perhaps other noble Lords may wish us to consider the matter further.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the amendment worries me a great deal. Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and point out that the matter was discussed to some extent in Committee. I asked the noble and learned Lord
836
exactly what the provision meant. First, does it mean lay and professional client or only professional client? That matter has been resolved because in his amendment the noble and learned Lord makes clear that it means both.
Leaving out subsection (2), that appears to mean that in criminal courts future advocates can enter into a contract with their lay client in relation to the provision of their services in a criminal trial, no doubt providing for a 50 per cent. uplift for an acquittal, and so on. If I am wrong I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will say so.
The second question that I raised in Committee was: does it mean that the purpose of the clause is to make it easier for laymen in the criminal courts, among others, to approach advocates directly? In Committee the noble and learned Lord said:
"This clause is in no way intended to deal with the Bar's rule restricting direct access by lay people".—[Official Report, 5/2/90; col. 568.]
He went on to say that it makes it possible for barristers to sue for their fees. I understand the second part.
I looked at the Notes on Clauses, which contradict what the noble and learned Lord said. Under "Policy Objectives" the notes state:
"The aim of this clause is, subject to regulation by the profession, to facilitate direct access to barristers by persons other than solicitors and to ensure the law does not unnecessarily restrict the ways in which barristers may offer their services".
According to the notes, and as I have always suspected, the aim of the clause is to achieve exactly that. The wording makes that clear.
In those circumstances the clause makes it possible hereafter for laymen to approach any advocate direct. But in subsection (2) the Bar alone is permitted to restrict its members from doing so. I ask the noble and learned Lord: why only the Bar? That appears to create hereafter a totally unacceptable bumpy playing field.
The pressures on advocates in the Crown Courts are wholly different from those in the magistrates' courts or inferior courts. They are also totally different from those in any other professions. For example, some defendants have serious previous convictions; barristers have close contacts with the police; informers give evidence; bogus defences are put forward; tainted witnesses are produced; and excessive and dubious awards are offered to advocates. Attempts are often made to corrupt the police, witnesses and, as your Lordships know, even jurymen.
At present, advocates in the Crown Courts are largely insulated against those pressures and temptations by rules which some people call restrictive practices. Those have evolved over the years. For example, an advocate is not allowed to be directly approached by anybody but is only allowed to have communications through a third party; he cannot meet witnesses he is going to call; he cannot prepare a case and also be the advocate in it; he cannot handle cash and cannot fix his own fees. All that is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said at an earlier stage of this Bill, a matter of self-righteousness on the part of advocates. It is not

837
that advocates consider themselves to be of higher moral standing than anybody else. However, it is made much easier for them to maintain standards of integrity because they are insulated against those temptations and against direct contact with the persons who offer them.
As your Lordships will know, other pressures like peer pressure in chambers, Inns of Court, circuits and a judiciary which has personal knowledge and experience of a very small profession have resulted in supplying a very honest judiciary. I want to ask the noble and learned Lord whether, after this Bill becomes an Act, it will be possible—and I only say possible—for advocates to be approached directly in high street offices, seeing witnesses, preparing defences, being paid direct with friendly relations with the local police and members of the local CPS. Does he look upon that scenario with approval? That is a very familiar scenario in the United States of America and, of course, is a perfectly clear counterpart to the idea of the district attorney which was a proposition we tried to prevent earlier in this Bill but which was given every welcome from the Woolsack. Is that a possible scenario under this Bill? Is it one of which the Government approve?
If the House wishes to maintain the integrity of this new flood of advocates, why have a clause which facilitates direct access and so destroy the very delicate insulation which has so far preserved a very high degree of integrity? The protection of the clients' interests, of which we hear so much in this Bill, is exactly opposed, as has been repeatedly pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to the interests of justice. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not put forward—I say this with the greatest respect—his usual alibi when matters of principle are raised by saying, "Oh well, that is all a matter for the mechanism or the committee". Is the aim here to facilitate direct access? Does he approve of that during the criminal process? Why is it only the Bar which is being restrained from such access? In general, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may thank him for correcting me. We discussed this matter on clause stand part in Committee but the point which arises on these two amendments was not then discussed.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may cast another light on this amendment of the noble and learned Lord and indeed, by anticipation, the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
It may well be said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as was anticipated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that it is for the Bar Council in its wisdom to decide whether or not to take advantage of this new opportunity; namely, the direct contractual relationship between a member of the Bar and a member of the public.
That sounds as though a liberty has been permitted which did not previously exist and that is the end of
838
the matter. If the Bar Council, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, feel that there is no danger, then there surely is no danger. I have pointed this out before and I shall do so again in relation to later amendments as regards multidisciplinary practices.
However, it is not just a question of the Bar Council or the Council of the Law Society deciding in its wisdom what it may or may not do. Once you put a clause like this into an Act of Parliament the danger is that there is a gentleman—it may be a lady in the future—who heads the Office of Fair Trading. What I am scared of as regards what we are doing in this Bill by allowing this so-called liberty for the disciplinary bodies or the governing bodies of the Bar and of the solicitors' profession is that one day there will be a knock on the door of the Council of the Law Society and the Bar Council. It will be the Office of Fair Trading saying, "We think that it would be very much more competitive and in fact it may very well reduce costs if there was direct contact between barrister and member of the public. Therefore, Bar Council, I call upon you to do what an Act of Parliament clearly permitted you to do. Parliament would not have put that in if it did not believe that that was perfectly civilised. In the name of competition and fair competition I call upon you to do what you have been statutorily empowered to do by a specific provision in an Act of Parliament considered by the Lords and Commons and blessed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor". That is what scares me about this provision and similar provisions. I know what the noble and learned Lord, with absolute honesty of purpose, is trying to do. He has a Bill dealing with the legal profession and he feels that he should give liberty in the future to do things which have been constrained in the past.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord may have forgotten about the Office of Fair Trading. If he has not forgotten, he ought to bear in mind—I say this most deferentially—what an Office of Fair Trading can do to the learned and honoured professions which have traditions which far transcend the mere bounds of competition.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, once again your Lordships have heard a most powerful and informative speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and, after that, from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I have only one question to ask on this amendment. In fact, I asked it last week but it was not answered since the debate was becoming very ragged and was rightly adjourned, particularly as it was very late at night.
The debate was becoming very ragged for a number of reasons, one of which was that owing to the extreme lateness of the hour my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner quite rightly did not move what was the most important amendment on the Marshalled List; namely, that which dealt with the uplift in contingency fees which in the eyes of many of us strikes a note of clear injustice at the very heart of this Bill.

839
Before I ask my question, I desire to say just this. Only three days were allowed for the Report stage of this Bill, although we had six extremely full Committe days, only one ending before 10.30 at night, two going beyond midnight and the last until nearly 3 o'clock in the morning. It was clear from the outset that three days would be inadequate for a proper discussion of this Bill on Report at any reasonable hour. Notwithstanding that, after the three days had been allotted, and after we were informed by the Whips that on the first two days the House would be expected to sit late, which means after 10.30, or very late, which means after midnight, the Government put down 120 amendments to be considered at Report stage. That was over half the number put down on the Order Paper. Some were drafting amendments, and others were the implementation of matters that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor undertook to consider at Committee stage. But there were also three new clauses and a new schedule. That is a substantial Bill in itself, certainly compared to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
The matter has gone even further. Yesterday the Government put down a further list of 31 amendments, including four new clauses and two substantial paragraphs in a schedule. I only desire at this stage to say that it is quite unrealistic to expect your Lordships to conclude the Report stage today, particularly as it has to be concluded at an hour at which debate can reasonably be conducted.
Having said that, the question I asked last week which I desire to ask again concerns barristers being given the right to enter into contracts with clients. Is it open to them to disclaim in the contract all immunity for negligence or breach of contract? At the moment the law itself gives immunity to any advocate because an advocate owes a duty to the court which supervenes on his duty to his client. He is given no further immunity, for example in the preparation of the case or in giving a legal opinion, but would it not be open now, under this provision, for any counsel to stipulate that he shall not be liable at all in negligence or for breach of contract? If so, it seems to me to be a major inroad once again against the interests of the client, which was the point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and no doubt would offend greatly my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale who tried to abolish the immunity rule altogether.
That is my question. I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is present. He has been assiduous in attending our debate. I hope he realises that we cannot possibly, with decency, conclude consideration of this Bill on Report today.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, just in case the noble and learned Lord should take silence to mean concurrence, perhaps I should say to your Lordships that we should follow what is our usual practice, which is to see how we go and endeavour to finish the business today.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to deal with the question of whether
840
barristers should have a legal right to enter into a contract, which other people can do. It does not deal with advocates generally; it is restricted to barristers. I am sure I do not need to tell your Lordhips that there are cases which at least suggest, and I think go further, that it is extremely doubtful whether a barrister is in a position to contract with a client in any circumstances whatsoever.
Among other things, the Bar has recently enlarged the class of those from whom they can take instructions. That immediately raises the question of whether they can have a relationship with the persons from whom they take instructions which is binding in law. The purpose of this clause is to deal with that legal question while at the same time reserving to the General Council of the Bar (because they are the body with responsibility in respect of barristers and that is why it is restricted to them) the power to make,
"rules (howsoever described) restricting a barrister's right to enter into contracts".
Perhaps I may take Lord Mishcon's phrases and apply them to that. If the Director General of Fair Trading by any chance comes along to visit the Bar Council, the Bar Council is able to reply in words—I am sure not as elegant as the words the noble Lord used—that Parliament, the House of Lords and the House of Commons (the noble Lord was kind enough to add "with the blessing of the Lord Chancellor" as if that was a separate matter) has conferred on the General Council of the Bar the right to make rules, however described, restricting a barrister's right to enter into contracts.
In so far as the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is thought to be undesirable (I agree with a great deal of what he said about that) the proper way to deal with that is to make rules. Of course, the Bar has rules at the moment, but rules must regulate in a much more detailed way than the general law of the land does with regard to what barristers can do. A great deal of what he indicated is not laid down by the general law, but arises from the rules of the Bar laid down in the interests of justice.
I do not require to refer to the mechanism because we are dealing with rules made by the General Council of the Bar to deal with the point at issue. With regard to what the Bar's rules should be in relation to rights of advocacy in the Crown Court, then the approval of the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor, as well as the General Council of the Bar, come into play.
In my submission, the right course for your Lordships is to give to the General Council of the Bar the right to make the rules and to leave the general law; that in so far as the General Council of the Bar does not restrict the right of a barrister to enter into contracts then that is the correct way forward. There are many developing areas into which barristers wish to enter into contracts; the overseas practice rules provide a good example of that and the extension of the right of direct access is another.
Amendment No. 181 is put forward precisely in response to the point raised on Committee in

841
discussion about whether the word "client" was restricted to the professional client or included the lay client. I felt it right to resolve that and the simplest way is to take out the phrase. That is the basis on which this amendment is put forward to deal with the matter raised in Committee. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps he will be kind enough to give the House some guidance. Is he saying that because subsection (2) of this clause empowers the Bar Council to restrict the power given in subsection (1), the Office of Fair Trading will never have any right to overrule the Bar Council's decision so to restrict? If he is not saying that, my original point still stands.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that I can ever say what will happen in the future. The noble Lord is asking me too great a question. I cannot forecast the future.
I believe I am still replying to the debate and if not I should be asking for leave to speak again. The theory is that having been asked this question before I sat down I am still on my feet. On that assumption, my reply is that I have applied the noble Lord's words to subsection (2) just as he sought to apply them to subsection (1). If they are applicable to subsection (1) they are at least equally applicable to subsection (2).
What I explained previously, of course, is that in so far as these rules relate to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation—in this case it is rights of audience—and are approved, then, on the basis of the policy set out in the White Paper (of course, it is only policy set out in the White Paper) there is no question of the rules being capable of being overturned by the competition authorities.
However, the important point about the Bill is that this clause makes it the responsibility of the General Council of the Bar to make the appropriate rules. Of course, any legislation that may come in the future will have to be looked at to ascertain on what basis, if any, it would allow interference with such rules. I believe that a rule which is justified on the basis indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, would be appropriate to survive any proper scrutiny.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I intervene as my noble and learned friend is still speaking. I am sorry to prevent him from settling down but perhaps he will be good enough to answer the question I tried to put to him; namely, whether it would be open, under the new contract that can be made between barrister and client, to absolve the barrister from any liability at all for negligence or breach of contract.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry, I should have answered that question more expressly. I intended to cover it by saying that precisely what the contract might contain is a matter which would be within the scope of the rules laid down by the
842
General Council of the Bar. Of course, there is also the general law in the Unfair Contracts Terms Act to be considered.
The relationship between Clause 48 and the immunity is, of course, dealt with in Clause 49(3) which reads:
"No act or omission on the part of any person in respect of which the immunity rule … applies shall give rise to an action for breach of any contract relating to the provision by that person of the legal services in question".
In other words, that immunity is applied to make clear that an action for breach of contract in respect of a matter covered by the immunity could not arise.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may also, with great respect, ask him to reply to my original question; namely, whether the purpose is, as the Notes on Clauses state, to facilitate direct access to barristers by members of the public.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in formulating his question earlier the noble Lord dealt with the situation in regard to clients in the Crown Court. I have sought to answer that by saying that I verily expect the situation he dealt with to be covered by the rules laid down by the General Council of the Bar.
I thought I had expressed considerable sympathy with the point of view the noble Lord expressed about the necessity, in such circumstances, to ensure that rules are sufficient to assist in the protection of the integrity of the barrister. I also explained—I thought I had done so reasonably clearly—that Clause 48(1) would enable others than those who presently have that position to have direct access to clients, subject to the rules that might be made. That is entirely in accordance with the policy described in the Notes on Clauses as I understand them.
Perhaps I may make my answer just a little more detailed. First, I believe that a provision on the lines of Clause 48(1) is desirable to give the General Council of the Bar flexibility in deciding what sort of contracts a barrister might be allowed to enter into. General law at the moment appears fairly fixed. Secondly, in so far as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is dealing with matters of justice, particularly arising in respect of criminal proceedings in the Crown Court, I would expect the General Council of the Bar to continue to wish to make rules in that area which it would regard as effective. Of course, as I said earlier—the noble Lord must accept my apology for repeating it—that would be subject to consent by the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor within the framework of principle which the earlier clauses in the Bill lay down.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 181) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 63.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Layton, L.

Aldington, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lothian, M.

Alport, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lyell, L.

Arran, E.

Lytton, E.

Aylestone, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bathurst, E.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marsh, L.

Beloff, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Bessborough, E.

Milverton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Blatch, B.

Mountevans, L.

Blyth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Munster, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Nelson, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Newall, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norrie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Caithness, E.

Onslow, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Cockfield, L.

Porritt, L.

Colwyn, L.

Quinton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.

Roskill, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.

Sainsbury, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Downshire, M.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elibank, L.

Selborne, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elles, B.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stedman, B.

Gainford, L.

Strange, B.

Havers, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hayter, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Henley, L.

Suffield, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Hooper, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Trumpington, B.

Joseph, L.

Ullswater, V.

Killearn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimball, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Knollys, V.

Wise, L.

Knutsford, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Airedale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ardwick, L.

Grimond, L.

Benson, L.

Hacking, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Blease, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Hunt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ennals, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Leatherland, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Listowel, E.

Fitt, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Gallacher, L.

Longford, E.

844

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Manchester, D.

Serota, B.

Mayhew, L.

Shackleton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Molloy, L.

Stallard, L.

Moyne, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mulley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Phillips, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wigoder, L.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Immunity of advocates from actions in negligence and for breach of contract]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 38, line 8, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 20 and insert—("A person
(a) who is not a barrister; but
(b) who lawfully provides any legal services in relation to any proceedings,
shall have the same immunity from liability for negligence in respect of his acts or omissions as he would have if he were a barrister lawfully providing those services.
(2) No act or omission on the part of any barrister or other person which is accorded immunity from liability for negligence shall give rise to an action for breach of any contract relating to the provision by him of the legal services in question.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to improve the clarity of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords raised questions about the way the clause was previously drafted. In an attempt to make it better we have recast it. I took the doubts expressed to parliamentary counsel who has redrafted the clause to achieve the same policy we originally intended. I hope that the second effort commends itself to your Lordships more than the first. I appreciate the concerns that were expressed and the points that were raised. We have attempted to meet them. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I was among those who spoke fairly late in the evening on this clause at Committee stage. I urged on the noble and learned Lord that though he may not have intended it, the drafting of the clause appeared to extend immunity concerning advocates appearing in court. It is therefore most heartening that the noble and learned Lord, who politely but totally and decisively demolised my arguments in his reply, has reflected on the matter and has now brought forward this amendment. Since I expect him during Report stage to totally demolish the arguments that I present, I live in some hope that all is not lost and that perhaps new ground will be reached at Third Reading.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wish to express an unqualified note of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Multi-disciplinary and multi-national practices]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 38, line 41, at end insert ("and the Society shall not make rules permitting such association unless it is satisfied that—
(a) the protection for the public will be not less than that afforded to the clients of a solicitor's practice;
(b) the primacy of a solicitor's obligations to the court and to the interests of clients can be secured; and
(c) legal professional privilege will protect communications between clients and members of the firm".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I uttered those words of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord as regards the previous amendment in the hope that I might persuade him to agree to this amendment. Clause 50 deals with a very important provision which opens the gates, subject to the lock on those gates which the noble and learned Lord has mentioned, to the possibility of solicitors entering into partnership with persons who are not solicitors. That is commonly called multi-disciplinary practices.
I have nothing to say about multi-national practices where we join other lawyers in various parts of the world in ensuring that legal services of a comprehensive nature are provided, crossing frontiers in doing so and enabling people to get advice as to the laws of other countries with which we may be commercially engaged. I have nothing to say in that connection. But in protection of members of the public I ask the House to glance for a moment at the possibilities of a multi-disciplinary partnership with lawyers. That means lawyers bound, as they should be, by the strict rules of the Law Society, and members of the Bar bound equally, as they should be, by strict professional rules of ethics and etiquette in regard to their profession. We suddenly see that in partnership with them there could be, if it were permitted, surveyors, estate agents and other people carrying on a perfectly honourable business but in no way governed by the same strict professional disciplinary rules.
A member of the public may go to a firm of solicitors, as he thinks, on a conveyancing matter to find a surveyor there who is a partner in the firm offering to guide him. It would be very difficult for a member of the public to resist such an invitation without being rather offensive. There might also be an accountant who could look after the accountancy affairs, again not bound by the disciplinary rules of the Law Society, although if he happened to be a chartered accountant he would be bound by quite strict professional rules of conduct. In those circumstances the noble and learned Lord may say the same as he said on the previous amendment, that the Law Society and the Bar Council will issue their rules which will make it very easy for the strict disciplines to be applied to such a practice or that they may prevent it altogether.
One of the troubles with putting enabling powers into Acts of Parliament is that it amounts almost to an indication that these things are perfectly all right and that it is only a question possibly of putting
846
some boundaries to what is perfectly all right. But it is not all right for the public. I notice with great interest that the Confederation of British Industry expresses its qualms about this. I shall quote succinctly from the brief it has sent out:
"Industry, as the major users of legal services, is concerned that legal services of high quality with the necessary wide choice of business legal specialists remain available. Industry views with some reserve the introduction of multi-disciplinary firms as it is felt that these may lead to the formation of megafirms of accountants and solicitors as has happened with the merger of accounting firms, and that this may reduce choice and availability. There may frequently be occasions when a client company does not wish to instruct the same firm for both legal and accounting work but may feel that as both are available in one firm that firm should be instructed, and this in practice may act as a constraint on choice".
That is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that there should be and must be proper protection of the public and that the Office of Fair Trading should not be able to say to the Law Society or to the Bar Council that, as they have these enabling powers, they should be exercised in the name of fair competition for the benefit of the public, as the Office of Fair Trading thinks. In Committee I tried unsuccessfully to remove this provision from the Bill. I am now trying to make it perfectly clear how, if the Law Society or the Bar Council wishes to embark on making rules of this nature, they will be inhibited in protection of the public in making such rules. That will be an answer to the threat which I mentioned a moment ago.
In adding these words at line 41, I am saying not only that,
"Nothing in subsection (5) prevents the General Council of the Bar",
but also that,
"Nothing in subsection (2) prevents the Law Society".
I know that the noble and learned Lord will not hold that technical point against me but it should be mentioned for clarification. If the amendment were carried the clause would read as follows:
"Nothing in subsection (5) prevents the General Council of the Bar from making rules which prohibit barristers from entering into any such unincorporated association, or restrict the circumstances in which they may do so".
My amendment would add the words:
"and the Society shall not make rules permitting such association"—
the one mentioned in subsection (1) of Clause 50—"unless it is satisfied that—
(a) the protection for the public will be not less than that afforded to the clients of a solicitor's practice;
(b) the primacy of a solicitor's obligations to the court and to the interests of clients can be secured; and
(c) legal professional privilege will protect communications between clients and members of the firm".
I could give a detailed explanation of the reasons for each of those paragraphs but I believe that they will be obvious to the House. I am dealing with general protection of which these are important particulars.
It may be found that the amendment does not fit comfortably into the clause. But the purpose is absolutely clear and I trust that the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept it and put it in its proper place and proper form by Third Reading. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, while not wishing to be in the least bit critical, I should like to make a drafting point and perhaps go a little further as a matter of principle than he has. Clause 50 abrogates Section 39 of the Solicitors Act and that is necessary if solicitors are to be able to form multi-national partnerships with foreign lawyers. But once you have abolished Section 39 I venture to suggest that what is required is not that the Law Society shall make rules permitting multi-disciplinary partnerships, even subject to conditions. Once the section has been removed, the society would not need to make any rules because you could do so in any event; what matters is that the society shall make rules prohibiting multi-disciplinary partnerships, unless these particular conditions which are of vital importance are satisfied.
For my part, I think if I had applied my mind to the matter, as I should have done, I would have sought to amend subsection (2) to provide that,
"Nothing in subsection (I) shall prevent the Law Society making rules which prohibit solicitors from entering into any unincorporated association with persons who are not solicitors, or restrict the circumstances in which they may do so; and, further, the Society shall make such rules unless the conditions set out in (a), (b) and (c) below are satisfied".
Nevertheless, I support the principle of the amendment, and I hope that it is only the principle which will guide your Lordships in deciding what to do in the matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the necessity for removing the general bar is accepted by those of your Lordships who have spoken. I think that the Law Society is of the view that it would be good to allow, under proper conditions which are still being worked out, multi-national partnerships. The amendment is directed in principle—and I am perfectly content to take it that the drafting may not be of the higher standard of which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his colleagues are capable—towards seeking to lay down conditions under which a prohibition would be required in respect of multi-disciplinary practices.
It is a question of considerable importance which has been discussed at the instance of more than one person over the past few years. I know that many different views are taken on the matter. I suggest to your Lordships that one of the reasons that the Law Society exists and has rule-making powers is that such rules will be made for the protection of the public and for the other matters affecting the integrity of the profession, some examples of which are dealt with in the amendment. Therefore, unless the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is saying that the Law Society in making prohibitions about the matter would ignore such factors, I do not see from the point of view of giving power to the Law Society what purpose the amendment serves.
848
The noble Lord referred to the Director General of Fair Trading as a kind of dangerous figure in the background. But I submit to your Lordships that the Law Society need not be afraid of the Director General of Fair Trading when it has such powerful backing as that of the Confederation of British Industry in so far as it founded its objections, or reservations, to multi-disciplinary practices on the grounds of multiplicity of choice and of freedom of competition. Surely the situation is that the Law Society can be trusted by your Lordships to make the necessary rules. We are making it absolutely plain that the society has absolute power to make these rules in the clause as drafted. Therefore, why your Lordships should put constraints on the way in which that power is operated is not immediately apparent to me. I suggest to your Lordships for consideration the fact that if you go into such detail, you may well be suggesting that it is possible to achieve the various objectives while still allowing various forms of practice. I am not certain that that would be entirely in accordance with the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has in mind.
I suggest that the Bill gives full free power to the Law Society in this respect. Subsection (2) reads,
"Nothing in subsection (I) prevents the Law Society making rules which prohibit"—
and that is the emphasis which my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls placed upon it—
"solicitors from entering into any such unincorporated association with persons who are not solicitors, or restrict the circumstances in which they may do so".
That gives the society full power to make any conditions it wishes, including prohibition of a particular type of partnership. I also suggest that to make the provision more detailed may well suggest that various types of unincorporated associations could properly function because those various matters could be effected. Although I understand the desire expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, to ensure the freedom of the Law Society to make appropriate rules and prohibitions, I hope that your Lordships will feel that the clause as drafted achieves that aim effectively, and that what is proposed really does not add anything to the necessary powers of the Law Society.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like first to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls for the soft, kind and gentle way in which he corrected the wording of the amendment. He did so most properly. As he said, and as I tried to say, it is the principle which we are really debating at this stage of the Bill's proceedings. The noble and learned Lord was also good enough to indicate that he was prepared to deal with the matter on principle.
I find myself in a difficult position in following the logic of the noble and learned Lord which is usually so clear. I thought at one time he was saying that if this was wholly undesirable, one would have expected that the power would be deliberately taken away in order to deal with multi-disciplinary practices, and that we ought so to enact if it was felt necessary. I tried to do just that in Committee and

849
I was stopped by the opposition which the noble and learned Lord then expressed to such a prohibition. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to do anything else but to return at a later stage with protective measures in order to see that rules are not made which do not deal with the situation which I have enumerated in the amendment.
The extraordinary situation is that the noble and learned Lord would have us think that he is giving something that the Law Society wants. I made it abundantly clear in Committee—and I had the authority of the society to say this—that it is a power which the Law Society does not want and that it would welcome a situation where there was no power to grant multi-disciplinary practices the right of law.
The noble and learned Lord talked about whether the Law Society can make such rules as it wishes. Of course it can. But what is Parliament doing? The Law Society exists for the protection of a very learned profession. However, I hope that it always has regard for the welfare of the public. It is Parliament which shows the correct balance and which sees to it that while professions are properly protected, so is the public. Is the noble and learned Lord really saying to Parliament, "Do not carry out your duties; those duties are carried out by the Law Society and the Bar. We do not have to worry Parliament; let them do what they want"?
I am asking Parliament to say that if there are to be multi-disciplinary practices there must be protective provisions to ensure that they are not permitted without the proposed safeguards. The noble and learned Lord told me that I have the protection of the Confederation of British Industry. I ask him for his protection and for Parliament's protection, much as I respect the Confederation of British Industry.
In those circumstances, unless the noble and learned Lord—who is capable of so much generosity—relents I must seek the opinion of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to say that I am sorry if I have not made my position clear. I said that the Law Society wishes to permit multi-national practices and therefore the standing prohibition must be removed from the Act. That is achieved by this clause. That is all that I said about the Law Society.
I understand perfectly that, as presently advised, the Law Society is anxious to prohibit multidisciplinary practices. I do not believe that I said anything that suggested the contrary. If I did it was certainly not my intention. I then said that the Law Society has full power under the clause to prohibit multi-disciplinary practices altogether if it wishes and believes that to be the right thing to do.
I went on to say—I hope reasonably clearly—that to suggest that there were conditions which, if met, would enable multi-disciplinary practices to be approved might not serve the interests that the noble Lord wishes to serve.
I have put those points to the noble Lord before he sat down simply in response to his question since I seem to have left the matter unclear.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. However, that does not affect the position conerning the clear statement in Clause 50(1) that:
Section 39 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (which, in effect, prevents solicitors entering into partnership with persons who are not solicitors) shall cease to have effect".
That is absolutely right. Multi-national practices will be permitted and multi-disciplinary practices will also be permitted unless there is a provision in the Bill which prevents them from being established. All I say on behalf of those in this House who agree with me is that we do not want rules made by the Law Society in that context. As I said before, we should prefer a straightforward prohibition in the Bill against multi-disciplinary practices. If we cannot have that we must have something in the Bill which makes it quite clear that the Law Society, which is now enabled to make rules permitting multidisciplinary practices, must not make such rules unless they cover the points set out in the amendment. That is why I must press the amendment unless the noble and learned Lord can accept it in principle.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 184) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Addington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hunt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Aylestone, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carnock, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Newall, L.

Coleraine, L.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Prys-Davies. L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Renton, L.

Erroll, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Roskill, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Selkirk, E,

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hacking, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Havers, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Arran, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Auckland, L.

851

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lytton, E.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Manchester, D.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marsh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Onslow, E.

Cockfield, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Derwent, L.

Reay, L.

Downshire, M.

Renwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elibank, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Henley, L.

Slim, V.

Hesketh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Joseph, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimball, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Knollys, V.

Trumpington, B.

Knutsford, V.

Ullswater, V.

Layton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Lothian, M.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.53 p.m.
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 185A:
Page 38, line 41, at end insert—
("() Alterations in the existing rules of the General Council of the Bar relating to the formation of a legal relationship by a barrister with another barrister or solicitor or with any other person for the purpose of their jointly offering professional services to the public shall have no effect unless approved under Part II of Schedule 4.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is an attempt to try to reconcile various provisions of the Bill which at the moment are not reconciled. However, I think that in everybody's interests they should be. Clause 50(6) provides that:
"Nothing in subsection (5) prevents the General Council of the Bar from making rules which prohibit barristers from entering into any such unincorporated association, or restrict the circumstances in which they may do so".
That refers of course, as we are discussing Clause 50, to multi-disciplinary and multi-national practices. In order to find out about the rule-making power of the Bar Council we need to turn to Clause 28. That leaves a degree of uncertainty. Clause 28(3) states:
"In the event of any question arising as to whether any provision"—
that is provisions dealing with the rules of the Bar Council
"is deemed to have been approved by virtue of subsection (2)—
(a) the Lord Chancellor shall seek the advice of the Advisory Committee and the Director;
(b) the Lord Chancellor and each of the designated judges shall consider, in the light of that advice, whether that provision is deemed to have been so approved; and
(c) that provision shall be deemed not to have been so approved unless the Lord Chancellor and each of the designated judges are satisfied that it has been".
The Bar Council will of course from time to time need to alter its rules, and in particular will need to alter its rules in order to express its views and implement its decisions with regard to multi-disciplinary and multi-national practices. At this point I should mention—this will be familiar to many of your Lordships—that multi-disciplinary practices, and especially, multi-national practices, involve questions which could affect the eligibility of members of the English Bar to act in member states of the European Community. In some of the member states a lawyer cannot act as a lawyer if he or she is a member of a firm which carries on a practice with persons who are not members of the legal profession. The matter arises also with regard to legal remedies with the United Kingdom. Surely it is right that the decisions to be made by the Bar Council under Clause 50 should be considered by the advisory committee which will be well equipped to deal with such matters, rather than having such matters dealt with in any other way, if there is an alteration to be made in the rules. As I said, that may well be the case.
That brings me to Clause 26 because we have to consider there the effect of that clause upon any authorised body. Clause 26(3) states:
"Where any authorised body alters …
(b) any of its rules of conduct,
those alterations shall not have effect, so far as they relate to any right of audience or any right to conduct litigation granted by that body, unless they have been approved under Part II of Schedule 4".
The alterations shall not have any effect in spite of the provisions of Clause 50. I hope that is not too great a stretch of the imagination when one realises that entering into multi-disciplinary and multi-national practices could affect rights of audience or, in the case of solicitors, the right to conduct litigation. Therefore we need to consider what the effect of Part II of Schedule 4 would be. That latter provision appears on pages 74 and 75 of the Bill. Paragraphs 6 and 7 lay down the steps which have to be taken to get the matter considered by the advisory committee. Paragraph 8 on page 75 refers to the submission to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when the advisory committee's advice has been obtained. Then, in paragraph 9, we have the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. But the culmination of the matter and the point on which we should focus our attention in relation to Clause 50 is in paragraph 11 at the bottom of page 75 which refers to approval by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges.
I suggest to your Lordships that with these various overlapping provisions in Clauses 26, 28, 50 and in

853
Part II of Schedule 4 we should make sure that the ultimate decision is taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges. I hope the amendment that I have tabled achieves that purpose. If your Lordships will kindly glance at it you will see that it says:
"Alterations in the existing rules of the General Council of the Bar relating to the formation of a legal relationship by a barrister with another barrister or solicitor or with any other person for the purpose of their jointly offering professional services to the public shall have no effect unless under Part II of Schedule 4".
The culmination of what is written in Part II of Schedule 4 is in paragraph 11, which refers to the decision of the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges.
I have put this forward partly as a probing amendment but also in the hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will agree with what I have suggested; namely, that the machinery of the Bill whereby the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges have the last word should apply in particular to this matter. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton has raised an important point on the role of the advisory committee in relation to Clause 50. If we just concentrate on the multi-disciplinary practice, I understand that both the Law Society and the Bar Council are totally opposed to this, whereas multi-national practices are already in fact on the verge of happening, provided that the Law Society and the Bar Council lift their ban and agree to have them.
Earlier on during Report stage my noble and learned friend was kind enough—and I take this opportunity to thank him warmly for this because I was unable to be here—to table an amendment to add subsection (3) to Clause 17. It reads:
"In discharging its functions the Advisory Council shall—(a) where it considers it appropriate, have regard to the practices and procedures of other member States in relation to the provision of legal services".
I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could confirm, where it relates to multi-national practices and deals with rules and regulations concerning both the Bar Council and the Law Society, that clearly this falls within the competence of the advisory committee and consequently would fall within Part II of Schedule 4.
It seems to me that this is the logical outcome of this amendment, and indeed of what my noble and learned friend said on 20th February at col. 249 of Hansard:
"The amendment requires the advisory committee, when carrying out its functions, to bear in mind the desirability of ensuring equal opportunities in the legal profession and, where appropriate, how legal services are provided in other European countries".
He went on to say:
"I would expect the advisory committee to bear such matters in mind anyway".
That seems to me to put this question of multi-national practices fairly and squarely into the hands of the advisory committee and to protect them from any outside interference, and it will be entirely
854
subject to the ultimate decision of the Lord Chancellor. I should be grateful if he would comment on this question.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, in Committee I moved Amendment No. 202ZA. That amendment might be described as a parallel amendment to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has moved. I therefore support the noble Lord's amendment for the reasons that he has given to the House and indeed the reasons that I gave to the Committee in support of my amendment.
It seems not only sensible, but close to essential, that the rules should come under one regime, and when for example we are concerned with the rules of advocacy that they should come under the regime of Part II of Schedule 4. For that reason, and hopeful that the noble and learned Lord has not closed his mind over my Amendment No. 202ZA, I support the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of the consent provisions—that is the consent provisions relating to the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor—is to deal with matters concerned with rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation. It is in that area that the consent of the designated judges is required.
It is conceivable that the Bar Council, for example, might want to make rules that go outside that area; for example, in relation to overseas practice by members of the Bar. The relationship between the rules of the Bar and the consent machinery is that the rules of the Bar and any changes in the rules would require approval by the consent machinery of Part II in so far as they affect rights of audience in the case of the Bar and in the Law Society case generally more often the right to conduct litigation. That is the relationship between the two.
In so far as most of the rules of the Bar that I am familiar with are connected with the right of audience, of course questions about association and the like covered by this amendment would require to be submitted for approval and would become' effective only if they were approved. But if rules of the Bar had an effect outside that area, then the consent of the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor would not be appropriate. I do not think that this amendment is appropriate for that reason.
To extend the role of the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor beyond rights of audience in the case of the Bar, taking that as the paradigm case, would be to go beyond the jurisdiction that is conferred on them. It is that area that requires the judicial protection and judicial consideration, and that is the reason why the approvals relate either to right of audience or the right to conduct litigation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply, although I do not find it totally helpful. Naturally one will need to consider this. If it be the fact that without any reference to Part II of Schedule 4, arid without any reference in fact to Clauses 26 or 28, the Bar Council would be on firm ground in altering its rules and

855
would not be challenged and would not need any special approval, well and good.
That may well be the case in the light of what my noble and learned friend has said. However, I am grateful to him for considering this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 186A:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Right of audience for solicitors in certain Crown Courts
For section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (right of audience for solicitors) there shall be substituted the following section—
("Right of audience for solicitors in certain Crown Courts.
83.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct, as respects one or more specified places where the Crown Court sits, that solicitors, or such category of solicitors as may be specified in the direction, may have rights of audience in the Crown Court.
(2) Any such direction may be limited to apply only in relation to proceedings of a description specified in the direction.
(3) In considering whether to exercise his powers under this section the Lord Chancellor shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure the availability of persons with rights of audience in the court or proceedings in question.
(4) Any direction under this section may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have proposed this amendment in response to points raised at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, towards the end of that stage. The noble Lord then tabled an amendment the effect of which was to repeal Section 83 of the Supreme Court Act. Section 83 of that Act enables the Lord Chancellor to direct that solicitors may appear in, conduct, defend and address the court in any proceedings in the Crown Court, speaking generally. It also provides that a direction made under the section may have effect as respects all places where the Crown Court sits and that the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to any shortage of counsel in the area in question and to any other circumstances affecting the public interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was anxious—I hope that I paraphrase accurately the point that he made—that Section 83 might be used by the Lord Chancellor to bypass the rights of audience conferred under the machinery proposed in Clause 24(1) and related clauses of the Bill. I explained then that I had looked at this some time ago in order to consider it because I had been asked to make more dramatic changes immediately under this section than I was minded to do because I felt that it was intended to have rather limited effect. I did not believe that Section 83 was passed by Parliament to enable the Lord Chancellor to allow solicitors to have complete rights of audience in all Crown Courts without further ado.
I therefore took the view that it was more restricting. The noble Lord then said, "That is your view. It may not be the view of your successors". I do not
856
know whether I formally undertook to do so, but I noted the point and looked at it carefully. I have come to the conclusion that it would be right to modify Section 83 to try to make it clear that it is intended to deal only with local situations. For example, since I have been Lord Chancellor I have made a direction under Section 83 transferring the rights of solicitors in the Crown Court in Bodmin to the new Crown Court in Truro. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham earlier made a more general direction under the section in relation to particular types of proceedings in which solicitors had been instructed in magistrates' courts.
I intend to make it clear that Section 83 is now restricted to deal with local situations such as the one to which I have just referred. It is in that sense that the amendment is proposed. There is a related problem in respect of Section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to which the noble Lord also referred. I have brought forward the amendment, and if your Lordships accept it I will consider whether it has any corresponding effect on Section 4 of the 1985 Act because the idea is that the provisions should go in parallel. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may say at once that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his attempt to meet the argument which I put forward in Committee. I appreciate that attempt, but I have to say that I have reservations about the way in which the amendment is phrased. In my humble opinion it does not seem to be limited necessarily to the purposes to which the noble and learned Lord has referred.
If the amendment were to say something to the effect that where, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, there is a shortage of advocates in any specified court then certain powers would be available, one would of course have no objection to it. However, as drafted, it seems to me, with great respect, that the amendment drives a coach and horses through the mechanism about which we have heard so much.
Clause 24(2) says straightforwardly:
"A person shall have a right of audience before a court in relation to any proceedings only in the following cases".
That provision limits rights of audience to the mechanism. In the amendment, the Lord Chancellor is taking upon himself a power to grant rights of audience totally outside the mechanism. What is the power? The amendment says,
"The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct, as respects one or more specified places"—
so that he can direct all Crown Courts—
"where the Crown Court sits, that solicitors, or such category of solicitors as may be specified in the direction, may have rights of audience in the Crown Court. Any such direction may be limited".
So we can put that aside. But the amendment goes on,
"in considering whether to exercise his powers … the Lord Chancellor shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure the availability of persons with rights of audience in the court or proceedings in question".
Those words give the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Chancellors in the future, power to issue a direction

857
that solicitors, or other categories of persons, may have rights of audience in all Crown Courts if, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, he wishes to secure the availability of those persons or that category of persons in those courts. In other words, putting the matter simply, if the Lord Chancellor of the day decided that solicitors or other advocates should have rights of audience in a Crown Court in pleas of guilty only; in short cases only; in certain categories of offence only; or that they should belong to certain firms only or accord with any other category or basis which he thought right, he would have power to by-pass the whole of the mechanism and make that possible.
Further, under subsection (4) any such direction,
"may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient".
I cannot help seeing in that subsection, although it may be physically difficult to imagine, the transformation of the noble and learned Lord into the appearance of Henry VIII. The restrictions or expediency which the Lord Chancellor might wish to impose seem unlimited.
Equally, the Lord Chancellor could say—this is important having regard to our recent debate in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service, which is a huge organisation—under the clause as drafted, "In my opinion, members of the staff of the Crown Prosecution Service should be available in all Crown Courts right across the country, either totally or in relation to specified categories of proceedings or types of offences". That gives a power which drives a coach and horses through the whole procedure of the mechanism. That is my worry about the clause as drafted.
I have sought previously to include Section 83 of the Supreme Court Act and Section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act in the repeal section. In order to meet the noble and learned Lord's worry about practice directions which have already been made, in Amendment No. 227A I make it clear that such repeal would not affect the continued operation of any such practice directions which have already been made. Although I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord has sought to meet my objections, why should the Lord Chancellor of the time be given those powers? Why should solicitors not go through the ordinary mechanism? If he wishes solicitors or other advocates to be available in courts, why should he not go straightforwardly through the mechanism of the committee and the designated judges?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, to understand the amendment one has to look at it in its historical context. I speak of course subject, as always, to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham; but I understand the historical background is that, before the Beeching Royal Commission on assizes and quarter sessions between 1966 and 1970, there were certain quarter sessions which were entirely open to solicitors because of the remoteness of the areas in which those courts took place. For instance, on my circuit there was Bodmin and there were other places in Lincolnshire.
When Lord Beeching introduced his report and it was debated in the House, there was a strong move
858
to give solicitors rights of audience in the new Crown Court. It has not been recommended, but the opportunity was taken to debate it. That was some 10 years before the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, gave its views. That proposal was resisted, but, in order to meet the complaint which was made in theory a clause was inserted in the courts Act which was then re-enacted in the Supreme Court Act 1981. The complaint to which I am referring was that some courts might lack a sufficient number of barristers, the more so because the numbers of the Bar were then about 2,000 as compared with their present strength of 6,000 and Lord Beeching had expressed anxiety as to whether, given its size, the Bar could cope with its monopoly. That additional measure gave the Lord Chancellor, in his discretion, power to ensure that, if courts were not sufficiently manned by the Bar, he could open them. Accordingly, Section 83(3) stated:
"In considering whether to exercise his powers under this Section as respects any one or more places where the Crown Court sits, the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to any shortage of counsel in the area in question, any rights of audience formerly exercised by solicitors at any court of quarter sessions in the locality in question, and to any other circumstances affecting the public interest".
The Bar reacted quickly and robustly to the suggestion that its members might be unable to service the monopoly that they had; ergo, the increase in the numbers which I mentioned. Local Bars were opened in various parts of the country. Again, returning to my circuit, they were opened at Exeter, Plymouth, Winchester and Portsmouth. Because of the shift of the litigation to Truro, the opening of local chambers there is already being contemplated. In consequence, the Lord Chancellor never exercised his power to open any new courts or to open up any new jurisdiction to solicitors in the Crown Court with the exception of what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has done. That is nothing new; it merely moves the Bodmin situation, which was open, down to Truro because the Crown Court has now gone to Truro.
It has therefore been proved that the section is quite unnecessary. That is why I strongly support the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that it falls to be repealed while preserving the existing rights of audience which solicitors enjoy in those special courts. Far from repealing that section which has proved that it is only of virtue for an administrative function as per the situation in Truro, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has breathed entirely new life into it.
Despite that complex machinery of advisory committees to be followed by consideration by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with his veto and by the designated judges with their veto, the amendment purports to arrogate to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor powers to bypass that system entirely in relation to solicitors in the Crown Courts. It applies anywhere. It applies to solicitors or categories of solicitors and no longer is it to depend on the shortage of counsel in any area in question. The widest possible language is used, ending with the words:
"Any direction under this section may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient".

859
That statement follows subsection (3) which is permissive in nature and states:
"In considering whether to exercise his powers under this section the Lord Chancellor shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure the availability of persons with rights of audience in the court or proceedings in question".
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was perfectly right. The section has now fulfilled its purpose. In lieu of having to make an order in regard to a court, there is provision in the advisory committee machinery. It is most unlikely to be used, having regard to experience while the section has been in force—a period of about 20 years. That clear power to bypass the machinery seems to be quite contrary to the spirit of the Bill.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I rise only to say a very few words. When we discussed Clause 48 at some length, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack made what seemed to me to be a powerful point. Although I was not altogether in agreement with it, it carried the day. When we discussed the rights of the Bar Council, as I think it then was, to make rules, and the provisions of the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, my noble and learned friend in effect replied, "Let the mechanism prevail and let the whole thing be organised through the advisory committee which the earlier sections of the Bill provides".
I now turn my attention to Section 83 of the 1981 Act which has the history outlined by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. I can confirm from memory, although I have not refreshed it, that I was responsible for passing that section into the Act or its predecessor. That was done because of the difficulty in certain parts of the country where there was an established right of appearance for solicitors in certain quarter sessions and because it was rightly pressed upon us that, with the increase in the demand for advocacy in the Crown Court, other situations of shortage of advocates might easily arise elsewhere. I believe that I did right and that the provision has worked perfectly well over a period of 20 years.
However, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack cannot have it both ways. Section 83, as passed by me and then consolidated in 1981, has become a fifth wheel to the coach. It has served its purpose and I do not repent of anything I did. However, now that we have the mechanism which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has insisted on applying to the sequence of sections here, it should go altogether, subject to any draftsman's point, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, touched, as to the continuation in force of any amendment unless there is a desire to change it. If there is a desire to change it or to enlarge it, the mechanism should prevail. With great respect to my noble and learned friend, he cannot have it both ways. If his argument on Clause 48 was to let the mechanism prevail, it ought to be the rule which applies here. It seems to me that there is a basic inconsistency between what he now proposes and what he said at the last series of hearings at this Report stage.
5.30.p.m
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I too may indicate a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the new clause proposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I fully understand his desire to re-enact in some form or another the gist of Section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. But, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will realise, we are in a very sensitive area at this particular moment. I venture to suggest that the wording of the proposed new clause might have been rather more sensitively drafted.
There is no doubt that under the clause as drafted the Lord Chancellor has complete power to give rights of audience to solicitors in all Crown Courts—full stop. He does not need to give any reason for doing so. It might have been otherwise had subsection (3) been drafted differently and had provided that the Lord Chancellor:
"shall have regard solely to the need to secure the availability of persons".
That might perhaps have been understandable. Simply to put in the words "in particular" means that that is not in any sense an exclusive test. Therefore, as I read these subsections, the Lord Chancellor undoubtedly has totally free powers to grant full rights of audience to solicitors without giving any reason of any sort.
I entirely accept that nothing would be further from the noble and learned Lord's mind than to make any such order. I accept that fully. Nevertheless, that that should be a theoretical power at this moment, when noble Lords have spent so many days and weeks debating the whole question of rights of audience, seems to me to be somewhat undesirable. I therefore support what has been said by those who have participated in this debate that the clause is unnecessary.
If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor nevertheless desires to re-enact in one form or another the gist of Section 83, might I respectfully suggest to him that the mechanism could be briefly introduced into this clause by providing that any such order made by the Lord Chancellor under a clause of this nature should be after consultation with the designated judges. That might at least remove the alarm that will be felt by many when they come to read the wording of this clause as it now stands.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up that constructive suggestion. As I understand it from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the intention of this power is to be able to fill gaps which appear on a very local scale and perhaps appear suddenly. I would not have thought that the Schedule 4 procedure was very well designed to deal with that situation because the Schedule 4 procedure is designed to approve rules by—in this case—the Law Society. It would seem hardly appropriate that the Law Society should pass a rule stating that solicitors should have a right of audience in the Bodmin-Truro Crown Court. It is not the kind of thing with which the rules of the Law Society are normally designed to deal.
In any event, it may be that the situation would pass. There would no longer be a case for that, and

861
it would be quite difficult to persuade the Law Society to revoke that rule. So I very much doubt whether the Schedule 4 procedure is right.
On the other hand, so long as my noble and learned friend sits on the Woolsack, there is no problem because he has said for what purpose he wants to use that power. But I can understand that people have anxieties in the longer term future. My suggestion was not to be "after consultation with the designated judges" but "with the concurrence of the designated judges".
That produces a very quick process by which one obtains part of what is required from the Schedule 4 procedure, but it is a part which enables the matter to be arranged very quickly. I have no doubt at all that if the need were apparent and my noble and learned friend wanted to do it, the designated judges would say, "of course". But in the future, if someone were trying to get round Schedule 4 by using this power, I think that they would say, "No, we do not consent to this power. We might well consent if it came through the Schedule 4 procedure. You go through that procedure".
Lord Renton: My Lords, the practicality of this provision is that it arises rarely but unexpectedly when there is a shortage of counsel available in a court—perhaps a distant court. I remember that for a few months there was a shortage of counsel even as near to London as Rochester. The point is that when that happens the matter needs to be dealt with reasonably expeditiously.
I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. If we are to use the machinery of the Bill, which on all other occasions my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has urged us to do, it should be used in a way which is fairly expeditious and does not involve the whole panoply of the advisory committee, and so on. It should enable the Lord Chancellor to obtain quite quickly the concurrence of the designated judges.
Certainly, to agree with the new clause exactly as it is, in my opinion and as has been said by others, would be inappropriate. Possibly the best suggestion—and it is intended to be a constructive one—is that we say to the Lord Chancellor, "Yes, you may have this new clause on condition that at Third Reading you will move an amendment to subsection (3) in order to make clear that the power is to be used only when there is a proved shortage of counsel and then with the concurrence of the designated judges".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the history given by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham supported, is my understanding of the history of Section 83. It is right to say that a practice direction was made under it of a more general kind than the one relating only to particular courts. My noble and learned friend did make a practice direction allowing solicitors who had appeared in the magistrates' court to appear in the Crown Court on appeal.
But I had to look at this section some time ago, as I explained in Committee in answer to the noble
862
Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I took the view that Section 83 in its previous form did not have the effect, on a proper construction of it, of allowing the Lord Chancellor to allow solicitors generally throughout the country to have rights of audience in the Crown Court although on a superficial reading of it that might have been so, and I tried to explain that point.
In considering the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Hutchinson, one has to compare the clause that I propose with the existing Clause 83. What I left out was as follows. In Clause 83(2) it states:
"A direction under this section may have effect as respects all places where the Crown Court sits".
The general direction that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made did have that effect. I wanted to go along with the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was asking for. That is why I took out that passage and made the provision only to specified places. It is true that one could specify every place in a very long schedule, but I think it is fairly plain that by taking out that particular portion that is not intended. I believe that it would be fair to look at it in that way. That is a point that the noble Lords did not make in their interventions.
The next point is that it is said: "Look here, you are not restricting it to places where there is a shortage". The difficulty I have about that is that I put in:
"shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure the availability".
That is the point.
Let me just consider the position in Bodmin having arisen after the Bill goes through. Let us suppose that the Crown Court was moved from Bodmin to Truro. I do not think that I would have been too satisfied at the time that I had to deal with it that there was a great shortage in Truro. However, I consider that it was right, because of the established practice, to make the move. That is why I have put it in this way. A similar situation might arise, for all I know, where a particular court has to move from where it is presently established and it might be right to make that move.
On the point regarding allowing rights of audience to other solicitors and advocates, the clause does not allow that. It is restricted to,
"solicitors, or such category of solicitors as may be specified",
because that is now a possibility of different categories. I have no difficulty whatsoever in requiring the Lord Chancellor's direction to be with the concurrence of the four designated judges. I would contemplate this provision being used only in very exceptional circumstances.
On the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I endeavour to be consistent. I do not wish to ask for something that is not consistent with the general scheme. I believe that the general scheme is well worthwhile as a general scheme. The point about this provision is that it is for particular situations where the general scheme would not be appropriate. It might be right to allow solicitors to appear in the Crown Court at Truro while not allowing them to appear generally in the Crown

863
Courts in other places. The mechanism is for that second situation, not the first.
I am content to say that I shall bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to make the directions subject to concurrence of the four heads of division if noble Lords are prepared to agree to that course. I have no difficulty about that whatsoever. I do not anticipate this clause being used very often. However, it has been in the law for some time. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner states that there will never be a scarcity of qualified advocates. I thoroughly believe that he may be right about that. The proposal that I make in the Bill will go a good deal of the distance to make that certain. But it is possible that his prophecy might not be fulfilled in a particular area; it is therefore right that something of this kind should be retained.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—whom I was trying to meet by putting this amendment forward—will think it right to allow it to go forward if I undertake to make a prerequisite the concurrence of the four heads of division.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—I am most grateful to him for what he has said—could I ask him to look again at subsection (3) and if possible include the words "shortage of advocates", as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to make it perfectly clear that the phrase "secure the availability of persons", means more than pure availability and has something to do with the position of there being shortage or possible shortage.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and before he replies to my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, will he consider whether it might be more helpful to the House if he were to withdraw the amendment at this stage upon the indication that it will come back next time in an amended form? I am sure that many of us who have been speaking in this debate would indicate that we would be prepared to accept such an amendment at that stage.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I prefer to accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Renton. It saves repetition of printing an amendment of some size.
Perhaps I may reply to the point that my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington makes, with the leave of the House. I regard, "the need to secure the availability of persons" as a stronger provision. It would only be proper to use this power if something of the kind was required in order to secure that there were available people. The measure at present in the Act is slightly less direct than that. It states,
"shall have regard to any shortage of counsel".
The provision here refers to,
"the need to secure the availability of persons with rights of audience".
In other words, if people are already there, there is no need to secure availability of any people. That is
864
why I have chosen words which are meant to be stricter than the words in the existing statute. I believe that they would be so read. That was certainly my intention in doing it this way. I cannot restrict it only to that for the reason that I mentioned—that we may have to move existing standing rights in the future. Those are the reasons for the provision.
I hope that in the light of that explanation, noble Lords will agree the amendment subject to my undertaking, as I have stated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell moved Amendment No. 187:
Before Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Judicial Office of Lord Chancellor.
The office of Lord Chancellor shall no longer be a judicial office and the right and duty of the Lord Chancellor to sit in a judicial capacity are hereby abolished.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the House will be only too well aware, following hours of debate as we have made our weary way through the Bill, that the measure makes substantial changes in the practice of the law, the power of the Lord Chancellor to oversee a hitherto independent profession, and the qualifications required to become a senior judge in the highest court. It does not therefore seem to me inappropriate to do what we rarely have the opportunity to do—to consider the modern role of the Law Officers of the Crown.
The amendment affects only the senior of those Law Officers. However, the principle behind it affects the other two Law Officers who sit in another place. I wish to make it clear that the amendment is directed therefore to the question of the structure of government and the practical role therein of the law Ministers of the Crown.
It is always difficult to distinguish in the public and parliamentary mind between the office and the holder of the office. I was writing and speaking about this subject long before my noble and learned friend published his Green Paper or this Bill. Indeed, I was speaking about it before my noble and learned friend became Lord Chancellor. I am confident that he understands the amendment is not intended as a personal reflection on him. I have much respect for my noble and learned friend and—believe it or not, despite what he has got up to in parts of this Bill—affection. Therefore the amendment is not inspired by resentment. That is a suggestion I reject with contempt.
We must recognise that in modern times there have been important changes in the practice and duties of all three Law Officers, the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. Just as the modern Lord Chancellor rarely sits judicially, so the Law Officers, although I was taught that this was their first duty, appear less frequently for the Crown in court. Nowadays, the administration of the day wants its legal advisers at its beck and call, behind their desks or at the Cabinet table. Twenty years ago I remember how displeased Ministers were to find that the Attorney-General was in court and unable to attend a Cabinet committee. It is even

865
more so now. It is no longer acceptable to Ministers and civil servants that the Crown duties of Law Officers come first. The demands of modern government require that all Law Officers give more of their time to their duties as a Minister than to their traditional duties as judge or counsel.
To some constitutional observers the dual role of the English Law Officers has always been a matter of disquiet. For them, the separation of powers between, on the one hand, the judicial or semi-judicial, and on the other, the executive power, has been a matter of principle. And no amount of pleading that the system works, and works fairly, has proved acceptable. That the system has worked whereby a person can be a judge or a Crown officer responsible for criminal prosecutions, in which role the administration of which they are members never interferes, is a tribute to office holders in governments of all colours without exception.
It is difficult to deny that the combination of roles is intellectually anomalous. Few outside the inner circle understand it. Many of the general public, especially the media, frankly disbelieve it. They often identify the government with the prosecution or the Attorney-General acting in the public interest. As the business of government has so greatly increased, so have the doubts of these observers. They would say, "The Speaker of this House, robed as is the lay Speaker of another place, yes. Cabinet Minister, yes. Ministers are responsible for, let it be noted, only the civil law of England and Wales (because the responsibility for the criminal law has always been given to a layman, the Home Secretary)—but judge, no." That is the constitutional quirk.
During the past half century the pattern of the office of Lord Chancellor has greatly altered. He used to sit judicially in the mornings and then come to preside on the Woolsack at 4.30 p.m. when the House commenced its non-judicial Sitting. Outside the Cabinet his duties were limited mainly to the appointment of High Court judges, then fewer in number, the protection of their interests and the supervision of the English law.
In modern times he rarely sits judicially. There is far too great a burden of administrative and political work. The most significant change is that due to his responsibility for legal aid the Lord Chancellor has become a Minister answerable for a substantial financial vote; millions of pounds of public money. There is no Minister in his department who sits in and speaks to the other place. After all, that is the House responsible for supply. In days when his vote was miniscule that mattered little.
The Attorney-General acted as his agent in another place and still does. However, the Attorney-General is not a junior member of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is not easy, and not often satisfactory, to answer for acts of a department of which you are not a member. We in this House ask a great deal of Lords in Waiting, obliging them to answer for matters in which hitherto they have not been concerned, and to reply to complicated Statements made in another place. I am always filled with admiration by the way in which they carry out those difficult tasks. But your Lordships are more understanding than are Members elsewhere.
Therefore, when a government or Select Committee at last turn thoroughly to examine the structure of government—as at some time they must—it will not be long before there is a demand for a responsible Minister from this modern spending department to answer personally in another place for the large sums of public money. It may be required that the actual Minister should be a Member of the other place.
Hitherto, the Lord Chancellor has invariably been an English lawyer trained and practised in the English courts. In Scotland the law is different; it is founded on the civil law and untouched by the English common law. The roughly equivalent duties of the English Lord Chancellor in recommendation is performed by the Lord Advocate. The clans would surely start again on their march South if any government dared to appoint an English Lawyer to the Scottish post of Lord Advocate. It is a great tribute to my noble and learned friend that there is so little concern that someone who has not read the English law nor practised solely in the English courts should take on responsibility for that law and its judges. He has earned the admiration and affection of the whole profession.
But it has created a precedent. The result is that no longer must the Lord Chancellor be an English Lawyer trained in the English courts. If unamended the Bill will provide that a person appointed to a senior judicial post need not be a lawyer, including therefore the Lord Chancellor. When that condition is added to the vastly-increased administrative and political work now loaded on to the shoulders of the modern Lord Chancellor, together with the extra executive duties which we impose upon him under the Bill, it can be seen and must be recognised that the whole ethos of the post will inevitably be turned further away from the character of the judge and more towards emphasising the modern character of the executive Minister.
At some time, therefore, Parliament must pay heed to the outward manifestation of the duality of powers in modern times. It must look again at the doctrine of the separation of powers and must not shirk nor flinch from that. It must consider afresh whether, at the end of the 20th century, there should exist a system whereby one person can exercise great executive and political powers while also exercising the powers of a judge sitting in judgment.
Accordingly, the modern situation is that the Lord Chancellor has acquired heavy responsibilities for public money. He need no longer be an English trained lawyer. He is more involved in the ever increasing administrative and political duties. Furthermore, under the Bill the Lord Chancellor need no longer be a trained lawyer. It has never been necessary for the Home Secretary responsible for the criminal law to be a lawyer; nor for the Secretary of State for Defence to have military training; nor for the Minister of Health to be a trained doctor. It must be right, therefore, to consider why the Lord Chancellor should retain judicial powers.
I repeat that in making those remarks—and I made them and wrote about them long before the publication of the Bill—I am concerned not with

867
personalities but with considering the role of the Lord Chancellor in the structure of today's modern government. It is a matter of not ignoring the evolution of the office and the increased emphasis on his political role. As we have been told often and said ourselves when discussing the Bill, our objective ought to be the creation of an ever-more rational legal system—and therefore governmental system—in the service of the public. It should be a system which the public can understand.
If, as its supporters suggest, the Bill is such a reforming measure, if it is designed to improve the service to the public and present a more logical and modern legal framework, we should start at the top and examine the desirablity in modern times of retaining in one office the dual role of leading executive and Cabinet Minister and the judge who sits in judgment over the citizen in the courts. On the face of it, and when expressed so, the position is hardly defensible. Perhaps because it works and we are fond of it the position is desirable and essential. However, the country ought to be told why. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I could make two alternative speeches about the amendment; one would take an hour and the other only a few minutes—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Take the hour!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, rightly or wrongly I have selected the second of my two alternatives. I regretted to see the two amendments on the Marshalled List, but that was not for the reason which my noble and learned friend has expressed and disavowed, and which I accept without question. It was because I do not believe the Bill to be a proper vehicle for discussing the subject. It is an important question and in order to ventilate it properly I should need to speak for about an hour. I expect other noble Lords would wish to be as long—
A Noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the Bill is a totally inappropriate vehicle for this kind of constitutional discussion. It goes far more to the root of our constitution than my noble and learned friend has yet appreciated. For instance, he twice said that in future under the Bill the Lord Chancellor need not be a trained lawyer. He never needed to be a trained lawyer. I have a daughter at the Bar and on occasions people have said to me, "Perhaps she will be the first lady Lord Chancellor". I have said, "She can't be because there has already been one". The wife of Henry III was Lord Chancellor. If my noble and learned friend had acquainted himself with Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors—it is a primer which every Lord Chancellor should read from cover to cover—he would have known that. The Dean of Westminster was not a lawyer during the reign of Charles I. I could give examples ad infinitum. However, the
868
truth of the matter is that this amendment is not only inappropriate to this Bill but is also wrong in principle.
We have an extremely subtle arrangement, as my noble and learned friend said, about the relationship between the legal profession, the administration of law and the judiciary. I shall not expound that at length; otherwise I should be inclined to take the first of my two alternatives. First, I believe it is absolutely vital that the person holding the rank of Lord Chancellor should be in this House. He has to be so long as he is the Speaker of this House, even though he could be Lord Keeper of the Great Seal and not be allowed to speak, which happened in the reign of Elizabeth I. In fact, it is vital that he should be in this House and should not be subjected to day-to-day criticism and questioning in the House of Commons.
It is also vital that he should be a lawyer of mark, although there is no legal requirement to that effect. Nobody would doubt that my noble and learned friend—although he has a Scottish rather than an English qualification—is exactly that and is a lawyer of very great distinction indeed.
The only way of ensuring that is to retain his position as a judge. If I may use a rather unseemly phrase, it is important that the Lord Chancellor should expose himself to criticism by giving judgment occasionally. This Lord Chancellor has done so, and I made a point of doing that. The late Lord Gardiner, one of my predecessors, was unwilling to do so because he did not like being a judge at all. He was a great advocate and a considerable lawyer but he had a distinct disinclination to pronounce judgment as a judge on anything. I only persuaded him to sit once after he had demitted office, and he did that with the greatest reluctance and refused to do so again.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, he decided wrongly.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am not sure that I go along with my noble and learned friend on that. I must say that I do not believe that this is a suitable occasion to discuss such an important matter. The amendment proposed—that the Lord Chancellor should not sit as a judge—is not only inappropriate but wrong. I hope that on reflection my noble and learned friend will withdraw his amendment now that it has been moved, without any disrespect to him, and I hope that we shall not take up a great deal of time in discussing a first-class constitutional matter in this rather unseemly way.
6 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has just said. This is far too big a constitutional subject to be debated on Report. I only say that I would be very sorry to see the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, adopted. In a number of respects this Bill is disruptive of our legal tradition. To adopt this

869
proposal would be utterly and further disruptive of tradition.
The Law Officers were also referred to. That matter must be considered but not in the context of this Bill. There is a difference of opinion as to the role of the Law Officers. I rather think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, is on one side and I am on the other.
Only the other day my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that he was voicing the opinion of the Attorney-General who was deciding in a personal capacity. That is the traditional view and I think that that is the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. I have never been able to see the answer to the point made by the late Lord Asquith of Bishopstone at the time of the Campbell case when he asked whether it was really conceivable that the Cabinet should have had no say before the 1914 war in the prosecution of the alleged rebels in Ireland when the whole future of Ireland, including the possibility of civil war, was in question. That has never been answered. I should think that the Cabinet has a clear right to take over a decision as to prosecution, making clear that it is its decision, although normally, conveniently and conventionally it is left to the Attorney-General.
Indeed, I venture to think that that may well be done in the Rushdie case, which raises very wide points of public importance. I say that merely because the situation as to the Law Officers is at least as debatable as that of the Lord Chancellor.
Finally, there is no reason at all why the Lord Chancellor should not have a junior Minister. In fact, that has been done twice. When Lord Gardiner was Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, was appointed Minister without Portfolio and was attached to the Lord Chancellor's office with a view to overseeing legal reform. At that time there was another junior Minister attached to the Law Officer's Department, a Mr. Davidson. Therefore the fact that there is no junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's office is by no means a reason for the violent constitutional departure which this amendment suggests.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am not easily shocked. I have been too long in public life for that to happen easily. However, I must confess that I had a feeling of strong surprise when I saw the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson on the Marshalled List. I believe that the case for the amendment has been most effectively demolished by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Therefore, I only wish to add a few words to that.
I believe that it is quite wrong to criticise, without going into a great deal of thought, the importance of the office of Lord Chancellor in its present form as the link between the Cabinet and the legal system. Of course, it is easy to suggest that there are anomalies of principle, and so on, in that. However, the system has worked effectively. I am perhaps freer to say that than my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, whose own conduct of office I believe all your Lordships would regard as having been quite magnificent.
870
Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson will not press this amendment because it will take a great deal of time and it will seem, as I think it seems to most of us, to be a quite extraordinary proposal and to be particularly extraordinary at a time when we have he advantage of a great Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I rise only because I should not wish it to be thought that a serving judge had any different view from that expressed by my noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Simon of Glaisdale and by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I have been in this job for many years and for the past seven or eight years I have been Master of the Rolls. I regard it as of enormous importance that the senior judge should be the Lord Chancellor in order that he may span the gap which necessarily must exist to provide the necessary separation between the Executive and the judiciary.
With regard to the suggestion that he should not sit as a judge, if he were totally unqualified, as he could be, one would expect him to apply the ordinary constitutional conventions which apply in such situations and not sit. However, we have in the present Lord Chancellor the advantage of one who is not only qualified as a matter of opinion. After all, he was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. It is difficult to think of any greater and more obvious qualification to possess in order to sit as a judge. If it be said that he should not sit as a member of the Supreme Court, that is a matter for him. I am bound to point out that I sat as a judge in Glasgow and as a judge of a British court; namely, the national industrial relations court. We also welcome Scottish judges sitting in London. I do not think there could possible be any objection to that. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to sit in the Court of Appeal, I shall personally be there to welcome him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with those who have already opposed this amendment and I wish briefly to add two points. First, the chairman of the Bar asked me to state that the Bar Council wishes to dissociate itself from the amendment. Secondly—this is simply a thought of my own which in one way has been made by others; but I should like to put it like this—it is essential that the legislative, the executive and the judicial roles of the Government and Parliament should not be separated. In order that they may effectively be performed they must impinge upon one another. I therefore regard the Lord Chancellor as a vital link man.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise from these Benches only to make it abundantly clear that those whom I have the privilege of representing have not only the utmost confidence but a very deep affection with regard to the present Lord Chancellor. Having said that, I wonder whether I happen to have caught the sense of the House. I now ask whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, is prepared, with

871
his usual courtesy, to ask leave to withdraw his amendment, and, if he is not, I ask that the Question be now put.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, perhaps I may make one observation—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, we raised the question of the Lord Chancellor. The correct title is the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to move the one Motion which cannot be debated—that the Question be now put. I understood him to do that, and if so that is what must be done.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, looked towards my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell to inquire about his intentions with regard to the amendment. I think I am right in saying that our procedures most certainly extend to my noble and learned friend now speaking on his own amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I only wish to address the House for a few moments. I should like to know whether, in the name of "The Lord Chancellor", any obvious duties fall on my noble and learned friend in respect of Scotland. I do not know whether or not that is so, but I should nonetheless be interested to see whether any duties fall on him. Beyond that, I support those who expressed their views on the importance of this office for England.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, posed the question to me. I am perfectly happy to do that which I always intended to do—withdraw the amendment. I wish to say only two things in reply. I do not seek to call upon the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I particularly said how difficult it was in parliamentary and public life to personalise these matters. The noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls of course immediately did so. With regard to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I have surprised him so much and put him in a state of shock so often that I am surprised he is still so robustly sitting here before me. He will be bouncing up and down again, speaking often, I am sure, in our debate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope not on this matter.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, not on this amendment because this is a final speech. I should
872
like to say that we have never had a vehicle to discuss these matters. At some time we shall have to look at it and examine it. I make no apology for raising it as I raised it here at the first opportunity. We are dealing with the whole of the administration of the law. There is no need for the Bar Council to dissociate itself. I never associated with it. It is something I have written about, thought about and spoken about for many years. On this subject, like Disraeli,
"Though I sit down now, the time will come when you will hear me".
At some time the public will be heard about this matter and it will have to be decided. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell moved Amendment No. 188:
Before Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Statutory Judicial Appointments Commission.
.—(1) There shall be a body to be known as The Statutory Judicial Appointments Commission (in this Act referred to as the Commission).
(2) The Commission shall consist of a Chairman and 13 other members, all of whom shall remain members of the Commission while holding the respective offices enumerated below.
(3) The Chairman shall be the Lord Chief Justice of England.
(4) The other members of the Commission shall be—
(a) the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor;
(b) the Senior Presiding Judges of the Northern, Western, North Eastern, Midland and Oxford, Wales and Chester, and South Eastern Circuits;
(c) the Chairman of the Circuit Judges Association;
(d) the Chairman of the Magistrates Association; and
(e) the Chairman of the General Council of the Bar and the President of the Law Society.
(5) The powers vested in the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor to make recommendations for appointment to the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Justice of Appeal, High Court Judge, Official Referee, Circuit Judge and appointment to the rank of Queen's Counsel shall henceforward be exercised only after consultation with the Commission.
(6) On a vacancy arising for any appointment to any of the offices or rank set out in subsection 5 above, the relevant Minister shall notify the Commission who shall thereupon submit names for recommendation. In the event of the Minister selecting for recommendation a person other than one submitted by the Commission, the Minister shall publish to Parliament his reasons.
(7) The Chairman of the Commission may appoint such staff as he thinks necessary for the discharge of its functions.
(8) Appointments shall be made by the Chairman on such terms and conditions as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to establish a statutory judicial appointments commission. It sets out a framework which I readily accept may be quite defective and incomplete. There may be another and more workable process. I am certainly not wedded to the exact composition, provided it consists of a majority of senior judges and trained lawyers. If anyone insists on a lay participation I am very ready to accept that.
I seek to establish a statutory authority as a matter of principle, independent of the government of the

873
day, whose names are publicly known and with a duty to make recommendations in respect of all the appointments to the senior judiciary. At present, as your Lordships will know, recommendations for the Court of Appeal and Lords of Appeal are made by the Prime Minister and for the High Court and the Circuit Bench by the Lord Chancellor. As we appreciate, it is improbable that any recommendations are made without the Lord Chancellor being consulted and consenting. His is the guiding hand. In the past he had few judges to recommend and now there are many. It is impossible, and in the future will be even more impossible, for a modern Lord Chancellor to know personally the persons he is appointing to the rank of Queen's Counsel or the Circuit Bench and sometimes even the High Court Bench.
I am certainly well aware that over the past years there has been (and still is) consultation before a Lord Chancellor makes a recommendation. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham went out of his way to make public his approach to the duty of recommendation and the consultations he had. All such consultation is, in a sense, clandestine. The feeling grows up—or did when I was practising at the Bar; I believe it still persists— that the present procedure is not wholly satisfactory. People sometimes fear that they have been overlooked or have not been appointed to silk; they feel that perhaps they have crossed some official in the Lord Chancellor's Department at some stage and that that has blighted their chances. It is because of the informal and private approach that that happens and people get that feeling.
I suggest that it is far better to have the consultation obligatory and in the open. I am quite willing that my proposal should merely set out "will consult", and to leave out the other subsections of my new clause. I suggest it is much better to have it demonstrated that the Lord Chancellor consults the heads of divisions before he makes any recommendation. It is one of the most constitutionally important duties that anyone ever has to perform.
I believe it would be healthier for public perception if people were satisfied and could see that the Lord Chancellor, before he made an appointment to the High Court Bench, consulted the persons suggested in the amendment. I believe that this would meet what is now so often demanded—open government. The institution of a publicly known procedure would give not only assistance to the Lord Chacellor and the Prime Minister but would also give confidence to the public. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, again there are two speeches I could make, one lasting an hour and one about 10 minutes at the most. Once more, I choose the second course.
I must again tell my noble and learned friend sitting behind me that I am sorry to see this amendment on the Marshalled List. I do not consider this Bill to be a suitable vehicle for fundamental constitutional change or a change of this kind. It is incorrect to say that there are no opportunities in either House for discussing the method of
874
appointment of judges. Any Member can put down a substantive Motion and any Member can have it discussed in either House under the appropriate procedures. That is the way to proceed. This Bill is emphatically not the vehicle.
I have to tell my noble and learned friend that his suggestion is not only inappropriate and the occasion a bad one. A great deal of time has already been spent on matters entirely germane to the Bill's subject matter. It is also wrong. The method of appointment of judges, silks and other persons is, of course, a complex one—it is a sophisticated method which has grown up over time—but it is certainly much more satisfactory than that suggested by my noble and learned friend.
The system combines the personal accountability of a Minister rooted to the House of Lords through being screwed to the Woolsack and therefore not subject to the kind of trouble he would have in the House of Commons with a sophisticated method of consultation which must vary according to whether you are dealing with the silks (one of the most onerous and personally difficult things I ever had to do), appointing a circuit judge in a remote provincial circuit, when one has to consider the personal convenience of travel and all sorts of other aspects as well as suitability, or advising the Prime Minister as to how to exercise her prerogative of advising the Queen on the appointment of the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice.
The methods are wholly different. They are certainly not in the least clandestine. I have more than once publicly and in writing set them all out. It would be quite wrong to think that officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department have an undue influence on these matters. The Lord Chancellor deals with these matters personally but only after consulting a wide range of persons including, of course, in senior appointments, the four designated judges, or, as we used to call them for convenience three years ago, the heads of division.
I hope that we do not now embark on a long debate on this subject. We have a considerable amount of work to do and this is not the moment to have such a debate.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord considers this amendment inappropriate. It is entirely different from the previous amendment. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, speaks one always feels so ignorant. I could not for the life of me remember when reading Lord Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors whether or not any of the wives of King Henry VIII had been made Lord Chancellor.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, they had too precarious an existence, and two Lord Chancellors disappeared in another way.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, this question arises from the Bill. Hitherto the system for the appointment of judges has justified itself by the quality of the judiciary. Henceforth, as a result of the Bill, everything will be entirely different. The reservoir of potential judges will be greatly

875
expanded. A whole ragbag of advocates will be eligible, qualified in different proceedings in different courts for different periods of time. Many will be laymen, neither barristers nor solicitors. Eligible, too, will be that remarkable collection of individuals set out in Schedule 8—income tax commissioners, social security commissioners, chairmen of VAT tribunals, and the like. Of course, there is also to be the whole vast reservoir of the Crown Prosecution Service.
No longer can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor personally know potential candidates. Nor, indeed, will senior members of the small profession be in a position to advise him. I should have thought it would be very difficult to find the judicial qualities necessary in this huge hotchpotch of advocates which we will have as a result of the Bill.
Dilution of the vital qualifications for being a judge—competence, independence and integrity—will inevitably lead to a reduction in standards. As we have repeatedly seen in the Bill, the independence of the advocate, which has hitherto gone with him onto the Bench, is no longer guaranteed or, indeed, provided for in the Bill. It is not entirely clear—I ask the noble and learned Lord to advise me—what the procedures will be henceforth for the appointment of Queen's Counsel. I understand that the Bar's view on the matter, set out in its blue book, is that a strong committee of lawyers and laymen should be established after the enactment of the Bill to make recommendations for the future appointment of the judiciary. That might very well be the way forward rather than deciding on the details of this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I make a brief intervention only on the question of the appointment to silk. The whole regime is to change. For my part I have always accepted that we should extend the right of audience and that solicitors should have access to higher judicial appointments. However, accepting it as one does, one also has to accept that the whole basis of appointment to silk will require some reconsideration.
I accept, of course, that this is not the time, nor indeed the place or the occasion, on which to consider the machinery in detail. I do not accept—I seldom seem to agree with the Bar Council—that we want a commission of banisters (heaven forfend!) to recommend who should become judges. I should have thought that slightly unnecessary and, in any case, offside.
Appointment to silk is far more important than at first appears. The catchment area will be widened, and I believe should be widened. But it is from the silks that you get the quality for the judiciary. My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has drawn attention to this aspect. Although I cannot, with respect to him, accept the spirit of the amendment as a whole, I am grateful that at least he has drawn attention to how we can best deal—not here and now, but at some time in the future—with the appointment to silk; if possible avoiding artificial appointments to artificial silks.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I share the regrets of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that this amendment has had to surface, but I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that the Bill has made it inevitable. In the debate on the Green Papers which took place not quite a year ago, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that he had gone back to first principles. Undoubtedly one of those principles is as stated by the late Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds who said:
"It remains the supreme truth that the safeguard of liberty lies in the independence of a judiciary which fears not nor favours the Executive".
In the debate on the Green Papers as reported in the Official Report on 7th April 1989, at col. 1463, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, though seeking to support the Government's case, said:
"I suppose that patronage is the most powerful influence which governments can exercise. Patronage over appointments and promotion must be a powerful weapon. An institution that is only appointed and promoted on the gift of the Executive presumably would not consider itself wholly independent".
The noble Lord is absolutely right. As a matter of principle it is clearly wrong for the judiciary to be appointed by the Executive. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is a Minister who sits in the Cabinet and is therefore part of the Executive Government and subject to all the political pressures of that position. Moreover, as regards the judges of the Court of Appeal, the Law Lords and the heads of the divisions, I understand that the Lord Chancellor's recommendation has to be approved by the Prime Minister.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: She appoints.
Lord Ackner: She appoints. A fortiori, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would not have me say. Our system of judicial appointments is clearly wrong in principle, but by and large it has worked in practice. Certainly in recent years I believe that is very largely due to the Lord Chancellor of the day accepting the advice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and the other heads of the divisions, ably assisted by the Deputy Lord Chief Justice, who happens to be, and has been for some years, the senior presiding judge.
But the heads of divisions have now a new role to perform. They are to be the designated judges. The question which understandably arises for your Lordships' consideration—and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, for raising the point—is whether that which is clearly wrong in principle can nevertheless, in the light of the radical proposals contained in the Bill, continue to work in practice. There can be no doubt that the Bill seriously diminishes the power and authority of Her Majesty's judges in relation to the control of rights of audience in the High Court and the Court of Appeal and also in relation to education, training and the code of conduct of advocates.
That power will largely pass to the Executive and it will be achieved by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee, appointments to which will be made entirely at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor.

877
That committee will in practice be a decision-making committee dictating not only the framework and detail of the education, training standards and discipline of all those who provide legal services in our courts, but the very way in which those services are to operate.
I adopt and repeat the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton who said at Committee stage, when speaking of the committee:
"it is the apex of the structure of the legal profession, supervising every important aspect of professional practice and training … [the Committee] is an instrument by which the executive can, in a very large measure, control a legal profession which until now has been self-regulatory and by which it can, by the creation of new classes of practitioners in the courts, secure an even greater control than it enjoys at the moment over the composition and of course, ultimately, the conduct of the judiciary at all levels".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; cols. 1245 and 1247.]
Other speakers of considerable political acumen have observed that lay domination in the regulation of all professional activities in a highly technical sphere in which laymen do not have the expertise, is the clearest indication that the committee is to be the creature of the Government. Of course it will be stressed that the designated judges have the power of veto in relation to the advisory committee. So, too, indeed has the Lord Chancellor. But this substitute for the role previously enjoyed by judges, these restricted and indirect powers, are liable to be exercised in an atmosphere of pressure. Significantly, the Government thought it appropriate, at page 29 of their White Paper Legal Services: A Framework For The Future to state:
"Any allegation that these statutory duties had not been carried out, or had been carried out in a way in which no reasonable authority would have done, could of course be tested by judicial review in the High Court or by an action for breach of statutory duty".
All may be sweetness and light and perfect harmony between the advisory committee and the designated judges and the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor. I deeply hope that it will be so. But the realist, even enjoying a high degree of optimism, having read the written responses of the judges of the Supreme Court to the Government's Green Paper published for all the world to see, would recognise the grave risk of friction, and of the judges being thus dragged into the political arena.
That certainly would be the case if they do not accept the validity of the advisory committee's recommendations; the more so if such recommendations had the support of the Executive in the person of the Lord Chancellor, a Minister and a Member of the Cabinet. Given that potential scenario, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor must be consistent, as indeed he has said today he always tries to be, and again go back to first principles. There must be a fundamental change in the method of appointment at least of the senior judiciary.
It is particularly significant that under the Scottish Bill, the Lord President—the Scottish equivalent of our Lord Chief Justice—will alone in future appoint the Scottish Court of Appeal. Quite clearly, in future appointments, particularly of those who occupy the onerous position of designated judges, there is a far greater risk than exists at present of the Prime Minister of the day saying to his or her Lord
878
Chancellor, "Is he one of us?" or words to the like effect.
I accordingly agree that urgent consideration be given to the creation of an independent judicial commission to recommend candidates for appointment to the senior judiciary and that provision is made restricting government support to a candidate from among those so recommended. Thus we may be able to ensure that politics play no part in the search for those who have the appropriate competence, integrity and independence of mind to qualify for the appointments.
Among the many undesirable features of the American system for the administration of justice which this proposed legislation will undoubtedly impose on the United Kingdom, political appointees as judges is the most objectionable. We need to take urgent steps now to ensure that this does not happen.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it has been apparent for some sittings of the House that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is able to restrain his enthusiasm for the Bill within the limits of decorum. I am not sure that he succeeded—to my mind he did not succeed at all—in establishing that because of that it was necessary to introduce this drastic change in the system of appointing the judiciary. Moreover, the noble and learned Lord did not touch on what seems to be essential in the present system and which would be largely destroyed if the proposals of the amendment were accepted. I refer to the accountability to the public and to Parliament of those who advise the Sovereign on the appointment of the higher judiciary; the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in respect of some appontments and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in respect of others.
If either of those distinguished persons does what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, seems to fear and makes for political or any other reason unworthy appointments or unworthy recommendations for appointment to the Sovereign, he or she will then have to answer under the present system to your Lordships' House and to another place. That is a serious responsibility. The suggestion that an appointment to one of the great judicial offices had been made for unworthy, inappropriate or inadequate reasons would be a most damaging matter for the Ministers concerned, and, even if they felt tempted to make such an appointment, would cause them to avoid it.
If this House and another place were to adopt the proposals in the amendment, both my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister could say, "I agree that it was not a very good appointment but it was recommended by this distinguished and rather large body by which I am bound. Therefore I am sorry. I would have made another appointment but I could not do so. You cannot hold me accountable".
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, the noble Lord has not read the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is always anxious to jump up behind

879
me. I must say that his physical agility fills me with admiration. I have in fact read the amendment with some care. I have had plenty of time to do so. That is what the position under the amendment would be whether or not the noble and learned Lord thinks it would be the position. That would be the position as I read it. I hope therefore that the House will not accept the amendment.
Moreover, it has often been said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It cannot be disputed that our present system works extremely well. I am perhaps freer to say this than most of those who have taken part in the debate, but the holders of high judicial office are of the highest quality and calibre. I see no reason to believe that the changes being introduced in the Bill will alter the effect. If the gloomy prognostications of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, were borne out and unworthy appointments were to be made, there would be a case for looking for a system, although I hope for a system less cumbrous and elaborate than that set out in the amendment. But as at present the system produces such admirable results, I point out to the House the sense of the old comment "Why not leave it alone?"
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I wish to make only one comment save to say that the present system works extremely well. In talking to people, I have heard it said that no doubt the Lord Chancellor consults the judges. Talking to them further, I have the impression that they think the Lord Chancellor may perhaps have a word with a judge in the smoking room and then have a word with another judge. It is believed that he consults the senior judges in that way. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would not mind me saying that that is not the position.
There is in fact a round table conference between the Lord Chancellor, the four designated judges and the senior presiding judge. In the eight years when I have been involved in those conferences I have never known the Lord Chancellor to advise Her Majesty, in the case of a High Court judge, or to advise the Prime Minister in order that the Prime Minister might advise Her Majesty, on a name that did not have the unanimous support of all five judges taking part in that consultation. That is not the limitation of the consultative process which has been set out in part in the document which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, published as the way judicial appointments were made. It has been expanded a good deal since then in the form of gathering in further and better information.
The heart of the matter is the round table conference. I should not like it to be thought that the consultation which takes place is in any way casual although the ultimate responsibility and the only accountability must remain that of the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does this apply to the appointments of silk?
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, the answer which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could also give is yes.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have a system for appointing silks and appointing judges which I have inherited. It was described by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when he was Lord Chancellor in a booklet issued during his distinguished tenure of the Woolsack. I have sought to follow the principles laid down there. There is nothing clandestine about the matter in the sense that what occurs is set out and is well known. I have ventured to broaden to some extent those consulted, for example, by formally including the chairman of the Bar in the consultation. There is always a little difficulty in relation to individuals. We have devised a system under which, as the chairman of the Bar would very often, if not universally, be a candidate himself for a vacancy in the High Court, he gives views on a variety of candidates by reference to a list.
The fundamental principle of the present system is the personal accountability of one person for the recommendation to Her Majesty. It is fair to point out that the appointments are made by Her Majesty the Queen as the head of state. That appears to be the appropriate way to appoint judges. So with regard to the senior judiciary, it is recommendation that is in question.
As my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has said, these consultations are by no means casual or perfunctory. Those who have taken part in them—and the officials of the Bar Council, the leaders of the circuit and the judges who are consulted know this—recognise that these consultations are quite elaborate. I insist on seeing the results of written consultations. We also have the opportunity of full meetings of the kind described by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls.
I have made it clear since I have been in office that any improvement on the present system to improve its acceptability, the extent of its cover, and so on, would receive the closest consideration from me. When I read what the General Council of the Bar said in its response I took up with it the possibility of further improvements to the system. Some practical suggestions have been made which I am considering. In fairness to the General Council of the Bar, I should say that perhaps my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway misunderstood what the Bar had suggested in its response to the Green Papers. It did not suggest that some distinguished members of the Bar should be advising the Lord Chancellor on the appointment of judges; it suggested that a distinguished committee, including as many former Lord Chancellors and privy councillors, who were not Lord Chancellors, as we could gather, would review the present system to see whether a better one could be devised. It is only fair to say that in case there should be any misunderstanding about the matter.
I responded to that suggestion by saying that I would be happy to consider any improvement in the

881
system. I am aware that my noble and learned friends the heads of division who participate with me in these discussions would also welcome any improvement which anyone wishes to suggest. But I should like to respond to a remark made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. I gained the impression that he was perhaps referring to a particular holder of the office of Prime Minister. I should say to him that certainly so far as I know—and I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham would confirm this—the only consideration which is entertained at that level at present is whether the person is the best person available for the appointment in question, and nothing else. I am sure that that is a principle that my noble and learned friend adopted when he was Lord Chancellor. I believe that it is a principle which all Lord Chancellors in recent times have upheld. I refer especially to Lord Elwyn-Jones who we have sadly missed during these proceedings, Lord Gardiner and many others. The best person for the job on the particular occasion is chosen. Of course, it is a matter of judgment and not everyone may agree. However, the ultimate responsibility for the judgment is with the Minister who is responsible for making the recommendation. I believe that that is a responsibility which all those who have carried it have found to be very important and very serious, and they have discharged it honestly to the best of their ability.
I think that a good amount of the basic thinking in the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson is already incorporated in the machinery which we have. It is set out as publicly as one can set it out in the booklet to which I referred. By the very nature of things, when you are considering personal qualities in individuals such consultations must be private. I cannot imagine any situation in which the respective merits of individual candidates will be discussed publicly. I find that very hard to accept, unless my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson somewhat uncharacteristically is in this respect thinking of the American system of having credentials examined in public. I hardly think so.
However, if he does not wish to go down that road, I believe that the consultations—that is, the actual discussions about individuals—will always have to take place in private. What is public is the understanding of the method. I have always been willing to explain it in as much detail as I can to any person who has asked me to do so, in supplement to the booklet produced by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
As the matter has now been raised, I think it only right on this occasion that I should pay tribute to those who so willingly give so much of their time to help the Lord Chancellor and, where it is appropriate, the Prime Minister, in getting suitable candidates. People put a great deal of effort into that and put much thought into their comments about individuals. Nothing extra is received for that service—a service which over the years has proved to be quite onerous. Indeed, as regards silk appointments, it is certainly quite onerous. As my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls
882
knows, when there are many candidates to be considered each one has to be commented upon. I have to study all the comments which have been made and reach a conclusion. Therefore, those who contribute to the process by giving their comments are to be acknowledged and thanked.
I believe that the success of the present system is in no small measure due to the conscientious way in which such comments are afforded by those having the responsibility. I hope, therefore, that my noble and learned friend will feel that the purpose of his amendment has been served and that he will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps he will allow me to disabuse him of a misunderstanding. I carefully referred to a future Prime Minister of the day and, so as not to be thought in any way to anticipate events, I said, "his or her".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend. However, I was thinking more of the phrase he used to describe the question that that Prime Minister might ask. That raised a possibility in my mind.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will forgive me if I point out that I added to that phrase, "or words to the like effect" so as to make quite sure that that comment could not validly be made.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I think that we can acquit my noble and learned friend of trying to impugn any person. I am sure that he did not intend to do so. I certainly did not read his remarks in that way.
When I moved the amendment I said that I was not wedded to the wording; I said that I wanted a discussion on the general principle about a judicial apointments commission. If I may say so, I knew well that the persons listed in the amendment are usually—that is, at least most of them—those whom the Lord Chancellor of the day consults. Such persons are named in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. The amendment then states that the powers should only be exercised after consultation with the commission.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter seemed to think that I had put matters in such a way that a Minister would be able to go to the House of Commons or to this House and say, "Well, I am sorry, this awful person was absolutely forced upon me". I do not think that subsection (6) shows that that would be so. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene and I am happy to allow him to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend looks at subsection (6) to which he has invited your Lordships' attention, he will see that if someone is appointed who has not been recommended by the commission that information has to be published. Does he really think that anyone would accept high judicial office on the basis that

883
the fact that he was not the choice of the commission would be published? It amounts to a practical veto and he knows that as well as I do.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Of course, my Lords; I agree. When I moved the amendment I said that I was not wedded to the wording. The idea was that a name should be recommended to the Lord Chancellor or the Prime Minister just as is done in respect of the bishops in the Church of England. That is what I had in mind. I was merely seeking to bring the matter before the House so that it could be discussed. My noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has told us what happens and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is content that this should be made public. However, it should be put in public form that there is this consultation. That would be much better. There should not be this kind of mystique attached to the appointment of Law Officers. In fact, going back to the days of wives of Tudor monarchs and so on, we should have some modern, up-to-date and sensible system. I believe that I am thinking of Henry III—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: He was not a Tudor!
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, as it concerned a wife it could not be a he, so the issue was altogether very confusing.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Yes, my Lords, it was the wife of Henry III.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, we must have a practical modern system. Therefore a judicial apointments commission to assist the Lord Chancellor would be appropriate. The people who sit around that table should be known to the public. That would give a much better perception than having all this hugger-mugger business which is always associated with the law. Let us move into the 21st century. Finally, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the Government Front Bench spokesman puts the Motion for the proceedings on the Bill to be adjourned, perhaps I may briefly intervene. There is a point that I wish to raise. I have sent a note to the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the subject. There are 96 amendments on the Marshalled List. Thus far we have dealt with 10 of them. The time is now seven o'clock in the evening. Could we not, therefore, before we return to the Report stage after the dinner break, consider whether we shall be able to deal with all the remaining amendments this evening? If it is thought that we shall not be able to do so, perhaps we can agree to a suitable cut-off point?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the remarks of the noble Lord to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House. In the meantime I beg to move that further consideration
884
on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage resume at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: 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 Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne.) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 1:
In the schedule, page 4, line 1, after ("meaning") insert ("—(a) in England and Wales,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 2. I gave warning at Second Reading that I should be proposing amendments to meet some Scottish matters. The amendments are all purely technical and do not affect the basic provisions of the Bill.
The first and second amendments are needed for the following reasons. Section 43 of the Gaming Act 1968 empowers the Gaming Board to appoint inspectors and gives them rights of entry and inspection in relation to casinos and bingo clubs. Those powers of inspection extend to any document which may be found on licensed premises, but the term "document" is not at present defined. Paragraph 2(7) of the schedule to the Bill seeks to rectify that omission and thereby ensure that there can be no doubt about the extent of the gaming inspectors' powers.
The Bill adopts the definition of "document" contained in the Civil Evidence Act 1968. We have now spotted that that means that the definition applies only to England and Wales. In Scottish law the definition of a "document" is to be found in the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988. Although the definition of a "document" in those two Acts is at present virtually the same, whatever might happen in the future, clearly there ought to be a reference in the Bill to the Scottish provision. The amendment and Amendment No. 2 will secure that. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: We welcome these technical amendments which, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has said, simply take account of the fact that the Scots have their own, albeit very similar, definition of a "document".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 2:
In the schedule, page 4, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("; and
(b) In Scotland, as in the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 and any reference to a copy of a document shall be construed in accordance with section 6(2) of that Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 3:
In the Schedule, page 6, line 19 at end insert—
("8A. In paragraph 63(2), for the words "liable under section 21 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 to" shall be substituted the word "who".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to remove a reference to a repealed Scottish enactment in paragraph 63(2) of the second schedule to the Gaming Act 1986. That paragraph provides, in Scotland, for gaming licence fees received by the licensing authority to be paid over to the local authority liable under Section 21 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 to defray the expenses of the licensing authority. However, the 1959 Act was repealed by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and unfortunately that Act failed to pick up the consequential amendment to the Gaming Act. The amendment seeks simply to put right that oversight. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Again, we welcome this minor amendment which seeks simply to remove a reference in the Gaming Act 1968 to a repealed Scottish statute.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.6 to 8 p.m.]

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 52 [Qualification for judicial and certain other appointments]:
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I now call Amendment No. 189 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, speaks to his amendment, I should say that just before the House resumed I raised my concern about the amount of business that we still have to accomplish tonight. As I told your Lordships, we have 96 amendments to consider altogether but so far we have only considered 10 of them. There is an amendment standing in my name which particularly concerns me. It is an amendment to
886
Clause 77 and I believe it to be important. It certainly affects thousands of persons. The amendment concerns the issue of writs. It was considered at 1.30 a.m. in Committee.
Although your Lordships are sitting long hours the noble and learned Lord and his officials clearly read Hansard. It has been most refreshing to find the noble and learned Lord coming back with a great number of amendments on Report. He has done so because he and his officials have carefully read Hansard and have studied the points that noble Lords have made. The problem about speaking late in your Lordships' House is not only the poor attendance but also the burden that long arguments impose on noble Lords at 1.30 or two o'clock in the morning. However, it is important for the noble and learned Lord and his officials to consider that longer argument and to consider the position on the clause before they make a decision in readiness for the next stage of the Bill. It is for that additional reason that I would find it enormously helpful for the House to reach a decision on how long it will sit tonight. I am expressly asking the noble Lord the Leader of the House to state that we should have a cut-off point and that we should have another day on Report.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has been an assiduous attender at all stages of the Bill. I must apologise that I was not present in the House just before we broke for dinner when I think the noble Lord wished to raise this same point. I have one simple point to make. Earlier on in the proceedings on this extremely important Bill I put it to the House that it is for the convenience of Members of the House if they know exactly what part of the Bill we shall reach. The reason for that is that noble Lords want to know what will happen on the next sitting day. Today is a Thursday and the next sitting day will be a Monday. It is important for noble Lords who are involved in next Monday's business to know that the business they believed was going to take place on that day will take place.
It is not for any hidebound reason therefore that the Government try to reach agreements through the usual channels as regards how far we shall proceed. I add to that a second point which is that it is usual, although not an inveterate rule, that the House takes half the period of time on Report compared with the period of time taken in Committee. As I said earlier today, that is why we hoped we would finish in three days on Report the business that lasted six days in Committee. I still hope that we shall reach the end of the Bill this evening.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it is convenient to know how far we are to proceed. That is true, provided that reasonable targets are set through the usual channels. We can generally rely on the usual channels to protect the interests of Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers. However, that procedure has not been entirely successful on this Bill. There have been repeated protests that we were being hustled through it.
My other point is that time is not really saved by overloading the business before the House. Last week for example, my noble and learned friend Lord

887
Ackner rightly withdrew an important amendment which could not possibly be properly discussed in the early hours of the morning. That merely means that it will be revived on Third Reading which will obviously take much more than one day.
Further, when the noble Lord said that the business on Report should take half the time of that in Committee, that does not take sufficient note of two matters. First, we had an exceptionally heavy Committee stage on this Bill. As I pointed out earlier, on only one day did we rise before 10.30 p.m. On two days we continued past midnight. Secondly, the Report stage of this Bill is exceptionally heavy. I beg the noble Lord the Chief Whip to be patient for a moment and I shall try to bring my remarks to a close. He frightens me when he glares at me and then at the clock.
This Bill is exceptional in that the Government themselves have tabled 150 amendments on Report. Most of the amendments were tabled just before we were due to meet. There have been about six new clauses and one new schedule. That is not at all a usual Report stage. Therefore, I beg the noble Lord the Leader of the House to look at the groupings list and to realise that we are only half-way down the left-hand column. It is unreal to expect us to finish the Report stage of this Bill today. That certainly cannot be properly done. I doubt whether it can be done at all except by sitting into the early hours.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has, with his customary courtesy, consistently brought to my attention his concern about the number of days which have been allocated to the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has always done that with his customary courtesy, usually through a letter followed by a few words. I thank the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has conducted negotiations on the timing. However, the noble and learned Lord will forgive me when I say that the previous occasion that this occurred was last Thursday evening when we were considering the amendment which formed the first amendment that the House considered today. At 10.45 p.m. the noble and learned Lord said during his remarks:
"In view of the fact that so many amendments have not been moved and have been postponed virtually until Third Reading, I do not think that we shall have much difficulty in completing the business on the third day of Report. However, since your Lordships and not the Government's business managers are in control of your business, I submit that noble Lords should say that at a quarter to eleven enough is enough".—[Official Report, 22/2/89; col. 497.]
With those words of the noble and learned Lord I rose to my feet and said that I also thought enough was enough. I think we should now proceed.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("has a 10 year") and insert ("is a solicitor or barrister of 10 years standing with a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, without the same fear in looking at the noble Lord the Chief Whip as quite obviously the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has, I shall move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg.
I hope I may remind your Lordships, if your Lordships need any reminder, that Section 10(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provided, in regard to the appointment of a puisne judge, that he had to be a barrister of at least 10 years' standing. Your Lordships have heard on a previous amendment of the great care that is taken in considering such an important appointment before making a recommendation to Her Majesty. Having heard the noble and learned Lord's explanation of that procedure, which was preceded by the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, your Lordships can be assured that no wrong appointment is likely to get through the procedure of which we have heard.
This Bill, because of the right of audience given to a solicitor who has a High Court qualification as defined in this Bill, has amended that old provision. It has provided that a solicitor who has a 10-year High Court qualification within the meaning of Clause 52 of this Bill can also be appointed a puisne judge of the High Court. We attempted at Committee stage to say that surely that was wrong. Surely it ought to be amended by providing, in the same way as one had previously in the case of a barrister, that it should be a solicitor of 10 years' standing. The suggestion that it should be so amended was not acceptable to the noble and learned Lord, as I understood him.
I believe that the reason that the noble and learned Lord could not accept that amendment was because he had in his mind, possibly rightly, that before one could become a High Court judge it was necessary to have the High Court qualification. In other words, the permission, as a result of certain tests, to be an advocate in the High Court—even though one was not a barrister if one was a solicitor so qualified. We have now come forward with the amendment that provides that there has to be a High Court qualification, but please not for 10 years. It should be a solicitor of 10 years' standing who comes for consideration after having had a High Court qualification.
I hope that your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord will agree that, especially—and I repeat—because of the sifting process, only a solicitor of appropriate quality and professional standing will ever be appointed. I am sure that we do not want to deprive the noble and learned Lord of being able to consider for such an appointment somebody who has a High Court qualification and who had also been a solicitor for a period of 10 years. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment, but on a slightly wider base. The objective for all judicial appointments—not simply High Court judicial appointments, which this amendment addresses—must be that the best qualified persons are appointed. Best qualified in terms of judicial ability, independence, integrity, sound judgment, temperament, and so forth. The rights of audience qualification is, I concede, relevant for a judge conducting trials. I wonder whether it is necessary to have a High Court advocacy qualification, and I wonder whether

889
perhaps a crown court advocacy qualification would not be sufficient.
If your Lordships consider the higher parts of the Supreme Court—the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords—I would submit that it is not an essential qualification. As the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls has said, they are performing a different judicial function. Of course matters of evidence and procedures are considered by appellate courts, but there is no reason why a judge of the right ability cannot decide issues concerning evidence and procedure while sitting in an appellate court as he decides other issues of law and procedure.
Therefore, I consider it a pity that the noble and learned Lord has not kept himself free to appoint directly to the Supreme Court at all levels lawyers—and I emphasise "lawyers" in support of the amendment that we are about to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—of all qualities, distinguished academicians, and distinguished solicitors who do not necessarily possess a High Court qualification.
When I was at the Bar I appeared before both solicitors and barristers sitting as recorders who did not have advocacy experience, let alone any right of audience qualification, before the courts over which they were presiding. I refer to criminal trials before the Crown Courts. I am happy to tell your Lordships that, guided by helpful members of the Bar, they got on very nicely. Indeed one of those recorders later became the Attorney-General and a respected Member of your Lordships' House.
I ask the noble and learned Lord, in considering this amendment, to take a fresh view, and not to make rights of audience a qualification or a prerequisite for a judicial appointment. He should keep himself free to appoint the best candidate for the job, not on an interim but on a permanent basis. I believe that the United States Supreme Court is universally respected. Some of the candidates' appointments have been the subject of controversy, but the court itself is highly respected not only in the United States of America but outside. That court successfully appoints judges who have no advocacy experience at all.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I also wish to support Lord Mishcon's amendment, for two reasons. First, it seems to be recognised under Section 10 of the Supreme Court Act that what we are talking about is a necessary, but in no sense a sufficient, condition for appointment to the High Court. Clearly no one in normal circumstances is going to appoint a barrister to the High Court who has 10 years' call only. On that ground alone, I should have thought that my noble and learned friend, who has again and again expressed his interest in the possibility of all sorts of persons being available whether it is for advocacy or for the Bench, would see the merit of this amendment.
The second point is that a barrister has the necessary qualification of the right of audience in the High Court from call. A solicitor, under the
890
clause as it is drafted, has to acquire the right of audience and then wait for 10 years before he is eligible to be appointed to the High Court. It is likely to be the case that solicitor advocates will develop slowly. It will probably be the case that they are in middle life before, having been advocates of experience in the county court, they wish to obtain the necessary qualifications for the Haigh Court.
This means that you are going to get the situation where the solicitor concerned is going to be perhaps 40 or 50 before he even thinks about obtaining the High Court qualification. It is particularly in relation to that case that this amendment should be favourably considered. These are going to be solicitors of great experience of advocacy, and it would be a pity if they were then compelled to wait 10 years, and if the Lord Chancellor was compelled to wait 10 years before being able to consider them for the High Court Bench.
While I am on my feet, there is one other point that I would ask my noble and learned friend. In discussions in Committee, the particular position of transitional arrangements for very experienced solicitors at the present time was raised. It seemed to the Committee that there might be a case for such solicitors to be raised to the Bench without the need to have the formal qualifications envisaged by the Bill; the formal right of audience. My noble and learned friend said that he would take this point away and think about it, and I wonder whether he is able to tell the House his present views.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it has been a great privilege on occasions to support amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and it has been an equally great pleasure on occasions to find that he has supported some of mine. I regret that I do not support the amendment, because I have understood it to be a theme of the Bill that experience in advocacy is the criterion for appointment to the Bench. I do not mean by that that the outstanding advocate necessarily makes the best or even the appropriate judge; but the experienced advocate is the person who, I should have suggested with respect, consistently requires the knowledge of court procedure and activity if he is to perform higher judicial functions appropriately.
My second point relates to the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. He is wrong, in my respectful submission, to think that one can jump straight into the Appellate Court and proceed to dispense judicial qualities. It has been for many, many years the principle that no judge goes to the Court of Appeal unless he has had a period as a trial judge. He does not understand, sympathise with or appreciate the problems of a High Court judge as a trial judge in the Appeal Division unless he has first experienced them himself. That is the policy which to my knowledge has been applied consistently. The suggestion that we put into the Appellate Court solicitors of great, perhaps commercial practice or whatever it may be, is a recipe for disaster, as it would be if we put professors directly into the Appellate Court. It is essential that one understands and has experienced the problems of trial judges before one sits in judgment upon them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I undertook in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine has said, to consider the position of an experienced solicitor who obtains the High Court qualification. I have sought to deal with that in Amendment No. 224A which introduces the transitional provisions. In the second part of that amendment relating to the judicial appointment of solicitors I have provided that a solicitor who was admitted before the commencement of the Section 28 system and who is given afterwards a right of audience, will be treated as having been given that right of audience on the day of his admission so that he will qualify.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned in Committee with much the same problem with which the amendment is concerned. The result would be that it would not necessarily be 10 years before a solicitor would be qualified to go to the High Court by that route. If he obtained a High Court qualification and had been admitted some time previously, that period would qualify.
So far as concerns the transitional arrangements, the point that the noble Lord puts in his amendment is met. On the more general aspect of the matter, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has, with respect, accurately summarised what I believe to be the position: that it is advocacy experience, with an appropriate right before the court, that should justify one criterion for eligibility for appointment. The other is, as I have said before, experience in a lower court. We shall come to an amendment on that point to be moved later by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The point that is made in the amendment is dealt with in a transitional way in the later amendment to which I have referred. My noble friend Lord Coleraine mentioned the same point. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I believe that advocacy rights should be the criterion for direct appointment, as it were, to the court. I also believe that experience of a lower court is the proper criterion for appointment to a higher court. In recent years, with outstanding exceptions only, appointments have been made on that basis to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. I have no mind, as at present advised, to believe that it would be right to depart from that principle upon which the criteria laid down in the Bill are based. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I wonder whether he would help me to see that I have correctly understood the position. Those of us who are pleading the cause are all grateful to him. We are doing it in the interests of the status of the High Court Bench apart from those of the profession to which I have the honour to belong.
As I understand it, Amendment No. 224A will cover the transitional period but will still make it obligatory upon a solicitor, who does not come within those transitional provisions, to have 10 years' High Court qualifications before he becomes a High Court judge. That is the point that I am trying to make in the amendment. We have not yet come to the transitional period because we have not yet
892
reached Amendment No. 224A. I was going to express my gratitude then to the noble and learned Lord for at least covering that position.
I cannot for the life of me see the logic of the point. Again, I should be grateful if, before I sit down, the noble and learned Lord will tell me whether I am wrong. We have been told before that if there is a question of the Law Society or the Bar Council being able to make rules they will make them, but at least let us give them complete flexibility in the Bill. Whether it is a question with which we dealt earlier in regard to multi-practices—whether national or otherwise—let us give them flexibility and they will come to the correct professional decision, and so all will be well; but let us have flexibility.
The fact that someone has held a High Court qualification for 10 years will not put him into the position of being a puisne judge. All one does is provide the flexibility. Where one has a brilliant solicitor (a fine lawyer) who decides to apply for the High Court qualfication and obtains it, let us say, five years before the 10 years expires (he has not held it for the 10 years) he has to be put back for consideration as a High Court judge because he has not had the necessary tenure of the High Court qualification. He will never be appointed unless the noble and learned Lord and others whom he consults feel that his advocacy is of the right quality but that his knowledge of High Court procedure is not sufficient although he may have shown two years of brilliance as possibly an F. E. Smith on my side of the profession might have shown in a matter of months let alone years, and a Marshall Hall on my side of the profession might have shown in a couple of years let alone 10 years.
The point is, let us give the flexibility for which the noble and learned Lord consistently asks. Of course that person will not be appointed if the noble and learned Lord, his successors on the Woolsack, and his advisers do not take the view that he is sufficiently qualified. Why close the door to someone who could decorate the Bench and be a worthy successor of a fine tradition on the High Court Bench? It seems so foolish to close the door when it is so easy to open it and to ensure that no one creeps through who is not worthy.
I ask the noble and learned Lord, first, whether my understanding is right; and, secondly, on the basis of what I have said, whether he will at least reconsider the position.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with leave, the situation that I contemplate is that special requirements are made in the transitional situation. We shall come to that point later. On the general basis, where there is no special arrangement of a transitional kind, a necessary qualification—not necessarily sufficient, but a necessary qualification—is a certain amount of experience as an advocate in the court to which the person is qualified to be appointed. For the High Court, I thought that it was reasonable to set that at 10 years. The brilliant solicitor, of whom I hope there will be many, will therefore qualify for the High Court Bench once he has displayed his brilliance as a High

893
Court advocate for the minimum period of 10 years. That strikes me as reasonable.
A period of qualification has always been part of that aspect of qualification. That appears to be a reasonable period in this case, given that it is a High Court appointment. The solicitor who holds it would be eligible for consideration after 10 years in that position. That is the kind of flexibility that I seek within the limits of the necessary experience which I regard as a qualification. I cannot go further on that aspect, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that that is a reasonable principle to adopt.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I do not say that that is a reasonable proposition. It would be most unreasonable to try to test the opinion of the House with the numbers that we have available and at this time. It is only for that reason that I beg leave to withdraw the amendnment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act, a person shall not be qualified for appointment—
(a) as a Lord Justice of Appeal, a puisne judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge; or
(b) as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary by virtue of a Supreme Court qualification,
unless he is or has been either a barrister or a solicitor.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to excise from the Bill a fundamental aberration. In case it may be thought that I am transgressing the In Re Mishcon rule that moderation must always prevail, I hasten to add that I use the word strictly in the astrological sense; that is, an apparent displacement of a star.
Unlike his counterpart north of the Border, who has not encumbered the Scottish Bill with this grotesque clause and accompanying Schedule 8, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has wandered seriously off course. Under Clause 52 and Schedule 8, my noble and learned friend seeks to obtain approval to dilute the quality of the future judiciary by appointing laymen to their ranks from the Law Lords downwards. Since in the debate on the final day—the sixth day—of the Committee stage of the Bill, as we approached midnight, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said (at col. 634) that he was not absolutely certain that he knew what I meant by "lay", I reiterate that it refers to those who are not lawyers; in other words, those who are neither barristers nor solicitors.
It has been an inherent part of my training as a lawyer to seek to support my submissions with authority. As a judge of the final Court of Appeal of the United Kingdom seeking to submit to noble Lords that the quality of the judiciary is not only vital to the administration of justice, but that it has achieved a high standing, I happily press before noble Lords a selection of authority which I am sure will command their respect.
The former Chief Justice of the United States, Mr. Justice Warren Burger, who retired only a few years ago, in a lecture given to the Fordham University Law School in New York a little over six years ago, referring to trials in England, said:
"Another difference is that judges of trial courts of general jurisdiction are selected entirely from the ranks of the ablest barristers. Thus there is little or no on-the-job learning for trial judges as is all too often the case in the United States courts, both State and Federal. Only with the highest qualifications can a trial advocate enter into the selection of English judges. As a result, an English trial is in the hands of three highly experienced litigation specialists who have a common professional background".
Later in the lecture he said:
"Every qualified observer of the English system with whom I have discussed this subject makes the same observation I have made, drawing on 20 years of rather close contact with the British system, namely that their trials are conducted in a fraction of the time we spend in the United States for comparable litigation. This is a generalisation that has a solid basis and can be readily documented … appeals are the exception".
Although relying on that quotation, I wish to make it crystal clear that, in the course of my submissions, I am focusing wholly upon laymen. If solicitors are to have rights of audience in the higher courts, clearly they should be entitled to qualify for appointment to the judiciary in those courts, given that they have appropriate experience and have achieved the appropriate competence.
My next authority is an eminent solicitor and a distinguished Member of this House who has graced debates on the Bill with his contributions, although sadly he is not in his usual place. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who, some 24 years ago, in an article in The Sunday Times, albeit devoted to the alleged desirability of fusion, said:
"We have a judiciary of great wisdom, great fairness of mind and absolute probity … It is to be doubted—and this is not a narrow chauvinistic claim—whether any country in the world possess better judges viewed over the whole range of our judicial system … The method of selection from a small elite of practitioners weighs the scales enormously in favour of our bench".
In an impressive maiden speech made on 7th April last year when the Government's Green Papers were debated, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, said:
"The respect which our judicial system deservedly enjoys depends on the remarkable character of the independence of our judges. That character has been maintained over the centuries. It is drawn from the training and the culture of the British Bar. The structure of independent law depends on this House".—[Official Report, 7/4/89; col. 1322.]
My final quotation is from my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and can be found in the pamphlet on judicial appointments to which I believe reference has already been made tonight and which he issued some four years ago. He said:
"The quality of justice is largely determined by the quality of the judges".
Part II of the Bill, which we have debated at such length, dealt with rights of audience in Her Majesty's Courts. By now it will be fully appreciated, if it was not before, that one of the major proposals of the Government is that laymen, provided that they meet certain requirements, shall have rights of audience—the right to appear in all courts from the lowest to the highest. We all know that the Government have produced no evidence that there

895
is any shortage of lawyers properly qualified to serve the public in all the courts in the land. Their proposals to extend rights of audience of solicitors are clearly designed to provide a yet further supply of advocates.
As I have already said, Clause 52 carries those radical proposals one stage further. It seeks to enable laymen who have achieved the appropriate rights of audience—the right to act as advocates in the appropriate courts—to become judges, again from the lowest to the highest courts. I venture to suggest once more that we shall hear no evidence that there is a shortage of properly qualified lawyers to act as judges. Once again, in extending to solicitors appointments to the judiciary in the higher courts, a new supply of judges will be made available.
Once more I anticipate that we shall hear no evidence that there is the slightest demand for lay judges beyond, of course, in the magistrates' court. It will no doubt be asked by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor: why this anxiety about laymen? Why should it be anticipated that they will to any real extent be appointed? To those questions I would simply say that if that is so then why make provision for them at all? Why not follow the example of the new Scottish Bill and limit this reform to widening the field so as to enable laymen to be advocates and stop there?
Noble Lords will not, I hope, overlook that, although until now we have eschewed the continental system of the career judiciary, that is to be a thing of the past. I quote from last year's White Paper at paragraph 15.2:
"For these reasons the Green Papers proposed that all those who had held the appropriate advocacy qualifications for suitable lengths of time should be eligible for judicial appointments; and that the judges in a lower court should be eligible for promotion to a higher one on the basis of their judicial experience in the lower court".
There is no doubt that this Bill, when enacted, will achieve an enormous shift of power from the judiciary and the legal profession to the Executive. Many references have been made to the lay majority on the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee being but a cover for Civil Service control. These past references to the Executive and Civil Service control are given further stimulus by the provision which your Lordships will find in Schedule 8 at page 94 between lines 5 and 15. The Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, who is the permanent head of this immensely powerful department which I understand employs close on 10,000 persons, need no longer be a barrister of not less than 10 years' standing as provided by the Supreme Court Act 1981, Section 88 and Schedule 2. He may be a layman who has been an advocate for the appropriate period solely in the magistrates' court. But far worse, under paragraph 1(2) he need never have been near a court in his life since a civil servant who has served at least five years in that department qualifies.
By this Bill the legal profession is being de-professionalised, and I ask why. If it is not in pursuance of a subtle pursuit of power, there must be some other reason which distinguishes England from Scotland. I assume that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is certainly not of the opinion that
896
Scottish laymen, appropriately qualified in the art of advocacy, are less fitted for judicial office than their English counterparts. Surely it cannot be political expediency that has caused this difference between the Scottish and the English legislation. I specially ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to explain and give reasons for that striking difference.
My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Scottish Bill, referred to a lecture given by the distinguished American scholar Dean Griswoold who had considered the history of the introduction of laymen into the courts of the United States and the harm done by it. He quoted another distinguished academician Dean Pound who said:
"The harm which this de-professionalisation of the practice of the law did to the law, to legal procedure, to the ethics of practice and to forensic conduct has outlived the era in which it took place and still presents problems to the promoters of more effective administration of justice".
The author concluded his lecture by saying:
"You are fortunate in the United Kingdom that you have been spared such excesses of democratic zeal".
He had not anticipated our new forensic radicals. But then, radicals are sometimes defined as those with both feet firmly planted in the air. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support the overwhelmingly powerful case put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. To my mind what is at issue on this amendment is public confidence in the higher ranges of our judiciary. If it turned out that people were reaching that part of the judiciary without being capable of doing what is required of judges, it would indeed be a very bad day for justice in this country.
Perhaps I may speak from my minor judicial experience which goes back a very long time. I first sat as a deputy chairman of quarter sessions trying an indictable case with a jury as long ago as 1954. I had just become a Queen's Counsel. Since then I have sat as a recorder in two different boroughs, as a relief judge at the Old Bailey and as commissioner of assizes. In a long and varied life, including a long and varied practice at the Bar, sitting and having to sum up with a jury, especially in a case of any length, was the most exacting task that I ever had to perform.
I remind noble Lords of something which is not generally understood by those outside the legal profession. Most cases at any level that are tried within our judicial system involve far more issues of fact than of law. So it is not enough for somebody to be trained or to have acquired experience as a lawyer, even in a fairly wide and varied approach to the law. It is essential to have people who, as advocates, became accustomed to the vital task of the courts in sifting evidence and helping the issues of fact to be decided. So one must insist that whoever become judges, especially in the higher ranges, should have not only a good knowledge of the law but experience in the handling of evidence.
As I understand it, under the Bill as it stands it would be possible, for example, for a patent agent

897
or a chartered accountant, who had established a great reputation within a very limited specialised range of case, which may have involved very little sifting of evidence, to become a High Court judge and go even higher. In my experience that would be wrong. That would be evidence of what the noble and learned Lord has called the fundamental aberration in this Bill.
I feel that in order that public confidence in the judiciary may be retained we have to be extremely careful where we tread. As a broad approach, in order to appease certain pressure groups in this country or people who hold ideological views, sometimes of the extreme right, to which I am sometimes said to belong, it would be a mistake to give in to the logical outcome of their opinions. It is far better that we should base our decisions upon experience in the administration of the law. That requires not only a knowledge of the law but ability in handling the evidence which leads to the issues of fact which involve so much time in court. That occurs not only at first instance. Those of us who have experience of it know perfectly well that in the Court of Appeal a great deal of time is necessarily spent not considering issues of law but whether in the court below the evidence had been properly presented, it may be to a jury, or that the learned judge, sitting without a jury, had drawn the right conclusion on questions of fact that arose.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has raised in my opinion one of the most important matters on the Bill. I hope that it will receive very sympathetic consideration from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I support the amendment. Unhappily this Bill has disregarded most of the nine principles upon which a profession should be based. But we shall have to reap that dreadful harvest in the years that follow.
The present issue before the House is of equal importance. It seeks to appoint laymen who have not been trained as lawyers or in the disciplines of justice to the highest judicial posts in the land. Care is of course taken in choosing appointments to the Bench. But one has only to look at the media of this country and the media in the British colony of Hong Kong to see that bad appointments are unfortunately made from time to time. That disturbs the public very much, and quite properly so, because once the public lose confidence in the judiciary and confidence in the dispensation of justice, democracy itself is at risk.
I suggest that that leads to two conclusions. First, there should be a much more professional system of sifting and assessing appointments to the Bench and the system that is adopted should be exposed to the public to give them confidence. Secondly, it would be extremely imprudent to appoint to a Bench enthusiastic but half-trained amateurs. It has long been a principle in this country that certain tasks are of such a quality that the only persons to be appointed to undertake them are those who spent their careers in perfecting a particular skill, subjecting themselves to rigorous training, and being subject to disciplines appropriate to their calling.
898
In my own profession, unless someone has had long experience of practical training, has been subject to professional disciplines and to constant unending post-qualification experience and training, he is not permitted to sign a balance sheet. I know from practical experience that unless he has those qualifications he is not fitted to do so. Only trained chemists may dispense drugs; laymen may not do so. Only qualified doctors may write prescriptions; laymen may not do so. Only a pilot who has had the most rigorous intitial training, and continuous subsequent training, may fly passengers in an aircraft.
If that principle is to be abandoned, there must be some good reason for it. But no good reason so far has been advanced. What we are now doing in a very important area of our social behaviour is to appoint persons who have spent their lives in another occupation but have acquired a right, through having rights of audience qualification. I do not think that that is adequate or convincing. A lifetime in another occupation with an imperfect training in the law, imperfect knowledge of the law and sporadic appearances in court on highly specialised matters is unlikely to command the respect of the public nor yet to serve its purpose. What we are doing by this Bill is by statute degrading the Bench.
On my next point I speak with humility but nevertheless conviction. I have the privilege of sitting on the Council of Legal Education. I know from my experience there—despite the tremendous enthusiasm and all the factors that we now favour—the enormous problems of training people in the process of the law. But much more importantly than that, we have not yet begun to cover the huge field of post-qualification training and experience which is necessary if people are to perfect their performance in the law.
Anybody who has ever travelled abroad knows the respect with which the law has hitherto been regarded abroad. In commercial matters, it is often usual for disputes to be settled in English courts. It gives Britiain prestige and helps our invisible earnings. We shall never convince people from abroad that laymen should be permitted to attain the highest judicial offices at the end of their lives, having spent the whole of the first part of their careers in some quite different walk of life and without the basic training.
We are coming to the end of the Bill in this Chamber. It would be fitting if on this issue common sense were allowed to prevail and the amendment approved.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may make three very brief points. First, we have had many debates in your Lordships' House on training and education, and skill shortage. What has been evident from every side of the House, from almost every profession, has been that people have not been trained and educated in the profession which they have wished to exercise during their lifetime. In this clause we are flying in the face of evidence that young people in this country have not been trained sufficiently for the job that they wish to undertake

899
during their lifetime. If one follows a generalist approach and one has lay people undertaking jobs which require highly technically qualified training, it seems that we are going totally against all the evidence that we have had in almost every debate over the past few months.
Secondly, I very often compare aspects of our problems in the United Kingdom with the position of other countries on the Continent, in particular in the European Community. I do not know of any other member state which does not have a career structure for judges. It starts at a very young age. People follow the career through in order to achieve the highest post in the judiciary of that country. We seem to be lowering the standard straight away by opening the gates to people who may be perfectly competent in their own sphere. Yet we expect them to do a job which is becoming more difficult. We know in this House the number of laws that are passed every year. A lawyer is expected to know the law of the day; and presumably as a judge one has to have a much wider knowledge. We are encouraging more specialist knowledge and finding more difficulties. The clause opens the gates to people who are neither competent nor trained and who will not have the respect of the public.
The consumers—people who need to go to court—and particularly those from the poorer sectors of the community want to be able to respect the person before whom they appear. They will expect that person to have training in the same way as they expect people in other professions to be trained. Unless my noble and learned friend can put forward a strong case in explaining why he believes that it is equally good to have someone with no training in the law in a High Court position, I shall support the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I also support the amendment. I believe that all noble Lords found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, to be most moving.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, we are talking about professionalism, which is the essence of the Bill. One of the reasons the Bill has aroused so much controversy is that it puts forward the notion that people can be qualified in little areas in the administration of the law and the achievement of justice; that they can be qualified in little areas, in little courts here, in little courts there; that they can be qualified in that part, qualified here, qualified there; and that they can then be given a certificate to carry out the administration of justice. That notion is totally offensive to the idea of professionalism.
One must be professional in order to understand the administration of justice. One needs the same kind of qualities in all the areas in which one operates. The idea that you can qualify for great offices in the administration of the law by having so
900
many years' experience without professional training is repugnant to the whole idea of the administration of justice. I ask the noble and learned Lord to agree with the amendment because it goes to the root of the future administration of the law. The fact that you can qualify from experience in one aspect of the law in one set of courts does not mean that you are qualified to be a judge.
Everyone who is a professional knows that it is the years when one is young, when one trains, when one qualifies, when one is a student and then enters the profession, that one learns the standards and the fundamental basis on which one will practise in the future. If one does not have that professionalism one will never learn it.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment because I am a solicitor in the Supreme Court and I wish the noble and learned Lord to know that my side of the profession is highly supportive of the amendment. I believe that I also speak for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Furthermore, I believe that the amendment is consistent with the White Paper.
In his submissions the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, cited paragraph 15.2 of the White Paper, but I wish to cite paragraph 15.1. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated:
"The Government regards it as a matter of great importance that the highest standards of intellect and character should be maintained in the appointments to the judiciary. The prospect of appointment to the Bench should also be an encouragement for the men and women who have made the law their career to reach the highest standards of service to the public. But that encouragement should be open to all if it is to operate as an effective stimulus to excellence in all parts of our legal system".
I believe that I need go no further.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for reading out that passage from the White Paper. It represents the policy on which this part of the Bill is based.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner quoted me as referring to the necessity to define what he meant by the word "lay". In case anyone misunderstands, I wish to make absolutely clear that the people who are to be qualified to sit on the Bench of a particular court will be qualified either by having judicial experience in the court below, as described by my noble friend Lady Elles as being the case in some continental countries, or qualified as advocates in the court to which they are to be appointed. There is no question of my wishing to appoint someone who is not qualified.
When my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner spoke about a lay person he meant someone who happens to be neither a barrister nor a solicitor. In some sense it is possible to qualify in the law without being either a barrister or a solicitor. For our part, what is required here is that the person should be a qualified advocate. What are regarded as being suitable qualifications for advocacy in a particular court will be determined by the mechanism that we have set up. It includes the consent of the four designated judges—that is, the four heads of division—and the Lord Chancellor.

901
My noble and learned friend and those who have supported him have based their arguments on the idea that we are adopting an unprofessional judiciary without the principles of a profession. I do not believe for one moment that the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor are likely to approve qualifications for court advocacy which do not involve necessary training and qualifications. The idea that one must start when one is young is good. However, a number of distinguished judges began in different professions but have had distinguished careers after becoming appropriately qualified in the law. Therefore, there is no question of people being lay in the sense of being without appropriate qualifications for the office.
The amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner requires that the person has been either a barrister or a solicitor. I say that it is perfectly appropriate in the context of this Bill to consider as qualified those who are qualified to be court advocates as a result of the appropriate training and experience. That is the point.
At present one may qualify as a barrister, go away for a long time and do other things altogether and yet remain qualified to be appointed a judge. It does not mean that anybody of that sort would be appointed. Here we are dealing with necessary and not sufficient qualifications. I wish to make it quite clear that on this aspect of the matter the people qualified are the people who have advocacy qualifications judged to be appropriate for the tribunal in question. Accordingly, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he explain to the House, if only for the benefit of some of us who are trying to make up our minds, why the person whom he has just described who has been admitted as an advocate and has all that experience has not become either a solicitor or a barrister?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a matter of his choice. If he has the necessary qualifications he may not be either a barrister or a solicitor. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spent a great deal of time earlier in his parliamentary career arguing that solicitors should be eligible for the High Court Bench. It was thought at that time that only barristers should be eligible, but now, I am glad to say, his view on that point has prevailed.
I am saying that it is not axiomatic that the only people who are qualified as Supreme Court advocates, for example, should be either barristers or solicitors, because we have provided a machinery under which qualifications may be obtained. I cannot believe, and I am sure that your Lordships do not believe, that it will be acceptable to the senior judiciary or the Lord Chancellor that people should have such appointments without being suitably qualified. I do not believe that it is any longer proper to describe people who are suitably qualified as lay people. They are then qualified.
I should like to emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, about post-qualification
902
training. I believe that to be extremely important, and it has been developed by both sides of the profession. It may be in the sense of formal post-qualification education that the Law Society has gone further than the Bar, although the Bar also has arrangements for further training. Indeed, every day's experience is a form of training of a rather testing character, especially in certain tribunals. Therefore, the people in question are properly qualified as a result of the system which we have set in place.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend resumes contact with the Woolsack, perhaps he will answer the question which I specifically raised. If this is such a good idea south of the Border, why does it make no appearance in the Scottish Bill? It may be that, suitably armoured, my noble and learned friend will be able to persuade me that I should move an amendment to the Scottish Bill in due course. However, I have yet to learn why there should be this difference south of the Border particularly in view of the fact that when dealing with contingency fees in Committee my noble and learned friend said that it was really quite unpalatable to have those significant differences in jurisprudence north and south of the divide.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the question of which qualifications are appropriate is a matter which may well relate to the size of the jurisdiction. However, I still suggest to your Lordships that in principle it is right that those who are appropriately qualified to practise before a court should be eligible for appointment to the Bench of that court.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, are those persons to whom he referred lawyers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would describe a person who was appropriately qualified as a Supreme Court advocate as a lawyer.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, paragraph 10.2 of the Green Paper stated on behalf of the Government:
"A strong and independent judiciary is one of the central supports upon which our liberties are based and upon which the rule of law depends".
And yet my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is unrelenting in his determination to take power to reduce that strength. The amendment which I have tabled is to protect four distinct categories of judges. The first category is members of the Circuit Bench. In his submissions to the Top Salaries Review Body the Lord Chancellor said that he regarded the Circuit Bench as a mainstay of the judiciary to which it is vital to attract enough lawyers by emphasis on the right calibre.
The Green Paper also stated:
"Sitting in the Crown Court and County Courts and on occasions as judges of the High Court, circuit judges are responsible for hearing nearly all serious criminal cases and a considerable proportion of civil cases. They have a wide ranging civil and criminal jurisdiction and a great deal of publicity can attach to some of their judgments".

903
The Lord Chancellor wishes to take power to recruit laymen to that judiciary. The High Court Bench, in its streamlined form, resulting from the implementation of Part I of this Bill, will be the even thinner red line which, inter alio, protects by judicial review the man in the street from abuse of power by the Government and other powerful organisations. To their ranks too the Lord Chancellor wishes to take power and add laymen.
In relation to the Court of Appeal, which is the final court of appeal in the majority of cases in the United Kingdom, the Lord Chancellor wishes to seek like power. Even the Law Lords, whom he once graced with his presence, are not to be immune from this potential dilution.
I apply to this clause the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, when debating the Green Paper. He said,
"It … betrays the principle of professionalism and fails to understand the essential relationship of the independent professional ethic to justice itself".
I accordingly invite your Lordships to approve this amendment.
"Perseverence, dear my Lord, keeps honour bright".
9.15 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 190) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 35.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Elles, B.

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Benson, L.

Hacking, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Renton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blease, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mills, V.

Butterworth, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Caithness, E.

Reay, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Downshire, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 190A:
Page 40, line 30, at end insert—
("(3A) References in subsection (3) to a right of audience are references to a right of audience granted by an authorised body.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is essentially a technical amendment. As your Lordships know, it is my intention that eligibility for judicial appointment will in future depend on possession of a specific right of audience for a specific period. There are, however, a number of people who have and will retain limited rights of audience in other ways, particularly under other enactments. In moving this amendment I therefore seek simply to ensure that the only rights of audience which should qualify for judicial appointments purposes should be those which are granted by a professional body in accordance with the arrangements set out in this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 190B:
Page 40, line 41, at end insert—
("(6) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), a solicitor who does not have a right of audience, by reason only of not having a practising certificate in force, shall be deemed to have such a right, unless his not having a practising certificate in force is the result of disciplinary proceedings.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), any period during which a solicitor did not have a right of audience, by reason only of not having a practising certificate in force, shall be deemed to be a period during which he had such a right, unless his not having a practising certificate in force was the result of disciplinary proceedings.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords know, qualification for judicial appointment is currently based upon years' standing as a barrister or solicitor. It is immaterial for the purposes of that qualification whether or not the barrister or solicitor is in practice during that period. The arrangements in this Bill provide for the qualification to be based in future upon the possession of a specific right of audience for a specific period. It is not, however, the intention that any persons who would currently qualify for office should lose that right.
I am satisfied that the new arrangements will not have any practical effect for individual members of the Bar. Moreover, barristers remain barristers even after appointment to the Bench. Solicitors, however, technically acquire and retain their rights of audience only on the issue of an annual practising certificate. At present, solicitors continue to accumulate years' standing as a solicitor without the need to hold a practising certificate, and are in that way eligible in time for appointment to all those judicial posts currently open to solicitors.
Without this amendment, solicitors without a practising certificate would not be eligible for such appointments in future; and solicitors who, for whatever reason, did not require a practising certificate for some period would take longer to qualify for appointment. Moreover, solicitors in judicial appointments would lose the rights of

905
audience they had been granted during the period of their office, and so be unable to qualify, by virtue of their rights of audience, for a higher office.
I have no intention or wish to make some persons who are now eligible for appointment ineligible in future. Though many of the solicitors who will be affected will not be suitable for appointment because of their experience, I would prefer to make the eligibility provision for judicial appointment as generous and flexible as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Judicial and other appointments]:
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 90, line 13, at end insert—
("Coroner other than a medical practitioner.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment which is supported by the Law Society. This amendment would add the office of the legally qualified coroner to the list in paragraph 31(2) of Schedule 8 of office holders eligible for appointment as a circuit judge if they have held the appointment for at least three years. All the offices specified in paragraph 31 would require seven years' admission and, together with a minimum of a three-year period of holding an office referred to in the paragraph, anyone promoted to the circuit through that route would have to be admitted after 10 years.
Legally qualified coroners are eligible for appointment as coroners if they are of five years' standing. Therefore, it is not surprising that they are not included in the list of office holders in paragraph 31. I wonder whether they have been excluded from that list because they would not have had the 10 years' experience on appointment. The question is this: is a legally qualified coroner who has a five-year general qualification, plus three years as a coroner, eligible to be appointed as a circuit judge? It would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain how he envisages that this provision would apply to the holders of the office of coroner. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I support the amendment. The suggestion of adding the coroner would fall neatly alongside the probate registrar, the chairman of a VAT tribunal and the special commissioner of the inland revenue. In the circumstances, and in comparison, the coroner would be highly qualified.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with reference to that last remark, the others are also fairly highly qualified on present requirements.
The only reason we did not include coroner as one of the offices that might be regarded as qualifying is that we took it on the basis of lower courts or tribunals where disputes between parties were being decided. The coroner's court is a little different from
906
that. However, as noble Lords have raised the point, it would be reasonable for me to consider adding this to the list. I shall certainly wish to consider that without commitment to deciding necessarily in its favour.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may commend to his consideration the fact that a coroner can be both legally qualified and medically qualified. What is meant here is a legally qualified coroner, not a coroner who is medically qualified.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I took it that what the noble Lord had in mind was a coroner other than one qualified only as a medical practitioner. That is what I would have in mind and it is that point which I should like to consider. Coroners often, although not always, regard themselves as deciding disputes between parties. In fact, often they are faced with questions of that kind. I am happy to consider the point further without commitment to deciding necessarily in its favour.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I confirm that the amendment does not include coroners who are merely medical practitioners. I am delighted with the noble and learned Lord's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Presiding Judges]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 40, line 43, after ("be") insert ("at least").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 194. This amendment takes account of the possibility that more than two presiding judges may be appointed in respect of at least some of the circuits. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has in mind that the large circuit which occupies so much of the South-East is perhaps too big for appropriate supervision by only two presiding judges and that there at least another may be required.
Amendment No. 194 relates to the possibility of altering the circuits. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner pointed out in Committee that it might be wise to insert a reference to the Lord Chief Justice. He proposed the words "with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice". Having considered the matter I have decided to propose the words "after consulting the Lord Chief Justice". This seems appropriate in the circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 41, line II, after second ("time") insert ("after consulting the Lord Chief Justice").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 194A:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Delegation of certain administative functions of Master of the Rolls.
(".—(1) Where the Master of the Rolls expects to be absent at a time when it may be appropriate for any relevant functions of his to be exercised, he may appoint a judge of the Supreme Court to exercise those functions on his behalf.
(2) Where the Master of the Rolls considers that it would be inappropriate for him to exercise any such functions in connection with a particular matter (because of a possible conflict of interests or for any other reason), he may appoint a judge of the Supreme Court to exercise those functions on his behalf in connection with that matter.
(3) Where the Master of the Rolls is incapable of exercising his relevant functions, the Lord Chancellor may appoint a judge of the Supreme Court to exercise, on behalf of the Master of the Rolls, such of those functions as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.
(4) Any appointment under this section shall be in writing and shall specify—
(a) the functions which may be exercised by the appointed judge; and
(b) the period for which the appointment is to have effect.
(5) In this section "relevant functions" means any functions of the Master of the Rolls under
(a) section 144A of the Law of Property Act 1922 (functions in relation to manorial documents);
(b) section 7(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 (power to determine where records of the Chancery of England are to be deposited);
(c) the Solicitors Act 1974 (which gives the Master of the Rolls various functions in relation to solicitors);
(d) section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (which requires the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls in the making by the Law Society of rules governing incorporated practices).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to enable my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls to delegate certain of his administrative functions to a judge of the Supreme Court. As well as his judicial functions, and indeed the ones conferred by this Bill, neither of which would be delegable under this new clause, the Master of the Rolls has several functions of an administrative nature to perform. The most time-consuming of these are his various functions under the Solicitors Act 1974, but there are also functions in relation to manorial documents and public records and functions in relation to incorporated practices of solicitors arising under Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. After discussion with my noble and learned friend I have proposed this amendment in order to provide a statutory basis for delegation of these functions in certain circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for bringing forward this amendment, which, as he said, has been discussed with me. I find it to be wholly admirable.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is the second of the proposed new clauses put down by the Government, I think either yesterday or the day before, for consideration this evening. I am glad that the noble Lord the Chief Whip is present in the Chamber to enjoy the discussion. I have only one question to ask in this connection. Is it not desirable to make comparable provision for the President of
908
the Family Division who, in addition to his judicial functions and general control over the family business of that division, has extensive administrative functions in relation to the Principal Probate Registry and the district probate registries? I should remember—although I am afraid I do not—the power given to him which is comparable to that imposed upon the Master of the Rolls. If my noble and learned friend cannot give me an immediate answer, I should be most grateful if he would agree to consider the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certainly happy to consider the point. The proposed new clause is the result of discussions with my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls. Thus far the President of the Family Division has not suggested to me that any particular provisions are required. However, in view of the experience of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale in that connection, I shall certainly raise the matter with the present holder of that office to ascertain whether he wishes any comparable provision to be made. In that way I shall give further consideration to the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 41, line 36, at end insert—
("(3A) In section 55 of that Act (power of judge to impose penalty for refusal to give evidence) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
("(4A) A district judge, assistant district judge or deputy district judge shall have the same powers under this section as a judge.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 54 already confers upon the office which is to become that of district judge certain disciplinary powers at present reserved to circuit judge in the county courts. The purpose of this amendment is to insert another very similar power. It is a power to impose a penalty on someone summoned to appear as a witness who neglects or refuses to give evidence.
Those persons presently described as 'registrars' conduct a large variety of hearings in the county courts and will play a growing role as the recommendations of Civil Justice Review are implemented. For this reason it is important that they have at their disposal generally the same disciplinary powers as are available to circuit judges. It is intended that an appeal will continue to lie from any order of a district judge to a circuit judge. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 42. leave out lines 1 to 5.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 196 omits the power for rules of court to provide for appeals from district judges to circuit judges following the exercise of their new disciplinary powers. This is purely a drafting change, however, since the provision has been incorporated in a revised form in paragraph 10 of Schedule 11A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 196ZA:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of abatement of salary rule jor judges etc.
"The following provisions (which provide for the abatement of salaries of holders of certain judicial and related offices who are in receipt of pensions payable in respect of public offices) shall cease to have effect—

(a) section 3 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (miscellaneous offices);

(b) section 1 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (miscellaneous offices in Northern Ireland);

(c) section 18(3) of the Courts Act 1971 (Circuit judges);

(d) section 1(2) of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 (Lord Chancellor), the words from "but" to the end;

(e) Section 9(4) of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 (Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, judges of the Court of Session, judges of the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland and stipendiary magistrates);

(f) section 12(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (judges of the Supreme Court other than the Lord Chancellor).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 218C, 231A, 231B, 231C, and 233A. These amendments are designed to deal with what has been described as "abatement". The present law requires that salaries of members of the judiciary who are in receipt of a pension in respect of employment in another branch of the public service should be abated.
The decision to remove this requirement of abatement follows the announcement made by my noble friend the Paymaster General on 21st December 1989 (at col. 404 of Hansard) that the Government have decided upon a change in their policy on abatement. The pay and pensions of retired public servants who are re-employed in a different public service will no longer be generally subject to abatement. Since their salary structure is set out in primary legislation, the provisions which apply abatement to members of the judiciary in such circumstances are also found in primary legislation and, accordingly, the amendment is necessary. Amendment No. 218C simply applies the new clause to Northern Ireland, and the other four amendments effect the necessary corresponding repeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Shaughnessy Lord Shaughnessy moved Amendment No. 196A:
After Clause 68, insert the following new clause:
("Qualifications for overseas solicitors wishing to be admitted as Solicitor of Supreme Court.
In section 4 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (admission of certain overseas solicitors) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) The Society, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, may make regulations about the examinations to be passed and the experience to be undergone by a solicitor of a superior court in any territory to which this subsection for the time being applies who wishes to be admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I am rushing in where fools go and angels fear to tread, as one of the few non-lawyers taking part in the debate at this stage of the Bill.
A Noble Lord: Bravo!
Lord Shaughnessy: My purpose in moving the amendment is to address and remove what appears to be an anomaly in the qualification standards and requirements for solicitors from Commonwealth countries who apply for qualification in England and Wales.
As I understand it, currently qualification standards and requirements are governed by the Solicitors Act 1974. There are some discrepancies in respect to certain jurisdictions in Commonwealth countries. For instance, a solicitor in British Columbia in Canada who has fulfilled the required period of practice and experience and has the necessary qualifications in his domestic jurisdiction might have to devote a year to requalify in order to practise as a solicitor in the courts of England and Wales. On the other hand, his counterpart in the province of Alberta or Ontario could qualify in less than a month. He has only to pass the examination laid down by the Law Society.
The amendment in my name seeks to amend the Solicitors Act 1974 to provide for regulations to be made by the Law Society to create uniformity in respect to the qualifications for Commonwealth solicitors. The provision is fairly open-ended. The amendment is not drafted in the most perfect terms, but I understand that in principle it is approved by the Law Society. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will view the proposal as acceptable in principle. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we would all like to congratulate the noble Lord on the way he moved his amendment. It is an absolute pleasure to hear somebody who has either been trained as a solicitor or a barrister or is about to receive the qualification of High Court advocate.
I only wish to add a few words to what the noble Lord has been good enough to say in support of the amendment. The effect of it will be that instead of relying on an old Order in Council which had to be made under the Solicitors Act—I believe the Order in Council is the 1964 order and obviously things have to be brought up to date—as the noble Lord indicated, a much easier and more flexible procedure is to ensure that this is done by regulation, as it will if the amendment is passed. I hope the amendment will be passed.
I rise for one reason which is that I believe the noble and learned Lord knows that there are some other amendments which will have to be made to Section 4 in order to complete the picture. I believe he has that matter in hand, but if he would confirm that that is the position the Law Society would be grateful.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, it must be my fault, but I do not understand how this provision takes us away from the Order in Council. I believe that Section 4(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 is the section under which the Council of the Law Society admits solicitors from Commonwealth countries. Subsection (2), which concerns the Order in Council, is an essential qualifying subsection. Her

911
Majesty by Order in Council has to consider various regulations and other matters and decide whether those subsections shall be applied to the country concerned. That is picked up in the amendment when it states:
"any territory to which this subsection for the time being applies".
I am not clear what the difference is. However, that must be my fault.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment. It may well be that this amendment, as the mover accepts, is imperfect in its drafting. However, its principle is quite plain. It proposes to replace the rather archaic system of the Order in Council by the new regulatory system that is set out in the amendment. On the basis of the principle that is sought to be achieved in this amendment, I wholly support it. It is unfortunate that we still have in our statutes arrangements for the admission of overseas lawyers which are partly based on reciprocity. If a fair deal is being given to British solicitors in the country concerned, we shall in turn give a fair deal to overseas lawyers coming to this country. However, if our solicitors are receiving an unfair deal abroad, we shall not give overseas solicitors a fair deal here. I suggest that idea is quite out of date, and for that and other reasons I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, for bringing forward this amendment. I am delighted to hear him participate in our debates.
I am aware of the difficulties which some solicitors from other Commonwealth jurisdictions have experienced as a result of the outdated provisions of the Orders in Council currently in force under the terms of Section 4 of the Solicitors Act. The Government intend to introduce an amendment to Section 4 at a later date in the passage of this Bill, which will grant to the Law Society the power to make regulations which are currently made by Order in Council.
I am authorised to say that the Law Society fully shares the Government's view that the time has come to review and update the provisions in Section 4 of the Solicitors Act 1974. It is the intention of the Law Society to review as a matter of urgency the education and experience requirements for applicants under the new clause with a view to introducing the new regime with effect from 4th January 1991. This is the date on which the European Community Directive on the mutual recognition of higher education diplomas comes into effect, and by looking concurrently at the requirements for EC lawyers and Commonwealth lawyers the Law Society aims to achieve a system which will be clear, coherent and fair to all applicants. Who could wish for better goals than those?
At first, the society will only be able to make new regulations relating to those territories listed in the existing orders. The Law Society and officers of my department are, however, discussing the possibility
912
of reviewing the list of territories from which solicitors should be able to benefit from the provisions of Section 4.
I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, to withdraw his amendment on the understanding that I have taken this matter into consideration and that the Government intend to bring forward their own amendments in conjunction with the Law Society to deal with the problem. Of course it will have to be in the progress of this Bill in the other place. These are fairly elaborate amendments and I do not think we shall be able to have them ready in time for Third Reading. I hope in the light of this explanation that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for accepting the principle involved here. I quite agree that it is complicated and requires certain redrafting and reconsideration. I am happy, on the undertaking that the noble and learned Lord has given, to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Powers of entry etc. of local weights and measures authorities]:
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 197A:
After Claue 69, insert the following new clause:
("Sanctions for inadequate professional services.
Section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974 (which, in effect, enables the Law Society to impose quasi-compensatory sanctions on solicitors for inadequate professional services) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this probing amendment I ask the House to repeal the provisions of Section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974 which enable the Law Society to impose sanctions on solicitors for what has been called shoddy professional work. I have tabled the amendment as a probing amendment in order to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether he intends, at the request of the Law Society, to bring forward legislation during the course of this Bill to replace some of the unsatisfactory provisions of Section 44A and, if so, at what stage, and whether he will now outline the clauses he proposes to table.
At Second Reading on 19th December 1989 my noble and learned friend said that the Law Society had announced that it proposed to seek in this Bill an extension of its present powers to deal with complaints against solicitors. He went on at col. 128:
"I can only welcome that announcement in the warmest terms. Urgent discussions are proceeding as to how the society's proposals can be fitted into the existing legislation. I expect that, as a result, the society will ask me to introduce a small number of amendments to the Solicitors Act. I would very much hope to be able to do so during the Committee stage of this Bill in this House".
While the Bill was in Committee I asked my noble and learned friend to say when he expected to table the necessary clauses. He replied that he hoped to do so on Report. I raise this question, I should make it clear, only in order to discuss the background to

913
what the Law Society may be proposing. I think I can say that I do so with at least the knowledge and approval of the Council of the Law Society because it would wish its proposals to have the proper consideration that this House now seems less and less likely to be able to give to them.
I would not make the claim that I have the entire blessing of the Law Society. It will know that I approach this question with a mind open to the possibility at least that it is to be found in this instance among the ranks of those whom the Gods wish to destroy. I speak therefore as a candid friend of the Law Society.
Section 44A was inserted in the Solicitors Act by Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. Therefore, we are not looking at some well established provision but at something which, after four or five years of operation, is ripe for reconsideration and possibly review. Section 44 provides that the Council of the Law Society may impose sanctions on solicitors whose professional services to their clients are in any respect not of the quality that could reasonably be expected.
The sanctions in question enable the council first to penalise the solicitor by taking away, or reducing, his rights to costs. Secondly, they require the solicitor to put right the matter complained of, and, thirdly, take any other specified action in the interests of the client. These are all reasonable sanctions. Nevertheless there are difficulties about the section which I would outline to the House.
The first is that sanctions are hybrids between the disciplinary sanction against the solicitor and the provision of compensation to the client. It must be axiomatic that the disciplinary sanction should reflect the gravity of the wrong whereas compensation is to reflect the loss sustained. The two do not necessarily pull well together. That can be well illustrated by posing the case of where, by simple inadvertence, a letter is wrongly addressed. The shoddy nature of the work may be minimal, but the trouble and loss caused as a result could be substantial. Similarly, and in contrast, a substantial history of incompetence by the solicitor may have caused little damage to the client.
In the first case, should the sanction be severe to reflect the loss to the client or minimal to reflect the minimal shoddy work? In the second case, should it be the other way round or should the rule be that the severest sanction available should be applied at all times? I have always ascribed to the theory that the section is disciplinary, with the result that the sanction should be proportionate to the gravity of the inadequacy of the professional service.
The first question I ask my noble and learned friend is whether in his opinion the sanction is disciplinary or, if not, how is it to be interpreted? Clearly, if I am correct, the intention of the Council of the Law Society when it asked for Section 44A to be introduced was not achieved because it wanted what was impossible to achieve; that is to say, that fair compensation should be found for the wronged client by fair disciplining of the solicitor. A true aim in life maybe to attempt to have one's cake and eat it, but that seems to be doomed always to failure.
My next point deals with the compensatory element in the provisions of the section. Whether the section is properly compensatory or disciplinary is neither here nor there now, because even if the sanctions are disciplinary in concept they are in form undoubtedly compensatory. So the question seems to arise: should the Council of the Law Society be dealing at all with compensation? I ask the question only because the point is made. I have to agree that there is some force in it; but compensation as such is properly a matter to be dealt with outside the profession by the courts or by an independent arbitrator. Clients will not otherwise ultimately be satisfied.
I understand that one of the proposals to be tabled will propose a simple method of providing for awards of up to £1,000 compensation made against solicitors and paid to wronged clients. The second question I then have to a ask is: will the power to award that compensation being asked for be exercisable once again by the Council of the Law Society? If the answer is yes, as I suspect it may be. then I fear that the council may fall firmly between two stools—neither satisfying the solicitor nor the client.
I next point out that in order to administer Section 44A, the Law Society has had to create an extensive bureaucracy called the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. Section 44A has, as I see it, opened up the possibility in every disgruntled client's breast of having his costs bill reduced when his solicitor does not reply to letters by return of post., and who can blame the client? Section 44A is expressed to apply to services which were in any respect not of the required quality. It so opens the door to frivolous and mischievous applications about minimal complaints.
I do not claim that the submission that I now make is not necessarily a post hoc propter hoc argument. I do not have the data upon which to say that it is not. Nevertheless, I must admit that by asking for Section 44A the Council of the Law Society opened up a Pandora's box of petty complaints which has resulted in complaints to the Law Society from disgruntled and dissatisfied clients increasing over the past five years or so from about 6,000 to more than 20,000 a year.
All those complaints must be looked at by the Solicitors Complaints Bureau at, I understand, a cost of £5 million a year. I have only done the calculations on my fingers, so I shall not give them to the House. However, I calculate that the sum involved in running the Solicitors Complaints Bureau must account for a substantial part of the operating costs of the Law Society. I suspect that it is largely the expense of running the complaints bureau which has caused the council to ask for power to require complainants to make some form of administrative charge before their complaint is heard in order to deter frivolous complaints. The council also asks for power to direct solicitors to pay costs in addition to compensation or disciplinary sanction. Those costs would go towards the costs of the successful complainant and towards the expenses of the complaints bureau in investigating the complaint.
My third question is to ask my noble and learned friend exactly what is proposed by way of empowering the council to make such costs awards against solicitors and against the complainant. I hope that broadly the costs regime applicable in the county court to the trial of small claims will be seen as an appropriate precedent for the new clauses.
My fourth and final question concerns the right of appeal of a solicitor under the new clauses. Under Section 44A, there are no rights of appeal, notwithstanding that the investigation of the complaint by the complaints bureau is an investigation on paper without opportunity for the bureau or the solicitor to test the truth of the oral complaint of the client. Failure to comply with the direction of the complaints bureau is in itself a disciplinary offence and can be referred to the disciplinary tribunal for enforcement. The disciplinary tribunal can then direct that the complaint bureau's direction be enforced as if contained in a High Court order and therefore, ultimately, by commital for contempt.
If the scope of the powers of the Law Society is to be considerably increased, it is no longer proper to argue on pragmatic grounds, if it ever was, that the clause is designed only to provide cheap and summary relief to clients for minor items of shoddy work and that the whole process would be rendered useless were the solicitor to be able to appeal to a higher tribunal. My final question to my noble and learned friend is therefore: what, if any, provisions for a right of appeal will the clauses contain? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's interest in this area and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to explain to the House the proposals for extending the Law Society's jurisdiction over inadequate professional services, or shoddy work, as it is more commonly called. I had hoped to introduce those powers at this stage of the Bill, but pressure of time has been such that that has not proved possible.
The aim of the amendments will be, first, to distinguish between the society's function of dealing with professional misconduct and its function of dealing with the quality of service provided. In other words, it is very much at the society's request to distinguish between disciplinary jurisdiction and compensatory jurisdiction. Secondly, they will clarify its powers to award compensation to complainants. The powers conferred by Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 for dealing with quality of service are drafted in terms of disciplinary sanctions. The society believes that the stigma of discipline is not appropriate for issues involving compensation for relatively minor complaints about a solicitor.
The amendments will give the Law Society a power to require a solicitor to pay compensation up to £1,000 where it is satisfied that the services provided by the solicitor were not of the quality that could reasonably have been expected of him. The directions will be enforceable by the council by the same mechanism as the current powers. The Lord
916
Chancellor is to have power to vary the maximum limit by statutory instrument after consultation with the Law Society and the intention is that it should move in broad equivalence to the small claims limit. Certain cases will be inappropriate for that procedure: where there are complex issues of law or fact; where an oral hearing may be required; and where the complainant has not exhausted the solicitor's own in-house machinery.
I think it is right that the council should have power to decline to consider such cases. In the first two categories the issues will be of a degree of complexity where it would be more appropriate for the courts to deal with the matter. In the third, it is surely not right to invoke the society's powers before any in-house machinery set up by the solicitor has been tried.
In that context I should like to say how much I welcome the society's attempts to encourage solicitors' firms to develop and publicise methods of dealing with clients' complaints. I have to say that my experience of these matters—and I have experienced them both directly and indirectly—is that many of these complaints are dealt with comparatively simply if they are dealt with quickly. If the matter is allowed to lie for some time it often happens that it becomes almost impossible to sort out the original trouble. Therefore an emphasis on an in-house complaints system operating quickly is something that I very much wish to encourage.
The council will also be able to charge fees once a complainant has decided that he wishes to use these proceedings, but it is intended that this right will generally be waived where the complainant is in receipt of legal aid or in other appropriate circumstances. The charge will be refundable if any of the powers are exercised in the applicant's favour. The society will also have a power to recover costs from the solicitor.
The provisions provide a welcome extension to the Law Society's powers to deal with complaints against solicitors about minor but nevertheless important matters. They indicate just how far the Law Society has moved in recent years in its attempts to protect the client. They fit very closely with the powers of the legal services ombudsman and represent an effective way of resolving many of the public's grievances against solicitors.
The whole essence of the new jurisdiction is that it should be simple, low value cases only. Therefore the society argues that a full appeal system other than judicial review or further consideration by the disciplinary authorities is not appropriate.
These powers are to be supplementary to those in Section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974, which gives the society power to reduce fees, order the solicitor to take action rectifying an error at his own expense or take other action in the interests of the client. In many instances these powers will be perfectly adequate for the purposes of the society. The new powers will, however, extend to those in Section 44A to enable the society to take action which will enable a client's clearly justified small claim to be satisfied.
I believe that this amendment, if it were to be pressed—which of course it will not be—will deprive

917
the society of very useful powers. I am sorry that I have not been able to bring forward these amendments but I have explained the reason. The aim of the amendments is an extremely good one and to be encouraged. I believe that it may well have the effect of reducing the overall level of complaints against solicitors for the reasons that I have mentioned.
In the light of this explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, during the passage of the Administration of Justice Act we had in this House a very good opportunity to discuss the various provisions that were before us. It appears that if these clauses come up in another place, or even at Third Reading in this House, we shall be deprived of such an opportunity.
My noble and learned friend has outlined very clearly the intentions of the Law Society and I think that he has answered all the questions which I put to him. The way that he has done so leads me to think that there is a lot in the proposals which will be controversial. Nevertheless, I have asked him to explain them and at this time of night I do not think that I should take this matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 [Specific powers of arbitrator exercisable by High Court]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 54, line 25, leave out ("11 of the Act of 1950") and insert ("43 of the Supreme Court Act 1981").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls pointed out that the proper place for Clause 71 is in the Supreme Court Act 1981. I suggest that after Section 43 of that Act would be appropriate. This amendment is intended to do just that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 54, line 27, leave out ("11A") and insert ("43A").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 76. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Want of prosecution]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 54, line 32, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Arbitration Act 1950").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also follows on from the amendments made to Clause 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 54, line 36, leave out ("the") and insert ("any")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, moved an amendment to ensure that an arbitrator would be able to make an award dismissing a counter claim for want of prosecution. I believe that by referring to "any" claim instead of "the" claim we shall achieve this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Tying-in arrangements]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 201A:
Page 55, line 16, after ("person") insert ("("the supplier')").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos 201B, 202A, 20213, 203A, 204A, 206A and 206B. I shall speak separately, if I may, to Amendment No. 207 which raises a slightly different point. As I said in Committee this is a difficult area and I have been considering carefully how we might best amend Clause 74 to ensure that it does what we want it to do; namely, to make it an offence to make the offer of a mortgage subject to a condition that another service, or other services, are taken; or vice versa. These amendments, which to a certain extent mirror Amendments Nos. 202 and 203, which have been proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies, do I hope fulfil that aim.
The amendments arise out of the discussion about this matter in Committee. Having heard the suggestions that the noble Lords made, I concluded that we might be able to simplify the clause and get at the real "evil" without the necessity of elaborate definitions of "associate" which was the road down which we were going until your Lordships helped to divert us to a perhaps more fruitful direction.
The clause as redrafted therefore does not try further to define "associate" but focuses on the evil which the clause is designed to prevent; namely, the fact of the conditional arrangement involving a mortgage. The policy that the clause aims to fulfil is that it should be an offence to make or offer to make the provision of a mortgage subject to a condition that another service or services be taken, or vice versa. I think that these amendments make plain that policy.
Perhaps I may refer to subsection (4). I have concluded that it should be made clearer that the obligation to give the borrower the written details specified is to be on the lender. Accordingly, the subsection has been redrafted in order to do so. In addition, I consider that the subsection might go too far in that it does not confine "any other service" to a service in some way connected with a mortgage advance. This amendment also deals with that.
Lastly, the amendment to which I am speaking make clear that subsections (2) to (5) are separate offences. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, these amendments fulfil the undertakings that the noble and learned Lord

919
was good enough to give me at Committee stage, and on the basis of which I was happy to withdraw the amendments. I am most grateful to him.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I merely rise to point out that, assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not move his amendment, we have now reached the end of the left-hand column of the grouped amendments. We still have the whole of the right-hand column to consider. Are we really going to be kept here to see out this evening or tomorrow morning?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The discussion that we had in Committee on this clause certainly helped me personally to focus on the issues. I should like very much to acknowledge that. It has been a difficult matter and the discussions have been extremely helpful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 201B:
Page 55, line 18, leave out from ("the") to end of line and insert ("supplier or by any other person specified or otherwise determined directly or indirectly by the supplier").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 55, line 19, after ("person") insert ("the supplier")"). On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 202B:
Page 55, line 21, leave out from first ("by") to end of line and insert ("the supplier or by any other person specified or otherwise determined directly or indirectly by the supplier").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 203. I have already spoken to this amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 55, line 22, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("4) Where—
(a) a person proposes to take out a residential property loan; and
(b) it is proposed that another service should be provided for him (whether by the supplier or by any other person) as part of an arrangement made by the supplier in connection with the provision of the loan,
the supplier shall, before the borrower agrees to its provision, give to the borrower details in writing of any consideration payable by him for that service.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 55, line 29, at end insert—
("(5A) No lender of a residential property loan nor any associate of such a lender shall advertise or otherwise publicise
920
any offer to provide combined services for a specified consideration unless the offeror is willing at the request of a borrower or prospective borrower—
(a) to specify the apportionment of the consideration between the several services; and
(b) to provide any of the services for the part of the consideration apportioned to that service.
(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A)—
"offer" includes an invitation to treat;
"services" include making or offering to make a residential property loan; and
"combined services" means any combination of services whether provided or offered by the lender or any associate of his or partly by the lender and partly by the associate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are still in the difficult area to which Clause 74 is addressed. The object of the amendment is to ensure that borrowers have the right to select and receive separate items of an advertised combined package of services. Having considered the whole field, the Law Society regards the amendment as being essential if the ban on the tying in of services is to be effective.
If suppliers are able to advertise two or more services together at a discounted price it is believed that that will be a way around the primary prohibition contained in Clause 74, particularly in subsections (4) and (5). In discussing the last amendment the noble and learned Lord and Lord Chancellor said that it is a difficult area. Indeed, experience shows that it is difficult to tackle the mischief involved in the tying-in of services.
It will be noted that the amendment is aimed at ensuring that the supplier of combined services must be prepared to break down the price of an advertised package into its components. He must offer individual services within that package at the broken-down price. For example, if an institution advertises free estate agency with its mortgage, or advertises a special low-rate mortgage with its insurance policy, the customer could insist on taking the free estate agency without the mortgage, or the special low-rate mortgage without the insurance.
The amendment is aimed at advertised packages. It will not prohibit a supplier of two or more services, if approached by a customer, agreeing with that customer a packaged price lower than the aggregate of the two separate prices.
The Government's aim is to maintain a healthy and competitive market in estate agency, mortgage provisions, independent financial advice and conveyancing. In order to achieve that end the large financial institutions must not be allowed to package their combined products in a way that will pressurise their customers into buying other services by means of a package, or in such a way that the independent, single service providers cannot compete effectively.
Finally, perhaps I may be permitted to mention the fact that the principle of the amendment already applies to solicitors. Therefore, we are not trying to introduce a novel principle into the Bill. Solicitors are required by the Law Society rules, if they advertise or publicise two or more services at a single price, to separate out the prices and to offer either service separately at that price.
Therefore, although some solicitors are now successfully operating property selling services

921
combined with conveyancing, the client always has the right to choose a different estate agent and to retain the solicitor for conveyancing or, vice versa, to retain the solicitor to sell his property but to go to a different conveyancer for the conveyancing services. Therefore, we urge the Government to apply that essentially sound principle right across the board. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment is not dissimilar to that moved by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Mishcon, in Committee. So far as I can judge, the present amendment would not be in the interests of the customer. The amendment would not allow lenders to offer a package of services to a customer at a discount.
It is worth re-iterating that the clause in subsection (5) already provides for separate pricing by requiring that:
"separate details shall be given in respect of each service".
However, it is not intended and does not seek to remove the financial benefit of a package to the customer through a discount on the overall price. I mentioned in Committee that it is not unknown for solicitors to offer a reduced rate if, for example, they are acting for a number of purchasers all of whom are buying leases in the same block of flats. It would seem utterly wrong that in the case of a lender who was providing other services, the lender was unable to pass on a financial benefit to the customer in the form of a discount on the overall price, so long as there was in no way any conditionality in respect of the provision of those services.
Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that his amendment is not really, as put, in the interests of the customer. I hope that he may feel able to withdraw the amendment on the basis that the real safeguard for the customer and for all those in competition with the person in question is that separate prices must be quoted for each service being offered and provided.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the response of the noble and learned Lord. I am sure the fault must be mine that I did not make it sufficiently clear that the amendment was aimed at a lender or a supplier who advertises or otherwise gives publicity to his offer of a combined service.
I tried to make it clear that that would not prevent an individual customer from seeking out the lender and the lender agreeing to provide him with combined services at a discounted price which would be lower than the aggregate of the two individual prices. I thought that I was meeting the point of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that we did not wish to prevent the supplier from passing on the advantages of a combined service provided that that was not advertised. The amendment is aimed particularly at the advertising of such services and the evil which can flow from the advertisement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I have understood that. Perhaps I may speak again very briefly. I do not think that it would be in the
922
interests of the client that that sort of thing is not known. If the noble Lord agrees, as I understand he does, that it would be quite reasonable to offer a discount, then I cannot see that it would be wrong to let people know that that is on offer. Of course, any suggestion of pressure is rather different. However, I cannot see that it is objectionable to let people know by way of advertisement what is on offer. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we shall consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord said and decide whether or not this is a matter to which we should return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 55, line 30, leave out from ("section") to end of line 38 and insert (" "borrower" includes a prospective borrower").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 204A with Amendment No. 201. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B:
Page 55, line 39, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5)").
Page 55, line 41, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I shall take Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B en bloc. I have already spoken to them with Amendment No. 201A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 56, line 8, leave out subsection(11).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we all seem to be in agreement on this amendment. As my name is first on the list perhaps I may explain why I have put it down. This was a point discussed in Committee and I very carefully considered what was said. I also carefully considered the reasons behind the limitations placed on the activities of insurance companies by Section 16 of the 1982 Act and the directives. Your Lordships will remember that that was the reason for this exemption.
Insurance companies will be able., without the disapplication in subsection (11), to offer conveyancing as an adjunct to a mortgage without running into any difficulties with Section 16 or automatically committing an offence under Clause 74(2). They would run into problems if they offered a conveyancing-led package of services in the way dealt with in subsection (3)—but this is a most unlikely way for them to do business. I say this because customers go to an insurance company to buy insurance services. If non-insurance services, such as conveyancing, are on offer as well, a customer might want to take advantage of these. But I doubt

923
that conveyancing would be the main attraction, attractive as it might be. Indeed, it is worth mentioning that the disapplication in subsection (11) does not extend to subsidiaries of insurance companies. It was always intended that they should be treated in the same way as any other person caught by the clause. On reflection, however, it seems to me that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies, are right that subsection (11) is unnecessary and should be deleted from the clause.
I am very glad therefore that we are all together on this matter and I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must confess to your Lordships that when I found my name preceded by that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on an amendment I really had the feeling that I was asleep in your Lordships' Chamber and that I was dreaming. It is so pleasant to find that it is reality and I am most grateful—as I know my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies is—to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for listening to us on the last occasion and for putting his own amendment down in this way accompanied by our names.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 207A and 207B:
Page 57, line 19, leave out ("and 6") and insert (", 6 and 10").
Page 57, line 26, leave out ("and 6") and insert (", 6 and 10").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I will move Amendments Nos. 207A and 207B en bloc.
These amendments follow from the general initiative to afford magistrates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the same immunity from suit arising from acts performed in their judicial capacity as judges of the superior court.
Article 10 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 already empowers the Lord Chancellor to defray expenses incurred by resident magistrates and justices of the peace in Northern Ireland in connection with proceedings or claims brought against them in the execution of their judicial offices. These amendments extend the article to county court judges sitting on appeals from the magistrates' courts and members of the juvenile court lay panels in Northern Ireland. They therefore fill a minor gap in our provision which gives magistrates similar immunities to the judges in the superior courts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 207C:
After Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
("Jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
.—(1) In section 5 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (matters subject to investigation), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(6) For the purposes of this section, administrative functions exercisable by any person appointed by the Lord
924
Chancellor as a member of the administrative staff of any court or tribunal shall be taken to be administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department or, in Northern Ireland, of the Northern Ireland Court Service."
(2) In Schedule 3 to that Act (matters not subject to investigation), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 6
"6A. Action taken by any person appointed by the Lord Chancellor as a member of the administrative staff of any court or tribunal, so far as that action is taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of any person acting in a judicial capacity or in his capacity as a member of the tribunal."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for some years there has been a debate between the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Select Committee which is responsible for these matters and successive Lord Chancellors about the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to investigate actions taken by court staff. The difference of view between us turns on the interpretation of Section 5(1) of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Act 1967. This says that the commissioner may investigate any administrative action taken by or on behalf of a government department. The advice that my two predecessors and I have received is that court staff are acting on behalf of the court and not on behalf of the department.
In the light of this, I and my predecessors have taken the view that the 1967 Act prevents the PCA from investigating most of the actions of court staff. In 1966, when this measure was before Parliament, the courts were of course organised rather differently, and although I have not done a great deal of research into the question I suspect that this was the deliberate intention of Parliament. Now that the staffing of a unified administrative court service comprising staff for the Supreme Court and the county court is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, the position is rather different. Be that as it may, this is a difficult area, and one where we must tread with caution in extending the PCA's jurisdiction. I am sure that I also speak for my predecessors in saying that I have no wish to protect from the proper scrutiny of the PCA the actions of an administrative nature taken by court staff where these are outside the judicial process. But I regard it as being of the first importance to preserve the independence of the courts, of the judiciary and of the judicial process.
That is what this amendment is intended to achieve. It is in two parts. The first brings the administrative functions exercised by court staff within the Parliamentary Commissioner's jurisdiction by deeming them, for the purposes of Section 5 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, to be administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department or, in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Court Service. The second limb prevents the Parliamentary Commissioner from investigating any action taken at the direction or on the express or implied authority of a judge.
That, I believe, gives the right balance. It will allow the PCA to investigate the administrative actions of court staff. It will prevent him from investigating actions which are taken on behalf of the judiciary. That is essential if the independence of the judicial

925
process is to be preserved. It does not mean, of course, that the courts are free to act in relation to individuals in a haphazard or random way. The normal course for anyone aggrieved by a decision of the court is and will continue to be to appeal or to seek some other judicial remedy such as, for example, judicial review. These are the appropriate courses of action for reviewing decisions which are properly those of the court.
This is not an easy area. The amendment I bring forward is intended to achieve the twin objectives of allowing the PCA to invesigate purely administrative acts of officials in the courts while preserving the independence of the judiciary and of the judicial process. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 207C, Amendment No. 207D:
Line 16, at end insert ("and provided that the action is carried out competently and in accordance with the direction.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is intended to be a probing amendment. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having gone as far as he has done in order to see that compensation can be claimed and complaints made to the ombudsman in regard to administrative matters which are not judicial matters.
The reason for this probing amendment is to ascertain what is judicial and what is administrative. The boundaries between the two are often difficult to detect. One hopes that the probe may cause the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give some indication and also to consider—I say this with deep respect—whether or not clearer, definitive wording could not be used so that we know where we stand on those two items of administration and the authority of the judiciary.
The House will recollect that previously a number of cases were given where solicitors complained of the treatment they had received at various courts in the form of negligence which had, in their view, seriously inconvenienced them and their clients. It is obvious to me that on a question of listing that must be a judicial matter. But what happens if the directive of the judge in regard to listing is messed up by an official of the court? Examples were given on a previous occasion and I do not want to read out all of them. However, there were examples of a mislaid file, a court being closed, no judge or registrar being available, the defendant not served and a third party notice issued in error. Those were actual examples.
It would help if the noble and learned Lord would indicate where the boundary line really lies. If he feels, as I do, that it is not sufficiently clear in the present wording of his amendment, would he consider making the distinction clear by further wording which could be produced by Third Reading or, if that is not possible because of a lack of time, then in another place? I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is another new clause tabled by the Government between the
926
second and third days of the Report stage. As my noble and learned friend said in moving the amendment, it is an area which has been controversial in the past. It is of considerable constitutional significance. I believe that the amendment has the right balance, but it is the kind of matter which deserves proper consideration at a reasonable hour before a full House. As matters have fallen out or have been arranged to fall out, that is the last benefit that it will have.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this new clause has been brought forward in response to the amendment proposed at Committee stage by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hacking. I have considered very carefully how to deal with the matter and, after a good deal of care and consultation, the result is what we have produced. It is a matter of jurisdiction. The action which is protected from investigation is that:
"taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of any person acting in a judicial capacity or in his capacity as a member of the tribunal".
I have found it hard to improve on the clarity of that wording. It is a question of circumstances in order to apply it to any particular case. If a judge's authority is behind the act then it is right that the Parliamentary Commissioner should not be able to investigate it. If one came to a place and found nobody there—which is one of the examples which the noble Lord gave—I would find it hard to believe that situation was created at the direction or on the authority, whether express or implied, of a judge or a judicial officer. It is possible that that might happen because judges, notwithstanding the excellence of their qualifications which have been and will remain necessary after the passage of the Bill, are human and they can make mistakes.
It is not the purpose of this clause to enable the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to look into that matter because he has his own responsibilities. The matter depends on the precise way in which the event occurred. If it occurred as a result of a judicial order then it would be immune from investigation. If it occurred because a member of the staff had not done what the judge had asked him to do, then it would be covered. That is the best test that we can devise in this area. Your Lordships may take it that we have not reached the wording of this clause without a good deal of deliberation. At the moment I do not feel that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, carefully prepared as it also is, would bring the matter forward.
If it is a jurisdictional matter we want, if possible, to have it decided without a full investigation of the case because that would defeat the object of limiting the investigation. But there may be some cases where a degree of investigation is required to determine on which side of the line it falls.
I have certainly had some experience of looking at individual cases to try test them out against these various lines. This seems as good a line as we can hit upon. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his own amendment, while a well aimed probe, does not itself provide a better boundary than we already have.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there is no doubt that the noble and learned Lord has brought about an almost revolutionary amendment in this Bill. My gratitude must be complete and in no way diminished by the amendment I have put down. I make that quite clear. I have taken from the noble and learned Lord's words an example which I should have given before. I believe that I am right in saying now, having heard him, that if the judge or the registrar of a court had said that he wanted the date fixed for trial to be 28th February and an official issued a notice which gave the date as 27th February thereby causing everyone loss, that would not be deemed to be a direction of the judge; it would be deemed to be an inefficient way of dealing with the matter and not in fact carrying out the direction of the judge. One gets the amendment in true perspective when one talks about an example of that kind. I shall not have my gratitude diminished in any way. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 207D, as an amendment to Amendment No. 207C, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 207C agreed to.
Clause 77 [Time when action brought for purposes of limitation enactments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 57, line 33, leave out from ("1980") to end of line 34.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I mentioned in Committee that I was considering whether to restrict the effect of what is now Clause 77 to the Limitation Act 1980, since the Civil Justice Review, on whose Recommendation No. 17 this clause is based, was solely concerned with actions for which the limitation period is set out in that Act. Originally we thought it might be right to make this a more general rule, but having regard to what has been said in Committee and to other representations made to me, I have concluded that it is best to leave this matter relating only to the Limitation Act 1980. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, as can be seen from Amendment No. 210, I am still unhappy about Clause 77 appearing in the Bill. I shall address the House in more detail about my concern when I move Amendment No. 210. In dealing with Amendments Nos. 209 and 210, I should like to express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord. Not only has he kindly written a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and given me a copy, in which he said that he would deal with the problems of the short time limits, but he also said in that letter that he had in mind to deal with problems arising out of actions in rem and problems arising when there is a foreign element in that action.
It is quite plain that the noble and learned Lord has fully dealt with the short time limits because those are time limits created not under the Limitation Act 1980 but under other Acts. I am worried whether the drafting of Amendment No. 209 will achieve his purpose in actions with a foreign element. I can see that writs in rem which are used
928
in admiralty matters can be in a class of cases which could be specified by the court rules as proposed in Amendment No. 209, but I have some difficulty about a case where out of several defendants there is one overseas defendant. It seems to me that that is not a class of case. After all, it can arise in contract, tort or whatever with some defendants being within the jurisdiction and others outside it.
I am therefore somewhat troubled and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to help me in the matter. In the situation which I have just described to the House, I am concerned to know whether that would fall within the description of a class of case; or would it simply be a different class of defendant? I should be most grateful for the noble and learned Lord's assistance on that point.
10.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must say that I should think that a case in which a particular defendant is abroad may well be a class of case; that is to say that it is distinguished from other cases in which there is no defendant abroad. I believe that the phrase we have inserted is broad enough to deal with the various situations which the noble Lord suggested. So far as concerns the first part, we have limited it to the Limitation Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 57, line 38 leave out from ("(2)") to ("subsection") and insert ("Rules of court may prescribe classes of case to which").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment while answering the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on a previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 210:
"Leave out Clause 77".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret the fact that I must address your Lordships on this matter rather late in the evening, but I shall try not to speak at too much length. However, this is an important amendment for reasons which I shall try to explain.
In putting this clause before the House, the noble and learned Lord said that he is seeking to implement the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. Therefore, the starting point is to examine the basis of those recommendations. This requires us to look at paragraphs 197 to 204, which are those that immediately precede the recommendation that the end date for the period of limitation should be moved from the current position—that is, the date of the issue of the writ—to the date of the service of the writ or the other proceedings.
If your Lordships were to examine the Civil Justice Review it will be seen that there was great concern, set out in some detail in Chapter 3, over delays in personal injury cases. It is with that background that the reader of the review comes to Chapter 4 and to the paragraphs to which I have just drawn your Lordships' attention.
In paragraphs 201, 202 and 203 the Civil Justice Review considers another element which has caused delay. This brought about the first recommendations to which I shall refer later. The problem here is the length of time that a writ remains valid under the rules of the Supreme Court. The present position is that it is valid for 12 months. The recommendation, which I understand has now been implemented by the Supreme Court Procedure Committee and which will be effective from June this year, is to reduce the period of the validity from 12 months to four months. The other recommendation here is that the plaintiff's statement of claim should be served not later than the end of the period permitted for service.
Those recommendations of the Civil Justice Review—the reduction of the period of the validity of the writ from 12 months to four months and the requirement that the plaintiff's statement of claim should be served not later than the end of the period for service—were reached after detailed consideration by those who worked on the Civil Justice Review and followed extensive consultation. The same does not apply to the recommendation which forms the basis for this clause. The best that the Civil Justice Review does is to note a different procedure in Scotland where the end date of the period of limitation is the date of the service of the proceedings and not the issue. The Civil Justice Review
"It is difficult to see the justification in principle for this effective extension of the limitation period for personal injury or other types of case".
It then moves on to the recommendation that is now incorporated in Clause
When reading that part of the Civil Justice Review I was anxious to ascertain whether those involved in its preparation took evidence from other quarters and considered other testimony. I was anxious to ascertain whether they considered the problems that arise out of, for example, the issue of protective writs, overseas service, and so forth. I spoke to a member of the committee who said that so far as he could recall those other matters had not been considered and that the recommendation of the Civil Justice Review arose from concern about the delay in domestic personal injury cases. In that sense, while this clause does not go further than the recommendation of the Civil Justice Review it goes further than its considerations of the problem.
I believe that we should consider the practical problems. Perhaps I may begin by drawing your Lordships' attention to the current use of the protective writ. When instructions are received it is not always plain who are the defendants who should be the subject of proceedings or in which jurisdiction proceedings should be started. The present convenience of being able to issue a protective writ, which is issued in the High Court but is not served, enables the plaintiff to be protected regarding limitation periods within that jurisdiction, and if writs are issued in other jurisdictions, also in other jurisdictions without the need to go through costly procedures of activating the proceedings.
Your Lordships may say that plaintiffs should not leave their action until towards the end of the limitation period but go about it al a much earlier stage. I see that the noble and learned Lord nods at that proposition. However, it is not always possible for even the diligent plaintiff to appreciate that he is under time bars and to take that action.
For example, when damage is latent damage and is not ascertained for some time, it is a very complicated matter—I do not want to take your Lordships through the Latent Damage Act 1986—for a plaintiff to ascertain the starting time of his period of limitation. Furthermore, if the plaintiff is a company, it may be that the management of the company has changed several times. There is therefore great difficulty in finding persons who had knowledge of the building at various stages of its construction and therefore knowledge which it is vital to establish from the point of view of identifying the beginning of the period of limitation under, as I have cited, the Latent Damage Act 1986. There are a number of possible defendants—for example the architect, the constructional engineer, the main contractor—and for example, in the case of a defective roof there is the sub-contractor who lays the roof and there are then the manufacturer or manufacturers who made the products that were used in the construction; and there may be a number of those.
It is exceedingly difficult, particularly if records have been lost and witnesses cannot be traced, to establish who is the correct defendant. In those circumstances under the present system it is very simple, if one does the best one can in working with one's client, to identify the architect, the structural engineer, the main contractor, the sub-contractor and others. Writs are then issued in the High Court, but not served. The great advantage of that is that plaintiff and defendants are not all involved in multiple actions which may prove to be wholly unnecessary.
Then during the period of the validity of the writ the inquiries can be completed and in addition one or two of the writs can be served and proceedings can be started. A much clearer picture then emerges of who is the correct defendant and who the actions should be proceeded against. That means a saving of cost because instead of the plaintiff having five, six, seven, eight or nine actions on his hands, with all the legal costs mounting on that, he has only one or two and can abandon the other actions.
It is important to say too that there is not a lax system at present about the service of the writ. I accept, with one or two exceptions, that the advantages as recommended in the Civil Justice Review are the shortening of the period of the validity of the writ. The White Book, which is the procedure book that the practitioner uses in the High Court, is quite clear about the duty to serve a writ promptly. Under Order 6, Rule 8, the notes state the position. There have been two recent cases before your Lordships' House that have considered when it is right for the period of the validity of the writ to end and whether it is right for there to be extensions of that period. The two cases were Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Barbrak Ltd. and Waddon v.

931
Whitecroft-Scovill Ltd. Both those cases are very recent and came before your Lordships' Judicial Committee in 1987 and 1988 respectively.
The White Book summarises the situation simply by stating:
"It is the duty of the plaintiff to serve the writ promptly. He should not dally for the 12 months of its validity; if he does so and gets into difficulties as a result, he will get scant sympathy".
The present system is not lax. It works sensibly in the circumstances that I have described and enables costs to be kept down and proceedings only to be taken against those and proceeded against those where there is a good claim.
On any view the proposal of the noble and learned Lord will cause a great deal of change in procedure. It will cause changes in the procedures for service because under the present procedures—for example, by post—while one may eventually establish and satisfy the court that a document has been served, the date of that service is somewhat difficult to establish. Indeed, it is a fiction because I believe the date of the service by post is fixed under the rules for the next working day. That is by no means necessarily the day upon which the defendant received the documents.
Therefore, on any view, the noble and learned Lord's clause will cause a considerable change in the procedures for service. As a result there will be a much greater need to have total certainty about the date of that service. Whereas now if the writ is issued within the limitation period, whether it was served on Monday or Tuesday of this week or Thursday or Friday of the following week, does not matter, it will matter under the new procedure.
What I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord is, in all the difficulties that I have described, including the difficulties of overseas service (although the noble and learned Lord seems satisfied that he can cover that) is it worth the gain? The gain is a gain of some four months, because if the period of validity of the writ is now to be reduced to four months the gain of this clause is a four-month gain. Is it worth having that gain when, at the same time, all the difficulties that I have described will have been created? I could describe many more difficulties but the hour is late and I am not going to do so. If we come back to the matter on Third Reading, I hope that we can hear this at a more reasonable time. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the clause implements the recommendation of the Civil Justice Review, which contained quite distinguished practitioners as well as of course others. I do not know that I can do better than say what is the purpose of the Limitation Act. The purpose of the Limitation Act must have some relation to the defendant. The issue of a writ which is not served does not appear to have any particular effect on the defendant at all.
The recommendation of the Civil Justice Review is, I think, based on sound principle; namely, that the idea of the Limitation Act is to protect defendants
932
against being attacked after more than a certain time, whatever the start may be. I agree that a latent damage action has a more complicated starting time than some other situations. However one goes at it, the purpose of a limitation period is to lay down a period within which a defendant is supposed to be apprised of a claim. The idea of issue without service does not apprise the defendant of anything. Therefore, in principle there is a good deal to be said for this recommendation.
I think that the exception clause we inserted allowing rules of court to make exceptions and special provisions, and so on, can deal, so far as it is necessary, with all the difficulties that the noble Lord suggested. If he has more to suggest—which is what I understood towards the end of his submission—the clause we have will be capable of dealing with those too. I believe that this is a principled recommendation by the Civil Justice Review, and so far as practical difficulties are concerned they can be minimised by the use of subsection (2). The whole purpose of the clause is to make more effective the underlying principle of the Limitation Act itself.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. Of course I shall read in detail what he said in support of this amendment, and if he likes to give me details in correspondence of the other particulars that he has difficulty with I shall be glad to include them in my consideration.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has, as usual, given a courteous and helpful reply. I continue to have considerable misgivings about this change. I do not believe that the benefits of the change in a wide range of cases justify the change. First, the noble and learned Lord has said that he will kindly read my submissions to your Lordships, and, secondly, that he will consider any further submission that I care to make to him in writing. With that courteous and helpful response, I willingly withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. It is five minutes past 11 and we are only a quarter of the way down the right hand column of the list of grouped amendments. This is the last type of Bill which should be discussed in an empty House at this hour of night. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will not quote again what I said last Thursday: that I thought that we should easily finish today. Since then 31 Government amendments, including four new clauses and a new schedule, have been tabled. They supervene upon about the same number tabled just before the Report stage began. It must be a record when Government amendments on Report exceed the number of new clauses moved elsewhere. There is an important matter still to come. There is the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, to leave out Clause 79. I do not imagine that the new clause and the new schedule tabled by my noble and learned friend will take long, but the amendment

933
tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is bound, if it is to be properly considered, to take a long time. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned. (Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
Lord Belstead: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend the Leader of the House replies, perhaps I may say that I support the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. In doing so, I should just say, in order to remove any misunderstanding, that those of us who have tabled amendments have done so selectively. We have not tabled amendments to cover every point that we might have raised; we have dealt only with those points which we considered relevant and worth discussing, and worth discussing at a reasonable hour when there are a reasonable number of Members of your Lordships' House present. It so happens that we have not gone far enough tonight. The Motion deserves sympathetic consideration from the Government.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I confirm that when Amendment No. 213 was raised in Committee, it received support from all parts of the House, and it is bound to take a little time when we refer to it again.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I too support the Motion placed before us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Everyone has been affected by the tightness of the timetable, not least the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and his officials. While it is correct that a large number of amendments have been tabled recently by him, that has arisen out of no lack of diligence by him or his officers. This is an immensely difficult Bill. The noble and learned Lord is being most receptive to many, if not all, of our amendments. He is considering them and after considering them he is tabling amendments for your Lordships' consideration.
The matter is now becoming pressing because the noble and learned Lord is saying to us that he will be unable to table further amendments that he has agreed to consider because there is no available time left in our timetable. Those further amendments will now have to be tabled in another place which means that the House will not have completed its business.
For that reason, perhaps the Leader of the House will listen to us again when we say that the timetable of the Bill has not been correctly calculated and that more time is needed. Another day on Report is needed and a proper gap between Report and Third Reading so that the noble and learned Lord and his officials may have a proper opportunity to table further amendments and we may have a proper opportunity to look at them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there are two points that should make to the House. First, I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he says that large numbers of amendments were tabled by the Government. He
934
mentioned the number of 31 as having been tabled fairly recently. As I understand it, between 15 and 20 of those were tabled in order to meet points which had been made by noble Lords at the previous stage of the Bill and that—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, but the remaining were substantial amendments, including new clauses.
Lord Belstead: Fair enough, my Lords. Nonetheless, as I said, between 15 and 20 amendments were tabled in order to meet points that had been made previously by noble Lords.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that I should not quote what was said at the previous sitting of the Bill. Obviously, we all had to forecast and we were not entirely sure, but on that occasion the noble and learned Lord gave it as his view that three days would be ample. It was on that basis that I agreed that enough was enough and that we should adjourn. On a rough estimate we adjourned for about an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half before we would have done if we had completed our list, so the time would have been about a quarter to ten in the evening instead of ten past eleven.
I am sorry, but it is not possible for noble Lords who ask for more time to have their bread buttered on every conceivable side. We cannot keep on stopping at the moment that noble Lords ask to do so and then stopping early again. I am afraid that, if the noble and learned Lord wishes to stop now, he must put it to the vote.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House is always responsive to feeling in the House; indeed, he is its interpreter. The feeling in the House, as manifested from all parts of the House, is that we have gone far enough today and that the Government should find another day. They are not doing the Bill justice, they are not doing themselves justice and, above all, they are not doing justice to the reputation of this House as a revising Chamber. If the Bill is rushed through its remaining stages, as it has been rushed through so far, the message will have to go to another place that noble Lords have not been able to discuss it thoroughly and that, even with those advantages and sacrifices—in spite of amendments not being moved, particularly those not moved so that they can be discussed informally with my noble and learned friend—the Government have been extremely harsh in driving the Bill through with a tired majority waiting outside in case there is a Division and pie-eyed junior Ministers at the behest of the noble Lord the Chief Whip kept here in case there should now be a Division. As I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Chief Whip has that majority—what I called before a silent and dead majority—outside, I see no point in my pressing the matter to a Division.
However, I want to put on record the sense of outrage that is now felt at the way that the Bill is being driven through. Some day not far off, the tale will have to be told in full, going back to the debate on the Green Paper with, for one day only—

935
Friday—the House sitting at 9.30 in the morning for more than a 12-hour debate and even then with names being taken off the list. So it has gone on ever since that time. It will not do the Bill any good when that fact is appreciated. It will not do the Government any good and it will not do the House any good.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, hearing "Hear, hear" from around the House, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that a Friday was chosen for the debate on the Green Paper so that noble and learned Lords who would otherwise be engaged on their judicial duties could attend the House. Every attempt which could possibly be made has been made to accommodate the House to try to—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way—
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I shall not give way.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: If the noble Lord will allow me—
Lord Belstead: I am sorry, my Lords, but the noble and learned Lord will perhaps just hear me out. Every possible attempt which could be made has been made to accommodate your Lordships' House to try to see that this very important Bill is debated fully. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that instead of speaking to those who are outside the House in an attempt to try to suggest that this Bill is being rushed, we should now either vote that the Bill continues or else we should actually continue with it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if your Lordships would allow me, I should like to speak again in view of what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said about the debate on the Green Paper. It was put in on a Friday. That undoubtedly allowed the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to attend because they do not sit judicially that day, although they do work that day on the cases that they have heard and are about to hear. In any case, that excuse gets absolutely nowhere because the debate could perfectly well have been held on two days, one of them a Friday. If excuses of that sort are put forward, your Lordships are bound to look at the Government's case on the conduct of this business with considerable suspicion. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 211:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
(" Administration of oaths and taking of affidavits.
—(1) In this section—
"authorised person" means—
(a) any authorised advocate or authorised litigator, other than one who is a solicitor (in relation to whom provision similar to that made by this section is made by section 81 of the Solicitors Act 1974); or
936
(b) any person who is a member of a professional or other body prescribed by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this section; and
"general notary" means any public notary other than—
(a) an ecclesiastical or district notary; or
(b) one who is a member of the Incorporated Company of Scriveners (in relation to whom provision similar to that made by this section is made by section 65 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985).
(2) Section 1(1) of the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889 (appointment of commissioners by Lord Chancellor) shall cease to have effect.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, every authorised person shall have the powers conferred on a commissioner for oaths by the Commissioners for Oaths Acts 1889 and 1891 and section 24 of the Stamp Duties Management Act 1891; and any reference to such a commissioner in an enactment or instrument (including an enactment passed or instrument made after the commencement of this Act) shall include a reference to an authorised person unless the context otherwise requires.
(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, every general notary shall have the powers conferred on a commissioner for oaths by the Commissioners for Oaths Acts 1889 and 1891; and any reference to such a commissioner in an enactment or instrument (including an enactment passed or instrument made after the commencement of this Act) shall include a reference to a general notary unless the context otherwise requires.
(5) No person shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in any proceedings in which he is interested.
(6) A person exercising such powers and before whom any oath or affidavit is taken or made shall state in the jurat or attestation at which place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or made.
(7) A document containing such a statement and purporting to be sealed or signed by an authorised person or general notary shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the seal or signature, and without proof that he is an authorised person or general notary.
(8) The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, by order prescribe the fees to be charged by authorised persons exercising the powers of commissioners for oaths by virtue of this section in respect of the administration of an oath or the taking of an affidavit.
(9) In this section "affidavit" has the same meaning as in the Commissioner for Oaths Act 1889,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend to authorised litigators and advocates the same powers to administer oaths as are currently enjoyed by solicitors and scriveners; notaries. The existing arrangements enable the Lord Chancellor to extend these powers to others whom he considers "fit and proper" to exercise the right to administer oaths. It is more sensible if this somewhat piecemeal arrangement is discontinued. It will certainly be less confusing to the public. At the same time this amendment will safeguard the public by maintaining standards.
As noble Lords know, the Bill provides a framework for ensuring that those who provide legal services to the public are properly qualified and subject to rules of professional discipline. I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my comment will take precisely one minute. Does this mean that the age-old title of commissioner of oaths is now to be abolished? I declare an interest. I have been one for 35 years and it will be difficult for me not to sign "Commissioner for Oaths" myself.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I also will occupy the time of your Lordships' House for only one minute. Perhaps I may say that when I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List I found it rather surprising that it came into this Bill at all. It seems to me a new departure and one which normally would require very considerable and detailed thought and consultation with outside bodies. Frankly, speaking for myself, I have not had the chance of that consultation. But there it is. At 20 minutes past 11 at night we have this new departure of some importance bringing about quite a considerable change. I suppose that we have to accept it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think there is nothing in this amendment that would prevent the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, from continuing to call himself a commissioner for oaths if he wishes to do so.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Bail applications]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 59, leave out lines 11 and 12.
The noble Lord said: My lords, I believe that this is an important amendment. It seeks to do the best with Clause 79, if that clause is to stay in the Bill. I should therefore say that I intend to give full support to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, when he addresses your Lordships—as he will in a moment—to leave out Clause 79 altogether.
If Clause 79 is to remain in the Bill, it is important to ensure that it cannot be abused. If lay presenters were to be given general instructions such instructions might cover such matters as always opposing bail if the police had objections to it, or never opposing bail in defined categories of cases, and so on. That would be wholly contrary to the important principle that in each case the question of bail should be decided on its merits.
The Crown prosecutor should put forward the prosecution's view of the matter having carefully considered all the circumstances of the case. It may be that lay presenters are not able to do that, but the solution to that problem is not to use lay presenters or to give them directions for each case rather than requiring them to follow general instructions. There may be some matters on which general instructions may be appropriate. However, since the clause as drafted would permit general instructions to be given in inappropriate circumstances, I believe that the provision should be removed. If a narrower, clearer provision is needed then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should come forward with it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish very briefly to support the amendment partly because I do not understand exactly what it would imply.
"Any such instructions may be given so as to apply generally",
938
are vague words of unlimited application. It is worth considering whether they should be omitted altogether.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the effect of the amendment, as has been stated, is that instructions given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to staff who are not Crown prosecutors in relation to bail applications may now be given so as to apply generally. I must say that I do not find it difficult to understand those words. "Generally" means without reference to a particular case but reference to cases generally.
The amendment would make it considerably more difficult to manage this work in a uniform way and would involve a complete waste of resources. For example, there are occasions when a series of applications has to be made in relation to one particular set of circumstances. The issuing of a fresh set of instructions in each of such cases would lead to a wholly unnecessary duplication of work without any compensatory benefit of better scrutiny.
It is a perfectly reasonable provision to allow the management of these matters to operate properly. The instruction would not be general unless it applied generally. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel that taking this subsection out does not advance matters in the slightest.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, could he consider whether or not there should be clearer wording? Some people have interpreted the provision—they may be quite wrong; and they obviously are wrong from what the noble and learned Lord has said—as general instructions. For example, "Please oppose bail if ever the police oppose bail." That has been construed from the words referring to general instructions.
If I may so most respectfully, I realised that the meaning of the words was precisely as the noble and learned Lord has given to the House. Unfortunately, it is capable of being misconstrued. Would the noble and learned Lord care at least to take that point on board?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall certainly take that point on board. However, the objection which is being voiced is that it is possible to give a bad general instruction. One can also give a bad special instruction. The quality of the instruction cannot be determined by the drafting of the power to give instructions. We are dealing here with a power to give instructions and are saying, "You need not give an instruction that applies only to particular cases; you can give a general instruction. For example, have a good look at the evidence and look particularly for these features in it". I do not suggest that that is anything more than an example of my own.
I have had experience of giving general instructions which I hoped were good and could be applied by the individual in question to particular cases. Destroying the power to give general instructions is not necessary or desirable in the interests of ensuring that the general instructions given are good. If I could devise a form of words

939
that would ensure that the instructions given were always good, I should be happy to do so. However, that is a fairly challenging task. Nevertheless, I am happy to consider what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, it is important that the instructions should be given to the lay person who is making the representations on a case-by-case basis so that each case is handled on its own merits and does not fall into any general format. I shall not press the amendment further. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will press his amendment a great deal further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 213:
Leave out Clause 79.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for raising the matter at this time of night. Principally, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. His fortitude is quite remarkable and his good nature goes on hour after hour. To ask anyone to sit as he has throughout the whole of this day and into the night at half past eleven, and then to listen to yet another submission, appears to be trying him, if no one else, too far.
I raise the matter again because of the wide support that I received in Committee from all parts of the Chamber. I was further encouraged because on that occasion the noble and learned Lord said that he would have a further opportunity of considering it.
The clause is a further attempt in the Bill to introduce a right of audience outside the mechanism and to have an exception in the Bill. I suggest that the clause is in the Bill for one reason only; it is in order to help the Director of Public Prosecutions to overcome the chronic shortage of staff from which the Crown Prosecution Service is suffering. It appears from evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee that one quarter of all the CPS appearances are now being farmed out to agents at a substantial cost to the Exchequer.
The clause enables the DPP to use unqualified staff to carry out one of the most important duties of a prosecuting advocate—that is, representing the Crown when a defendant seeks release on bail before a judge. That is not a good basis on which to solve a recruitment problem or to save money.
Using unqualified staff in that way, of course, will release qualified staff to appear in other courts and to reduce that huge expenditure of using agents.
Those are the reasons for the clause to be there. The reason for it being necessary are threefold. In 1988 the Divisional Court held that the Director was acting unlawfully in using unqualified staff to do jobs which the Prosecution of Offences Act, when it set up the CPS, stated in terms should only be done by qualified lawyers. Therefore, that hurdle had to be overcome. That is why the clause is necessary.
Secondly, as all your Lordships well know, Clause 24 states that from now on the right of audience
940
can only be obtained in accordance with the new mechanism. Therefore that obstacle had to be overcome by this clause. That is why it is here; to make an exception.
Bail applications raise crucial questions of personal liberty on the one hand and of the public interest on the other. Judges are overwhelmingly dependent on skilled and experienced presentation of both the facts and the law relevant in the case. After all, these are cases of serious, and often very serious, crime. Uniquely, that information at that stage of the proceedings is in the possession of the prosecution. A mistaken decision made perhaps on lack of information or wrong information may mean months of imprisonment for an innocent or untried citizen or it may on the other hand mean that a member of the public is subjected to further criminal acts.
In their evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Magistrates' Association, the Metropolitan Police and Justice all complained of the inadequacy of the attention paid to bail applications by the Crown Prosecution Service. As I pointed out in Committee, in 1988 no fewer than 19,000 accused persons—that is, 40 per cent. of all those remanded in custody in this country during that year—were either acquitted or given a non-custodial sentence at the outcome of their trial.
That statistic is disgraceful. It shows in itself that something is wrong somewhere with our bail procedures. I do not suggest that it is all due to Crown Prosecution representation—of course not. However, the Crown Prosecution Service must take the major responsibility for providing the correct information for judges and magistrates in these matters.
The representative of the Crown must be ready to deal with submissions made by the applicant's advocate. Those representations are sometimes made by very experienced and skilled advocates for the defence. The proceedings are in private. No transcript is made. Therefore, scrupulous professionalism is necessary. I suggest to your Lordships that it is simply unacceptable for a matter of such serious import to the liberty of the subject to be decided on the basis of recruitment of one agency in the criminal process and simply to save costs or, to use the expression in the White Paper, as an efficient use of resources.
The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to enter into some correspondence with me over this matter, and I have been assured that the senior judiciary approve of this clause. I can only say to your Lordships that the criminal advocates and the Criminal Law Bar Association certainly do not do so. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee after 2 o'clock in the early morning. We are now discussing it at 25 minutes to midnight. Liberty of the subject is involved. I must say that I did not know the statistics produced by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, but I think that we should take them very seriously.

941
The Bail Act is not one of the simplest measures on the statute book. It needs understanding and it needs conscientious application on the part of those who are prosecuting. Those of us who, in the rough and tumble of the common law, were brought up to appear for the prosecution from time to time as well as for the defence, always had it impressed upon us by those who preceded us in the profession that we should never be persecutors; that as prosecutors we should always lean over backwards in favour of the subject, although we had a duty to present the case for the Crown and to do so firmly.
One must not be mealy-mouthed, but it would be idle for us to assume that all those in a relatively minor position in the Crown Prosecution Service without the kind of training that I mentioned, necessarily follow that wise precept. Indeed, as has been said on other occasions, it has been found—not very often but from time to time—that members of the Crown Prosecution Service consider it their duty to oppose bail, if they possibly can, by any means on practically every occasion and that their success within the service will depend upon their so doing. That is a wrong attitude for us to allow to develop.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, put forward a case which should ensure, perhaps only in a minority of the cases concerned, that the worst does not happen. However, as the liberty of the subject is concerned, we must look at the minority of cases. Bad cases make bad law. We must do all that we can to find a means of preventing people from being kept in custody. God knows! the prisons are overcrowded enough. I gladly support the Motion of the noble Lord.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I should also like to support the Motion of the noble Lord. The point of establishing a CPS was not simply to ensure that a service independent of the police made prosecution decisions; it was to ensure that decisions were made by qualified lawyers. That was the principle, for example, underlying a judicial review case in which the Association of First Division Civil Servants successfully challenged the practice of the CPS to allow unqualified staff to screen cases for prosecution.
Bail applications must not be seen as a mere formality which can be presented by an unqualified person. The outcome determines, on the one hand, whether an unconvicted person nevertheless spends time in custody before trial; on the other hand, whether somebody who may be a danger to the public is to be allowed to remain free prior to trial. It is an extremely sensitive balance between the rights of the individual and the right to protect the public at large. It lies at the very heart of all contested bail applications.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise only to make a brief point. I have every sympathy with anyone trying to see that bail is granted on every conceivable occasion when it should be, and I also obviously appreciate the reference to the liberty of the subject. But one would have thought from hearing this debate that the decision on whether or not bail is to be granted was made by the Crown Prosecution Service.
942
The decision is in the hands of the magistrate or the judge. We are assuming from this debate that the judge or the magistrate does not know the provisions of the Bail Act, that he has no clerk to guide him and that what the Crown Prosecution Service says, whether the member is qualified or unqualified, will determine the outcome. I do not accept that situation in regard to our courts. If I did I would have something to say about the judges and the magistrates, not the Crown Prosecution Service.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, that was not what was said. If the noble Lord had heard correctly, it was said that the judge or magistrate depended almost entirely on the Crown Prosecution Service for the information, both on law and fact, on which to make a proper judgment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I accept that everybody appearing before a judge or magistrate has a duty to get hold of the facts and to tell the truth. It is the judge who ought to know the Bail Act provisions and what he ought to do. I do not accept the proposition that a qualified person tells the truth and an unqualified person does not.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understood my noble friend Lord Renton to say that he knew of situations where members of the Crown Prosecution Service had been instructed to oppose bail on every occasion and that their promotion in the service depended on their success in that regard. I may have misunderstood my noble friend but, if he said that, I should certainly like to have the details because I should like to bring the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Attorney-General whose responsibility it is to supervise the service.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me. I am not conscious of having described the situation in that way. I certainly did not intend to do so. I intended to suggest that there were some members of the Crown Prosecution Service who might feel that their future success within the service depended upon their success in opposing bail. That is a different matter, and I think that that is how I put it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. If he can tell me of someone in the Crown Prosecution Service who has that understanding I should certainly like to know. If I misunderstood I am happy to accept my noble friend's assurance that he did not put the matter in the way I suggested. I am sure it is my fault.
The history of this matter, as has been said, is that the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to use unqualified people to screen certain types of action was challenged successfully in the Divisional Court. The decision-making then in question was whether or not a prosecution should continue. It was decided in the Divisional Court that that had to be done, in terms of the Prosecution of Offences Act, by qualified people. There is no intention whatever to depart from that decision.

943
Until that decision was reached it had been the practice of the Crown Prosecution Service to use unqualified people, selected for that purpose by the director, to deal with bail applications. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the bail applications are before a tribunal and the judge or the magistrate can ask questions and be satisfied on these matters. My understanding is that that practice was entirely acceptable. I do not know of any specific complaint relating to it when that practice occurred. The purpose of the provision of this clause is to enable that practice to recommence. The reason that we have dealt with it separately is in order that it might receive separate consideration.
It is analogous to the situation where solicitors' clerks are allowed to appear before a judge in chambers. That is to allow applications on bail matters to be made in private by people authorised to do so by the Director of Public Prosecutions and subject to his instructions. We can have confidence that his instructions will be appropriate in relation to a case whether in general or with reference to its particular circumstances.
That is a way of giving service to the judge who is deciding the case and it is perfectly appropriate. The responsibility for the service will be on the Crown prosecutor who is responsible for the decision-making in the case in accordance with the decision in the R v. DPP ex parte FDA case. I humbly suggest to your Lordships that this is an entirely appropriate provision to make and a proper use of resources. I believe that a legal qualification is not necessary for the purpose of informing a judge or magistrate with experience of the facts relating to a case.
As regards the statistics, I do not consider them relevant to this question. The period to which they refer includes a good part after the decision of the Divisional Court in the case stated. The statistics apply to part of the period when this practice was not being followed. It may be that more people close to the case and able to speak on bail applications will make the decision-making better because there may be more detailed facts available.
Therefore, I do not consider that any good reason in principle has been advanced for deleting this clause. I hope that your Lordships will allow it to stand as part of the Bill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the point of the statistics was not to show that the unqualified clerks had not been doing their jobs properly, but that in the matter of granting or refusing bail there was something wrong in the system which therefore required persons with the very highest qualifications to improve it.
In view of the procedures of this House it would be simply a farce to divide because there is no House to divide. That of itself is a comment on our procedures. I can only hope that in another place this matter will be raised again and perhaps dealt with on a more satisfactory basis.
As far as I am concerned, it is incredible that unqualified personnel are to be given rights of
944
audience where the liberty of the subject is in issue. To hear the noble and learned Lord say that in such situations unqualified clerks are appropriate seems to stand the administration of justice on its head. I find this clause to be the very first fruits of the dilution being set in motion in this Bill. It is a sad moment. Nevertheless, there is nothing I can do but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 [Law reports]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 59, line 16, at end insert ("is a solicitor or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. Noble Lords may be amazed to learn that if in arguments on law one wishes to cite a law report in the High Court one has to satisfy the court strictly—I say "strictly" for a reason I shall give in a moment—that it is a report prepared by a barrister. The barrister can be of very new call, but that is the position. If one tells the learned judge that the report was prepared by a solicitor, strictly it is not admissible as a report to be recognised.
One of the main series of law reports in this country is the often cited All England Law Reports. I hold in my hand a letter from the editor of the All England Law Reports. He sent it to me on purpose so that I could receive it in time to read it to the House. It contains some amusing passages which at this time of night, provided I keep them short, may be acceptable to the House in order to keep noble Lords awake. The letter says:
"In my view the present system is outmoded, restrictive, wasteful and adds unnecessary expense to the cost of law reports. Moreover, in my experience the rules are being disregarded more and more and are now falling into disrepute. I have never heard of a judge refusing to accept the citation of a report because it was not vouched for by a barrister. Quite apart from anything else, there are now not enough barristers interested in being law reporters to enable the many new specialist series of reports to abide by the rules and I think this is now tacitly recognised by the judges. In the case of specialist reports the tendency now is for them to be produced and edited by experts in the field regardless of whether they are barristers or not. To give an example, a new series of aviation reports to be launched shortly will be edited by a solicitor who is the leading UK expert in the field".
He goes on to say:
"I accept that some form of monitoring of cases is necessary to determine which are reportable and which are not … I would welcome any widening of the field from which law reporters might be recruited. I do not believe that the quality of law reporting would suffer in any way—in fact it would probably be improved".
I come now to the part which ought to amuse your Lordships:
"Finally, to give an indication of how absurd the present situation is, there is no rule which says that the editor of a series of law reports must be a barrister and therefore, although I am not an English barrister, there is nothing which says that I cannot be the editor of the All England Law Reports and yet I am not permitted to be a reporter for the series of reports I edit".
I am most grateful to noble Lords for being amused. The purpose of the amendment is to see to it that a law report prepared by a solicitor, even if he does not hold full rights of audience, ought to be admitted. It is only sensible that it should be. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, it is quite clear that there is here an absolutely disgraceful restrictive practice. I rise to my feet as a member of the Bar to say that I was not aware of this restrictive practice. It most certainly should be struck down even at five minutes to midnight.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I can only add that we should have struck it down years ago. I have never inquired whether a report was prepared by a barrister, a solicitor or anyone else. However, I know which are the good reports and which are not; but that is a quite different matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this clause is rather carefully phrased and simply equates the report given by someone with a Supreme Court qualification with the authority it would have had if it had been made by a barrister. Therefore, it is not perhaps such a restrictive practice as contemplated by the amendment. However, it would not be right for me to turn the proposition down out of hand at this time of night, especially having regard to the pleasant way in which it was moved. In the circumstances, I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 215:
After Schedule 11, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
MINOR AMENDMENTS
The Naval Agency and Distribution Act 1864 (c. 24)
1. In section 7 of the Naval Agency and Distribution Act 1864 (certain persons incapable of being ship's agents) the words "or a proctor, attorney or solicitor" shall cease to have effect.")
The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 32)
2. In section 6 of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (effect of attachment of earnings order), the following subsections shall be added at the end—
"(9) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such provision as he considers expedient (including transitional provision) with a view to providing for the payment of amounts deducted under attachment of earnings orders to be made to such officers as may be designated by the order rather than to collecting officers of the court.
(10) Any such order may make such amendments in this Act, in relation to functions exercised by or in relation to collection officers of the court as he considers expedient in consequence of the provision made by virtue of subsection (9) above.
(11) The power to make such an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(12) Any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
3. In section 23 of that Act (powers of judge in relation to failure by debtor to comply with order etc.) the following subsection shall be inserted at the end—
"(11) A district judge, assistant district judge or deputy district judge shall have the same powers under this section as a county court judge."
The Solicitors Act 1974 (c. 47)
4. In section 2 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (training regulations), the following subsections shall be added at the end—
"(4) Where, under Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (approval of certain regulations in connection with the grant of rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation), the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice or the Master of the Rolls approves any regulation made under this section he shall be taken, for the purposes of this section, to have concurred in the making of that regulation.
(5) Subsection (4) shall have effect whether or not the regulation required to be approved under Schedule 4 to the Act of 1990."
5. In section 31 of that Act (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline), the following subsections shall be added at the end—
"(3) Where, under Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (approval of certain rules in connection with the grant of rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation), the Master of the Rolls approves any rule made under this section he shall be taken, for the purposes of this section, to have concurred in the making of that rule.
(4) Subsection (3) shall have effect whether or not the rule required to be approved under Schedule 4 to the Act of 1990."
The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
6. In section 125(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (provision for certain warrants relating to enforcement of fines to be executed by persons other than constables) for the words "a fine" there shall be substituted "any sum adjudged to be paid".
The Supreme Court Act 1981 (c.54)
7. In section 5(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (judges to sit in other divisions of the High Court at the request of the Lord Chancellor) for the words "Lord Chancellor" to the end there shall be substituted "Lord Chief Justice made with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division or the Vice-Chancellor, or both, as appropriate".
The County Courts Act 1984 (c.28)
8. For section 73(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 (register to be kept of judgments exceeding the relevant amount), there shall be substituted—
"(1) A register of every judgment entered in a county court shall be kept in such manner and in such place as may be prescribed."
9. In section 77 of that Act (appeals: general provisions) after subsection (1) the following subsection shall be inserted
"(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of the power to make county court rules under section 75, such rules may make provision for any appeal from the exercise by a district judge, assistant district judge or deputy district judge of any power given to him by virtue of any enactment to be to a judge of a county court."
10. In section 103 of that Act (execution out of the jurisdiction of the court), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(6) County court rules may make provision for the suspension of any judgment or order, on terms, in connection with any warrant issued with respect to any instalment payable under the judgment or order."
11. In section 138 of that Act (forfeiture for non-payment of rent), in subsections (2), (3), (5), (7), (8) and (9) (which relate to relief from forfeiture on payment into court of rent and costs), after the words "into court", in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted "or to the lessor".
12. In Schedule 1 to that Act, paragraphs 2(3) and 3 (restrictions on hearing of replevin actions in the High Court) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 219A, 221, 230 and 235. These

947
amendments would make a number of minor changes to existing statutes to bring them into line with the Bill's provisions; to facilitate implementation of the Bill; or simply to effect minor improvements.
The amendments are primarily concerned with business in the civil courts. Those items deal with more flexible arrangements for the courts' judicial and administrative work in connection with attachments of earnings payments; simpler arrangements for the transfer of High Court judges between the different High Court divisions, by vesting the relevant authority in the Lord Chief Justice and not the Lord Chancellor; a requirement to register all county court money judgments; the powers of district judges and the right of appeal against their decisions; confirmation of the power of one county court to suspend a judgment of another county court where a warrant for its execution has been issued by the first court; a new right for tenants facing proceedings to obtain automatic relief by paying arrears to the landlord instead of the court; and provision for replevin actions to be brought in either the High Court or county courts.
This series of minor amendments has been brought together in a new schedule in preference to its insertion in the body of the Bill. I believe that the amendments are worth while. Many of them will clearly pave the way for worthwhile improvements in the handling of court business and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 215A:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
("Legal Aid.
—(1) Notwithstanding any regulations made under section 8 of this Act, no application for legal aid under the Legal Aid Act 1988 shall be refused on the grounds that lay persons have rights of audience in the court of proceedings concerned.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 11, legal aid under Part IV and Part V of the Legal Aid Act 1988 shall, except for proceedings in the magistrates court, consist of representation by solicitor and where the assisted person so wishes by counsel.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to make my speech even shorter than the last one. The noble and learned Lord accepted with very good grace and understanding the fact that nothing in the Bill was intended to interfere with the rights of the citizen to legal aid. This amendment, which I hope he will find acceptable, states that when the question arises under the Bill of lay persons having the right of audience it does not mean that the legal aid people can turn to an applicant and say, "Well, you know, you could have a lay person to deal with the matter and I think that you should do so".
Obviously, the applicant for legal aid must be entitled to the normal provisions which would enable a solicitor or counsel to represent him or her. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to accept the principle in connection with another amendment which was moved earlier and, therefore, I hope that he will accept it now. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment proposes a new clause with two subsections, each dealing with a different proposition. So far as concerns the first proposition, the situation is that it may be necessary to consider precisely where legal aid is required. I do not believe that the question of whether legal aid is required depends upon lay persons having rights of audience. On the other hand, there may well be situations in which it would be right for some form of assistance to be provided to enable people to receive lay assistance as well as the more general legal aid type of professional assistance by solicitors, counsel or other qualified advocates.
The second part of the amendment is a rather different proposition. It appears to reserve legal aid work to solicitors and counsel only. If there are qualified advocates who are neither solicitors nor counsel it may be appropriate that they should also be instructed. Obviously that is a matter which lies primarily with the client. However, as at present, where counsel is to be instructed in circumstances where solicitors might have rights of audience, the question of cost and the appropriateness of the case should be considered.
The precise relationships between the legal aid provisions and the provisions of the Bill need to be worked out in some detail. I am doing my best to provide a series of amendments to deal with that matter. I believe that that will be part of the consideration of the Bill in another place. The general principle that I have in mind is that the legal aid scheme should provide advice and assistance in the presentation of a case which is appropriate for that case in the light of the client's requirements, enabling the client to make full use of whatever provisions may be available to him under the Bill.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
12 midnight
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as I understand it the noble and learned Lord said that he adheres to the principle that the applicant for legal aid would be entitled to the best possible assistance that legal aid authorities could give him. In addition, the legal aid authorities would not be able to hit upon a more economical way of giving assistance merely because it was more economical. They would have to be satisfied that it was satisfactory legal aid. As I understand it, that is the principle.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a reasonable statement of what I have in mind. They would have to be satisfied that it was appropriate that legal aid of that standard should be supplied. Subject to the means tests, and so on, they would have the obligation to supply it.
The noble Lord understands that there are classes of proceedings, such as small claims, in which legal aid might not be appropriate. I am sure that he does not intend to deal with that particular situation. Therefore, I believe that the understanding between us is fairly clear.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I find that it normally is, and that is very pleasant. I further understand that the noble and learned Lord is considering amendments generally which will not come before this House but will be considered in another place because they have to be thought out carefully and are very comprehensive. I also understand that he will bear that principle in mind when dealing with the matters covered by the amendment. If that is the understanding I am very pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to make it clear that I wish to have flexibility to consider how best legal aid could be provided. For example, the Legal Aid Board is considering the possibility of its being able to fund legal advice centres or the like. That may well be the best way of helping people in certain types of cases, such as housing cases. I hope that the noble Lord understands that I am considering that as a possible way of giving assistance in some kinds of case.
I do not wish in any way to give the noble Lord the impression that the only kind of legal aid that one is considering for the future is legal aid under what one might call the traditional arrangement of solicitor and counsel. I also wish to consider other methods of giving help to people which may be considered more appropriate as circumstances develop.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I quite understand that position. I still ask for leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the understanding which I think I have with the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 61, line 9, at end inser—
(""duly certificated notary public" has the same meaning as it has in the Solicitors Act 1974 by virtue of section 87(1) of that Act;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 61, line 37, leave out ("on behalf of a client").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a discrepancy between the definition of "rights to conduct litigation" in Clause 83 and the categories of person entitled to possess a right to conduct litigation listed in Clause 25. This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Regulations and orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 218B:
Page 62, line 10, leave out ("or 34(9)") and insert ("34(9), 37(1), 45, 47 or paragraph 4 to 6 of Schedule (Probate)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the question whether the regulation and order-making powers contained in various parts of the Bill should be subject to affirmative or negative resolution procedure is an old friend from the Committee stage. I indicated then in the light of the arguments put forward so persuasively by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham and others that I would ensure, where I had not already done so, that where they conferred powers to amend primary legislation, even in a limited sense, such regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This amendment achieves that aim subject to one point about rule-making in which I have gone along with the present system for rule-making. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this amendment arises out of an amendment that was moved with support throughout the Chamber. It relates primarily, and I think suitably, to Henry VIII clauses. My co-signatories kindly authorised me to negotiate the details of the concession that was made in broad terms by my noble and learned friend in Committee. We have corresponded, but owing to the Report stage following so quickly on the Committee stage, I have not been able to report back to my co-signatories. For myself I am content with what my noble and learned friend has done. If my co-signatories are not content, we can always return to the matter on Third Reading.
Broadly speaking, my noble and learned friend has removed altogether two of the most objectionable of the Henry VIII clauses. Of the rest he has, broadly speaking, provided that they should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. There are two exceptions to that. One occurs on Clause I where my noble and learned friend has amended the clause so that in effect what was a Henry VIII provision is now subject to affirmative resolution procedure. The other is on Clause 23 where, speaking for myself, I was convinced that my noble and learned friend was right and that the two parts of the clause hung together. Therefore I was content that they were both subject to affirmative resolution.
The third matter is the one to which my noble and learned friend has just referred; namely, he made one exception which I think is acceptable. It relates purely to matters of practice and procedure. There are many precedents for treating it in the way he wishes to treat it. However, I think that of the co-signatories only the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is present this evening. I shall report to them as soon as the Report stage is over.
For myself I am content with what my noble and learned friend has done, and I thank him for it. That does not mean that we think that Henry VIII clauses, certainly not on the scale in which they were introduced in to this Bill, are other than objectionable save in very limited circumstances.

951
Certainly the Donoughmore recommendation that they should be carefully explained and justified has now been accepted. Why it was not accepted before after the matter was so fully ventilated on the Children Bill last Session I do not know. I do not wish to derogate from my expression of gratitude for what my noble and learned friend has done, so I say no more than "thank you".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Extent]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 218C:
Page 63, line 2, leave out ("61") and insert ("(Abolition of abatement of salary rule for judges etc.)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 196ZA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 218D and 218E:
Page 63, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) sections 76, (Jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration), 81, 82 and 85 to 89;").
Page 63, line 10, leave out ("Part II of Schedule 11 and Schedule 12") and insert ("Schedules 11, (Minor Amendments), 12 and 13").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 218D I take No. 218E. With your Lordships' permission I shall move them en bloc. These two amendments revise and update the clause governing the application of this Bill in Northern Ireland to include the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration regarding staff of the Northern Ireland court service; the whole of Schedule 11 containing amendments to the Children Act 1989 and other enactments affected, and further consequential amendments; the schedule of minor amendments; and Schedule 13 setting out transitional provisions and savings. The amendment was corrected yesterday, which is why Amendment No. 218D has been starred. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 88 [Commencement]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 63, line 13, leave out ("and (3)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 88(1) of the Bill currently provides that Schedule 13 shall come into force on the passing of the Act. All the transitional provisions and savings set out in Schedule 13 are related to provisions contained elsewhere in the Bill and which need to come into effect at different times. The purpose of the amendment is simply to enable these transitional provisions and savings to be brought into force at the same time as the relevant parent provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 219A:
Page 63, line 14, at end insert—
("(1A) Paragraph 1 of Schedule (Minor amendments) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 215. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Clause 89 [Short title, consequential amendments, transitionals and repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 63, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) The minor amendments set out in Schedule (Minor amendments) shall have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 215. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Consequential Amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 111, line 8 at end insert—
("The Public Records Act 1958 (c.51)
1.—(1) In the First Schedule to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records) the following entries shall be inserted in the appropriate places in Part II of the Table in paragraph 3—
"The Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"
"The Conveyancing Ombudsman"
"The Legal Services Ombudsman"
"The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct".
(2) After paragraph 4(1)(k) of that Schedule there shall be inserted—
"(kk) records of any Conveyancing Appeal Tribunal;".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the bodies to be created under this Bill will be public bodies. It is therefore appropriate to ensure, by amendment to the Public Records Act 1958, that their records will be public records dealt with in accordance with that Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 113, line 40, at end insert—
("21A. In section 151(1) of that Act (interpretation), the following shall be inserted after the definition of "appeal"—
""arbitration agreement" has the same meaning as it has in the Arbitration Act 1950 by virtue of section 32 of that Act;" ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, now that the Supreme Court Act 1981, in its new Clause 43A, is to refer to arbitration agreements, I believe that that phrase should be defined, and that this should be done by reference to the definition in the Arbitration Act 1950. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 114, line 23, at end insert—
("28. In section 69 of that Act (power to award interest on debts and damages), the following shall be substituted for subsection (8)—
"(8) In determining whether the amount of any debt or damages exceeds that prescribed by or under any enactment, no account shall be taken of any interest payable by virtue of this section except where express provision to the contrary is made by or under that or any other enactment."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment changes Section 69(8) of the County Courts Act 1984. That subsection presently refers to the county court limit. Since it is proposed to abolish that limit in accordance with the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review in an order under Clause 1, this subsection requires amendment.
Although most such consequential amendments will be made under the powers conferred on orders under Clause 1 by subsection (4) of that Clause, I consider that it is appropriate to make this amendment in the Bill, since it widens slightly the existing subsection (8) in a way which is not strictly consequential upon the abolition of the county court limit. The purpose of that is to correct an anomaly whereby interest is only presently disregarded for the purposes of provisions of the County Courts Act 1984 itself, and not for provisions made under it. In order to allow certainty in, for example, the County Court Appeals Order 1981 this subsection is here widened so as to provide that interest under it shall be disregarded in calculating amounts for the purposes of any enactment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Transitionals and Savings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 224A:
Page 114, line 25, at end insert—
("Judicial appointments: barristers
1.—(1) This paragraph applies—
(a) to barristers who were called to the Bar on a date (the "call date") before the commencement of section 28; and
(b) for the purpose of determining for how many years such a barrister has had one of the qualifications listed in section 52(3).
(2) The General Council of the Bar shall be deemed to have granted such a barrister on his call date the rights of audience mentioned in section 28(1)(a).
(3) The period beginning with his call date and ending with the commencement of section 28 (apart from any part of that period during which he was disbarred) shall, in the case of such a barrister, count towards the period mentioned in section 52(4)(b), whether or not he was entitled to exercise the right of audience in question during that time.
Judicial appointments: solicitors
2.—(1) This paragraph applies—
(a) to solicitors who were admitted on a date (the "admission date") before the commencement of section 29; and
(b) for the purpose of determining for how many years such a solicitor has had one of the qualifications listed in section 52(3).
(2) The Law Society shall be deemed to have granted such a solicitor on his admission date the rights of audience mentioned in section 29(1)(a).
(3) The period beginning with his admission date and ending with the commencement of section 29 (apart from any part of that period during which he was struck off, or removed from,
954
the roll) shall, in the case of such a solicitor, count towards the period mentioned in section 52(4)(b). whether or not he was entitled to exercise the right of audience in question during that time.
(4) Such a solicitor who has a right of audience in all proceedings in the Supreme Court shall be deemed to have had a Supreme Court qualification since his admission date.
(5) Such a solicitor who has a right of audience in all proceedings in the High Court shall be deemed to have had a High Court qualification since his admission date.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I referred to the amendment when I was answering an amendment tabled earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I explained then the purpose and scope of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we should acknowledge what my noble and learned friend has done with the amendment, which is obviously wise and necessary, but on page 114, to which the amendment refers, there is a strange little misprint. It refers in the left-hand column to Section 89(3). In fact there is no subsection (3) to Clause 89.
The Lord Chancellor: I have not found that.
Lord Renton: It is on page 114.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: It was left out in the printing. I have an erratum note.
The Lord Chancellor: There is an erratum note on that point.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am obliged. I had not seen the correction. I thank my noble and learned friend. That puts the matter right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 114, leave out lines 28 to 35 and insert ("to an office which is, or includes, one to which section 54 applies shall be construed as a reference to, or (as the case may be) as including a reference to, that office by its new name.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is a drafting change to paragraph 1 of Schedule 13. That paragraph construes references to registrars as references to district judges, and the purpose of this drafting change is to include indirect references. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 114, line 37, after ("registrar") insert (", a registrar of the principal registry of the Family Division,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment remedies an omission by extending the transitional provision of paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to registrars of the Family Division in the same way as it applies to county court and district registrars. The purpose of that paragraph is to allow existing appointees a period of six months within which to take the judicial oath once that becomes a requirement of their office. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 226A:
Page 114, line 42, at end insert—
("2A. For the purposes of section 16(3)(c) of the Courts Act 1971 (certain office-holders eligible, after 32 years, for appointment as Circuit judges) a person who holds an office (the "former office") which, on the coming into force of section 54, becomes the office of district judge shall be deemed to have held that office since his appointment to the former office.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Government's clear intention expressed in the White Paper was that registrars with suitable experience as such should be eligible for promotion to the circuit bench. As a result of the proposed change in title from registrar to district judge, the Bill now provides for district judges who have held post for at least three years to be eligible. Registrars will automatically become district judges when the appropriate provision comes into force. The amendment simply provides that, for the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the circuit bench, any such district judge shall be deemed to have been appointed from the date of his appointment as registrar. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 226B:
Page 115, line 30, at end insert—
("5A.—(1) The repeal by this Act of subsection (3) of section 3 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 shall not affect its application in relation to any abatement made under that section.
(2) The repeal by this Act of subsection (3) of section 1 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 shall not affect its application in relation to any abatement made under that section.
(3) The repeal by this Act of section 19(5) of the Courts Act 1971 shall not affect its application in relation to any abatement made under section 18(3) of that Act.
(4) The repeal by this Act of subsection (4) of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 shall not affect its application so far as it provides for any abatement which has been made under that subsection to be disregarded.
(5) The repeal by this Act of subsection (4) of section 12 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 shall not affect its application so far as it provides for any abatement which has been made under that subsection to be disregarded.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to save a power which would otherwise be abolished by Clause 61A. This power provides that the judicial pension of a judicial officer whose salary is abated shall be calculated on the full notional salary and not the abated one. The saving ensures that those whose salaries were subject to abatement under the provisions abolished by Clause 61A will continue to have their pensions calculated on the full salary. The amendment is simply consequential upon the new clause after Clause 61 inserted by Amendment No. 196ZA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 115, line 44, at end insert—
("Commissioners for Oaths
8. The repeal by this Act of section 1(1) of the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889 shall not affect the power of the Lord
956
Chancellor to revoke any appointment made by him under that provision.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 211. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 227A:
Page 115, line 44, at end insert—
("Solicitors' rights of audience
The repeal by this Act of section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (rights of audience for solicitors in the Crown Court) shall not affect the continued operation of any direction in force under that section immediately before that repeal takes effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 233A and 235A. Having regard to what the noble and learned Lord said in regard to his Amendment No. 186A, when he gave certain undertakings, I do not intend to move either this amendment or the other two.
[Amendment No. 227A not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 116, line 4, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 14, the words from "Provided always" to the end.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the repeal of Section 10 of the Public Notaries Act 1801, which immediately precedes it in Schedule
Section 10 is to be repealed to remove any statutory bar on the formation of partnerships by notaries with persons who are not notaries. Under Clause 50 of the Bill, the Master of the Notaries Faculty is still to be able, if he so wishes, to make rules prohibiting notaries from forming such unincorporated associations.
The amendment repeals the second part of Section 14 of the 1801 Act, which subjects a solicitor who is also a Public Notary to the same penalties as any other public notary who forms any sort of professional association with someone who is not a public notary. With the repeal of Section 10, such a provision becomes meaningless and therefore its repeal is consequential on the repeal of Section 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 116, line 5, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Vict. c127.

The Small Debts Act 1945.

Section 8.) c. 127.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment makes a repeal which is purely consequential upon the updating of the list of goods exempt from seizure upon execution in the High Court achieved by the amendment to that effect to which I spoke earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 230 to 231C:
Page 116, line 8, at end insert—

("27 & 28 Vict. c. 24

The Naval Agency and Distribution Act 1864

In section 7. the words "or a proctor, attorney or solicitor" and "or becomes a proctor. attorney or solicitor".

Section 23(1).").

Page 116, line 8, at end insert—

("52 & 53 Vict. c. 10

The Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889

IKn section 1, subsection (1) and in subsection (2) the words "by virtue of his commission".").

Page 116, line 24, at end insert—

("1967 c. 28.

The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967.

Section 3.

1969 c. 7 (N.I.).

The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.

Section 1.").

Page 116, line 28, at end insert—

("1971 c. 23.

The Courts Act 1971.

Section 18(3) and (4)

Section 19(5).")

Page 116, line 31, at end insert—

("1973 c. 13.

The Administration of Justice Act 1973

Section 9(4).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 116, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 20(2), paragraph (c) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to remove a superfluous anachronism in the Solicitors Act 1974. Under the provisions of Section 20(2)(c) of that Act—which this amendment repeals -an unqualified person who purports to be a solicitor may be subject to a penalty of £50 to be forfeit and applied to the use of Her Majesty. Under the provisions of Sections 20(2)(a) and (b), however, such a person is also liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years, or to a fine, or to both, together with being guilty of contempt of the court in which the action, suit, cause, matter or proceedings in relation to which he has purported so to act was brought and may be punished accordingly.
It is these sanctions which we have used in framing Clause 51 of this Bill, which deals with the analogous criminal offences of purporting to be an authorised advocate, authorised litigator or authorised practitioner. The sanction of the additional penalty of £50 seems no longer to serve any useful purpose, and it is for this reason that I urge your Lordships to delete it from the statute book. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 233 and 233ZA:
Page 116, line 45, column 3, at end insert—
("("Section 81(5).").
Page 117, line 29, column 3, at beginning insert—
("Section 12(4).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. With your Lordships' leave I propose to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233A not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 234 and 235:
Page 117, line 34, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 29.").
Page 117, line 49, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 1. paragraph 2(3) and paragraph 3 and the word "and" immediately preceding it.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. I propose to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 235A not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 236 to 238:
Page 117, line 53, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 65(5).").
Page 118, line 7, at end insert—

("1985 c. 70.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Section 19(5).").

Page 118, line 10, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 2, paragraph 2(b)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. With your Lordships' leave I should like to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

In the Title:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 238A:
Line 16, after ("property") insert ("to make provision with respect to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in connection with the functions of court staff").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I should like to express my gratitude to those of your Lordships who have so diligently stayed with us to the end of the Report stage of this important Bill, which we have now, I think, accomplished. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past midnight.

  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  IRAQ: DETENTION OF BRITISH CITIZENS
  IRAQ: DETENTION OF BRITISH CITIZENS
  HORN OF AFRICA: ARMS SHIPMENTS
  HORN OF AFRICA: ARMS SHIPMENTS
  INDONESIA: EXECUTIONS
  INDONESIA: EXECUTIONS
  ONE-PARENT FAMILIES: BENEFITS
  ONE-PARENT FAMILIES: BENEFITS
  NUMBERS OF LONE-PARENT FAMILIES RECEIVING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
  NUMBERS OF LONE-PARENT FAMILIES RECEIVING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
  HONG KONG SPOUSES: BRITISH CITIZENSHIP
  HONG KONG SPOUSES: BRITISH CITIZENSHIP
  TERRORIST SUSPECTS: TAPE-RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS
  TERRORIST SUSPECTS: TAPE-RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS