Sitting of 6 March 1990

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

    Catering
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the standards of catering in the armed forces; and how many complaints he has received on this subject.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Standards of catering in the armed forces are kept under regular review. I have received no formal complaints on this subject, although I have had the opportunity to discuss catering and other matters relating to the pay and conditions of service personnel during the many visits that I have made to armed forces units in the United Kingdom and overseas.
    Mr. Speller: May I inform my hon. Friend that it is most unlikely that he will receive any complaints? Is he aware that the standard of catering in the armed forces is now probably at its highest ever level and that it is certainly the equivalent of or better than that of our friends in NATO? I speak as an ex-catering officer who has lived entirely on that food.
    Mr. Hamilton: The armed forces have benefited very much from the services of private catering contractors. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this. The few complaints that we have received relate to instances where private firms have not met the manpower or the standards that were expected of them when the contracts were originally signed.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that my uncle was in the catering corps? If people did not eat the salad, he had a habit of frying it, which produced a most peculiar dish to eat. Can the Minister give an undertaking that our troops no longer have to eat fried salad?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can only say that I have never been offered fried salad at any of the establishments that I have visited.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made towards full development of the European fighter aircraft.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The development of the European fighter aircraft is proceeding
    712
    satisfactorily. Work on the first prototype has progressed well, the first full-scale development engine is expected to be run later this year, and more than two thirds of the equipment sub-contracts have now been agreed.
    Mr. Cran: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no political impediment to the completion of the European fighter aircraft? I say that against the background of speculation about the attitude of the West German Government. Arising out of my right hon. Friend's dicussions on 21 January with his West German opposite number, Dr. Stoltenberg, is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell the House when he might announce the awarding of the final major contract for the radar system?
    Mr. King: I can certainly conform that it is going ahead. I had a useful discussion with Dr. Stoltenberg at the end of January in which we agreed to issue a statement to the effect that we regard the EFA as the best solution to meet the requirements of our air forces in 1990 and beyond. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement about the radar system shortly.
    Mr. Rogers: In view of what is happening in central Europe, does the Minister accept that there may be a change in the initial number of planes ordered? Will he confirm that the project may not be viable if the number falls below 400?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman heard my answer. It is the considered view, stated by Dr. Stoltenberg and myself', that the EFA remains the best answer to our needs. The development phase is proceeding. The scale of the production order has yet to be finally determined and we shall take into account the circumstances at the time. We wish to make it absolutely clear, however, that we regard EFA's role in the air defences of this country as an important requirement.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that regardless of the political and military developments in Europe, the development of the European fighter aircraft is vital not only for this country's aviation and aerospace industries, but for the aerospace industries in Europe?
    Mr. King: It is certainly a significant project in terms of the number of jobs involved, not only in British Aerospace, but in Rolls-Royce and, if the radar is successful, in GEC and Ferranti also. It is an important industrial project, but my first concern is whether it is needed in the defence role. Dr. Stoltenberg and I have agreed that we see a significant role for it as an agile fighter for our air defences in the 1990s.

    Germany (British Forces)
    Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to review the level of British forces stationed in Germany.
    Mr. Tom King: As I told the House last month, we are examining options for change as we take account of international developments and progress in arms control negotiations. This work is set against the background of our commitment to provide strong and assured defence of the United Kingdom, and to meet our NATO and out-of-area obligations.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that the requirements of an arms control treaty, the implications of German reunification and the virtual collapse of the Warsaw pact all inevitably lead to the reduction of current levels of British forces stationed in Germany in the foreseeable future? Does not that underline the case for a thorough reassessment of Britain's defence needs in a changing world?
    Mr. King: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will find that most of what he said was contained in my answer. We are looking at options for change against precisely the background of international developments including, of course, the position in Europe and in Germany, developments in the Warsaw pact and what we hope will be the successful completion of the CFE negotiations this year.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for us to keep a significant number of forces in Germany, especially as we must see it as encouragement to the Americans not to decouple, and to keep significant numbers of forces in Europe?
    Mr. King: There is general agreement and recognition of the importance and value of NATO and of stationed forces, which was re-emphasised by President Bush in his commitment to the American presence in Europe. We believe that it is important to play our part in that, too.
    Mr. O'Neill: The Secretary of State has said that the two criteria are international developments and arms control advances. What further international developments does he require than the likely reunification of Germany, the last obstacle to which has been removed today by Chancellor Kohl's cabinet agreement on boundaries? On the CFE first stage agreement, what more does he require before he can talk seriously to NATO and make constructive suggestions about troop cuts in central Europe?
    Mr. King: I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman raise the latter point. I waited with great expectation as I understood that he was about to reaffirm Labour's commitment to a strategy for strong defence and produce an updated statement of Labour's defence policy. I have the statement here. It merely refers to discussions between the Netherlands, Belgium and Britain. I remind the hon. Gentleman that NATO, the United States of America and Germany have a crucial contribution to make to such discussions.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I wish that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would sit down. I have the Floor. While we all agree that we should look forward to a reduction in armed forces in Germany and elsewhere, does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that it would be foolish in the extreme to agree to withdraw them until proper verification procedures are in place to ensure that the other side carries out its promises?
    Mr. King: The wisdom of what my hon. Friend said is becoming increasingly apparent. I have made it clear that we are looking for options for change, but we shall not rush headlong into anticipating changes before it is clear what the fundamental, irreversible changes may be. The benefits of NATO are manifest and clear. One could make
    714
    guesses about what is happening and what the consequences are likely to be, but we do not back guesses—we work on facts and certainties.

    Chemical Defence Establishment
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual budget of the chemical defence establishment.
    Mr. Neubert: Some £20 million.
    Mr. Buckley: As the disarmament talks in Geneva are leading to a treaty agreement, what significant plans does the Minister have for phasing down the Porton Down chemical establishment to save expenditure on the defence budget?
    Mr. Neubert: I can understand that the hon. Gentleman may not be so well informed as he might be about the subject because he has been put up to ask the question. Perhaps I should first tell him that we are talking about the chemical defence establishment, the need for which is not removed by the developments in arms control negotiations which we fully support and in which we play a major part. The purpose of the establishment is to devise means of protecting our armed forces against chemical weapons. The recent use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq conflict in the Gulf demonstrates that that is not academic.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work of my constituents in the chemical defence establishment is of the highest importance, and that its development of the technology for detection of chemical warfare agents and its role in verification make the work of the establishment more important, not less?
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend keeps in close contact with Porton Down and is well placed to know the value and excellence of the work done there. He is right to say that any agreement on chemical weapons convention would entail a great need for verification techniques. A great deal of important work is being done by the CDE on those techniques.
    Mr. Boyes: In view of the encouraging progress on chemical weapons disarmament at Geneva, the fact that the United States accepts that the strength of the Soviet chemical stocks is down to about 75,000 tonnes, and the likelihood of a war in Europe in which chemical weapons were used being nil, are not there much better ways of spending £20 million than on obscene, unacceptable weapons which the British public do not want?
    Mr. Neubert: I am sorry that the ignorance is spreading to the Opposition Front Bench from the Back Benches. It was quite clear from my earlier answer that not only did the establishment have a modest budget, but its purpose was not in any way aggressive or hostile. The establishment is simply to protect our armed service men from attack against chemical weapons. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, there is a recent example of chemical weapons being used in the Gulf. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend that in any future conflict our service men should go into combat unprotected against such weapons.
    Mr. Viggers: Is not it a fact that the Warsaw pact not only has chemical weapons but regularly practises their

    715
    use? Should not we, therefore, all be urging Warsaw pact forces to reduce weapon stocks and allow inspection? It would then be possible for us to take steps to assist in those measures.
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend draws attention to the great stocks of chemical weapons still held by the Soviet Union. We can only welcome the recent developments between the Americans, in the persons of Mr. Baker and Mr. Bush, and the Russians, in the person of Mr. Shevardnadze, towards reducing those weapon stocks. Britain set the example about 30 years ago by renouncing chemical weapons. We have no stocks of such weapons, nor any plans to produce any.

    German Unification
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the defence implications of the unification of Germany.
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the defence implications of the unification of Germany.
    Mr. Tom King: We strongly support the Federal German Government's expressed wish that a unified Germany should be a member of the NATO Alliance. Consultations on the security implications of unification will continue within NATO and between the four powers and the two Germanys.
    Mr. Mullin: Whence comes the threat requiring us to insist that a united Germany be incorporated in NATO—from Albania?
    Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has read the important new statement on his party's defence policy, which is accompanied by the statement that
    "The Labour leadership is anxious to avoid supporters being stampeded into demands for deep cuts in defence".
    That is the policy of the Labour spokesmen—they have decided that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Conservative Members are right. We shall move forward, carefully analysing the options that exist and then decide sensibly, in the light of a more certain forecast, what the opportunities should be.
    Mr. Wilson: Is it a matter of satisfaction or of concern to the Government that when the people of East Germany go to the polls in democratic elections in 12 days' time they will do so with short-range nuclear weapons from the West still pointing at them? Is not there a case now for some imagination and leadership in the Government's approach, instead of their being seen, led only by the Prime Minister, as the people who are clinging desperately to the last vestiges of the cold war?
    Mr. King: The NATO defensive strategy of flexible response and of forward defence has been a key element in assuring the strength of the West and it will probably see the total collapse of the Warsaw pact. The worst thing that we could do would be to dismantle our defences and strategies at the very moment when the future is unclear.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever may happen in terms of the unification of
    716
    Germany, the one thing that our armed forces will require in the future is versatility? Is that versatility better provided by the helicopter or the tank?
    Mr. King: The other thing that our armed forces need is consistency of support, and on that issue no one could suggest that my hon. Friend has been guilty of any deviation from a clear policy of support for a proper provision of helicopters.
    Sir John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the economic implications of the unification of Germany are rather more important than the defence ones? Should not British business men be more worried than British generals?
    Mr. King: That question goes a little wider than my immediate subject here today, but the implications are substantial. We welcome the unification of Germany—self-determination is a fundamental principle of NATO, for which it has stood for 40 years—but it obviously raises issues that must be addressed. Unification is more likely to be successful and harmonious if we have addressed those issues properly and sensibly.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that a unified Germany and membership of NATO is much more likely to bring stability to central Europe than if a unified Germany adopted a position of neutralism? Having regard to the implications for British forces in Germany, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that any review such as that which is under consideration will take account of the relationship not only of forces in Europe but of United Kingdom forces generally? In particular, will he have regard to the possibilities of specialisation and the enhanced role that the Royal Navy might be able to play in a settlement in a few years' time?
    Mr. King: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in the opening part of his question. There are few supporters anywhere for the idea of a neutral Germany. Whether in the East or the West, people perceive the real danger that that could produce. We stand strongly for Germany being in NATO. The location of troops in East Germany is obviously an issue, but the location of Germany in NATO is important. Germany is a crucial country to the NATO Alliance and that is why its presence there is important. The hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into individual service aspects of our review of options for change.
    Sir Peter Emery: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on question No. 3, and the relationship that Germany must have to that, in the review that is being carried forward will he press the Americans to set a level for the troop requirements in Europe in conjunction with General Galvin and ourselves, as it is essential that we should be able to give a lead to the rest of NATO on what we believe is necessary for the proper defence of Europe even after the conventional force reduction treaties?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is exactly right. Consultation in NATO is vital and General Galvin, with his military responsibilities, clearly has an important part to play in that. We must consider any changes in clear

    717
    consultation with all the members of NATO to ensure that effective security is maintained, and the Americans are an extremely important partner in that.
    Mr. O'Neill: What aspects of flexible response does the Secretary of State consider are still applicable in central Europe, and in which countries does he propose to extend a programme of forward defence, given that after Sunday of next week Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland will have some semblance of democratic government? Does he anticipate having blitzkriegs in those countries and using short-range and medium-range nuclear weapons on them?
    Mr. King: That is a pretty savage attack by an hon. Member on the NATO defence strategy to which I understood that he and his colleagues were supposed to subscribe. It is NATO defence policy to support flexible response and forward defence, and any changes that we make in that policy will be made only after consultation with all our allies in NATO. If the document that I have here is the sum total of the new Labour defence strategy—there is only one paragraph that is not a criticism of the Government and contains a new policy—it is wrong anyway because it talks about consultations with the Netherlands, Belgium and Britain, but there are many more countries in NATO, and if the Labour party proposes not to consult them it will be changing its policy once again.

    Defence Procurement
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is making any revisions to the future level of defence procurements; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Plans for all aspects of defence expenditure, will be reviewed in the 1990 public expenditure survey.
    Mr. Thurnham: Should not British contractors look more towards Europe? Why should not we sell Sea Harriers to the French? The French navy has apparently had no inquiries from any British defence contractor in relation to any British equipment.
    Mr. Clark: I cannot answer for the purchasing policy of the French navy, but my hon. Friend is incorrect. British businesses have sold a lot of equipment to the French navy. Racal recently sold it a communications system. We have recently endorsed our confidence in the Sea Harrier and I am glad to announce that within the past few days we have placed an order for a further 10 Sea Harrier FRS2 aircraft to replace those likely to be lost through attrition and sustain the Sea Harrier capability.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister confirm that the opening up of the defence market for defence procurement, as confirmed at Gleneagles last month, will offer the prospect of a more cost-effective level of defence spending, to the relief of the British taxpayer, and will open up the prospect of more jobs for members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, which is the prime objective of all those trade unions?
    Mr. Clark: I am glad to hear what the hon. Member has said. I do not know what the attitude of those unions
    718
    would be to his party's policy statement, with its undercurrent of drastic reductions. Certainly at the Gleneagles meeting, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there was a mutual exchange of contract bulletins which means that industries in all the countries attending will have access to one another's defence procurement contracts.
    Mr. Trotter: Does my hon. Friend accept that whatever the changes taking place in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, large-scale manufacture of modern tanks continues in the Soviet Union? Does he accept that there is a continued need to replace the British tank fleet and to go ahead with the development of Challenger by Vickers?
    Mr. Clark: We want the Challenger 2 development programme to proceed smoothly. When it is concluded we shall examine all the options which determine the type of tank we choose and the quantity.

    Low Flying
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on low flying; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Neubert: During January 1990, the Minister of Defence received 381 inquiries or complaints about military low flying in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Foulkes: With all those complaints, is the Minister aware of the increasing, deep and widespread concern in my constituency and other tactical training areas at the dangers and environmental problems created by the increased amount of low flying? In view of the major changes now taking place in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, will the Minister tell the House what is the strategic justification for continuing and increasing this intolerable nuisance?
    Mr. Neubert: We welcome the developments in eastern Europe and elsewhere, but that is no argument for not having strong, effective and highly trained forces to support NATO's defence strategy. Low flying remains potentially the most successful way of penetrating sophisticated ground and air defences. Our pilots must be trained to do that. However, we understand its impact on people, in their homes and outside. That is why we have devised a scheme whereby low flying is spread widely.
    According to the most recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, although Scotland comprises 30 per cent. of Great Britain's land mass, it is used for only 10 per cent. of low-flying training. Although I recognise that the training is spread unevenly throughout Scotland, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is justified in making complaints in those terms.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Royal Air Force, in which I served, is the finest in the world? But the aircraft that fly low across the Saddleworth and Littleborough moors in my constituency do not keep to the moors. They frighten and terrorise the people who live in the foothills and villages. They also terrorise farm animals and domestic pets. Will he instruct the Ministry of Defence to keep away from the villages in my constituency?
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend has so many talents that I am surprised to learn of yet another, but I welcome him

    719
    to the ranks of those who support the Royal Air Force in this place. I confirm that the RAF has an excellent safety record. Last year there were only 15 major RAF accidents, which is a rate of 0·31 major accidents per 10,000 hours of flying. We make every effort to minimise the impact of low-flying training, in whatever part of the country it takes place. However, we must ensure that our pilots can practise this very necessary skill.

    Land Holdings
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of his Department's current land holding; and what plans he has to acquire further land.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: At 1 April 1989, the latest date for which statistics are readily available, the Ministry of Defence held 241,300 hectares of freehold and leasehold land and foreshore throughout the United Kingdom. From time to time it is necessary to acquire land to meet specific requirements, although we are determined that the defence estate should be no larger than necessary for the requirements of the armed forces.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that in the wild west of America during the 1890s there were many people around who were known as land-grabbers? The Ministry of Defence is a land-grabber; it grabs as much land as it can get hold of. Why does not the Ministry keep its grubby hands off it? The Ministry should leave the land alone so that it can be made available to people for leisure activities such as fishing and walking. It has enough land.
    Mr. Hamilton: The Ministry of Defence makes its land available to people who want to enjoy the countryside, and in many areas we have preserved the fauna and flora. I must put the hon. Gentleman right on his facts. Since 1979, the Ministry of Defence has got rid of 10,000 hectares.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that training land is essential if our armed forces are to have adequate space in which to practise their professional skills and that the space available to them is becoming increasingly cramped? We want our armed forces to maintain their very high standards. Does my hon. Friend agree that the pressures may increase if members of the armed forces have to be brought back from Germany? Therefore, is not the Ministry of Defence right to be reluctant about selling too much land?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. When opportunities arise to add to training areas by buying contiguous areas of land, we look hard at those options.

    Defence Industries
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any proposals to assist in the conversion of defence industries to civil production.
    Mr. Alan Clark: No. British industry is perfectly capable of determining its own product ranges without Government assistance.
    Mr. Battle: In the light of international developments, and in particular, reductions in defence, will the Minister reaffirm the statement of the Foreign Secretary that it is Government policy to turn tanks into tractors? What
    720
    long-term prospects does he hold out for workers in factories such as Vickers Barnbow in Leeds who are awaiting a Government decision on whether to order the tanks that they make? Or is he effectively telling them that their prospects are increased war work or no work?
    Mr. Clark: That is complete nonsense. The Labour party is very hot on generating this smokescreen to conceal the probable results of the implementation of its plans. I suggest that the hon. Member has a quiet word with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on the attitude of unions to this subject.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that, however optimistic a forecast one makes of future defence force reductions, British forces will need the latest, most modern and most effective equipment and that there will be considerable export opportunities? Will my hon. Friend therefore take this opportunity to repudiate the call by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) for the immediate abandonment of the programme for the development of the Challenger 2 tank at Vickers?
    Mr. Clark: There is no question of that programme being abandoned until the results of the trials are complete and the product can be evaluated in comparison with its competitors.
    Mr. Rees: If there are to be changes in central Europe, is not it likely that tanks will not be required in the same number? We are all concerned about those who work at Barnbow, and the answers that we have had from Ministers so far do not enable us to talk with the work force there on any firm basis. Is there any chance of the Government talking to Vickers about transforming tanks into tractors, or something like that?
    Mr. Clark: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that all options are under consideration. Plainly, I cannot give an assurance at the present time that any item of equipment will be issued in a particular volume.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that there is far greater opportunity for the work force at Vickers in Leeds since we sold the royal ordnance factory to Vickers and it built the new factory, which is an enormous investment? Can he offer us a time scale in which he thinks he will come to a decision on the number of tanks and accept that the development programme is working well, because there is much uncertainty and anxiety in the city?
    Mr. Clark: I entirely appreciate that concern, but, as I say, we cannot come to a decision on Challenger 2 until the evaluation programme is complete, and that will not be until the end of September this year.

    Air-to-Surface Missile
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest plans to deploy a new tactical air-to-surface missile.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: We are currently studying options for the replacement of our WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb. Both French and American systems are being looked at, but as yet no decisions have been taken. It is not our practice to comment on the individual systems under consideration.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister confirm that as cruise missiles depart from Britain they will be replaced by a deadlier and more numerous short-range attack missile—SRAM-T? Is not this a deceit of disarmament and in reality massive rearmament by stealth, and rearmament which is wasteful and futile? When will the Ministry of Defence follow the fine example of the United States and our European partners and answer a changing world situation with a flexible response?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned flexible response. That is and remains a key element of NATO strategy and there is no question of a breach of the INF treaty, which is for land-based missile systems.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the real world if a pilot is to deliver a free-fall bomb against sophisticated air defences he must fly low and fast and that he must be capable of getting back? That is why it is necessary to have a stand-off capability so that pilots—and very expensive pilots they are—are not exposed to this kind of risk.
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right; we must have a stand-off capability. We must also have pilots who are trained to fly low so that they can penetrate enemy radar.
    Mr. Graham: Does the Minister realise that missiles are tested and stored in the Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory, which covers a huge part of Renfrewshire? The Secretary of State is prepared to withdraw the Ministry of Defence police who guard the area and who are always available to use arms if the factory is invaded by terrorists or criminals. The Secretary of State did not reply to my letters requesting a meeting regarding the storage of missiles and weapons, yet he is prepared to allow my area to be left in danger. Does he realise that 250,000 people will be placed in danger because of his stupidity and ineptitude?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am very unclear what that supplementary question has to do with the replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb. The security at former royal ordnance factories, whether or not it is carried out by Ministry of Defence police, is paid for by Royal Ordnance. That is why other provisions have been made for security at Royal Ordnance factories. I am sure that security is being maintained at an appropriate level.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has reconsidered its military commitments to NATO in the light of recent developments in eastern Europe.
    Mr. Tom King: As I have already made clear, we shall continue to support NATO's deterrent strategy, which offers the best means of ensuring peace and security. But we shall continue to examine options for change in the light of developments and we hope that they will include a successful outcome to CFE.
    Mr. Maples: Although developments in Europe should enable substantial arms reductions to be negotiated, does my right hon. Friend agree that Europe is entering a potentially unstable period and that NATO will continue to be an essential stabilising influence?
    Mr. King: Every day that goes by there are fresh developments. Today's announcement is a further development in the current confused situation. That is why until the position is very much clearer it is essential that we co-operate with our NATO allies and remain firmly in support of the NATO defence strategy.
    Mr. Douglas: In reviewing NATO strategy, will the Secretary of State have a care about the probable phenomenom in central Europe of a united Germany, and will he pay particular attention to the need to ensure that that united Germany never has the capability of delivering strategic nuclear weapons?
    Mr. King: That is governed by a treaty at present, and I am not aware of any proposals to alter the position. I have already emphasised that we attach great importance to the continuing role of a united Germany within NATO. Germany is a key member of NATO and it is very important that it remains so.

    Defence Support Functions
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps his Department is planning to take to ensure the involvement of the private sector in the supply of defence support functions.
    Mr. Neubert: Our policy is to expose to competition from the private sector all those defence support activities where there are no overriding operational or security reasons for keeping the work in-house. We estimate that that continuing programme has already generated savings currently running at £55 million a year.
    Mr. Field: As civilian contractors are now used for aircraft maintenance, simulated electronic warfare and as pilots, as well as for target practice—although not of course as individuals—why, in the modern services of 1990 and in the future, cannot we have centralised messes for the expensive forces in our garrison towns?
    Mr. Neubert: We have made great progress in several diverse areas in bringing in private contractors, notably for catering and cleaning. Catering is a very local service, and we have increased the number of contracts offered by the MOD from nine in 1987 to 45 last year. We are providing the opportunity for catering and mess arrangements to be improved considerably by private contractors.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister recognise that many parents are concerned about the fact that security at places such as Marines school of music at Deal is still in the hands of untrained private contractors? Is he aware that the sooner that job is taken over directly by the services, the better it will be for all service personnel?
    Mr. Neubert: Private security guards are brought in to supplement the standard arrangements by uniformed personnel and it should not be presumed that the standards applying to them are any less than those that apply to military personnel engaged in those duties. By bringing in private contractors we can release highly trained service men to matters of higher military priority and enable them to use the skills that they alone have.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that a recent report by the building societies and the banks said that more than 500,000 householders in Britain are more than two months in arrears with their mortgage repayments? It also said that, last year, 13,500 housesholders had their house taken from them because they could not pay high interest rates of up to 15·4 per cent. As they will have the added misery and burden of the poll tax round their necks from next month, may I ask the Prime Minister to say what financial support she is prepared to give to householders, or does she intend to tell them a thing or two? Or will she do the decent thing, copy the Secretary of State for Wales and go?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall that we have had questions before about that report. Sad though it is that some people have difficulties with mortgages, the repossession rate is less than one third of 1 per cent. of those who are paying mortgages, and over 99 per cent. of those with mortgages are well able to meet their repayments. The number of people who own their own homes has gone up from 11 million under Labour to 15 million under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Speaker: Sir Anthony Meyer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Order. This sort of thing takes up a great deal of time.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the Prime Minister aware that many hundreds of my constituents, having lost the treasured possessions of a lifetime, now find that they are not, as they thought, covered by insurance because storm damage excludes flood? In those circumstances, they are uniquely dependent on the mayor's disaster fund. Is she aware of the feeling that the Government's contribution to that fund, although welcome, compares unfavourably with what they, rightly, give to overseas earthquake victims?
    The Prime Minister: We tried to make the contribution to the fund proportionate to what we understood was the damage and in accordance with the usual rules applying to other disasters in the country. If that is not so, of course we shall look at the matter again.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Lady take the opportunity of this Question Time firmly to reject the calls coming from those in the City who want interest rates to be raised yet again?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, interest rates are at the level which it is deemed necessary to press down on inflation, and they will stay at whatever that level is.
    Mr. Kinnock: Many millions of people will be very disappointed by the Prime Minister's refusal to be firm in this matter. Is not it obvious that her high interest rate
    724
    policies are hitting home buyers and businesses, but are certainly not controlling credit? Is not it obvious that the policies are hurting, but definitely not working? Will the Prime Minister change those policies before she pushes the British economy further into stagnation and inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the policies are working and that activity is being reduced. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to make further comments on interest rates. He knows that that could only help speculators and it is a totally irresponsible question on his part.
    Mr. Kinnock: No Prime Minister has been more of a speculators' friend than the right hon. Lady. At the same time as she is the friend of the speculator, she is the enemy of business and of the home buyer.
    The Prime Minister: Business has a higher rate of output than ever before in history, a higher number of people employed than ever before in history and a higher rate of investment than ever before in history. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to upset that by being the speculators' friend.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's continuing concern for the plight of the homeless unemployed, especially those suffering from alcoholism and schizophrenia, and those under the age of 25? Will she consider introducing new responsibilities for local authorities to provide adequate sheltered overnight housing, with counselling support, to break that cycle of deprivation?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that some people who suffer from those illnesses and are homeless represent a particular problem. However, it is not enough to provide housing for them unless they also receive some counselling, and some will require community care for their problems. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a very considerable programme for increasing housing for the homeless, and for beds in the city of London and elsewhere. I agree with my hon. Friend that those people need counselling, too, and we have that very much in mind.
    Q.2 Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: In Scotland, local government officials are finding it difficult to collect the poll tax effectively. The Prime Minister will know that this morning BBC radio stated that the people of England will be 30 per cent. worse off than they were last year with the old rating system. The Prime Minister's hon. Friends are deserting her. Why does not she give up this irrational obsession to implement the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: I was very glad that the "Today" programme this morning virtually confirmed the figure that I gave the House on 20 February, when I pointed out that if local authorities were going to spend up to about £3 billion over what the Government considered reasonable, that would be equivalent to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am quoting from what I said. That would be equivalent to a 35 per cent. increase in domestic rates. I am delighted that, for once, the BBC and I are in total

    725
    agreement. That increase comes, of course, from high-spending authorities, which are spending well above what they should.
    I am pleased to note—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—that the combined regional and district community charge for Glasgow city district has gone up by only 10·5 per cent., which is high enough, but very much less than in some other Labour authorities.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rank hypocrisy for Left-wing Harlow council to try to pin the blame for a £425 community charge on the Government, when it is the highest-spending local authority in the country? Does she accept——
    Hon. Members: Bye, bye!
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although there will be some stormy weather over the next few weeks, eventually the public will realise that the community charge is there to protect them against high-spending authorities—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very disorderly to have this sort of noise.
    The Prime Minister: The community charge will ensure that local councils are accountable to their local electors. Those that set high community charges are doing so because their expenditure is profligate and because they have little consideration for their electors' pockets. The lesson will be learnt that Labour authorities are the high spenders and that Conservative authorities look after their electors' money.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: The Government admit that the high interest rate and mortgage rate policy is a deliberate attempt to reduce people's other spending, but it has led to a vast increase in repossessions. Will the Prime Minister act to stop the courts repossessing in cases where high mortgage rate rises are the primary cause of debt, or is repossession an integral part of the Government's economic policy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should recall the figures. Repossessions are less than one third of 1 per cent., and in the past they have been higher. That does not help those in difficulty, but it does not alter the fact that 99 per cent. of those with mortgages can meet their repayments and continue to invest in home ownership. Interest rates benefit people who place their deposits with building societies and those who are trying to build up a high deposit to purchase a home when house prices are falling.
    Mr. Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Avon, due to a mixture of fiscal incompetence and overspending, the Labour and Liberal parties have set a budget that is likely to result in a community charge of more than £500 per person in Bristol, despite the fact that
    726
    they will receive £23 from the safety net? Will my right hon. Friend contrast that with the position in Westminster where, despite being an inner-city area and paying £75 per person towards the safety net, the Conservative administration has set a charge of only £195?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. According to the Association of County Councils, Avon is one of the top 10 county council overspenders. He rightly contrasted the position in Avon with that of Westminster where, with a good Tory council, there is a low community charge. We are very grateful for its careful stewardship.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a little strange that the Tories who are now squealing about the poll tax did nothing when the people of Scotland complained? Does she accept that the tax is unfair and unworkable and that a roof tax would be no fairer and no more workable? If income tax is the fairest way to finance central Government, would not it also be the fairest way to finance local government?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall what happened in Scotland when domestic rates were revalued after seven years. There was an absolute outcry, far louder than anything heard about the community charge. The community charge is now working in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman may also recall that under the old rating system throughout the United Kingdom, some 17 million people did not pay rates, leaving 12 million people to pay them in full. That was an unfair system, and it is being replaced by a much fairer one.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the contrast between the community charge of £148 set by Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council and the £478 set by Labour-controlled Basildon council? Does she agree that the high charge in Basildon is a result of subsidising the theatre by £1·6 million, building a huge civic centre without a council chamber and sending everyone a Valentine card at a cost of £46,000? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to cap the charge in Basildon?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that community charge payers would rather have had a lower community charge than some of those extravagant things. The contrast with Wandsworth will be even more effective when next-door Lambeth announces its community charge, which is rumoured to be very high. We cannot say which councils will be charge-capped. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He will make his decision when the time comes, but where there has been excessive spending he will not hesitate to use his powers.

Lowlands Airports
3.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement today by the Secretary of State for Transport of a review of Scottish lowlands airports policy."
The House should debate the matter, because it has serious implications not just for air transport in Scotland but for employment in Ayrshire—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining for the application please leave quietly?
Mr. Foulkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members whose constituencies are under the flight paths at Glasgow and Edinburgh, like my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), will wish to express their concern about the environmental impact and the increased dangers that extra flights will pose at both those airports. It has also emerged today that, in Glasgow, check-in facilities for transatlantic flights will have to—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House please to listen and to stop the private conversations on both sides.
Mr. Foulkes: It has also emerged today that, at Glasgow airport, check-in facilities for transatlantic traffic will have to be in portakabins in the car park, with consequent problems for security and safety. Those of us who have Lockerbie still sharp in our memories will realise some of the possible implications.
In his statement, the Secretary of State himself also says that he recognises that the change in policy will have "an
728
adverse impact" on employment in Ayrshire. As you know, Mr. Speaker, unemployment there is already well above the national average. For that reason alone, it is an urgent and important matter, but it is also not clear whether it is intended that the British Airports Authority should retain its monopoly of Scottish airports or, indeed, whether the Secretary of State intends that there should be real competition by insisting that the BAA divests itself of the ownership of Prestwick and allows Prestwick to compete fully with Glasgow airport.
For all these reasons—the environmental impact, safety and security, and employment in Ayrshire—and other matters that need to be clarified, I submit that the only way the matter can be properly dealt with is by an urgent debate in the House. Even with the consolation clauses which the Secretary of State has included, today's announcement is unwelcome in Ayrshire and in Scotland. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give Scottish Members an opportunity of expressing concern by agreeing to a debate on this urgent and important matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement today by the Secretary of State for Transport of a review of Scottish lowlands airports policy".
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said about the matter, but, as he knows, the difficult decision that I have to take is whether to give it precedence over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. I regret that, in this case, the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the acknowledged champion of the House against the Executive. It is in that context that I seek your help. Bearing in mind both the integrity of the Secretary of State for Wales and the bizarre circumstances of his announcement, on Sunday, of his imminent retirement, we ask the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Wales come before the House with a statement. This is a very critical time for Wales and its economy, yet the Secretary of State for Wales is a lame duck. We believe that the best thing he could do would be to go now.
Mr. Speaker rose——
Mr. Jones: Briefly, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition day, and I have had no request at all for a statement on this matter.
Mr. Jones: Very briefly, Sir, may I ask you if you recollect that when Lord Joseph—formerly Sir Keith Joseph—made a similar statement of intent, the episode ended in tears and the hon. Gentleman left high office within weeks? May I ask you to use your best endeavours to bring both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Leader of the House before the House with a statement about the decision of the Secretary of State——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing at all to do with me.
Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer back to Question Time, when, yet again, we had a series of mini-speeches from Members on both sides of the House? That spoils the point of Question Time. If you, Sir, chose to cut short these perorations, you would have the support of all moderate and sensible Members of the House—that is, myself.
Mr. Speaker: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful point of order. It is not fair to the House for Members to ask long questions. It tends to happen in the case of the first supplementary question to departmental Ministers, and very frequently at Prime Minister's Question Time. In future, I shall cut Members short if they ask more than one question, and I hope that, in doing so, I shall have the support of the House.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that I cannot do anything about that matter. It has absolutely nothing to do with me.
Mr. Anderson rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. There are other ways of getting at things like this.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my point of order will be slightly more genuine than the one you have just heard.
You may be aware of newspaper reports over the weekend suggesting that the Football Association intends to bring a charge against my hon. Friend the Member for
730
Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) for bringing the game—presumably the game of football—into disrepute. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has said one or two very sensible things about the game of football, although—being so close to Manchester—I am not sure that I altogether agree with his comment about Manchester United being tripe.
It seems to me that the football authorities could well be seen as trying to gag my hon. Friend. He has quite often—justifiably, in my view—put the boot into the football establishment, and it seems that that establishment is now trying to shut him up. Do you, Mr. Speaker, have any——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is here, and he has not complained about the matter. If the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is alleging that a contempt of the House has been committed, he must write to me in the usual way, and
I shall give the matter most careful consideration.
Mr. Riddick: Further——
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I have dealt with that matter.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday—as can be seen from column 591 of Hansard—you described a point of order raised by me as "bogus". May I respectfully suggest that those of us who represent Welsh constituencies are truly concerned at the fact that, at this stage, industries and others may not wish to negotiate with the person who represents Wales in the House of Commons and in the Government because of his intended resignation? I believe that it is within your ambit to be able to decide whether a Minister can be called on to give reasons for his resignation.
Mr. Speaker: If such a request were made to me, that would be a different matter. I am sorry if I offended the hon. Gentleman——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me the opportunity to use the word "bogus" by saying that he hoped that his point or order was not bogus. Perhaps he would have preferred me to use another word.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice on two matters concerning procedure and the possibility of a statement? I refer you to early-day motion 659, which concerns the National Union of Mineworkers and allegations about a £5 million payment from Libya.
First, Mr. Speaker, have you received an application for a statement from the Attorney-General from any Opposition Member? Secondly, is it in order to debate the matter, on the ground that it is not sub judice because the NUM has instituted no proceedings against the Daily Mirror or the BBC?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement. Whether a debate should take place is a matter for the Leader of the House, and the hon. Gentleman's question should properly be directed to him during business questions on Thursday.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today's announcement about lowland airports policy is the second major economic announcement in a week that affects Scotland and has

731
been made in the form of a written answer rather than an oral statement. What powers have you, Mr. Speaker—in relation to allowing private notice questions or applications under Standing Order No. 20—to grant Scottish Back Benchers the right to question Ministers on important matters of policy?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the limits of my power, which are set out in the Standing Orders. He need not have asked that question.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I rarely bother you, but over the past few weeks an important matter has arisen.
In the old days, when there was a hubbub in the House—as there is occasionally—we could hear what was being said through the speakers on the back of the benches. For some reason, the volume has now been lowered. Are you able to find out from the Chairman of the Committee on the Televising of the Proceedings of the House whether, to oblige outside listeners, the microphones have been turned down so that hon. Members can no longer hear? I am not the only hon. Member who has noticed the change. Will you make a statement to the House, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The matter has been raised with me once or twice before, and it is under active consideration. I accept that there has been some problem with the amplifiers, but I do not know whether that has anything to do with the televising of the House. Let us face it: as the hon. Gentleman knows, the microphones are not exactly new, and should perhaps be replaced at an appropriate time.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
    Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide for the drawing up of a written constitution for the United Kingdom; for its consideration by the people and Parliament of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

    BLASPHEMY
    Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to make provision for the punishment of persons who blaspheme against certain religions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
    Mr. Speaker: Welsh Affairs.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Not moved.

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of Scottish Local Government Finance, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Tax Relief for Household Employers
3.43 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow tax relief on earned income in respect of the earner's employment of home helps, child minders and other workers in cases where such employment is essential to the earner's availability for work, and for connected purposes.
My Bill calls for tax relief for household employers. Every day, millions of women perform an incredible juggling act by going out to work and managing their homes and families at the same time. About 45 per cent. of all the jobs in our work force are carried out by women, the great majority of whom are married. Over two thirds of women with children go to work. The Hansard Society recently produced a report calling for more women in top jobs. I have raised that issue here in the House with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
In addition, a great many employers are anxious to gain more women back into the labour force. In The Mail on Sunday, the Secretary of State for Employment called for more older women to return to the labour force. There is no doubt that women at work are an established part of our economy, yet if those women pay somebody to help them to look after their children or their home, they must pay for it out of their taxed earnings. In some cases, that means that they spend half—or perhaps more—of what they earn, and in those circumstances it hardly seems worth their while going out to work at all.
Some women have to go out to work to help with the household budget; others work because they have a skill that they want to contribute. We are short of teachers, especially in our primary schools, and we want more of them. We are also short of nurses, and want more of them, too. There are a great many jobs for which women are trained and skilled and in which they could help in the economy if only we made some concession to their needs.
My Bill calls on the Government to allow those expenses that are reasonably incurred by a women who goes out to work to be treated as a business expense and to be offset against her pre-tax pay. The present situation is a mess and a muddle. The Treasury's attitude is almost that women work for pin money and that the money they earn can be used to pay granny or a neighbour a few shillings or pounds to look after the work that they have left behind at home.
That is make-believe. Nowadays, someone who looks after somebody else's children rightly has to be properly prepared for that work, and the circumstances in which they carry out such a job have to be vetted to be sure that they are suitable. All that means that, if a woman wants to hire help for her family, she has to pay a high price—certainly the market price—which may well be a substantial part of her earned income.
If an employer provides a creche or a nursery, and the employee who benefits from it earns more than £8,500 per year, it is treated as a tax perk and the employee is taxed on it. Of course, it is not always sensible for a woman to take her children to work with her. The journey may be long and travelling to work and back again with children may be unsuitable. The woman may prefer her child to be looked after locally, perhaps in a creche or by a friendly neighbour who has adequate facilities, but either way the woman has to pay for it.

733
Some employers have introduced child care vouchers, along the same lines as luncheon vouchers. However, that is not always possible or the most satisfactory way of dealing with this issue. Although some large employers, including the Treasury, now provide facilities for people who work for them, a majority of women will always work for small companies and will not be able to enjoy such facilities at work.
I am sure that the Inland Revenue would look askance at such a concession, because it will regard it as a loss of revenue. However, such a change in our tax structure would be enormously cost-beneficial. Not only would it release many women to go out to work and thus to add to the national income from which the Revenue collects its taxes: it would also provide many more jobs associated with the home. Some young people might like to provide some help with children, and perhaps a bed-sitting room would be thrown in, which might help with some of our homelessness problems. Such work might also help retired people who might like a little part-time job associated with someone else's household which would help to supplement the pension. For all those reasons, the effect of the changes that I propose would be enormously beneficial to the economy.
That leaves opponents of the old Tufton Bufton school, who believe that a woman's place is beside the kitchen sink. There will always be a place here for neanderthal man, whether he comes from far afield or as close as Orpington. But there will always be a demand—and an increasing demand—for women to come out and contribute to our economy.
The Government cannot have it both ways. If they want more women to devote time, energy and skill to the economy, they must do something to help them. The most equitable, fair and sensible way to do that is to treat the job that she creates as any other job and allow its cost to be deductible from her pre-tax earnings.
3.50 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I oppose the introduction of the Bill because, if enacted, it would be harmful to children, destroy family life and make worse the injustice at present suffered by mothers who work at home without pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) wants to make it profitable for mothers of young children to leave them with child minders and collect tax relief on the cost.
There is overwhelming evidence that most mothers of young children who go out to work thereby cause psychological injury to themselves as well as to their children. As my hon. Friend said, some mothers may be obliged to do so, but that should not blind us to the fact that the consequences of depriving young children of love and affection within a stable family unit cause much social evil, reflected in the high figures for crime, vandalism, divorce and plain cruelty to children. Children have a personal, social and spiritual need for love and affection and for the presence and time of those who love them. It is a crime to deprive children of that, yet that is what my hon. Friend seeks to encourage in her Bill.
My hon. Friend speaks as if there were some vast pool of vacancies waiting to be filled by working mothers. If there are so many jobs available, why are there 2 million
734
unemployed, and how many jobless people are already being done out of a job by working mothers? If there are so many jobs to be done, why do we insist on retiring people at 60 or 65, when many are in the prime of life, and only too anxious to go on contributing to society?
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not have interventions in ten-minute Bills.
Mr. Stanbrook: The Bill is an affront to mothers who see it as their duty to stay at home with their children. They already suffer from the tax system, which penalises them for staying at home. If the Government are, as they should be, dedicated to Christian virtues or even Victorian values, they should encourage the mothers of young children to be at home with them by allowing them tax benefits for doing so rather than encouraging those who see fit to evade their responsibilities.
My hon. Friend's error lies in carrying the cult of individualism to extremes. In some ways, individualism is a stimulant to and a safeguard of liberty, but in this form it is anarchic, inherently selfish and destructive of human relationships. It is the antithesis of social responsibility. Above all, there are the children's interests to consider. Such a Bill would increase their deprivation and expose them to the risks of cruelty and abuse. That is why I call on the House to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business ):—
The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 17.

Division No. 105]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Foster, Derek

Allen, Graham

Foulkes, George

Alton, David

Fraser, John

Anderson, Donald

Fyfe, Maria

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Galloway, George

Armstrong, Hilary

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

George, Bruce

Ashton, Joe

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Gordon, Mildred

Barron, Kevin

Gould, Bryan

Battle, John

Graham, Thomas

Beckett, Margaret

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Beggs, Roy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bermingham, Gerald

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bidwell, Sydney

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Blair, Tony

Heffer, Eric S.

Blunkett, David

Henderson, Doug

Boyes, Roland

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hood, Jimmy

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Buchan, Norman

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Buckley, George J.

Howells, Geraint

Caborn, Richard

Hoyle, Doug

Callaghan, Jim

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Canavan, Dennis

Illsley, Eric

Cartwright, John

Ingram, Adam

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Janner, Greville

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clay, Bob

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clelland, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cohen, Harry

Kennedy, Charles

Coleman, Donald

Kilfedder, James

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Corbett, Robin

Kirkwood, Archy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lambie, David

Cousins, Jim

Lamond, James

Cox, Tom

Leadbitter, Ted

Crowther, Stan

Leighton, Ron

Cryer, Bob

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cummings, John

Litherland, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

Livingstone, Ken

Darling, Alistair

Livsey, Richard

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

Loyden, Eddie

Dewar, Donald

McAllion, John

Dixon, Don

McAvoy, Thomas

Dobson, Frank

McFall, John

Doran, Frank

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Douglas, Dick

McKelvey, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

McLeish, Henry

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Maclennan, Robert

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

McNamara, Kevin

Eadie, Alexander

McWilliam, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Madden, Max

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Maginnis, Ken

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fatchett, Derek

Marek, Dr John

Faulds, Andrew

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Fearn, Ronald

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

Maxton, John

Fisher, Mark

Meacher, Michael

Flannery, Martin

Meale, Alan

Flynn, Paul

Michael, Alun

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

816

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Short, Clare

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morley, Elliot

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

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Soley, Clive

Mullin, Chris

Spearing, Nigel

Murphy, Paul

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Nellist, Dave

Steinberg, Gerry

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Stott, Roger

O'Brien, William

Strang, Gavin

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Patchett, Terry

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Pike, Peter L.

Turner, Dennis

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Prescott, John

Walley, Joan

Primarolo, Dawn

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wareing, Robert N.

Radice, Giles

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Randall, Stuart

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Redmond, Martin

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wigley, Dafydd

Reid, Dr John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Richardson, Jo

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Robertson, George

Wilson, Brian

Robinson, Geoffrey

Winnick, David

Rogers, Allan

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rooker, Jeff

Worthington, Tony

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wray, Jimmy

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Sedgemore, Brian

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Sheerman, Barry

NOES

Adley, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Aitken, Jonathan

Budgen, Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Butler, Chris

Allason, Rupert

Butterfill, John

Arbuthnot, James

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Carrington, Matthew

Ashby, David

Carttiss, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Atkins, Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Atkinson, David

Chope, Christopher

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Churchill, Mr

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

Baldry, Tony

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Colvin, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Conway, Derek

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bendall, Vivian

Cormack, Patrick

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Cran, James

Benyon, W.

Critchley, Julian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Body, Sir Richard

Day, Stephen

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Devlin, Tim

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dicks, Terry

Boswell, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Dover, Den

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dunn, Bob

Bowis, John

Durant, Tony

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Eggar, Tim

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Emery, Sir Peter

Brazier, Julian

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bright, Graham

Fallon, Michael

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

Favell, Tony

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

817

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Forman, Nigel

Lord, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Franks, Cecil

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Freeman, Roger

Maclean, David

Gale, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Malins, Humfrey

Goodlad, Alastair

Mans, Keith

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marland, Paul

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marlow, Tony

Gregory, Conal

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hanley, Jeremy

Maude, Hon Francis

Hannam, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Harris, David

Miller, Sir Hal

Haselhurst, Alan

Mills, Iain

Hawkins, Christopher

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hayes, Jerry

Mitchell, Sir David

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Moate, Roger

Hayward, Robert

Monro, Sir Hector

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moore, Rt Hon John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Mudd, David

Hind, Kenneth

Neale, Gerrard

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Nelson, Anthony

Hordern, Sir Peter

Neubert, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

Nicholls, Patrick

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Norris, Steve

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Page, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Paice, James

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Irvine, Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

Irving, Sir Charles

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Jack, Michael

Pawsey, James

Jackson, Robert

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Janman, Tim

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jessel, Toby

Porter, David (Waveney)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Portillo, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Price, Sir David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rathbone, Tim

Key, Robert

Redwood, John

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Riddick, Graham

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Knowles, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Knox, David

Rost, Peter

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rowe, Andrew

Lang, Ian

Ryder, Richard

Latham, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lawrence, Ivan

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lilley, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

818

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tracey, Richard

Shelton, Sir William

Tredinnick, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Trippier, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Trotter, Neville

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shersby, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Sims, Roger

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walden, George

Speed, Keith

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Speller, Tony

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Ward, John

Squire, Robin

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Warren, Kenneth

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Watts, John

Stevens, Lewis

Wells, Bowen

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wheeler, Sir John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Whitney, Ray

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Widdecombe, Ann

Stokes, Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wilshire, David

Summerson, Hugo

Winterton, Nicholas

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wolfson, Mark

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wood, Timothy

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Temple-Morris, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thorne, Neil

Tellers for the Noes:

Thornton, Malcolm

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Thurnham, Peter

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. John Lee, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Tim Devlin, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Graham Riddick, Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Den Dover and Mrs. Alice Mahon.

Tax Relief for Household Employers
  TAX RELIEF FOR HOUSEHOLD EMPLOYERS
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to allow tax relief on earned income in respect of the earner's employment of home helps, child minders and other workers in cases where such employment is essential to the earner's availability for work; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 91.]
Opposition Day
[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Balance of Payments and Interest Rates
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's economic failure which has brought the highest interest rates, the worst trade deficit and the highest inflation of the United Kingdom's major competitors; is concerned at the rising number of business bankruptcies and redundancies and at the investment cutbacks in the run-up to 1992; deplores the further reductions in support for regional investment, research and development, and export help; and calls for an investment budget for industry and training.
  Last Wednesday, the trade deficit doubled to £1·8 billion—a deficit of £1·5 billion in manufacturing and a deficit of more than £1 billion with Europe. Even after taking into account all the Government explanations, there is a deficit over the whole year of £1 billion with France, £2 billion with Italy, £3 billion with the Netherlands, £4 billion with Japan and more than £9 billion with Germany.
  The deficit is not just in traditional industries, such as clothing and textiles—in which it was more than £1·5 billion—but in the high-technology industries too. For example, in electronics there was a deficit of £1·5 billion, in computers it was more than £1·5 billion, arid in information technology it was more than £3 billion.
  The deficit announced last Wednesday is bigger and worse, as a share of our national income, than that of any competitor country. That deficit reflects the huge fall in the British share of world industry, despite all the ministerial claims that the position has stabilised. It is a deficit which has arisen because, during the past 10 years, manufactured imports have risen twice as fast as manufactured exports. It is a deficit that reinforces the need for Labour's approach: an industrial policy to invest in training, research and development; a policy in the regions to ensure exchange rate stability, by opening negotiations to join the exchange rate mechanism; a budget for investment to help bring interest rates down; and a commitment to a British export drive.
  Instead, we have a deficit with western Europe and even with some eastern European economies, such as Russia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia, but not, of course, with Bulgaria and Albania—at least, not yet.
  The deficit was dismissed and written off in 1987 as due to freak figures, a blip or changes in the customs procedures. As it gathered pace in 1988, it was dismissed as the result of cross-Channel strikes and a sign of growing investment in Britain. Even when the deficit reached £20 billion in 1989, it was explained away as due to excess demand, then to excess investment, and to a surge in investment. It is a deficit that has already brought the traditional Government response to embarrassing economic problems—the proposal to cut the publication of the figures. No doubt, after 23 changes in the relevant definitions, this problem can be made to disappear too.

  737
  Last Wednesday we were told that the deficit was due to "erratics". That is the special factor in January—erratics in our trade. When the import figures are published next month, no doubt the special factor will be that Perrier is back.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry believes that, by means of the market, the deficit is self-correcting. The Minister for Industry believes that Labour is exaggerating. The Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs tells me, in the months that the deficit doubles, that it is improving by leaps and bounds. The explanation is—erratics. however, the real erratics are lined up before us. In case Ministers want to use the term again, I refer them to a dictionary definition of "erratics":
  "geological anomalies…the stranded relics from a bygone age."
  What does the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs say about the deficit? On 1 February, speaking to that most challenging of audiences, the Cheltenham Conservative Association Patrons Club, he said:
  "Labour has got its timing wrong again. In the last six months Gordon Brown has gone on and on about the balance of payments, totally oblivious to the fact that the figures have been improving by leaps and bounds."
  After another year of similar monthly improvements by leaps and bounds, we really shall be finished. I must caution him about talking in the grand language of leaps and bounds, when it was a mere blip that proved to be the undoing of the last Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The trade deficit is not a temporary difficulty of the last few months. It is a major problem that has been created over the last 10 years, as Britain moved from a manufacturing surplus of £2·7 billion to a deficit of £18 billion.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Why does the hon. Gentleman not quote some of the other figures that were included in the official statistics published last week? Why does he not tell us about the underlying trend—that imports are no longer rising, while exports are rising by 15 per cent. in volume? How much better than that does he think a Labour Government could do?
  Mr. Brown: I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) should believe that a £20 billion deficit last year and an £18 billion deficit this year represent a triumph. When I looked at the figures for last month, I found that imports were increasing while exports were decreasing, that manufactured imports were increasing and that manufactured exports were decreasing. If the hon. Gentleman regards a trend that will leave us with a £15 billion deficit in manufactured goods as a success story, that shows just how limited the Conservative party's ambitions now are.
  Never in our trading history, until this Government, have we recorded a manufacturing deficit. Never have so many industries has such big deficits for so long, with the result that we are falling behind many of our major European competitors. Instead of a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, we have a Secretary of State who is promoting Japanese trade and German industry. We want a Secretary of State for British trade and British industry.
  The deficit reflects an even bigger problem that this Government have failed even to address during the last 10 years. While manufacturing employment has risen in
  738
  Japan and fallen far more slowly in other countries, it has fallen by 27 per cent. in Britain. Moreover, manufacturing output, which rose by 30 per cent. in America and 40 per cent. in Japan, has risen by only 13 per cent. in the United Kingdom during the last 10 years. Manufacturing output has fallen throughout the last 10 years in metal goods, mechanical engineering, motor vehicles, drink and tobacco, textiles, man-made fibres, clothing, footwear and leather—all that, in the old workshop of the world.
  Perhaps the greatest failure of all is that manufacturing investment has moved up only very slowly during that 10-year period, while it has risen far faster in all our competitor countries, including a 40 per cent. rise in Japan.
  Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman said that part of the Labour party's policy for reversing the balance of payments deficit would be to negotiate to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System. At what exchange rate does he think we should join?
  Mr. Brown: The exchange rate that is best at the time for British industry. Does the hon. Gentleman expect the Chancellor to tell him what the right exchange rate is at the moment? I am talking about a negotiation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) should take this problem a bit more seriously. I am talking about a negotiation to enter the European monetary system, out of which will come the proper rate that is best for British industry. But an exchange rate that moves from DM3·20 to DM2·60 and then to DM2·80 is not what British industry wants.
  After 10½ years of this Government, after the £65 billion which the Government have had in oil revenues, £23 billion from privatisation sales and another £20 billion from land and other sales, after all the promises, all the claims, all the boasts that our problems would be solved, and after all the sacrifices that the people have made, people ask why it is Britain, not our competitors, that has the biggest trade gap, the worst inflation and the highest interest rates. What sort of transformation is it when we see inflation at 3 per cent. in Germany, 3·5 per cent. in France, 2 per cent. in Japan and moving towards 8 per cent. in Britain—higher than any of our major competitors? Yet it was Britain that was promised zero inflation by its Government.
  After all these years, when we have had all these claims of an economic miracle, Germany is growing by 3 per cent., France by 3 per cent. and Japan by 4·5 per cent. this year, but we are lucky if we are growing by above 1 per cent. What is the excuse, when Germany has an interest rate of 8·5 per cent., France 11 per cent., Japan 7·5 per cent., but we in Britain still have 15 per cent., after months of sacrifices by millions of home owners hit by rising mortgages and thousands of small businesses squeezed by high interest rates? Yet it was Britain that was supposed to be enjoying an economic miracle. How, after 10 years, can we explain this failure?
  I have here an important speech which was made last Tuesday but which the Government machine seems to have overlooked—a speech by the Leader of the House, made possible by the terms of his new position as deputy Prime Minister, which gives him the time, and indeed the solitude, in which to reflect on past errors. What does he say in this speech, in this barely audible voice from his

  739
  internal exile? What is he trying to tell us in this account of a day, or perhaps just an hour, in the life of Geoffrey Denisovich? He asks
  "why, after 10 years, there are trade deficits."
  He says:
  We need to ask why in some very basic, low-tech fields, let alone high-tech ones, there are trade deficits that really do not need to exist."
  Worse still, he presumes to answer with a confession: because we have paid insufficient attention to manufacturing industry. Manufacturing industry, he says, needs
  "more priority, socially and economically".
  He goes on:
  "We need to place success in manufacturing higher on our national scale of priorities."
  He says that manufacturing
  "is an indispensable dynamo of a successful modern society."
  He goes on to say that we need Britain
  "enhancing its manufacturing fire power in every sector"
  and that improvement in the manufacturing balance is
  "a key part of the task ahead for the nation."
  Mr. Philip Oppenheim: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that manufacturing output has increased under this Government. Would he also confirm or deny that, during the course of the last Labour Government, manufacturing output fell?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that growth overall, taken year by year, on average was higher under the last Labour Government, even when we were faced with major oil problems. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about telling the truth, let me remind him of what he said to his electorate in Amber Valley in 1987:
  "The Conservative Government has put an end to fast rising prices once and for all.
  I return to the speech of the deputy Prime Minister. In October, when he addressed the Conservative party conference he talked about the importance of manufacturing; in January, he criticised our manufacturing failures; now, in February, he calls for a manufacturing strategy to innovate, invest and internationalise.
  Three times now, he has denied the Prime Minister, not a bit for the spot to be vacated by the Secretary of State for Wales, but a speech of penitence. The leading zealot of the first wave of the Thatcherite revolution is reappearing 10 years on as an embittered dissident. After some blinding revelation, there was an astonishing conversion somewhere on the road to Dorneywood. There is no longer an economic miracle, a supply-side transformation or a trade deficit of no consequence. After 10 years, there are no longer any answers from the deputy Prime Minister, there are no solutions, only questions. Where there was certainty, there is now confusion; where there were promises, there are now excuses; where there was truth, there is now admission of error; where there was hope, there is now disillusionment; and where there were answers, there are now only questions.
  Where do the Government stand now, with the Secretary of State for Wales clearing his desk? The last remaining supporter of an industrial strategy in the Cabinet is now preparing to leave the Cabinet to spend more time with his family. The former Secretary of State for Employment called our training failure mind-boggling, and then quickly left to go back to his family. Now even the deputy Prime Minister is semi-detached. Who are left carrying the torch onwards? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister, the last two
  740
  survivors of the glad, confident morning, are now the last devotees of a threadbare faith, the Darby and Joan of the last faltering months of the Thatcherite revolution tottering downwards towards the sunset and their inevitable fate. Yet those are the people who told us they had created an economic miracle.
  What does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry propose now? When the nation believes that he has gone too far, he is still seized of the view that he has not yet gone far enough. We should remember that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to his Department with something of a reputation as the author of what used to be called the flagship policy—the community charge—and as the Minister who advised the nation that if they wanted an alternative to tap water they should drink Perrier.
  What does the right hon. Gentleman's Department propose when businesses are going bankrupt at a very fast rate; when there have been more redundancies and closures in the past weeks than in many years of the 1980s; when businesses are reeling from what the Government admit in official figures is a 67 per cent. increase in interest rate charges facing businesses, with winding-up petitions reported to the Lord Chancellor for the last quarter up by 46 per cent.; and on top of that, there is a long-term investment gap facing our country?
  Even with North sea oil, we are investing a smaller share of our national income in ourselves than most of our competitors over a decade. The training gap has grown, with more young people leaving school early without qualifications. There are more people in our work force with no major qualifications. There is a research gap and a regional gap, with the economies of the north growing at half the rate of the economies of the south.
  What does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry propose? Instead of helping to bridge the regional gap, there will be a 26 per cent. cut in regional arid industrial support, which will fall by £100 million to 1993. Instead of helping to bridge the innovation gap with our competitors, there will be a 4 per cent. cut in support for industry, including innovation, which will fall by £30 million to 1993. Instead of helping to bridge the research gap, there will be a 23 per cent. cut in general industrial collaborative projects, a 10 per cent. cut in advanced technology programmes, and a 3 per cent. cut in the research and technology organisation programmes. Instead of acting as a partner with industry to bridge those gaps with our competitors, there will be cuts in the Department of Trade and Industry budget totalling 27 per cent.
  The right hon. Gentleman has been running down his responsibilities, with the ultimate goal of creating the first Department in British history devoted to doing absolutely nothing. Sunrise industries are looking in vain for help from that sunset Department, which is not so much open for business, in the language of his predecessor, as subject to a closing down sale.
  We have a Secretary of State who believes genuinely that it will be better for industry when the last civil servant refuses the last export credit to the last struggling manufacturer in the land. It is the invisible hand guiding the invisible Department. It is not only a Department that does nothing but a Department with an ideological commitment that nothing shall be done. He is a Minister with more of a past, I am afraid, than a future. Nothing suggests the short-termism of his Department—
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The last thing I want to do is spend more time with my family—[Interruption]
  Mr. Brown: I do not know whether that is a promise or a threat. With the experience of the Secretary of State for Wales and that of the last Secretary of State for Employment, I was beginning to believe, until the right hon. Gentleman spoke, that the Conservative party had become the party of the family.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of Scotland would like the Secretary of State to spend more time with his family? Is he further aware that, in the working men's and unemployed people's clubs, the right hon. Gentleman is known as a Minister who works like two men, Laurel and Hardy?
  Mr. Brown: If the Secretary of State wishes to stay on, I am sure that the electorate will shortly disappoint him. Nothing suggests the short-termism of his Department better than the right hon. Gentleman himself. Last year, it was the Water Bill. Next year we shall have the water colours. He is a Minister here today, his Department gone tomorrow. He is totally oblivious to the immediate problems that industry faces with high interest rates.
  When the whole nation outside the Cabinet—and even the deputy Prime Minister, it seems, inside it—recognises that the trade deficit is a problem; when the consensus is that an industrial strategy is required; when the capacity of our industrial base is an issue causing increasing concern; when there is a clear need for a budget for industry; when the CBI is telling the Government to put investment before personal tax cuts; and when the Engineering Employers Federation and others have a joint budget submission demanding that attention be given to the problems of industry, our complaint against the Government is not just that they preside over the highest interest rates, the worst inflation and the biggest trade gap of our major competitors. It is not only that to have a consumer boom without adequate sustained long-term investment in our capacity was bound to be unsustainable and lead to the problems that we now face, sucking in imports, causing pressure on interest rates and creating inflationary bottlenecks. It is that, worst of all, the Government have no policy for Britain other than to repeat the mistakes that they have already made.
  We are talking about a do-nothing Budget this year, a give-away Budget next year, another expansion of credit, another short-term consumer boom and another Lawson boom under a different name, but again, all without the necessary investment in training, research and capacity. It is a do-nothing year—merely an interval between making the mistakes and repeating them. We have a Government who do not respond to the economic cycle now but are dominated by the electoral cycle. When we need a Budget for skills, for technology and for investment to build for the future rather than to paper over the cracks of the present, our fear is that we shall be subjected to a Budget not to invest for the nation for tomorrow but simply to tide things over for the Tory party today.
  Let us consider the problems that anybody charged with responsibility for the industries of this country should address—first, research and development. When Britain already spends only half as much a year on civil research
  742
  as Germany and France, when we have half as many scientists pro rata in our work force as Japan and Germany, when market forces have clearly failed to produce the goods in the last 10 years, and yet when in Britain the Government are spending half what the Germans spend on innovation, with a smaller share of our national income being spent for that purpose than in France, Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands, what have the Government done?
  The Government have abolished the micro-electronics support programme, the opto-electronics scheme and the single industry support schemes, they have cut support for innovation which, according to The Engineer magazine, has "fallen sharply" in electronics and in information technology, and even last year, they spent less than they promised to the House. They spent only £440 million instead of £510 million. There is less and less and less under this Government. If we could not succeed in many of the newest industries in the 1980s with minimal support, how are we to succeed in the new technologies of the 1990s with next to none?
  The same is true of the regions. When unemployment rates in the north are still twice those of many regions in the south, when, even on the Government's own indicators, only 20 to 25 per cent. of the extra small businesses have come to the northern parts of the country, when only 30 per cent. of venture capital is coming to the north as well, and when high-technology employment has fallen in the regions, except Wales, what do the Government do? They cut spending further and further on regional development support. They even spent less last year than they said that they would in the published figures. They refuse to listen to the sensible demand coming from the regions that there be effective development agencies and enterprise boards to create new opportunities and technologies.
  Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Gentleman solve a problem for me? He has mentioned regional development and regional aid. One way to establish that aid is to have an adequate road system. The Government have pledged themselves to improving our road system and the CBI has asked for that in its document "Trade Routes for the Future". The Government have adequately funded a road system programme, revolving over 10 years, at a cost of £12 billion. Why is it Labour party policy, as laid out by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), to abandon the "crazy" road spending programme?
  Mr. Brown: I fear that the hon. Gentleman deliberately seeks to misunderstand what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to yet another imbalance in the Conservative party's approach to the affairs of our nation. The Government refuse to invest in rail in the same way as they invest in roads. We want to achieve a proper balance in our infrastructure.
  When I talk about the importance of regional policy, Conservative Members would do well to take into account the fact that railways are extremely important to the development of the regions, as is investment in new technologies and in training. We must ask ourselves whether the Germans are cutting their industry budget,

  743
  whether the French are cutting their export services or whether the Japanese are cutting support for new technologies.
  Is it not the case that all those countries are investing in the future in a way that this Government, by abandoning the responsibilities that the Department of Trade and Industry has traditionally undertaken, are not doing? We need assurances today from the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will give me specific and precise answers to my questions.
  Will the Secretary of State guarantee that regional policy is not to be further dismantled on the road to being abandoned? Will he assure us that support for innovation will be no worse than in Germany, Italy, France and our other European competitors? Will he tell us that Britain will secure its share of collaborative funds for research and development? Will he assure us that there will be no further rundown, rationalisation or privatisation of the Government's responsibilities to industry? Will he tell us that he will introduce no further export charges for advice and support, because they debilitate the attempt of industrialists to succeed in the export markets?
  What of exports, so important to the future of this country? What of the new trading opportunities before us in eastern Europe? The Hungarians, the Poles, the East Germans and the Russians are asking for information technology and we send them the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The East Germans ask for up-to-the-minute technical know-how and we send them the Earl of Trefgarne. The Poles and Hungarians are asking for farming technology and we are sending them the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Later this year, the Americans will give billions of dollars in new aid as part of a package. The French are buying into major enterprises, and the Germans are sending trade missions, often involving the whole boards of major companies. In the next few weeks, the British are sending them the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Is it not tragic that, just at the moment when we should be considering how to build trading links to last over the years, we seem more interested in exporting dogma than goods and services? Where we have deficits, not only with western Europe but with eastern Europe, surely it makes no sense to cut export services, to cut the Export Credits Guarantee Department, to cut many of the services that, traditionally, have been performed by the Department of Trade and Industry, and to charge businesses that can ill afford to pay because of high interest rates.
  At the end of almost 11 years of this Conservative Government, the best that we can hope for is that inflation will fall to about 6 per cent. at the end of the year—although the Government used to promise that it would come down to zero. The best that we can hope for is a trade deficit which, we understand from official figures, will be about £15 billion—something unheard of before this Government came to power. The best that we can hope for is that interest rates will slip down by 1 or 2 per cent.—but they will still remain the highest among our major European competitors.
  During these past 11 years, the Government have failed even to address the long-term problems that they claimed to have conquered during the first five-years. They have squandered £65 billion of oil revenues with no thought of tomorrow. That is the meaning of short-termism.
  744
  What will be their excuses now? They cannot say that they need more time, because they have already had 10½ years. They cannot say that markets alone will deliver the goods, because for 10½ years they have not. They cannot say that they are the victims of international economic problems, because our competitors have had to face the same problems and many have done better. They cannot blame the burdens of interventionism, because it is lower in Britain than in other countries. They cannot blame an over-regulated labour market, because they claim to have led the way in deregulation.
  Who is left to blame—the Churches, Brian Redhead, the left-over intellectuals of the 1960s, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the West Oxfordshire Eighteen? The truth is that, having blamed everyone else, the Government have no one left to blame but themselves.
  Our complaint is not simply that, for more than 10 years, the Government have been unfair and unjust—charges that may not especially concern them; it is that, on the economic issues, on which they asked us to judge them and for which all the sacrifices have been made, they have been hopelessly inefficient and terminally incompetent. All that is left are the short-term electoral expediencies of short-term Ministers in a Cabinet dominated by 10 years of short-termism—thankfully, with only a short term to go. They are running out of oil, they have run out of ideas and they have even run out of excuses. Now time is running out for them.
  4.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on policies which have achieved the highest rate of economic growth in the European Community, the largest increase in manufacturing productivity of any major industrial country, and record levels of industrial output, investment and exports; welcomes the continuous fall in unemployment for 42 months, and the creation since 1983 of nearly three million jobs in the United Kingdom; and commends the resolve of Her Majesty's Government to bear down on inflation and to continue with the supply side policies which have contributed to these achievements."
  I rather enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It was a good Dunfermline high school debating society effort, but it did not contain a grain of Labour party policy. I advise the hon. Gentleman to spend more time with his family, because he is wasting it here. His ignorance was demonstrated by the advance notice of today's debate which he tabled last week, in which he referred to the balance of payments deficit. He should know that payments balance, so there cannot be a deficit on the balance of payments.
  The hon. Gentleman based the debate on one month's trade figures. How often has it been said by Ministers of all parties that one month's figures are of little value as an indicator of trade performance? It is the trend that matters. The total value of our overseas trade each month—visible and invisible—is about £35 billion. So purely random movements of 2 or 3 per cent., which are common, can move one month's current account balance either way by many hundreds of millions of pounds. These random movements tend to cancel each other out over a long period, which is why it is the trend that matters.

  745
  Moreover, single consignments can distort a whole month's figures. The hon. Gentleman referred to the erratics. I think that he got it right: the quotation from the dictionary referred to geological oddities of a bygone age. Curiously enough, in this case they are. They are diamonds which are re-exported at considerable profit to the country. In January, 400 million-odd were imported.
  The monthly figures, which cause the hon. Gentleman such glee when poor figures are first published, are subject to considerable revision when more complete information becomes available. For example, the originally published December deficit of £1,100 million, which we regarded as unnaturally low at the time, has now been revised down to £800 million. Perhaps that will convince the hon. Gentleman of the folly of constructing an elaborate edifice on one month's figures. He is keen to run Britain down when the figures appear bad, but he is not to be seen anywhere when they are revised upwards and show a better picture.
  I return to the trend, which is healthy. Export volume in the last three months, excluding oil and erratics, was 4 per cent. higher than in the previous three months, while import volume was 1 per cent. lower. Compared with a year earlier, there is an even more striking result: export volume is up by 11 per cent. and import volume is up by only 2 per cent. There is no doubt, on the basis of those figures, which the hon. Gentleman is not listening to, that the trend of both exports and imports, including the January figures, is firmly in the right direction.
  The Opposition may not like it if I give too much good news, but the value of our visible exports in 1989 was 14·4 per cent. higher than in 1988. Among the high spots were a 95 per cent. increase in exports of telecommunications equipment to the United States and a 75 per cent. increase in exports of road vehicles to Japan, to more than £150 million last year. That is a turnabout. Exports of road vehicles to all destinations increased by 33 per cent. Exports of iron and steel since privatisation rose in value by 36 per cent. My right hon. and hon. Friends will note with satisfaction that excellent evidence of rapid recovery in three major industries which were mutilated by the interventionist policies of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the 1970s.
  I fear that I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Dumfermline, East.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The figures that my right hon. Friend has given of the improving trend of exports as against the fairly static level of imports surely justify the conclusion that the country had a problem not because of competitiveness but because of the surge in demand domestically. Therefore, that entirely justifies the Government's policy of increasing the cost of money to bear down on demand.
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right, unlike the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. The problem is that, great though the increase in production is, the surge in demand has overtaken it.
  I fear that there is more good news. It looks as if the encouraging trends will continue, both in exports and in imports. In 1989, our exporters almost certainly increased their share of world trade, despite what the hon. Gentleman alleged. The prospects are good for expansion
  746
  of the volume of world trade itself. The Industry Act forecast last November predicted that the volume of world trade would expand at the healthy rate of 5 per cent. in 1990, with the volume of world trade in manufactures expanding at 6·5 per cent. If our exporters maintain or increase their share of world markets, as they are doing, that will mean further healthy export growth. Export order books are good and are growing. Export opportunities will grow even more rapidly if we have a successful conclusion to the Uruguay GATT round, a topic which the hon. Gentleman has never mentioned. I do not think that he even knows about it.
  Mr. Giles Radice: When the Government came to power, there was a balance in manufacturing between exports and imports. In 1989 there was a £17 billion deficit. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that? Does it matter? If it does, what is he doing about it?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman missed the fact that, in the early 1980s there was a considerable surplus. For one of the very few times in our history, we had a surplus of visible trade, excluding oil. These matters go up and down according to the success of industry, and we can now see the growing success of British industry which I have described.
  Against those successes, and against the huge opportunities for us to trade in the world, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East excelled himself in an article in The Mail on Sunday 10 days ago. He said that the solution for us all was to rush to eastern Europe and supply British high-quality consumer goods to the inhabitants of those poor countries so recently delivered from Socialism.
  My first question is, why has Socialism not already delivered the goods? Surely it should have been supplying everyone with all the lovely products resulting from state intervention, state investment banks, nationalisation and national plans. The best thing for the hon. Gentleman to do is to hope that we will all forget that eastern Europe adopted the very policies that he advocates. If hon. Members want to see planning in action, they should go and stand in a bread queue in Bucharest, or put their names down for a telephone in Warsaw. Then they will see the results of policies like those of the Labour party.
  The hon. Gentleman had the grace to admit in that article that east Europeans have no hard currency to pay for our goods—another first for Socialist economics. But he had an answer for that, too: it came to him in a flash of inspiration—barter. They could pay in radishes and raspberries, sauerkraut and slivovitz.
  We have been trying to do barter trade with the eastern bloc for 20 years, which is why our trade with all those countries amounts to less than 2 per cent. Is that really all that the hon. Gentleman can suggest—to go back to the mediaeval system of barter, with failed Socialist economies? Or is it a forlorn attempt by him to exonerate the failure of Socialism in eastern Europe? I know that he does not like it, but he might as well take it. Those of us who have been here for a few years remember Lord Callaghan telling us in 1960:
  "I have not the slightest doubt that the economic measures and the Socialist measures which one will find in countries of Eastern Europe, will become increasingly powerful against the uncoordinated, planless society in which the West is living at present"—

  747
  [Interruption.] As some hon. Members were shouting and may not have heard that, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will repeat it:
  "I have not the slightest doubt that the economic measures and the Socialist measures which one will find in countries of Eastern Europe, will become increasingly powerful against the uncoordinated, planless society in which the West is living at present."—[Official Report, 15 December 1960; Vol. 632, c. 679.]
  The noble Lord has become an older, wiser man. I hope that he will teach the hon. Gentleman the lesson that people in eastern Europe have learnt: Socialist economic policy results in economic disaster.
  Our efforts here are directed towards helping the economies of eastern Europe to move towards a proper market system based on hard currency, private ownership, no plans, no intervention, and proper market pricing. The way for us to help is through major private investment. This is the message that my Ministers and I shall take to eastern Europe in our travels, and we shall be taking teams of senior business men with us to show how British industry can provide the practical help that Eastern Europe needs. Barter, my foot!
  Mr. Bob Clay: If the Secretary of State is advocating no plans, no intervention and plenty of investment, can he explain why his Department and unelected officials in Brussels have, between them, refused to allow entirely private investors to buy shipyards in Sunderland so that they might build ships that are required and for which there are orders? These people are themselves shipowners and would require no state subsidy whatsoever. Will the Secretary of State explain why his Department intervenes only to prevent people in the private sector from investing in shipbuilding in Sunderland?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should address that question to the European Commission, which, quite rightly, seeks to enforce the agreement with us to make it possible to aid the hon. Gentleman's constituency through the enterprise zone and many other measures. These measures have been of far more value than would be the enterprise with which the Commission insists we do not proceed.
  As I have said already, the trade deficit is the result of demand in the economy being in excess of productive capacity. Measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to curb excessive demand are working. This is clear from the trend in retail sales and in house prices. The slackening of demand is already reducing the growth of imports, and will continue to do so. The Industry Act forecast predicted that 1990 would see a continued fall in the rate of import growth. That, too, is being borne out. Industry is expanding and will have room to export more.
  The trade deficit is still too high—there is no argument about that. But the deficit, high though it is, is not a sign of industrial weakness; it has arisen because demand has been growing even faster than production. Because they love to knock British industry, the Opposition, in the face of the evidence, cling to the allegations that the deficit is the result of weakness on the part of our industry.
  So how is our "unco-ordinated, planless" industry doing? Manufacturing output is at record levels. Since 1981 it has risen by 32 per cent., not the 17 per cent. that has been quoted. In the period 1986–89, the volume of manufacturing output alone increased by 19 per cent. That
  748
  is not evidence of manufacturing decline. Nor do I take any lessons on the subject from the representative of a party whose last period of office saw an actual fall in the volume of manufacturing output.
  Productivity in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom has risen by almost 60 per cent. since 1980. That represents a rate of growth unmatched by any of our major industrial competitors, and certainly unmatched by any planned or co-ordinated Socialist Government anywhere. It is in sharp contrast with our record in the previous 20 years, when we were at the bottom of the league table for manufacturing productivity growth. In the early 1980s, there was an overdue correction of the heavy overmanning that had been brought about with the encouragement of the Labour Government, but in recent years a continuing strong improvement in productivity has gone hand in hand with an expansion of production. Could any of the credit for this be due to the Government's supply-side policies?
  Mr. Graham: When the Secretary of State goes to eastern Europe, will he tell the regimes there that half of Scotland has lost more than half its manufacturing jobs since this Government came to power in 1979? In Strathclyde alone, more than 166,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost under the jurisdiction of this Government. That is an indication of the planning that will denude Scotland further and further until it is just one big estate for game hunting by the rich.
  Mr. Ridley: I think that if I were to tell, say, the Poles what the hon. Gentleman has asked me to tell people in eastern Europe, they would be rather shocked. It is likely that the rates paid to people in Scotland who are on benefit are higher than the industrial wages paid to many people in Poland. The hon. Gentleman has no idea how lucky he is. Unemployment in Scotland is very low compared with previous figures, simply because so many new jobs have been created. [Interruption.] I did not say that. I said that those on benefit are probably better off than people in Poland who are in full-time work.
  The decline in the profitability of industry through the 1970s was both a symptom and a cause of its difficulties. That trend has been decisively reversed. By 1987—the most recent year for which firm figures are available—the rate of return in manufacturing had recovered from 4 to 8 per cent. There is little doubt that it has risen further since, and it now stands at a level not seen since the 1960s. This enables three quarters of the funds for capital investment to be found from internal resources, thus enabling companies to invest despite high interest rates. Good profits help firms to raise more money through the stock market for investment.
  The "unco-ordinated, planless" industry that we have has also had record investment. Opposition Members always lay great stress on investment. I suspect that the volume of investment is often of less significance than its quality and the efficiency with which it is exploited. Nevertheless, investment trends are also very encouraging. In the last seven years the growth of investment in the economy as a whole will have been twice as fast as the growth in consumption. Business investment has grown by 40 per cent. in the last three years alone. Manufacturing investment grew by 12 per cent. in 1988 and by 5·5 per cent. in 1989, and now stands at a record level. It takes a considerable amount of misplaced ingenuity to portray that record as failure.

  749
  The result has been a revival of industrial prosperity across the whole country. Unemployment has fallen for 42 consecutive months, and now stands at only two thirds of the European Community average.
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose——
  Mr. Ridley: I know that these figures are not popular with the Opposition, but they had better listen to the truth. Unemployment has fallen for 42 consecutive months, and now stands at only two thirds of the European Community average. It has fallen sharply in every region. We have the highest level of employment in our history—26·5 million people in jobs. Is the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East ashamed of our success in helping his constituents to a better life? The largest percentage falls in unemployment in the past year have been in Scotland, Wales and the North.
  Since March 1986, the combined unemployment rate in the north-east, the north-west, and Yorkshire and Humberside has almost halved—from 15·9 to 8·4 per cent. In Dunfermline, the unemployment rate has fallen from a high of 17·7 per cent. to the present figure of 10·1 per cent. Why did not the hon. Gentleman mention that to his constituents in the tear-jerking account of his hardworking week that was published in The Guardian on 3 March? We all felt particularly sorry that he had to catch the 7.30 train to Newcastle—a train on which I travel frequently. I am sorry that he was so inconvenienced by having to make a speech there.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I acknowledge that unemployment has fallen over the past 42 months. Nevertheless, in all the standard planning regions north of the line from the Severn to the Wash, over 660,000 fewer men are employed today than in 1979, and in Wales 60,000 more men are out of a job. Is not that a sad comment on the current state of affairs? There is a huge disparity in the development of the economy: there are 305,000 extra jobs for men in the south-east, and 660,000 more men unemployed in the north and west.
  Mr. Ridley: I cannot confirm all the hon. Gentleman's figures off the top of my head, but I believe that unemployment in Wales alone has fallen by 23 per cent. over the past year. What the hon. Gentleman has drawn to our attention is the migration from the north, Scotland and Wales to the south that has taken place over the past few years. I hope that that trend is now reversing; I believe that it is.
  The Government's policies are spreading prosperity across the nation. That is why the old arguments about the north-south divide are heard so seldom now, except when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East tries to keep them alive. The truth directly contradicts what he said: the north is now experiencing faster economic growth than the south, and doing better than the south.
  The story is of record increases in production, productivity, exports, profits, investment and employment. Of course there is more to do, but the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East ought to first acknowledge that the 1980s have probably been the best years for British industry since the 1880s. He prefers to go on griping, however.
  750
  Labour says that there is not enough training and not enough investment, and that too little is spent on research and development. The hon. Gentleman asked about research and development: let me give him the details for 1987, the most recent year for which I have figures. As a percentage of gross national product, private sector investment in research and development was 1·8 per cent. in West Germany, 1·9 per cent. in Japan 1·1 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 0·9 per cent. in France. The hon. Gentleman got the figures wrong; our investment is not less than half that of Germany, and it is more than that of France. Of course the investors could do better, but this is not a poor performance.
  The hon. Gentleman complained that there are too many takeovers, and that industry suffers from short-termism. It is the Labour party which is suffering from short-termism; it wants to take advantage of any quick trick that it can find to fill up a Supply day debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to continue carrying out our task of improving the country's record of training. He ought to know that the Government are setting up training and enterprise councils to improve training—involving expenditure of some £2·5 billion a year—but he did not mention it.
  Foreign investors know what a favourable climate the United Kingdom provides for manufacturing enterprise. In the past 12 months, major new investments have been announced by Bosch, Toyota and Fujitsu. Digital Equipment has expanded its operations in the north and in Scotland; Reinhagen of West Germany has invested in Coventry, Murata of Japan in Plymouth and Koyo Seiko of Japan in Barnsley. Nearly 40 per cent. of United States investment in the Community, and one third of Japanese investment, comes to Britain. West German firms have invested more in the United Kingdom than in any other Community country. Inward industrial investment is running at a rate of £4·5 billion a year. There is the evidence that industry thrives on Britain's "uncoordinated, planless" environment. If it is good enough for Japanese, Germans and Americans to invest and manufacture here, why is it not good enough for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East?
  Inward investment has had other benefits for the British economy. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not acknowledged them, but I was heartened by an article by Victor Keegan in The Guardian last week, which spelled out the success of such investment. I agreed particularly with Mr. Keegan's point that overseas production and managerial techniques had had a catalytic effect on British industry. There can be no doubt that foreign investment is leading to improved product quality and management in British industry.
  The motion refers to interest rates. Of course high interest rates are unwelcome to private borrowers; of course they have an impact. Their purpose is to make saving more attractive and borrowing less so, and thus to reduce the pressure of the excess demand that was properly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No, not now.
  Inflation is by far the greater evil, and it is absolutely right for us to place its defeat at the top of the agenda. The

  751
  main impact of high interest rates is on people with mortgages. I sympathise with them, for I know how difficult things are for them.
  Mr. Allen: Do you?
  Mr. Ridley: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why so many Labour councils have chosen such a difficult moment to impose such extravagantly high community charges? If the Labour movement cared anything for the people who are suffering from the high mortgage rates, it would have done its utmost to moderate the charges rather than stoking up the problem.
  We should not exaggerate the effect of interest rates on business. First, it is less the cost of borrowing than the availability of attractive investment opportunities that determines the scale of new investment. When investments yield returns of 25 to 30 per cent., as some do, borrowing at 10 to 15 per cent. still makes good sense. Secondly, while short-term and variable interest rates have risen sharply, interest rates for fixed-rate finance at medium and long term remain substantially lower. That is often the form of finance best suited to the needs of a manufacturing enterprise.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No, I will not.
  Finally, the cost of interest rates must be set against other business costs. On average, the cost of a 1 per cent. rise in interest rates is far lower than that of a 1 per cent. pay increase, but I have not noticed the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and his hon. Friends protesting at some of the excessive wage demands made recently by their friends in the trade union movement; nor do I entirely understand why the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions is determined to push through high wage claims if it is worried about the effect of high interest rates on business.
  The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues persist in the belief that there is some other, painless way of controlling inflation. I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is present: although I may not list all his silly ideas about controlling credit, I shall pay him the compliment of quoting his suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should appeal to the banks' sense of civic responsibility in an attempt to limit undesirable lending.
  If the Government feel that they must intervene in the economic life of the country, surely they should do so overtly, through legislation that will be subject to the scrutiny of the House. It is no good lecturing people. I cannot believe that homilies from my right hon. Friend, or any other Minister, on the virtues of abstinence will be treated like tablets of stone in company boardrooms. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East may think that lecturing business men over breakfast goes down well, but precious few of them tell me that they want directions from Whitehall on how to run their affairs.
  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman also propose to appeal to the civil responsibility of lenders in Germany, the United States, Japan, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands? Does he intend to preach to them about undesirable lending? No doubt they would take up any business lost by British lenders who were foolish enough to listen.
  752
  It is time to jettison all those ideas, just as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has firmly jettisoned the silly ideas put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). What has happened to Labour's plans for a payroll tax, which threatened British industry with an extra £1 billion tax bill? What has happened to Labour's plans for a co-ordinated, planned British investment bank and a range of regional and local investment banks? I am quoting from Labour's policy review. What has happened to the no-dividend policy for utilities?
  Will the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East tell the House now, because he did not tell us in his speech? None of those policies is mentioned in Labour's recent "Industry 2000" document. As the hon. Gentleman seems shy of talking about his own policies, I shall tell his right hon. and hon. Friends why there is no mention of them—it is because he has ditched them. If he had not, he would tell us about them. I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to say that he has not ditched those policies. I have answered lots of questions, so will the hon. Gentleman now be kind enough to answer just one? What has happened to the economic and industrial policies advocated that his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham put before the nation? Has the hon. Gentleman ditched them or not? It seems that we cannot even have an answer to that question.
  Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend knows that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) allowed me to intervene in his speech, for which I am most grateful. I asked him about the Labour party's roads programme and about the commitment that has been given by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that that programme for that essential part of the United Kingdom's infrastructure is regarded by the Opposition as so important to our economic viability that they would scrap it. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said that they did not mean any such thing. I refer my right hon. Friend to the fact that on 14 February the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said:
  "We would not follow the crazy road programme that the Government have embarked upon."—[Official Report, 14 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 300.]
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members are putting forward a recipe for disaster, congestion and economic bankruptcy?
  Mr. Ridley: The role of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East in these matters is to run along behind his colleagues with a blanket. Whenever any shadow Minister makes a policy commitment, the hon. Gentleman runs along to deny it. He hides it by drawing the blanket over it. The Opposition have to move the hon. Gentleman around every few months so that he can clear up all the messes left by his colleagues. That applies equally to his hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Dagenham.
  Perhaps the shadow Chancellor will tell us what has happened to the payroll tax. He should know. Is it still Labour party policy? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please tell us the solutions?—[HON. MEMBERS. "Come on."] The Opposition are long on diagnosis, but short on prognosis. I have only one question. Have the measures outlined in Labour's policy review been ditched. or not? Just yes or no—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I

  753
  rest my case. Indeed, I have no case to answer, because no alternative strategy has been put forward. I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: After that speech, the only people with any reason to hope are the Secretary of State's family. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) once said that the Secretary of State is the most brilliant Minister in the Government. I remember commenting then, when I looked at the official Box, that even the men in the white coats were laughing. Today they would have been in tears.
  Today we have heard the wisdom of Ridley—that there is no deficit and that if we ignore it, it will go away because it is an illusion. He said that there can be no such thing as a deficit on the balance of payments. Believe it or not, the person sitting on the Treasury Bench performing his mimicry at the Dispatch Box is what passes as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in this Government. It is no wonder that we have such problems and no wonder that the solutions are all irrelevant.
  To listen to the Secretary of State one would think that he had invented inward investment. He forgets that 15 per cent. of British industry and commerce was overseas-owned in the 1970s and that traditionally we have been a host country for inward investment. We have always welcomed it. With my colleagues in government at the time, I negotiated to bring Hitachi to Bridgend and Aberdare, Toshiba to Cornwall and Aiwa. All those negotiations were carried out under that Labour Administration and others were carried out by previous Conservative Administrations. All Governments have welcomed inward investment, and the Secretary of State should not try to create the impression that it has arisen only since 1979.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: When in our history has inward investment been as high as it is today?
  Mr. Williams: I am coming to that point. On the eve of 1992 and just after big bang, of course, there is an influx of investment throughout Europe—not just into this country. I shall come to that point in a little while. Much though I am tempted by the right hon. Gentleman's trivialisation of everything, which tends to bring out the worst in us, I shall not respond like that because the subject is too serious for us to talk in those terms. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about needing to look at the trend. He is absolutely right—I wish that he had. That is what I should like to do. I wait to get away from the knockabout rubbish to which we had to listen for almost half an hour and put the debate into a different and, I hope, wider context.
  Like most hon. Members of all parties—even if Conservative Members will not admit it—I sincerely believe that there is an underlying, long-term, profound structural imbalance in this country. In part, it is buried by the political trivia that we bandy among the different parties, but it has also been submerged in the short-lived smokescreen of the oil revenues of the past decade.
  754
  However, even with the £128 billion revenue from oil, ominously we still have a deficit of £20 billion over the decade as a whole.
  We must remember that the problem is not just today's problem. It is an underlying one. I do not want to tempt the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who I am sure will want to make his own speech later, but he will recollect trying to grapple in the 1970s with exactly the problem that we are talking about today. We have had an underlying imbalance in British trade since the end of the second world war. In only three years in the period 1948 to 1974 has Britain managed to achieve a surplus in visible trade. The surpluses that we traditionally earn from manufactures were normally outweighed by the import of raw materials because at that stage Britain's only raw material was coal and we were importing up to half our foodstuffs. That imbalance stretches back even to before the last war and into the last century, when we were the workshop of the world. Our balance of payments has always been held by invisibles. It is important to establish that point.
  It was because of the erosion of those invisibles during the war—when our shipping ended up at the bottom of the Atlantic and our overseas investments had to be sold to buy food and armaments—that since the war various Administrations have wrestled with the problems of the balance of payments—except for that one short transitory period of oil revenues. Since the war we have been dogged by the consequences of that problem—the old stop-go syndrome of which we are all well aware. It is because oil has blurred our perception of the British malaise for 17 years that the Secretary of State did not address that problem properly today.
  From 1973, when OPEC began its fivefold increase in oil prices, the perception of the problem changed. Suddenly everything was good because our oil started to flow. During the 1980s all of us, or at least Conservative Members and too many people in the country, wallowed in a false sense of security. The flow of oil from the North sea—£128 billion-worth of it—is a short-term finite asset. It conceals the long-term underlying weakness in Britain's trading economy. That weakness has been made worse—but again concealed by the oil—by the 20 per cent. destruction of the manufacturing base by the end of the 1970s. That it was easily concealed by glib Ministers.
  Throughout the decade, the impact of the underlying trade weakness has worsened. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said, the manufacturing surplus of almost £3 billion in 1979—in current terms it would be over £5 billion—has deteriorated into a £16 billion deficit now. That is a turnround on the manufacturing trading account of £21 billion.
  In the 1980s, the oil flow produced a genuine difference of political opinion about how the resource should be used. A clear division was already emerging before the 1979 election. I remember the debates before the election on industry, policy and so on. Labour Members had a different view of what we should do with the bonanza, the short-term finite resource that would become available to us. Our view was embodied in the industrial strategy, which was anathema to Conservative Members. The concept was simple. It was that we should take that short-term, limited resource out of the North sea and use it to invest in manufacturing, new technology, education

  755
  and training to prepare ourselves for when the oil was no longer there. Conservative Members may have disagreed with it, but they understood it clearly.
  The Government's strategy was different. They believed that, traditionally, invisibles had held the balance and that invisibles could do it again. They believed that manufacturing could be ignored. I remember the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury accusing us of being dewy-eyed about manufacturing. He would not dare to make that statement today.
  The Government made a legitimate but wrong-headed decision to rebuild invisible trade rather than build the physical capability to produce and sell goods. They removed exchange controls. I shall not enter into that argument, because it was simply a means to an end. The outcome of the Government's strategy was that, during the oil decade, there was a net outflow from Britain of £41 billion. Some of it went in loans and some in hard, direct investment. At the end of 10 years of pursuing that strategy, one simple arithmetical fact remains: the extra revenue from outward investments—the invisibles at the heart of the Government's strategy—are not enough to cover the drop of £21 billion in manufacturing trade. We have a gap which did not exist before.
  Until this Government came to power, traditionally we had surpluses on manufacturing. The deficits were on raw materials and foodstuffs. We had surpluses on invisibles and manufacturing. Now we have a surplus only on invisibles, which is not enough.
  If the Secretary of State had remained to listen to the next speech, which is the usual courtesy in the House——
  Mrs. Mahon: He is not a courteous man.
  Mr. Williams: I recognise that he is not noted for it.
  The Secretary of State may say that there was direct outward investment to build factories and secure markets. The direct inward investment about which the Government boast is only half the amount of our direct outward investment. We have created factories, capacity and jobs in other countries at double the rate at which other countries have used their resources to create jobs and capacity in our country.
  One must bear it in mind that the aim of direct outward investment is often to secure a market overseas—for example, in Australia. Once a company has found a good market, it is understandable that it may want to secure it by investing in a local plant. That is clear industrial logic, but we must understand the consequence. There is an outflow of capital. We lose exports because goods are produced locally. We lose jobs because they are not needed here. We probably lose the profits too, because, unfortunately, British companies do not do what the Government say they should do. They do not repatriate profits to provide the invisibles to pay for the deficit on real goods—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to sit there and chunter, that is up to them. They are welcome to intervene.
  Mr. Ian Taylor rose——
  Mr. Hanley rose——
  Dr. Keith Hampson: There is some inconsistency in what the hon. Gentleman says. Labour Members constantly preach that in Europe there are not
  756
  enough level playing fields to allow British capital to take over European companies. The hon. Gentleman sounds as though he is not interested in that process.
  Mr. Williams: I was pointing out that overseas investment makes sense in many circumstances. The basic strategy deliberately adopted by the Government—the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was party to the decision—was to ignore the industrial side and concentrate entirely on invisible overseas investment as a way of securing the future balance of payments. They ignored the enormous impact that will be felt when oil eventually runs out.
  As oil runs out and the revenue from it falls, we shall return to the stop-go process and our invisibles will clearly be incapable of fulfilling their traditional role. They cannot offset the enormous deficit on visible trade. We shall return to stop-go, but not with a balance of payments surplus like the last time. We shall return to the stop-go process with a £20 billion deficit on payments. We shall return to stop-go awash with hot money. We are so awash with hot money that a mere blip—to use the Government's word—a few weeks ago caused £3 billion to flow out across the foreign exchanges and as a result we had to support the currency.
  The Government are in a political quandary. It happens to be an unfortunate time in the electoral calendar and the Government need growth before the next election. So we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister like two first world war generals planning another dash at the wire, another dash for growth. They hope that the dash will carry them through the election and they can bury the dead on the other side. Whichever side of the House makes up the stretcher party after that election and dash for growth will have dramatic problems with which to contend.
  But today's overriding question goes beyond that. With a record balance of payments deficit, historically high interest rates and so much hot money washing about in the economy, will the Government even get as far as the wire?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has done us all a service. His speech was thoughtful and comprehensive, embracing a coherent strategy on how to attempt to run an economy. To paraphrase what he said, there was the once-and-for-all bonanza of North sea oil and "we"—I assume he meant the Government of which he hopes to be a member—will be able to use that money for a once-and-for-all investment process for the greater benefit of the British people. That shows the difference between the Opposition and the Government. The weakness in the Opposition's case is that they have no idea how to use the money, which they would have confiscated through high taxes from the people who had extracted the oil from the North sea.
  It is precisely because Governments the world over do not have the sophisticated mechanisms for investing money for profit that the system described by the right hon. Gentleman does not work. Socialism fails because it misuses resources in its hand. It is the marketplace that finds the probable investments, and that is what the Labour Government, had they been in power, would have denied—the proper effective disposition of resources.

  757
  The seriousness of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, with the conclusions of which I wholly disagree, was in stark contrast with what I think he described as the "knockabout rubbish" of the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—which was funny. By any standards in the House, it was extraordinarily funny, and the better the jokes, the more apparent it became that he had absolutely no policy contributions to make. If this country wants to be run on the basis of inspired humour and the odd wit of Opposition Members, it has today seen what lies over the edge of the abyss.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was quite specific about what he wanted to do. He wanted to introduce a Budget for investment to bring down interest rates. We were led to understand that that commitment was at the top of his list of priorities. He did not tell us what the Budget would contain to bring down interest rates. Bringing down interest rates would mean cutting the level of demand in the economy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor eloquently put it, "If it ain't hurting, it ain't working." The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not say where he would impose the pain necessary to get a grip on inflation.
  The hon. Gentleman then moved on to the second broad sweep of policy. I wholly agree with many of the sentiments he expressed, but then, all hon. Members would broadly agree with them. He argued for more education, training and research and development. He would be the first to say that those are essentially long-term policies. It is no use thinking that, if we say that we are going to put £1 billion into education, the kids will be in the factories within 24 hours, changing the nature of the performance of British industry. It is a long-term policy. With research and development, we must start with a gleam in the eye, work through to the application and then the product emerges.
  Mr. Gordon Brown indicated assent.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is generous enough to agree with me.
  With training, we have to start the process, find people to do the training and set up the facilities, and, in five to 10 years, we will probably get a greater output of trained people. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on that, but there is a lacuna in his argument. If, when he and his party were in power, they were doing all the training, education and investing in research and development, why did the economy fall apart when they left power? We should have been the beneficiaries and inheritors of that great legacy, but they had done none of those things.
  The third, and by no means the worst, item of the hon. Gentleman's agenda for change is regional policy. If I understood him correctly, the implications of his speech were that the northern parts of our economy work less effectively than the southern parts, and a little bit of subsidy here from central Government to stimulate a little bit of job creation there, will change things in a way that all Governments since the war have failed to do. However, there is a small problem for the hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman tried it when he was Secretary of State.
  Mr. Heseltine: No. The hon. Gentleman says that we tried it. The Labour Government did something quite different. In their regional policy, they spent a few hundred million pounds from the centre to the regions while they took billions of pounds from the regions in the south-east in one form of subsidy or another to the City of London and the pension funds.
  What do the Opposition think they achieved with the capital gains tax that destroyed the family businesses of the north? What do they think they achieved when they subsidised pension funds to take the money out of the wealth-creating companies to institutionalise them in the City of London? What did they think they achieved when they gave the publicly quoted companies of the south of England the privilege of taking over the businesses in the midlands and the north with tax incentives? Where did the power go from? From the north. Where did the power go to? To the south. When the communications explosion of the 1980s took place, where did it take place? Where the head offices were. Where were they? Down here. Why? Because they had been driven out of all parts of peripheral Britain by the Labour party. That is what has happened.
  The fourth argument of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—his cri de coeur to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—was, "Give me this one hope." The hon. Gentleman's message was, "Let there be no more restructuring of British industry." I have heard that before. That was the essence of nationalisation—remove the industry from the initial owners, subsidise it, protect it, prevent it from being changed, do not let it diversify, ossify the economies around the country's periphery, and then expect those economies to compete.
  That is what the hon. Member and his party achieved. When the market winds blew, the subsidised, nationalised industries were the first to shed the horrendous number of jobs which, if they had been changed and diversified when the economy was prosperous and growing, would have resulted in much less pain and much more benefit. It took the Conservative party to face up to that, and it is because the Opposition have learnt nothing that they must remain what the hon. Gentleman made them today—an eloquent, uproarious joke, fit for opposition but not for government. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Jaguar?"] Hon. Members know it has already been sold to the Americans.
  I wish to speak about the central issue to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred—the battle against inflation. Conservative Members understand that that is the battle we must win. I am grateful that the Chancellor is here today. He and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should seriously consider the first act of nationalisation in the post-war world—the nationalisation of the Bank of England. The Government have achieved wonders by working back through the corridors of history and privatising most of the major nationalised industries. It is curious that we did not concentrate on the first act of nationalisation, that of the Bank of England. We all know that it cannot be privatised, but there is every conceivable reason why we should seek to distance the Bank of England from its current relationship with the Government.
  I say that for two reasons. First, the battle for inflation is an institutional and a psychological battle. It is of critical importance that the people, the politicians and the wage negotiators of a country know what is the overriding priority of a nation, and that has to be the battle against

  759
  inflation. If, as with the German, American and Swiss banks, the central bank is distanced from the Government, everybody knows that the only way in which politicians can change the influences on the value of money is by direct and open direction through a bank that is likely to resist it. That is a huge sanction. There would be no diminution in the sovereignty of the House, because it would be easier for the House to detect the process that was at work, and the power built into the central governor's position would have a major stabilising impact in the direction that I have described.
  Secondly, whatever one might consider to be the likely effects of German unification, we are moving, driven by treaty, towards the completion of the single European market. One of the major benefits of that market is not just the removal of the structural inhibitions between the 12 countries: it is the enhanced confidence that can come from the investment profile of a much larger and more stable home market, a market that enables Britain, within a partnership of Europe, to stand on all fours with the United States or Japan. One method of achieving that is to obtain a degree of monetary stability in the wider market place.
  The debate is increasingly becoming one of sovereignty, and there are no ways in which, in logic and in the ultimate, that issue can be avoided. But in the first stages towards a more co-ordinated market, the European monetary system and the disciplines of the exchange rate mechanism, no unacceptable loss of sovereignty is involved in moving into such a mechanism. But one would preserve that sense of national independence if we saw it happening coincidentally with the establishment of a central independent bank in Britain.
  We should suggest to our European partners that they should all establish independent central banks on the same model as the Bundesbank, operating to the disciplines of the Bundesbank. Let us have no illusions about that: the disciplines of the Bundesbank are precisely those to which we are all committed. It is precisely because it has been so successful, and the deutschmark so powerful, that all of us recognise that either it will make it on its own, dominating the European economic marketplace, or there will be some arrangement within which we conduct a dialogue; in other words, we have access to the top table.
  A way in which that could be achieved without loss of national sovereignty would be if an independent team of hankers, operating to the same disciplines as the Bundesbank, were established in the national capitals, acting coherently as a council of central bankers.
  It would be perfectly possible for any country to opt out of the exchange rate mechanism or not to attend the meeting of the council of central bankers if it wanted to. But if one did not attend, it would become apparent that one was worried about the disciplines themselves and, in leaving the central mechanism, one would lose the underpinning of the exchange rate mechanism itself, so there would be a price to be paid. But if the central management of a national economy is such as to justify such a removal from the mechanism, one will pay that price in any case, so the important point is to establish disciplines which bind us into the highest standards, which are those of Europe, the deutschmark and the Bundesbank.
  It is apparent from what we have heard in the House today that the alternative policies of a putative
  760
  Government are those of yesterday, with no understanding of the changes that are coming. But for Britain the 1990s will be more traumatic and the change more far-reaching than is yet perceived. We shall deal with the rationalisation of industry and commerce on a scale that is relevant to the competitive challenge of the modern world only if we get inflation under control and if we have disciplines that are equal to the best in Europe. That is something that only the Conservative party understands and has the will to achieve.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) making his alternative bid for the leadership. He decried what the Labour Government did, but he should look at his own record. It takes a little more than a garden centre to revitalise Liverpool and it will take a little more than the creation of a hankers' club in Europe to revitalise Britain's economy.
  The right hon. Gentleman's perspective of the history of Germany is not the true one. German industry was resurrected by the United States and Britain because of the fear of Communism at that time, and the bank followed that. If we followed the path proposed by the potential leader of the Tory party, we would not be much better off than we are under its present leadership.
  Time is running out for British industry. It is faced with high interest rates which, according to the CBI, are now six points higher than they were in 1988 and which have already cost British industry £3 billion. That is the burden that is being carried by British industry. In addition, because of the deficit in the balance of payments, British industry faces the prospect of a further rise which will have grave consequences for our economy. It will push us towards deflation.
  We have heard a lot about 1979 and the Labour party, but in 1979, when the Labour Government left office, investment in manufacturing industry was 3·6 per cent. of GDP. Today it is 2·7 per cent. and falling. Where do we stand in relation to our competitors? If we wanted to equip ourselves for 1992, the single European market and the increased competition that will follow, we would have to invest 50 times as much in manufacturing industry. Only that would create anything like a level playing field in our relationship with the Germans or the Japanese.
  The same applies to research. We spend a lot on research into defence, but in research into civil manufacturing, we lag behind our competitors. Again, we would have to spend 50 times as much to bring us up to the German level. That is the sort of battle that we have to face. We are completely ill-equipped to face what will happen in the single market.
  We hear from Conservative Members and the Secretary of State that all is well; if so, why are our scientists and engineers leaving Britain in droves? Recently, I organised a petition of scientists abroad which we presented to the Prime Minister. If the projects were available to them, those scientists would sooner be here, but the projects are not available because we are not spending our money on them.
  The same applies to training, which is almost non-existent. We are training people for low-skilled, low-waged, low technology jobs. We should be training people for highly skilled, high-wage, high-technology jobs

  761
  if this country is to cope in the future. The Government are pursuing the folly of short-termism, of not looking ahead to the future, and we shall all pay the penalty for it.
  Mr. Allen: They will not.
  Mr. Hoyle: No, some of them will not. Some Conservative Members will be here, but a lot of those who have been shouting vociferously today will not be here after the next election to tell us that they have learnt their lesson and by God they will kick. Already many of them are kicking about the poll tax.
  Many of our problems result from the fact that the Government abolished training courses and boards and since then there has been no training. Why is better training given in France? Because there is a levy on industries employing more than 10 people, of 1·2 per cent. of the payroll. They are producing skilled people, but we are certainly not doing that in this country. In Germany—another of our major competitors—90 per cent. of school leavers enter apprenticeships or equivalent training leading to qualifications. Contrast that with what is occurring here. Do we wonder that Germany, France, Japan and the United States are so far ahead of us?
  What will save us? Who is going to rescue us? Look at the Front Bench team for the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Secretary of State himself. We heard his blundering, bumbling speech today. The Secretary of State is noted for disasters—if he had lived in another era, he would have been the captain of the Titanic. Then there is the Minister for Industry, who thinks he is a latter-day Perry Mason. The only problem is that he rarely wins a case. He has just managed to close the most modern shipyard in this country, in Sunderland—at a time when the Japanese are expanding shipbuilding and when the yard was beginning to come back. Should we not use the skills of workers in Sunderland to build ships? But the Minister for Industry caved in.
  I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs is not here. If ever I saw a Sunday car boot salesman, the Minister for Consumer Affairs is that man. Unfortunately, the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is not with us either. I am sorry that he has gone, because he even makes the Deputy Prime Minister seem charismatic. With him, when one switches on the television set, nothing appears and there is a voice over. These are the people who are supposedly going to save British industry; it is a bleak day when we have to depend on them.
  Will those people have the vision and imagination to look to the future? Of course we all know they will not. We should intervene more in the free market economy, and strengthen the powers of the Department of Trade and Industry, but what is the Secretary of State doing? Between one Woodbine and the next, he is destroying those powers, and our immense problems remain.
  Apart from the challenges arising in 1992 from the single market and increased competition, we are living in a world where armaments are decreasing. Where are the plans to change our defence industries to peaceful civil production? They just do not exist. The Government have shown no imagination as to how we can do that.
  In the United States—the home of the free market economy—they realise what is needed and they are already
  762
  beginning to do it. Hughes Aircraft, for example, which was 80 per cent. dependent on defence contracts has reduced that proportion to 60 per cent. and representatives of the company told me that they would scale it down to 40 per cent. What is the plan for Britain?
  Obviously, the only way that we will meet the challenge of the future is by co-operation between industry, the Government and the financial institutions—if we all begin to pull together, to plan for the future and to bring forward what Conservatives used to be pleased to tell us were the sunrise industries. Under the Conservatives, they have become sunset industries. There is a huge deficit in the balance of payments for information technology, and it is getting worse, not better.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), is in his place. He will agree with my comments because we published a report on information technology, in which we drew attention to the problems. But it will not be acted upon. The Conservative party disregards anything that needs intervention.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a great deal of intervention by the Government in local government and trade unions and that the functions and democracy of those bodies have been constrained by the Government?
  Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Government have attacked the wrong targets. Instead of strengthening local government in the regions to enable them to bring in industry, and allowing the trade unions to play a part in the changes that are occurring, they have set out to destroy them.
  As long as the Conservative party is in charge, with this sorry and motley crew at the Department of Trade and Industry, and with a Prime Minister who believes in the free market, we will be unable to meet the challenges of the 1990s. What is needed is a new team, with a fresh outlook, fresh policies and fresh thinking. That is the way forward, and I hope that it will not be too long before we get that change.
  5.57 pm
  Sir William Clark: I am sure that the whole House enjoyed the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He was quite right to draw attention to overmanning within nationalised industries, which was one of the reasons why our economy got into such a muddle and a mess. He could have gone on to say that the problem was not only overmanning in nationalised industries in the 1970s, but the power of trade union leaders at that time.
  I am sure that, if hon. Members on both sides of the House reflect, they will agree that trade union intransigence was responsible for killing off the car industry, the steel industry and the shipping industry and consequently——
  Mr. Loyden: And lack of investment.
  Sir William Clark: It was not lack of investment. The trouble was that the nationalised industries were overmanned, and their productivity was very low. The Government have curbed the powers of the trade unions, but it takes time.

  763
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley that, although we enjoyed the knockabout speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), it really was a joke. Although pressed, he did not even refer to the Labour party's policy.
  Industry is tougher and fitter than it was 10 years ago. The Opposition laugh at our achievements. All that pleases them is bad economic news. They rejoice in it. By their continual talk of gloom and doom, they are doing down the British economy, to its detriment. It is time that Opposition Members—certainly those who sit on the Front Bench—referred to the achievements of the British economy. It is on those achievements that the standard of living of every man, woman and child depends.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir William Clark: No, I have only just started my speech.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to the new businesses that have been set up. Since 1979, manufacturing production has grown by 13 per cent. in real terms. That is a good achievement. Efficiency has increased. Compared with 1979, the average production of employees has increased by nearly 60 per cent. Investment and exports have also increased.
  Until 1986, we had a trade surplus, but during the last three years we have been in deficit. There are various reasons for that. First, our standard of living is higher. Consequently, consumer demand is much greater. Secondly, higher company profits allow companies to reinvest. Thirdly, demand has increased.
  The Opposition do not seem to appreciate the underlying strength of our overseas assets. Since 1979, our net overseas assets have increased from about £25 billion to just over £100 billion. Our gold and dollar reserves stand at $38·5 billion. If we compare last year's exports performance with this year's, we see that exports have increased this year by 11 per cent., while imports have increased by only 2 per cent. That may be said to be too high, but if we compare a three-month period with the comparable period last year, we see that exports increased by 4 per cent. while exports dropped by I per cent. Exports per head in the United Kingdom are much higher than exports per head in Japan. We should talk about such achievements.
  Private expenditure is slowing down, but there is still some way to go. The housing market has slowed down, and in many cases has gone into reverse. Consumer spending has come down. Therefore, inflation will eventually come down, too. Many of our imports are capital goods. They represent over 50 per cent. of our deficit. Millions and millions of pounds are being invested by the Japanese in our car industry, but it will be a few years before production comes on stream. Consequently, increased car production will be shown in the trade figures only in 1991. Companies are expanding, and there is more and more import substitution.
  My right hon. Friend referred to research and development in the oil industry. No taxpayers' money has been invested in the oil industry; it has been developed solely by private enterprise. Nobody likes high interest rates, but——
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Gentleman will have to admit that the tax regime for the companies that extract oil from the North sea is very generous. There
  764
  are various ways to give subsidies to companies. One way is to set a generous tax regime. That is precisely what happened with North sea oil investment.
  Sir William Clark: I am a consultant to an oil company. Under the tax regime, the tax paid by oil companies is extremely high.
  Mr. Ewing indicated dissent.
  Sir William Clark: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head.
  It is said that high interest rates are the only way to reduce inflation, but the control of public expenditure also helps. The Government have been extremely successful in holding down, and reducing, public expenditure. When we came to office, it was about 43·5 per cent. of the national income. Next year, it will be about 39 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East shed crocodile tears for people with mortgages because of the high interest rates that they have to pay. That is a turnaround for the Opposition. At one time, they did not like home ownership. It is only public opinion that has caused them to change their minds. I agree that the first-time buyer is suffering from the high interest rates, but that hardship is temporary. However, there is no reason why the second-time buyer should not rearrange his mortgage commitment so as to be able to make the same monthly interest repayments. We must keep all this in perspective.
  Reference has been made to the number of people in arrears with their mortgage interest repayments and to the number of repossessions. The fact is that 8 million people have mortgages, of whom only 58,000 are in arrears with their mortgage interest repayments. Therefore, nearly 99·25 per cent. of home owners are up to date with their repayments. There have been about 13,780 repossessions. High interest rates are not responsible for all of them. I understand that over half are due to marital difficulties.
  The Opposition did not say much about credit controls and how a Labour Government would control the 85 per cent. of borrowing which is on mortgages. How would that credit be controlled? The Labour Government introduced credit controls in 1970, which resulted in an average inflation rate of 15·5 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked how one would deal with the overseas banks—the Chase Manhattan bank, the Tokyo bank and so on. It is pie in the sky. In Australia, where there is a Socialist Government, the inflation rate is 20 per cent. However, the Prime Minister of Australia has stated categorically that under no circumstances would he introduce credit controls, because they would be useless.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley referred to the establishment of an independent bank. He suggested that all the members of the European Economic Community should have a national bank. However, I very much doubt whether the 12 EEC countries would agree to that. We must be practical about a national bank and also about joining the European monetary system. There are certain limits within which currencies can rise or fall within the European monetary system.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman means the exchange rate mechanism.
  Sir William Clark: Yes, the exchange rate mechanism; I think all hon. Members knew what I was talking about.
  One of the problems is that we have not yet seen and cannot envisage the difficulties regarding the deutschmark

  765
  when there is monetary union between East and West Germany. We do not know whether unification will happen, but it looks as if monetary union will come fairly soon. Whatever the exchange rate between the ostmark and the deutschmark may be, the consumer demand and spending capacity against the Bundesbank will be increased, because people in East Germany, who at the moment cannot spend their ostmarks outside that country, because they are useless, will create, if they swap them for deutschmarks, consumer demand against the deutschmark. Consequently, inflationary pressures will come into play with a unified monetary system in Germany.
  With regard to industry, of course we have difficulties and of course there is concern, but I sincerely believe that the two elements of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's strategy—high interest rates and control of public expenditure—will do the trick. It will take a few months, but industry is leaner and fitter today. The cash flow of companies is much improved. In 1980, bank borrowing by companies was 45 per cent. of the value of equity; in 1987, it was 28 per cent.; today, it is probably very much lower, because the position has improved since then.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would not answer any questions. My right hon. Friend asked him about the payroll tax, and he would not answer. He was then asked about the national investment bank, which is another way of directing investment that the Labour party is very keen on. Then there is the question of what happens to dividends of industries that have been privatised. All these things have come out in policy documents, but they are not being spoken about.
  My right hon. Friend suggested that they were being ditched. I think he is being very kind about that. I do not believe that they have been ditched at all; I think that they have been hidden in order to hoodwink the public into thinking that, if there were a Labour Government, all the nasty things in their policy document—payroll tax, national investment bank, control of dividends—would disappear. But that is not so. They would come in; there is no question at all about that. They have not been ditched—they have been hidden. It is a confidence trick on the public.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I listened to the comments of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) with interest because he made a fascinating speech, in contrast to those made by Opposition and Government Front Bench Members. He made a devastating and, broadly speaking, accurate attack on the Labour party, making points rather more effectively than they could be made by quoting statistics for the 1970s and the 1980s. They went to the heart of the difference in economic approach and the effect that that had in the 1970s on the Labour party. But he also made a devastating attack on the Government because of the Prime Minister's unwillingness to see the need for an independent bank and for monetary disciplines other than interest rates. The direction in which he was heading there was an appropriate one.
  The sad thing is that the right hon. Gentleman reminds me more than anything of a comet which, cast out into the cold from the centre of power, circulates around with
  766
  nobody to pay much attention to it and not looking terribly interesting for a while. Then, as it heads back towards the centre of power again, in the hope, perhaps, that it will take over from the sun, it attracts its little streamer of hangers-on anxious to hear what it has to say. Whether they will stick with it or float away again over the next year or so remains to be seen.
  The situation that brought the right hon. Gentleman to the Chamber today is nevertheless a serious one. This was not adequately reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in which there were plenty of jokes but no meat, or in that from the Secretary of State, who gave his familiar contemptuous response but again failed to tackle the underlying problems that the country is facing. Both those speeches, but particularly the Secretary of State's speech, failed to reflect the concern expressed to me by business men, the Confederation of British Industry and, indeed, a whole range of people about the difficulties that the economy is in, and, therefore, that the Government are in. The climate of uncertainty and the lack of confidence in the Government's ability to manage the economy are among the root causes of our present problems.
  That is one of the fundamental changes of the past few years. If there was anything that the Government depended on—this was something that they argued for in opposition and in the early years of government—it was confidence and certainty about Government strategy—that it could work, and that they meant it. The loss of that confidence in the anti-inflationary strategy—the loss of belief that the Government mean what they said about tackling the fundamental problems of the economy—led to many of the problems that we have faced and are facing.
  We also have the well-grounded fear that inflation is on the way up again and that it could hit 9 per cent. in the next quarter. We have had pressure on sterling, even in the last few days. When the Secretary of State tries to dismiss the latest trade figures as merely an unfortunate erratic item. one cannot wonder that, whereas those in the City who study these matters swallowed that excuse in the short term, they clearly did not accept it once they had had a moment to think about it. There is now fear of a further rise in base rates to prop up the pound and curb inflationary pressure.
  All these things go right to the heart of what the Government have always said they were about during the past 10 years. They also demand an adequate response from the Opposition parties. There is no advantage to the country or to the House in knockabout speeches that are high on public relations but failures on O-level economics. The paucity of policy from the Labour party raises serious concern about the job that it is doing. There is nothing wrong with the PR; there is nothing wrong with the argument; we can all agree with the argument. But it does not do for the Labour party to talk always of the long term, always of the things it wants to achieve, but never of the concrete reality of how to achieve them.
  We have seen the trade figures putting pressure on the pound over the last few days. The January trade figures show that high interest rates are not working sufficiently to dampen the demand for imports. Whatever the Government say about erratic items, the truth of the situation is underlined by the January consumer credit figures, which show the highest increase in consumer credit on record. The figures show that consumer credit is not slowing but still expanding at 2 per cent. a month.

  767
  Although M0 and M3 have disappeared into the history books as measurements of what is happening in the economy, there can be no question but that real credit difficulties and the supposed interest rate policy pursued by the Government are mutually incompatible. If the Government's interest rate strategy was working, consumer credit should be coming under control. Even worse, wage inflation is further evidence that any slow down in consumer credit and later in inflation may well be only temporary as wage inflation pushes up the price inflation that the Government created only a couple of years ago. It is clear that consumer demand has not been satisfactorily brought under control, and reliance on high interest rates has not even begun to provide a proper answer.
  Government policy and the disease afflicting the economy are starting to become one. High interest rates are crippling industry, and I have said that there are already fears of a further rise in base rates. Last year there was a 10 per cent. increase in business failures and, if high interest rates continue, bankruptcies will increase. The CBI quarterly survey in January reported a sharp fall in demand among large companies and a levelling of manufacturing output. It is not surprising that CBI surveys have shown that industry's intentions to invest are falling. Investment in plant and machinery is expected to fall. Of course Government investment has also fallen.
  Although the Liberal Democrats have unequivocally supported the moves towards the single market and 1992, Government involvement in that process cannot stop with DTI posters announcing in franglais that the single market is here. The question on the posters, "Where are you?" might be better directed at the Government. The Government should tackle supply in the economy and long-term investment in research and development, transport and education.
  The problems in manufacturing industry are already critical. Manufacturing industry is being starved of investment when many firms are already working at or near capacity. Many firms are held back by the lack of capital investment and skilled staff. The short-termism that that reflects—much of it related to Government policy—is the most serious and damning criticism of the Government. Solutions are available, and they have been proposed not only by the right hon. Member for Henley but by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including many Cabinet Ministers, but they are resisted by the person in the strongest position to block them or push them through—that is, the Prime Minister.
  Interest rates could be lowered without the problems that the Government fear if there were a commitment to joining the ERM by the end of the year. Unless that commitment is made, sterling will continue to fall as soon as interest rates are cut or confidence in the Government falls. We are not arguing for membership of the ERM as an easy solution—far from it. Our policies have tackled the problems and have addressed what would need to be done to avoid running into further difficulties. However, membership of the ERM would give industry a more certain environment in which to operate and would help to bring an end to the stop-go approach which has done so much damage to industry under Tory and Labour Administrations.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am sorry to postpone the hon. Gentleman's fascinating recital of fact, but when he says
  768
  that membership of the ERM will not be an easy solution, how hard does he envisage it will be? Will it be as hard as it was in France, where it managed to increase unemployment to 2·6 million, or in Italy where unemployment increased to 2·9 million? Will it be that hard for us?
  Mr. Taylor: No. I meant that it would be hard in that the Chancellor would have to take measures to bring down the inflationary effects of joining the ERM and cutting interest rates. The hon. Gentleman performs a useful function in that, by opposing joining the ERM, he exposes the duplicity of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. We have consistently argued that although Labour Front-Bench spokesmen like to talk about joining the ERM as an easy criticism of the Conservative Government, in practice, they have proposed a series of blocking conditions before they would be prepared to join it. The hon. Gentleman was obliging enough to point that out on another occasion by saying that he was prepared to support those on the Labour Front Bench because he was well aware that the conditions for joining that the Labour party was laying down could never be met.
  Over the years we have missed opportunities that could have been provided by joining the ERM and bringing down interest rates. If we are not to miss future opportunities, the Chancellor should announce in his Budget that he will begin negotiations to secure our entry as soon as is practicable. The Budget speech could then be about cutting interest rates and tackling the problems of British industry, but it would also have to be a tight Budget to prevent demand from increasing and some of the current problems getting worse.
  The Chancellor could do that in ways that were fair and responded to the need while redressing some of the inequities in the current tax system. The Chancellor should at least get rid of the national insurance ceiling and reduce mortgage interest tax relief to the basic rate. Those measure would be felt only by the better-off, who in many ways are most responsible for the current trade deficit. They would have a beneficial effect on imports and inflation.
  We have also supported the CBI's call for the investment allowance to be raised from 25 to 40 per cent. to tackle some of the supply-side problems, although we would restrict that to new investment. That would encourage investment and would not be inflationary. The forthcoming Budget provides opportunities, if the Chancellor is prepared to be brave and imaginative and, most important of all, to do what Chancellors should do and not what Prime Ministers say. I hope that the Chancellor will overcome that difficulty. Once he has done that, he can start to tackle some of the fundamental supply-side difficulties, in transport, research and, above all, education.
  I feel most strongly that we are selling the people of this country short on education and training. We all suffer and, in a sense, we all share the blame for under-investing in research and development, but we should not throw away the opportunities available to the younger generation. They depend on us for only one thing. They can make their own way later on, but they depend on us to give them the education and training that, we hope, will see them through most of the rest of their lives. We need to expand in-service training, but every child in education has one brief opportunity which is never repeated.

  769
  Any Government who let them down cannot put things right later, as there is no second chance for the children who are now in education and training. The skills shortages are with us now and the problems cannot be ovecome overnight, but if we do not make that fundamental investment, there will be no second chance. Therefore, we propose a series of policies that start to put people back into education and training of a standard that needs to be met and which is already offered in many of our competitor countries.
  Not only do European countries educate in further and higher education more youngsters than we do, but countries such as Taiwan are producing per head of population more graduates than we produce. Our training schemes need improving. Youngsters under 18, even those in work, should have a statutory entitlement to further training.
  Let us beware of those companies that feel that their time and energy can best be spent poaching the trained staff of other companies, rather than themselves doing the training. We would institute a remissible training allowance by which the economics of training would be weighted in favour of companies that believe in apprenticeships and long-term investment in their employees, and away from companies that think that it is quick, clever and easy to poach from other firms.
  The Labour party has failed to spell out its policies on that and many other issues. I do not disagree with much of what Labour Members say about the need to invest long-term in training, education, research and development. But they must spell out how they would do it, for that is fundamental to getting it right. Time and again in debates of this kind, Labour Members have not explained how they would put their policies into practice.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: In the days of studenthood, one was asked in The Observer mace competition to speak to a motion the wording of which one was given shortly before the debate. Judging from recent performances of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), a practised debater, one can only conclude that he was given the wording of the motion only after he had spoken. His recent speeches have been witty but totally devoid of detail about the policies to which he was supposed to have been addressing his remarks. That applied to his speech this afternoon.
  The people of Britain deserve to know what policies the Labour party has to address the difficulties of the economy. It is no good Labour Members saying, "We wish we were not starting from here." The people must know whether it is Labour policy, for example, to remove the pain of high interest rates by forcing down interest rates regardless of other factors in the economy. If Labour would do that, we should soon return to the inflationary heyday of the last Labour Government, when inflation levels averaged 15·5 per cent., compared with the lower levels that the Conservatives have successfully maintained throughout the 1980s.
  Unless Labour Members show that they appreciate why we were successful throughout the 1980s, it will be impossible for them to compose policies to address the problems of the British economy. They never talk about
  770
  the improvements that have occurred, for example, in the levels of productivity. They have not assessed the reasons why we have achieved massive job creation, the figures of which compare favourably with other members of the European Community.
  Labour Members have not focused on the interesting investment figures for British manufacturing industry, which have been particularly strong in the capital goods sector, a factor which has contributed to the change in the balance of trade through import of capital goods. Labour Members do not talk about the number of new businesses that have been created—on a net basis, still running at over 1,000 a week. Nor do they talk about the supply side—the issues on which the new democracies in eastern Europe focus—especially our ability to abolish controls, which we have done progressively from 1979 onwards. None of that is part of official Labour party policy.
  Nor have Labour Members welcomed, as Conservative Members have, the programme relating to 1992. I welcome to the Government Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, whose efforts in making sure that the 1992 programme continues have been applauded in the House and have made a major impact on the economies of this and other European Community countries.
  Clearly, we were blown off course by certain international events in 1987. Indeed, had they not occurred we would not be facing many of the present problems. But the test of a firm Government is the way in which they react to those problems. World experts in 1987, particularly after the stock market crash, forecast a worldwide recession. That was the view of the pundits in the City of London. There was fair unanimity in this House about that, and in New York the pundits were speaking of the same problem.
  Reflation—relaxation of monetary aggregates—was a natural reaction to those circumstances. Remarkably, the capitalist system did not collapse, as many articles in the quality press forecast. Indeed, the buoyancy of the capitalist system was remarkable, and we reacted wrongly. We predicted a recession and the failure of capitalism, but capitalism triumphed, although that had some unfortunate knock-on effects. The inflation that we had today—at levels of which the Labour party would have been proud when it was in office in the 1970s—was caused by that degree of monetary laxity, not by errors in budgetary management.
  The budgetary side is being run on a basis of tight fiscal policy. We have a public sector surplus, which is a notable achievement. The problem was caused not by Goverment profligacy but by private sector domestic borrowing. The only credible response to that has been to increase the cost of money. The Conservatives have had the courage to introduce such a policy. The test of a Government is not that they never make a mistake—no Government have ever had that honourable distinction—but whether, having seen that a mistake has been made, they have the courage to correct it.
  Once monetary aggregates had begun to relax, there was a tightening, even at the cost of short-term opinion poll difficulties. There is no doubt that the manifestation of the increased supply of money was the withdrawal of equity from booming property prices from 1987 to 1989. The correction of that relies on higher interest charges, but particularly the mortgage rate.

  771
  Although it is not politically easy to accept it, there is no doubt that recent decisions by building societies to increase their mortgage rates to a level even higher than base rates have had a welcome and direct depressant on the housing market at this stage, even though it is extremely painful. Many of my constituents have told me about that pain. But the Government must show that they can conquer inflation, and if inflation can be conquered, houses will once again prove a good long-term investment.
  By having increased the cost of money, a positive effect is already evident. My hon. Friends have referred to the improving trend in export growth, and the figures are interesting. The figures for the last three months compared with the same three months of the previous year show that non-oil exports have risen by 11 per cent. against a static growth in imports. That means that the sharp rise in the balance of trade deficit reflected excess domestic demand—that we were sucking in imports faster than manufacturing industry and other industries could produce goods. It was not the fault of an over-valued pound. In other words, the competitiveness of the British economy is still sound. Our problem was that we had excess demand and we had to tackle it. It is clear that those inflationary pressures still exist.
  There are special factors, which have been discussed, which will ensure that the level of short-term inflation stays high, although the underlying rate of inflation, if one excludes mortgage rates, is much lower and much healthier. The strange point about mortgate rates is that, although they increase the rate of inflation—the retail price index—they are a deflationary element. The mortgage rate is working in a conflicting way, so we must keep our eyes on the underlying rate of inflation.
  With those inflationary pressures, what policy should the Government adopt? I do not advocate short-term changes in fiscal policy as a way of depressing demand. That is not to say that the Budget should not tighten fiscal policy. We shall see what happens. However, we cannot easily bear down on the total expansion of domestic demand by altering fiscal policy in major ways. That causes subsequent structural difficulties. Much academic research, including that by Alan Budd, has shown that, used to depress demand, fiscal policies take a long time to work through into the economy and have undesirable long-term effects.
  We could set new monetary targets, which is a sensible policy. Monetary expansion, even in narrow money, is still worryingly high. However, to set such targets is, in itself, insufficient. Setting monetary targets has to be linked with a clear, objective guideline and a signal that the Government are pursuing a medium to long-term policy against inflation.
  I encourage the Government, therefore, to bring forward a policy to which they are now already committed—entry into the exchange rate mechanism. That will provide a stable framework for monetary policies. It will also have an important impact on wage levels in this country. The experience of France is relevant here. Attaching oneself to a stable currency backed by stable money will give more confidence in the purchasing power of the pound.
  If one increases confidence in the purchasing power of the pound, one is effectively discouraging trade unions from looking for highly inflationary wage settlements. That is exactly what happened in France. Between 1983 and 1986, France broke the wage-cost spiral by a clear
  772
  signal that it would maintain the purchasing power of the French franc. Such a policy would have a beneficial impact in this country. It would signal that we were prepared to follow an anti-inflationary policy over a long period, and it would therefore reinforce tight monetary targets.
  To those who are worried by such matters—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is one—there is no doubt that we are buffeted or affected by changes in the deutschmark. Come what may, we shall be affected by the level of deutschmark exchange. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) said, we shall be buffeted by the changes that may result from the deutschmark union. That will affect us anyway. We shall not be worse off in the exchange rate mechanism in those circumstances, we shall be better off.
  The argument about the rate at which we should enter again misses the point. The current level would be a reasonable point at which to enter, and it happens to be roughly similar to the level in 1986, which was another window of opportunity that we might have taken. We may enter at a level that results in having to intervene to keep the pound up. We should bear in mind the fact that that would involve selling foreign currency and buying sterling. That would reduce monetary supply, and would therefore be deflationary. Those are elements which, in our current circumstances, are themselves virtuous. That is an extra benefit of joining the exchange rate mechanism
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Virtue is always terribly good for other people. If one sticks one's currency in the ERM, the EMS or whatever one wishes to call it, one is stuck with the fact that, if one has to stay within that band, the only way in which one can control the currency is by interest rates. If we had to put our interest rates up by I per cent. in staying in that awful artificial barrier, how could it help this country? If one really wants to ruin the economy, just put 1 per cent. more on the interest rates—which, I agree, might keep us within the band.
  Mr. TaylorWith great respect to the learning of my hon. Friend on the subject, I disagree. There is a greater likelihood of an increase in interest rates, were we not in the exchange rate mechanism, if the German economy itself increased interest rates. There is also likely to be a mildly depressing effect on interest rates at any given level of inflation once we are in the exchange rate mechanism. Consequently, there is a virtuous benefit from being in the exchange rate mechanism at this point and, if necessary, intervening in the monetary market to keep sterling up. That is anti-inflationary.
  In terms of the external aspects, the entry conditions laid down at Madrid have largely been met. The French abolished their own exchange and capital controls on 1 January, and the Italians are moving in that direction. If they follow suit, we shall find that over 80 per cent. of the gross national product of the European Community is represented by countries that do not have exchange or capital controls. That seems to meet the substantive external point.
  Do we wait for inflation to go down in this country, and then consider joining, or do we use the ERM as a means of bearing down on inflation? It is clear from my remarks that I believe that we should enter at around our present level of inflation, so that we can bear down on it by using

  773
  the anti-inflationary benefits of the ERM. In any event, keeping a firm exchange rate will have to be part of the Government's strategy, as should be made clear in the Budget speech.
  There are other questions to which we look forward to answers in the Budget. One is the Government's attitude to the gilt-edged market, which is very important. There is a weakness at the long end in interest rates at present, and there are some journalistic thoughts—
  Mr. John ButterfillBefore my hon. Friend leaves his interesting point on the exchange rate mechanism, will he tell us why he does not feel that there is some difficulty for the United Kingdom which arises out of the very high volume of trading of sterling, which is not related to goods and services? Sterling is traded in any one week at about the level which would be our national requirement for a year. The same applies to the deutschmark. Such a bipolar system might upset the equilibrium of the ERM rather than assist us.
  Mr. TaylorMy hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Clearly such a disequilibrating effect on the ERM will be part of the negotiations when we enter. As a result of the volatility of sterling, which sometimes results from wide international holdings and the trading in them, it may be necessary to enter in the transitional period at the 6 per cent. margin rather than with the smaller margin of 2·5 per cent.
  As we need the objective criteria that membership of the ERM would give our anti-inflationary policy, we should leave the experts to decide what the circumstances and the range of fluctuation around the mean should be when they are taking us in. I believe that, unless we have a firm exchange rate policy and unless we are in the ERM to fulfil that policy, we shall not fully eradicate inflationary pressures in the economy with as much ease as we should like.
  I was referring to the gilt-edged market. It would be interesting to hear in the Budget about the Treasury's attitude towards that market, about its policy towards funding and whether, given the continued inflationary problem and monetary laxity, it might consider issuing new stock, which would be an interesting signal to the market.
  The single European market of 1992 has integrated liberal market economics into the British economy. Perhaps Opposition Members will want to call that liberal-social market economics. Deregulation has had a dramatic effect on our economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) went further, and said that some form of independent banking system within the European Community could have a beneficial effect and—if we take my analogy—could integrate sound monetary policy into the British economy. I should welcome further consideration of that point, as the argument has now been moved forward to discussing economic and monetary union.
  The Government are on the right lines. They are bearing down on the rate of inflation, although that is difficult, as there are inflationary pressures in the economy. It will require continued pain and interest rates to stay at their present level for a considerable time. It will also
  774
  require a tight fiscal and monetary policy. However, all those measures would be healthily reinforced by entry into the exchange rate mechanism.
  Once the economy has been put right and is beginning to grow in a non-inflationary manner, we can continue to do those things that the Government have already done in some degree of magnitude, such as investing more money in training, in education and in the transport infrastructure. Those supply side measures are welcome, but they are not the sole answer, and it is no good the Labour party pretending that they are. They are a long-term solution to a much more general British problem.
  The problem is to beat out the inflationary tendency. That requires courageous government, difficult decisions and even risking short-term electoral unpopularity—but, my goodness, it is the only way that a proper Government can behave, especially a Conservative Government.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey RobinsonThe hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) referred to previous mace debating competitions in The Observer. I am sure that he will not mind my saying that, on today's performance, he would not have been in the running for any prizes.
  One of the major propositions made by the Secretary of State related to inward and outward investment. All hon. Members welcome inward investment. Those who have directly benefited from it in their constituencies and know the technology that can come with it appreciate that it would be foolish to resent or resist it. The Secretary of State saw fit to refer to a recent article by Victor Keegan in The Guardian. He said that he approved of it, which would make for a pretty unholy alliance by ordinary standards. However, like all alliances it had the one hallmark of expediency—it left out the crucial differences.
  What the right hon. Gentleman did not remember was that—I have not had occasion to consult that article since he spoke, but I am sure that my memory is good enough—Mr. Keegan finished his article with some severe warnings. He said that it was excellent to have high levels of inward investment as it could bring certain skills, knowledge, experience and employment to the country. However, when that investment is on stream and the dividends start to flow back in five to 10 years' time, where can we look for the indigenous investment to provide two crucial things—the flow across exchanges of the exports that are produced in this country and move abroad, and the employment that can, and still does, come from a heavy sustained investment in the manufacturing sector?
  Victor Keegan said that we should welcome inward investment, but we should not regard it as a substitute for the indigenous investment—it is not intended to be that—on which the British economy will depend in the long term. I have heard much about the long-term policies that have been put forward, but which are being disregarded by the Government.
  Mr. Allen: The flows of capital that return in dividends and profits could be beneficial to this country were they matched by the flows of profit that return to external competitors. The problem is that profits returning to the United Kingdom are not invested in the indigenous domestic manufacturing base—as they are in Japan, as part of a long-term planning process—but go into the

  775
  hot-money circle and even into short-term current accounts with banks, where they attract a higher rate of interest than if they were invested in domestic industry.
  Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend makes two good points, especially on outward investment. Indeed, he has precisely anticipated my next point. Just as inward investment has its rightful role within the economy and within British industry—although it is not a substitute for indigenous investment—so we welcome outward investment if it is a logical extension of any successful economy's problems of saturation of certain markets or where the distribution network is inadequate and investment must be made in distribution in those markets or, indeed, for whatever reason, in local manufacture.
  The countries that are now most heavily investing abroad are those that have had the heaviest sustained indigenous investment and have the biggest current surpluses from manufacturing. Germany and Japan now have to invest heavily in Britain and other markets because they can no longer successfully invest and, nationally, no longer need to invest in their domestic market.
  Mr. ButterfillIs the hon. Gentleman aware that Britain is second only to Japan in external investments? His points about Japan and Germany are irrelevant. He is contradicting himself when he says that outward investment is essentially undesirable because we should have indigenous investment and that inward investment is also undesirable. Surely that is a contradiction. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. RobinsonI am sorry that I gave way. Either the hon. Gentleman was not listening or he is incapable of understanding. If he was not listening he has in some way excused himself, and if he is incapable of understanding there is no point in repeating what I said.
  My second point—again, touched on by the Secretary of State—is the trade balance. Not so many years ago, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to our balance of trade in manufactures as the acid test for the successful performance of the British economy. The Government now have to find refuge in all types of new economic jargon and reasoning to suggest that that trade balance is no longer of any particular significance.
  I still believe in a world where the conflicts between nations of two generations ago were fought out by military means. The war in internationally traded capital goods and consumer goods is now as fierce and intense as anything we have ever witnessed. It is still about the same things—economic predominance, national sovereignty, power and influence in the world. Now, thank God, the balance has changed from the military sphere to that of internationally traded goods and services. Now, goods predominate in that international trade war. We must state with the starkest clarity that in that war the United Kingdom is losing year after year.
  In the dreadful balance of payments figures announced last year, which sent tremors through the financial markets of the world, one major industry—the motor industry—carries a principal part of the blame. The balance of trade deficit was in excess of £5 billion and the motor industry made up 25 per cent. of our total deficit.
  When we consider the shenanigans—I find it difficult to find another word for it—surrounding the Rover sale to British Aerospace, which Opposition Members want to be cleared up once and for all, we must say loudly and clearly
  776
  to British Aerospace that once that matter is settled it has a major responsibility for the successful development and expansion of the Rover company. It is our last semi-volume manufacturer. British Aerospace must invest in it with a commitment that goes beyond the property deals and the balance sheet strengthening of which it made great play in internal memoranda. It must realise that it has acquired a major national asset on very favourable terms from the Government and that it has a direct, heavy and continuing responsibility for it.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I recognise the part that the hon. Gentleman played in Jaguar's early career, but does he riot agree that some hon. Members, regrettably in his party as well, have tried to make political capital out of the agreement that was reached between Rover and British Aerospace? Bearing in mind the fact that British Aerospace has committed £1·3 billion to the future of Rover, and bearing in mind his pre-eminent part in Jaguar, will he stop some of his colleagues trying for political purposes to ruin the Rover company, on which so many jobs depend in the area in which he and I live, work and prosper politically?
  Mr. Robinson: I will respond to the intervention in the same spirit in which it was made. Of course, there was an all-party inquiry into Rover. It was not a party political matter in itself, but in all parts of the House there are some hon. Members who are always intent on making political capital out of anything. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as openly as he spoke to me, that if I thought for a moment that my appeal to such hon. Members on this side of the House would be fruitful, I would make it. But I think that it would be as unprofitable and ineffective as any appeal made by the hon. Gentleman to his side.
  I turn to the future of the Department of Trade and Industry. There are in the Department at least two Ministers who would much prefer to be somewhere else.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robinson: If the hat fits, wear it. I see the Under-Secretary of State shaking his head vigorously. I assure him that I was not even remotely thinking of him. In his junior position he does not yet register in my thoughts. I am thinking of the senior Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry. There have been so many Secretaries of State in that once distinguished and still most important office that it seems to be regarded merely as a shunting station between Departments within the Government.
  I think that it was the predecessor of the present incumbent but about six, now in another place, who went to the Cabinet, and said, "I have a paper from my Department which recommends that we should back a major national industry and that we should put up the money for this industry. We have to do it because jobs and exports are at stake. Here it is, Prime Minister. I do not agree with it. I want nothing to do with it. I cannot back it." However, the sensible members in the Cabinet went ahead and voted it through.
  The same attitude is adopted by the present Secretary of State, who makes it clear that he has no interest in the Department. He does not want to conduct the Department or serve in it. What he would most like to do, as so

  777
  cunningly and cleverly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), is close the Department.
  Wit is not the order of the day in the debate. Conservative Members who have complained are devoid of it themselves. I ask the Secretary of State to address himself seriously to the problem. He has no mandate to close the Department or to run down major sections within it. In product-based sections there are many loyal, capable civil servants who have spent their industrial and often their whole official careers building up knowledge and experience of particular industries. We will not accept that the Secretary of State has the right to make proposals that would involve major restructuring of that Department.
  I worked in the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation which was abruptly closed after the 1970 election, without consultation and without forethought for the good that it might bring to the nation. It was easy to close it, yet within three or four years, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), announced publicly that that had been a major mistake. Of course, that in itself is the strongest possible encouragement that we can give the present Secretary of State, although I hope that he will not take it as such.
  I hope the Secretary of State will realise that he is in charge of a major Department of State and that nothing could be worse for the national attitude to manufacturing than for us to show insouciance and neglect for manufacturing industry. We should not denigrate the Department or take away its remaining powers. Nothing could give a worse impression of how manufacturing stands in national priorities than for the Secretary of State to do that. It would no longer be a case of the benign neglect which we have seen so far; it would be tantamount to a malign disregard for manufacturing.
  No Government have yet managed to put right what is fundamentally wrong with British industry. Again I speak mainly of manufacturing industry. Certainly the Government, much to their discredit, have not attempted to solve the problem. As a nation, in our cultural institutions, in our institutions of higher education and in secondary schools, we have an in-built set of cultural values which places manufacturing far behind other things with which it should rank equal. If we are to make it clear to youngsters that we believe that manufacturing has importance, that we wish to encourage the teaching of science and engineering, and that we wish to encourage the promotion of graduates and ensure that they are regarded with esteem and respect, that must start with the Government. The lead must be given by the Department responsible for the industries whose standing we wish to restore.
  The Government have not had a popular theme during the 10-plus years that they have been in office. Disparaging remarks have been made by another former incumbent of the office of Secretary of State. He could think of no better future for British workers than maintaining and servicing Japanese robots. That was his concept of British technology. A previous Chancellor said that he could see no difference between a job in manufacturing and a job in
  778
  a service industry, and that in future all increases in employment would come from low-tech industries and not from high-tech manufacturing.
  That attitude has permeated the Government and reinforced our major difficulty as a nation in coming to terms with the strong international competition in world markets. At last—after 10 years—the Government seem to have caught on. We have had one speech in those 10 years that sought to redress the balance. It was made recently by the Leader of the House and deputy Prime Minister. I agree with every word he said. He said that we have to place manufacturing much higher on our national scale of priorities. He said that manufacturing was the
  "indispensable dynamo of a successful modern society"
  and concluded:
  "Innovate, invest, internationalise."
  That was exactly the policy proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East. We have to invest more in research and development, in products and in manufacturing. Certainly we have to internationalise, but we can do it only on the basis of major investment in training.
  Nothing could be more pathetic than this criticism from Conservative Members "But all those are long-term policies. You will not get any return on your investment in training, in manufacturing plant and equipment, or in research and development." That is what we heard in a remarkably passionate speech by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). That was the passion which swept the right hon. Gentleman out of the Cabinet, and I expect that it is on the back of that passion that he sees himself being swept back into the Cabinet, in due course, in a different capacity. He put his argument as if it were some condemnation, some valid criticism of the Opposition's policies. Of course it is not; it is the single best endorsement of those policies with which he agreed. If only the Government had embarked on those policies 10 years ago, when they came to office, or even five years ago, when they should have had time to see the error of their ways, we should not now face the absolute collapse of all their policies.
  But 10 years is long enough. There is no point in the Government's harking back. With a trade deficit of £20 billion, with inflation pushing 9 per cent., and with interest rates pushing 16 per cent., we are confronted with a bankrupt policy, a disbanded Department and miserably uninterested Ministers. The solution to all those problems is replacement of those Ministers and those policies, and I think that the by-election in Mid-Staffordshire will take us one step further in that direction.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I ought to start, as I have done previously when speaking on economic themes, by declaring an interest in certain aspects of financial services and financial communications through my connections with Morgan Grenfell and with Dewe Rogerson. I need hardly say that neither the views nor, so far as I am consciously aware, the interests of those companies or, indeed, of their clients have had direct influence on the views that I shall be formulating this afternoon.
  I too greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It was extremely amusing. The hon. Member has already earned quite a number of accolades as a joker in this House this

  779
  afternoon, and I should like to add a bouquet of my own. However, I thought that, in other respects, his speech was particularly disappointing. I did not betray any hint that the hon. Member had the remotest idea how to address the three issues that are highlighted in his own motion—interest rates, the balance of payments and inflation.
  It really will not do to claim that interest rates are too high, that the balance of payments current account deficit is too high, and that inflation is too high. The hon. Gentleman will not find in this country, or indeed anywhere in the world, a single reputable economist—and this goes for those retained by the Labour party—who will not tell him that a reduction in interest rates tends to increase a current account deficit and to increase inflation.
  In other words, the hon. Gentleman may attempt to reduce the first of his variables, or the second and third, but not all three at the same time. I hope that, before he comes back to this Chamber to lecture us on economic policy, the hon. Gentleman will at least work out in his own mind in which direction he is going.
  The other disappointing aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which, not surprisingly, has been remarked on already, was the extraordinary vacuity of his proposals for the future.
  Mr. Steve Norris: What proposals?
  Mr. Davies: I will come to them. So far as I understood them, they seemed to boil down to the view that the country's economic problems could be solved by a quite fatuous mixture of increased Government subsidies to the regions and elsewhere in this country; and, abroad, by reliance on the eastern European market.
  On the question of the east European market, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he were ever to become marketing director of a company, his first responsibility would be to decide whether the people to whom he intended to offer his products were in a position to pay for them. If not, he would be squandering his company's resources, and no doubt sacrificing good markets elsewhere.
  The purchasing power of a country is a very simple function indeed. It is a function of two variables—the ability of that country to sell abroad, and its ability to borrow abroad. On both those fronts, the countries of eastern Europe are in an exceedingly weak position. If ever the hon. Gentleman were to become marketing director of a public company, its shareholders would all very rapidly be selling its shares short.
  I fear that, if there were the slightest danger of the hon. Gentleman's ever becoming a Minister responsible for trade in this country, the international foreign exchange markets and the international equity and other capital markets would very rapidly be selling short any claims on this country.
  Mr. Graham Allen: What does the hon. Gentleman think the markets are doing now? What have they been doing for the last three days? What has the pound been doing for the last three days?
  Mr. Davies: I am very glad that the hon. Gentlemen has noticed that. Over the past few days, the markets have begun to take account of the possibility that the Opposition will win the next election, and the combined
  780
  aggregate intelligence of all the international markets is that that would be an unqualified economic disaster for this country.
  The performance of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was not only disappointing, but deplorable. It was deplorable that a Front Bencher, addressing the House in front of our rather obtrusive new members, the television cameras, should, on such an important issue, deliver a speech so unrigorous in its analysis and so thoroughly devoid of any considered or concrete proposals for the future. When the hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his speech, referred to failures and bankruptcies, I could not help feeling that there is one bankruptcy in this country that is very much overdue the hon. Member ought himself to be filing a petition in intellectual bankruptcy.
  I want to move now from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the real world.
  Mr. Graham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since 1988–89, the number of bankruptcies in Scotland has risen by 61·5 per cent? Bankruptcy means not just the loss of money but the loss of jobs. Would the hon. Gentleman like to say something about that?
  Mr. Davies: It would be helpful if the hon. Member were to grasp the fact that the important index is the net creation of new enterprises. Over the last few years, that net creation has been increasing at an unprecedented rate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not find this argument too difficult to follow. Obviously, if there is an absolute increase in the number of enterprises, there will inevitably be an increase in the number of bankruptcies. It is the net position that counts, and it is the net position that is positive.
  Two problems face us at present. First, it is clear—in hindsight at least—that in 1988 the economy was suffering from some overheating: let hon. Members call that a problem of success if they will. It could be argued in retrospect that some monetary tightening could have taken place earlier than it did, but that certainly could not be argued by the Labour party, which has consistently opposed all increases in interest rates. Secondly, the past year has seen a worldwide increase in inflation and interest rates. Even countries such as the Federal Republic of Germany, Switzerland and Japan, which believed that they had solved the inflation problem definitively, now find that it has returned.
  Throughout economic history, it has always been a disaster for a particular agent or country to attempt to buck a general trend. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has heard of trade cycles, or whether he believes in them; he may imagine that they are a myth of bourgeois economics that could easily be wished away if only a Labour Government came to power. I can tell him, however, that any attempt to ignore business or trade cycles is fraught with horrific consequences, and that the effect of such action will be felt most painfully precisely on the current account deficit and inflation rate indices that Opposition Members claim lie so close to their hearts.
  Given those two factors, a narrow margin of manoeuvre was available to the Government. But within that narrow margin, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made a very significant decision since his appointment last autumn: I am surprised that its import has been lost on Opposition Members. That decision was riot to

  781
  continue to increase interest rates in sterling to meet any threat to the sterling parity on the foreign exchanges, but to allow a measure of devaluation within what remained, overall, a tight fiscal and monetary policy.
  Why was that decision so significant? It meant that the reduction in the growth of demand would be felt in a differentiated fashion by different sectors of the economy. The purely domestic sectors, such as retail, house building and associated goods and services would feel the effect to the full—as they have done, and are doing—while the internationally traded sectors would find that, although their domestic markets were growing less fast, there was some compensation: in many cases, over-compensation. They had gained the ability to increase their domestic market share and their market share abroad, and to enjoy higher sterling values for the remittance of their overseas profits. A range of businesses, including not only the ICIs and the GECs—I hasten to add that I have no interest to declare in either—but also a whole range of businesses have been able to benefit from my right hon. Friend's decision. Their prospects—and therefore the momentum of investment in important sectors of the economy—can and will be maintained as a result.
  Why do I express surprise that the significance of my right hon. Friend's decision has not been recognised by Opposition Members? I have two reasons. First and foremost, it benefited manufacturing—together with a few high-tech services including some aspects of engineering, financial and computer services, but largely at the expense of the service sector. Since I have been in the House, I have had to listen to literally hours of what I now suspect to have been empty rhetoric from Opposition Members about manufacturing. My second reason is the direct impact of my right hon. Friend's decision on the current account deficit: the combination of tight fiscal and monetary conditions and a devaluation of the currency is a classic formula for reducing a current account deficit or increasing a current account surplus.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: If the strategy was to let the pound come down through benign neglect, why has the CBI not expressed its usual gibbering gratitude? What is the effect of high interest rates on industry, and why are our interest rates more or less double everyone else's?
  Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I do not speak for the CBI, but I understand that it does appreciate the benefits conferred on large sectors of industry, including manufacturing industry. Let me ask again for a modicum of rigour in our discussion of interest rates. We should be focusing not on nominal but on real interest rates—and our real interest rates are comparable with those in the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and elsewhere.
  What, then, should the Government do? First, they should persevere with their present policies; secondly, fiscal rather than monetary policy should, where possible, take the strain. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will go not for a neutral but for a tough Budget—a Budget that reduces demand by a palpable amount. To the extent that he does so, it will be possible to resist interest rate increases, or to allow the rates to decline further and faster for any given set of inflationary and other economic outcomes.
  782
  Thirdly—I think that the House is in general agreement on this—we need to invest more in education and training in both public and private sectors, and also in the British infrastructure. I have nothing to add to the eloquent speeches to that effect that we have heard today. I also thoroughly endorse what has been said about the importance of the single market, which will provide one of the best prospects for non-inflationary growth in the 1990s and beyond—not merely because of the one-off benefits of longer production runs, economies of scale and the reduction of some transactional costs associated with trade, which were calculated in the Cecchini report, but also because of the dynamic effects and particularly the impetus to entrepreneurship and innovation that invariably follow from an intensification of competition, such as we will face in the single market. Therefore, greatly endorse the points made on that score.
  I should like to add a fourth point of my own. The Government should give—I hope that they are already giving or that they will give—some consideration to how the British savings ratio, the proportion of household income that is saved, can be increased over time. Over many years and generations, it has been clear that, at any turn in the trade cycle, the British savings ratio is lower than that of our major competitors. In terms of the current account and inflation, that constitutes a lower ceiling or a higher constraint on the levels of investment and growth that we can sustain.
  I suspect that any secular change in the British savings ratio can be engineered or modulated only by fiscal means. Of course, many cultural and institutional factors underlie any given savings ratio. I will not burden the House with my own views about how that may be achieved, but this issue needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will have something specific to say on that subject when he delivers his Budget in a few days.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: This has been a series of scintillating speeches, in which some of the contributions of Back Benchers have excelled those of the Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides, barring that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). The Secretary of State for the still-existing Department of Trade and Industry managed to come up with the most appalling speech that I have heard in my brief time in the House. It was totally devoid of content, and lacking in humour, commitment and delivery. It was the speech of a man who is on his way out—of a shadow of a man in an invisible Department who is gradually disappearing in his own rhetoric. Much has been said about The Observer mace competition. Hon. Members of all parties had ideas about what could be done with the mace when they heard the Secretary of State's speech. Although the Department is not yet closed, the Secretary of State could certainly have hung the "out to lunch" sign round his neck on the basis of today's performance.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out, it is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman's speech lacked any real political or economic content. There was not a single word about monetarism from either the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends. The days of philosophical dogma that

  783
  so laced the Secretary of State's speeches in his previous incarnations no longer seem to be with us. The right hon. Gentleman seems devoid of even the sparse intellectual covering of his earlier years.
  The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) then spoke. He has two sorts of speech, depending on the leadership position. His first sort of speech is made by the rebel, with his mane flowing, who puts forward what he alleges are alternatives to his Government's policies. But no more of that now. When the Government have a 15 or 16 per cent. deficit in the opinion polls and rising, the right hon. Gentleman can see the main chance. This afternoon we heard an attempt to ingratiate himself with a number of his Back-Bench colleagues. That was unfortunate, because sometimes the right hon. Gentleman has something to say——
  Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been regaled by the speeches of many hon. Members today, but when are we going to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)? All he is doing is commenting on other people's speeches.
  Mr. Allen: I shall not do the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of discussing his remarks, but I should like to make one or two comments about what the alternative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley, said. It seemed to be a sort of confession. When he was Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Gentleman was one of the main proponents of intervention, enterprise zones and development corporations. He was involved with the famous Toxteth programme in Liverpool and the garden festival. But all that was put aside today when he tried to align himself with a slightly broader church in his party, so that by the time of the next leadership election the rich man's Sir Anthony Meyer hopes to have positioned himself slightly nearer the centre of his party than he is now.
  The right hon. Gentleman had an interesting concept about the Bank of England, picking up the idea of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the cry Blaby, not too long ago. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a central bank for the United Kingdom. However, there is a problem with that concept because a central bank is designed to ensure that a cohort—a board of directors for European banks—can decide the direction of monetary and fiscal policy, but on a non-elected basis.
  The right hon. Gentleman found it difficult to sell that concept to his Back-Bench colleagues. He tried to do so in an ingenious way by linking it to the concept of national sovereignty, suggesting that a divorced non-political bank would enhance the sovereignty of this country. Unfortunately, we all know too well that when the Deutsche Bank changes its interest rates, it is literally a matter of minutes if not seconds before our Chancellor of the Exchequer follows——
  Mr. Quentin Davies: So that the House may follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, did he mean the Deutsche Bank or the Bundesbank?
  Mr. Allen: It was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has already had his 20 minutes or longer, even to the extent of irritating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark).
  784
  The Government's amendment to our motion shows their constant theme of the alleged success of their policies. The policies and successes that are outlined in that amendment include:
  "the highest rate of economic growth … the largest increase in manufacturing productivity … and record levels of industrial output".
  That is fine. I am pleased that those things have been placed on our agenda. The only problem is that the base on which those figures are calculated has been fiddled to an extent that would do credit to the former Secretary of State for Employment, also the former Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I repeat that they are fiddled figures on a fiddled base. Any consideration of the full extent of what has happened during the Tory locust years—the ten and a half wasted years—reveals that in the first two years, under the Chancellorship of the present Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, almost one quarter of this country's manufacturing base was eradicated.
  Perhaps I can help Conservative Members by explaining that in words that they may understand. It is rather like a cricket team trying to improve its batting averages by taking out the scores of all its bowlers. Of course, that is not so. It is sleight of hand. In calculating the base over the past four or five years, the Government have come up with statistics which are more beneficial and flattering than is really the case.
  One of the Secretary of State's most interesting remarks this afternoon was:
  "The deficit … is not a sign of industrial weakness."
  As an economic indicator, what is a deficit if not a sign of either industrial weakness or strength? It simply means that our manufacturing base is no longer strong enough to ensure that we export as much as we import. We live or die by our ability to export manufactures. Those are the sentiments, if not the words——
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Of the CBI.
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me correctly. I am sure that the CBI will not mind if I quote it:
  "To help close the overall deficit gap, an increasing proportion of United Kingdom production, especially manufacturing production, will need to be devoted to exports or to import substitution … to pay for goods, (especially consumer goods) we cannot supply, the UK must trade manufactures (nearly 60 per cent. of all UK trade)".
  Mr. Keith Mans: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the Japanese trade deficit throughout the 1950s?
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) referred to that. Japan is benefiting from domestic investment in that period. It built up a strong domestic base so that it could operate both import and export strategies. That is why Japan is now in a position where it can invest in this country and repatriate dividends and capital to the benefit of its indigenous industry. I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me to make that point.
  In the amendment, the Government also refer to a fall in unemployment. Once again, congratulations to the Government on obtaining that fall in unemployment. But from what base? When will unemployment be reduced to the level that pertained when they came into office? When they came into office they had the tremendous benefits of

  785
  North sea oil, which was coming on stream, and the credit boom which they unleashed in the latter part of their 10 years in office. Many of the jobs which they boast that they have created are part-time and cannot replace the sort of jobs taken out of the economy during the previous few years.
  The amendment also refers to bearing down on inflation.
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from the fall in unemployment, he might care to tell the House that in his constituency during the past 12 months, unemployment has fallen by 17·2 per cent. Why did he not tell us about that?
  Mr. Allen: I am pleased that the Minister draws attention to the efforts of Labour-controlled Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council. Their economic development committees have put some effort into mitigating the worst effects of the Government's policies. It has been one of their main objectives. They have been successful and I am proud of them. I know that the people of Nottingham are proud of them, too. They just wish that they had a little more help from the Government and their economic policies.
  Admittedly, the Government have not had much chance to bear down on inflation as they have been in power for only ten and a half years. The time has come for the judge and jury of the Government's economic policies—Mr. Nigel Lawson's words, not mine—to return the verdict and deliver the sentence. The former Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), may hear me speak in support of a sentence of capital punishment on the Government in respect of inflation. They have been unable to contain inflation, and the electorate will pass that sentence at the next election.
  Given all the advantages that the Government have had over the past 10 years, their record is disastrous. It would be disastrous in other times, let alone times when billions upon billions of pounds have been available to the public sector to reinvest. What happened to that money? The Government have paid it back in early repayments of debt. It has been used in the City for further speculation and circulation in the international money markets. The money has been completely wasted by the Government. We have the cheek to pretend to offer financial advice to eastern Europe, under the misnomer of the know-how fund. How we have the nerve to tell those countries how to run a free economy, I do not know.
  How does the stuff that the Government have produced affect individuals and real people? One of the main ways is through the interest rate, not merely because every percentage point that goes on the interest rate hits small and large employers alike and makes their lives difficult. More directly it hits individuals who are trying their best to buy their homes.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me a helpful parliamentary answer today. I asked him to list the average mortgage in each region and then to list the increase per week in the payments made by people trying to buy their homes. In the east midlands, the average mortgage is £34,700. The increase per week from June 1988 to today in my constituency and in the east midlands
  786
  is £24·59 per week. That applies also to the constituency of the Minister, although he does not appear to be interested in it. There has been a 76 per cent. increase in interest repayments by business. Business is now borrowing.
  In the past when business was borrowing it was good news. It borrowed to finance investment. Now it is engaging in what is called distress borrowing to meet repayments on previous loans. Businesses are in serious trouble unless they can get their hands on the money to repay loans. Those are the effects of high interest rates on business and on us.
  We often hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his minions talk about financing the deficit. It is clear that we are financing the deficit. Every home owner, small business man and large company is funding the deficit. It is not a negative or neutral term; it means that we are paying through the nose because of the Government's economic failure, despite the best efforts of individuals to keep the economy, their business or livelihood alive and to keep a roof over their heads.
  It appears that some people are doing well—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. When the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House, it is discourteous for a meeting to be held simultaneously.
  Mr. Allen: I understand the need to caucus in the Conservative party. Things are very bad indeed. Conservative Members may be discussing a potential leadership candidate, whether it is the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who has just come into the Chamber—perhaps he has just returned from paying his high poll tax—or the right hon. Member for Henley, whom we heard make a leadership bid earlier tonight. There are several other runners, but you should be tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the difficulties of the Conservative party.
  Now that I have the full attention of the House, I inform hon. Gentlemen that I was discussing the large banks. Lloyds, Barclays and the Midland bank do not seem to be doing too badly. In the recent past those banks have lent money all round the world to every tinpot dictator who wanted the latest tank and the biggest bang possible in his area. They have gone into debt to no great benefit of the people in those countries, and defaulted on their loans. Now all those banks are queueing up to say that they have bad debts and that they want "provision" against those debts. Again, that is a high-falutin' technical term which means that they want a handout. It means that they want us, the taxpayers, to put money in their kitty because they have been unable to lend properly.
  There should be "provision" for people in Nottingham who, every week, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me, pay another £24 on their mortgage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said when he gave Scottish examples, there should be provision for small business people who are being bankrupted by the thousand. There should also be provision for large companies, which are the backbone of the national economy.
  These things will come about only with a change of policy. Most of us know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and some of his team are trying to drag the Government towards the middle ground. They are trying to make them become more neo-Keynesian before the next

  787
  general election. I wish them well, because I would not want them to fail on that basis. Their success means too much for our people, the Health Service, education and other services. However, as they creep in that direction they will he drawn back to the true faith by the Ayatollah in No. 10.
  That means that the only way in which we shall make significant changes in economic policy in this country and ensure that economic policy is conducted for, and on behalf of, the people, is to throw the Conservative Government out of office. We must elect a Government committed to investment, research and development, training, education and rebuilding the economy in alliance with the CBI, trade unions and all the other interest groups. In that way we shall ensure that our country has a future, not just a miserable past 10 years.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I do not wish to make a long speech. No Back Bencher should need to speak for more than 10 minutes because if one cannot say what one wishes in that time, it is likely that it will not be worth hearing. Therefore those who follow me can get ready to speak.
  As was said in "A Tale of Two Cities", we face the best of times and the worst of times. We face a most interesting period in this country. In the past few years we have been brought up with two great economies of the world standing astride us like colossi, Germany and Japan. Those times are changing, as times do.
  Japan has gone on and on because it was lucky enough to lose the second world war and be able to rebuild the country and economy based on the self-sacrifice of its people. In addition, the Japanese looked years ahead, as we in this country must do. Their investment is not, like ours, thought of in terms of six to 12 months being a long time. They look five to 10 years ahead. This country must face up to that in due course. However, there is no doubt that things are changing for the Japanese. Their interest rate structure is changing.
  When the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service was in Japan about 12 months ago, Japanese companies could raise money at 1·75 per cent. Now they have to raise money at about 5 or 6 per cent., and the way things are going, the interest rate will go even higher.
  West Germany has stood astride Europe for almost 20 years and now it wants to build a greater Germany because it wants to make the German yolk one yolk again. I am not making a political point, but an economic point. Now that the wall is coming down, West Germany has a social budget of $5,000 million this year. People are pouring over its borders at 2,000 a week because the social payments in West Germany are six times those in East Germany.
  That means that the deutschmark, which had a good and solid as gold basis, is now becoming a bit more drosslike, as are the currencies of many European countries, including our own. West Germany's interest rate structure is also changing. Therefore, the western world, which really means America, Japan and Germany, is changing around us. The problems that we face are profound and based not just on the British Government's policy, but on the fact that circumstances are changing, and are likely to change in an inflationary way.
  Japanese interest rates have changed by more than 2 percentage points in the last 12 months—from 3 to 5·5 5 per
  788
  cent.—which means more than it does in this country. In Germany, because of the mad, headlong rush to another and greater Germany, interest rates are also changing. Our interest rates start off from a much higher base arid we must be willing to stand firm. In the next few months, Germany and Japan may put up interest rates by at least 1 percentage point. That may be difficult for them, but I believe that another 1 or 2 percentage points on the interest rates in this country could be catastrophic for industries and home owners.
  We should be willing to let the pound take some of the strain. As Rab Butler said, before many people here were alive—unfortunately, I was, because it was about 30 years ago—we must export or die. If we are unable to export, we will die. When we think of the tens of billions of pounds that we have had to spare in this country, we must be willing to say that we must build things better. Although some Opposition Members may not agree, one problem that we face in this country is that some people have taken advantage of the more enlightened policy on competition and success being allowed to succeed.
  It is difficult to accept it when, as in the past 12 months, senior management give themselves a 28 per cent. rise and tell others that a 7 per cent. rise will ruin the very industries that they serve. If sacrifices have to be made in order for us to kill inflation, they should be made not just by those at the bottom, but by those who lead. It is obscene when those in industry give themselves 28 per cent. rises and then say to those to whom they say they cannot afford to give a 7 per cent. rise, that this country is going to rack and ruin.
  I have a similar message for the unions. It may be a good idea to talk about a 37-hour week. There is nothing wrong with that as long as that 37-hour week is genuinely productive. However, if we give ourselves a 37-hour week, without the productivity to go with it, all we do is put up manufacturing costs by 20 per cent. This country cannot stand that.
  Therefore, regardless of whether we have a Labour or Conservative Government, we are at a genuine threshold. In Japan and Germany things are on the change. We do not want to be the nut in the cracker.
  Top managers should resist giving themselves rises of 28 per cent. and workers on the shop floor should recognise that we must export or die. We must produce or die. We must make sure that the prices that the Government can influence, whether they be rail, water, electricity or gas prices, are influenced in the right way. It is no good people putting up rail fares by 20 per cent. one year and 15 per cent. the next, saying that they are doing their bit to make the railways competitive.
  It is no good telling people that it is all right if electricity or gas prices rise by the rate of inflation plus x per cent. It is sheer humbug and nonsense to talk about the rate of inflation plus a percentage, because that affects everybody. A 5 per cent. increase in gas charges means one thing to me, but it means something quite different to someone on a low income. A 2 per cent. increase in rail fares may be an irritation to me, but it is a catastrophe to people on lower incomes. Percentages are like bikinis: what they show is super, but what they conceal is vital. People tend to forget that it is nonsense to complain to a millionaire about a 1 per cent. increase when to someone on social security it is a disaster.

  789
  If we face the uncertain and dangerous future together, we can do something, but if we think only in terms of mean, vile party advantage, the future that we face, whoever wins, is grim indeed.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I am exceptionally disappointed tonight to see that no members of the Scottish National party have seen fit to come to the Chamber to listen to the debate. The motion says:
  "this House condemns the Government's economic failure which has brought the highest interest rates, the worst trade deficit and the highest inflation of the United Kingdom's major competitors; is concerned at the rising number of business bankruptcies and redundancies and at the investment cutbacks in the run-up to 1992; deplores the further reductions in support for regional investment, research and development, and export help; and calls for an investment budget for industry and training."
  I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that that is particularly relevant to the people of Scotland, so I must draw attention to the fact that the seats usually occupied by Members of the Scottish National party are vacant and bare.
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend has been here throughout the debate and he will know that no member of the Scottish National party has been present today. Not one has contributed or even shown his face in the Chamber. I have no idea whether their constituents are aware of that.
  Mr. Graham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
  I am delighted that a statement has been made today about Scotland's lowland airports. I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), represent Glasgow airport. I am delighted that the decision has now been made, so that we can get on with the business of ensuring that Glasgow has one of the finest airports in the world. We in that area suffer from a high level of unemployment, inflicted by the Government, and the Government should at least attempt to restore some of the jobs that have been lost since 1979.
  Therefore, I welcome the ending of the uncertainty, and I hope that the Government will put in the necessary infrastructure so that Renfrew district council can continue to improve the area. I hope that we shall be given the finance that is necessary to ensure that the developments meet the needs of the local community.
  Environmental considerations are high on the Government's agenda, and they have said that they will take into account the pollution that many people in the shadow of the flight paths over Renfrewshire, Glasgow and Bearsden are worried about. That may not be such good news for the folk in Prestwick, but I understand that the people of Ayrshire have been given an assurance that the Government will do their best to ensure that there will be no job losses or redundancies and that they will work to ensure that Prestwick remains open. I hope that I shall not see Prestwick closed in a couple of years' time. I hope that the Minister takes on board and ensures that Renfrew district has the necessary finance to regenerate the local economy. That also applies to Strathclyde regional council. I am delighted that something has happened.
  But who are the Government kidding when they say that everything in Britain is rosy and wonderful? We have
  790
  a massive trade deficit of £20 billion, yet the Secretary of State shrugs it off, saying that we are doing fine. The Prime Minister is as happy as Larry because she has only the poll tax to worry about. It would be laughable were it not for the millions who are unemployed.
  Tonight we have heard about some of the lucky people who have jobs, but in my constituency highly skilled and highly trained individuals in many disciplines such as engineering and teaching cannot find a job. Nor can they afford bikes. Some of those who have got on their bikes and come down here are languishing homeless on the streets of London. They cannot afford housing, so they cannot get a job. Many of them have skills, but they have listened too much to the rubbish that the Government are putting out. I wish that the man who had coined the phrase "on your bike" was here tonight, because I have a bike for him and I will make sure he rides it all the way to France and perhaps even further.
  I remember not long ago discussing the Scottish economy, when a Minister used the wonderful phrase "the engine of free enterprise". I am sure that all my hon. Friends remember that phrase. Conservative Members must have worked hard to find that one. Listen to this account of the engine of free enterprise. The Rover deal cost Britain millions. Then there was the sale of the royal ordnance factories, one of which is in my constituency. That was one of the biggest robberies since Sir Francis Drake was a privateer sailing about the main. The Sundance Kid could learn a lesson from Conservative Members.
  We have seen the privatisation of water and British Telecom. That is the engine of free enterprise—give everything that belongs to the people of Britain to the Government's friends for free. But the next Labour Government—and there will be one—will make sure that their pockets are empty. The Government have another think coming. I can assure them that the people of Britain will have had enough of their policies. I request not to see an engine of free enterprise.
  At one time Scotland was known as the workhouse of the world. The shipyards in the Clyde employed 50,000 men and women. The noise heard was the beating of steel and of men working. They came home at night to their families with wages so that their kids could go to school with decency.
  Working men and women want the right to earn a wage. They do not want this claptrap about low pay and part-time jobs. They want full-time employment and they want money which gives them dignity and allows them to live properly. They want the right to be able to pay their mortgages. They do not want massive interest charges which throw them into mortgage misery.
  Has the Minister ever suffered mortgage misery? Does he know what it is like not to be able to pay his rent on time? Has he ever received a letter through the door telling him that the rent is behind? Has the Minister ever had a letter from the electricity board telling him to pay the electricity bill in two or three days or the supply will be turned off? People do not have sufficient money because they are in low-paid or part-time employment, or because of the miserable pittance of a benefit that the Minister was so proud to boast about tonight when I asked him a question. He said that the unemployed are lucky to get benefit.
  By God, what a sick answer to people who wish that they had a Government committed to employment, to

  791
  decent benefits and to a decent standard of living, so that children can be educated. People want to tell their children that, after their education is finished, they can walk with their heads held high into meaningful employment. They want to educate their kids so that they can have a position in society and can live a full life and die in comfort.
  From the cradle to the grave, Governments have a responsibility, but this Government seem to duck all their responsibilities and the Minister's statement tonight—"They arc lucky to be unemployed and getting benefit"—makes me sick.
  My constituency is relatively affluent. There is one area where very wealthy people live and there are other areas where poor people live, but although they are poor in material things, they are strong in spirit. They have not died in their thousands. When jobs are advertised, they run in their hundreds, and they queue up for them. Therefore, the Minister should not think that the thousands of unemployed people in my constituency want to be unemployed, because they do not. They desperately want and need jobs, and they will queue up for them in the stinking, bucketing rain that we get in Scotland. They will stand in the miserably cold weather for hours on end waiting for a job. The Government have given them miserable stinking benefits and have even cut benefits.
  As British people, we are demanding—I say "we" because I hope that I am one of them—a new economic agenda. We need a new social agenda and a new international agenda for our country. In the 1990s, Britain needs a Government who will get the nation back on the right track. and the Opposition offer that.
  The Scottish Development Agency has an important part to play in Scotland in assessing and regenerating our communities. I understand that the Government wish to sell off the Hillington estate—a great big privatisation of the sort that the Government love so much—but if they sell that estate, I hope that the money is given back to the community. I have no objection to the scheme, because it is in Renfrew district, but I hope that the money gained will be used to get the thousands of unemployed people back to work.
  I also have no objection to the Inverclyde enterprise zone, which is so beloved of the Government and of the Minister. That is in my constituency, and I wish that the Government would put in the infrastructure that is so badly needed. Whether they like it or not, that means cash—hard money—to help in that.
  I shall not labour the point too long, but I have heard tonight how wonderful things are supposed to be in the economy. I shall read a summary of the most recent Fraser of Allander economic commentary which was published in December. It gave a general summary of the economic state of Scotland and two central points are made in it. First, although Scotland's economic performance has been improving——
  Mr. Roger King: Exactly.
  Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman can intervene if he wants.
  First, although Scotland's economic performance has been improving, there are widespread fears of a recession in the business world. Secondly, the Government's policy of high interest rates is having a particularly harsh effect on Scotland, given that we have a high proportion of industries susceptible to fluctuations in interest rates.
  792
  Scotland is more heavily dependent than the United Kingdom on the production of investment goods, and on construction, which makes investment of great significance. Expensive borrowing therefore causes severe problems.
  The commentary refers to other studies carried out by—wait for it—the Scottish chambers of commerce business survey and the CBI in Scotland. The commentary said that the latest chambers of commerce survey
  "shows … virtually every different sector showing a marked degree of pessimism about immediate economic prospects … A balance of -35 per cent. on business confidence is the lowest ever recorded by the SCCBS, far lower even than that recorded in 1986 in the aftermath of the collapse in the price of oil and the recession which resulted in Scotland".
  The pessimism expressed in the survey is the worst since the surveys began in 1984 and is in line with the CBI's survey, in which manufacturing optimism was said to be at its lowest level for seven years.
  I have already told the House tonight that Strathclyde regional council, which covers half of Scotland, has lost more than half its manufacturing jobs—166,000 losses. What an incredible and appalling record. How can we ever hope to improve export potential if we have such a prodigious loss of people and skills, and people languishing unemployed and on the dole? It is an indictment of any society.
  When does the Minister intend to visit with me the unemployed production workers in my constituency, who are now living on unemployment benefit—which he tells them they are lucky to be receiving? When will he tell them that they can get back to work and produce for the good of this country? When will he tell their children that he will provide meaningful education—not Mickey Mouse employment training projects, but apprenticeships, university places and college places—to give them the opportunity to compete in the 1990s and not to drive them back to Victorian conditions?
  The Minister has a responsibility to stop kidding people and to stop pulling the wool over their eyes. The Government should resign and let us get on with the business. Let us have a general election and I am sure that the people of Scotland and England will throw the Government on the scrap heap. That is the way to get folk back to work, to get trade and industry back to work and to get the deficit down. Let us say halloo and hurrah and get rid of this Government.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: To follow the thought that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) has just expressed, the debate is not about unemployment. It is significant that in 1990 the Opposition have not tabled a motion on unemployment in the United Kingdom. The simple reason is this Government's major success in reducing unemployment. I represent West Lancashire and a town that is one of the Government's major success stories. Unemployment in my constituency has fallen by about 3,500 during the past two and a half years. There has been a massive influx cif new companies and new investment. Skelmersdale was regarded as a black spot in the north of England, but its prosperity is growing. New houses, offices, shops and factories are being built and the town is facing the future with confidence.
  The work force is prepared to be flexible. It is not dominated by old-style trade unionism. Most of the

  793
  factories in Skelmersdale are no longer dominated by the trade unions, and the workers have been prepared to accept new and flexible working conditions. They are happy with them and they are well looked after by employers who care about them. We have been able to attract large amounts of overseas investment, particularly from Japan and the middle east.
  This debate focuses attention on the balance of payments, interest rates and inflation. Labour Members understand about taxing people and spending money. Their sympathies lie with those in the community who earn low wages. They do not understand that wealth creation leads to the provision of the welfare services that make life in our community worth living and improve the lot of the less privileged.
  The Government have had to take difficult decisions which have not been shirked. Inflation is a major problem. It was endemic during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Whenever prosperity increases and the standard of living improves, as it did during the late 1980s, we suck in huge quantities of imports. We have to slow down an overheated economy and introduce anti-inflationary policies.
  Interest rates have to be the major weapon against inflation. It is unfortunate that the Government have had to choose such a weapon, but it is the only major weapon that will lead to significant changes. We do not like having to increase interest rates. It makes us unpopular, and it leads to additional mortgage interest repayments. But the Government had to take that difficult decision to improve the standard of living and deal with the major economic problem—inflation.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend referred to the better prospects for people in his constituency. Does he agree that they reflect the great advantages that the north in general is experiencing? The Building Employers Confederation has recently published a bulletin headed "North South Divide Reversed." It points out that member firms of the south are expecting a fall in output but that in the north and in Scotland they expect either a stable or an expanding work load. The Manchester chamber of commerce and industry carried out a survey in the north-west which illustrated the increasing confidence and the competitive advantages of the north-west. The Bolton chamber of commerce carried out a survey headed "Firms on the up and up." It points out that the economic fortunes of Bolton firms have taken a welcome turn for the better. Does that not paint a much better and brighter picture than that painted by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham)?
  Mr. Hind: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. I am delighted that prospects are improving in Bolton. It is a symbol of the general improvement in the north-west of England.
  People have to realise that inflationary pressures result from their spending—not only from their home expenditure but from every other kind. That applies particularly to local government. Local councils do not accept that their expenditure has an impact on the
  794
  economy of the country as a whole and that their overspending must be made good either by the taxpayer or the ratepayer, which in turn has inflationary consequences.
  The major problem is our balance of trade. The fact that we suck in large quantities of imports is inflationary. However, we need to expand the size of the British manufacturing base, so we need those imports. During the early 1980s, the economy began to respond in many ways, but we did not succeed in expanding our manufacturing base.
  Investment is at record levels. Exports are increasing and moving towards closing the balance of trade gap. We must give as much help as we can to manufacturing industry. I hope that Treasury Ministers will consider changes to the tax system to provide tax allowances for manufacturing equipment. Corporation tax relief will not lead to tax allowances being given where they are most needed. It will not lead to the greatest good for our economy. It might lead to increased dividends and salaries for directors, but help should be directed where it is most needed.
  We must continue to attract inward investment. There is an organisation in the north-west called Inward. It does a sterling job round the world in attracting new industry to this country. The results in my constituency are typical of the work that it has done. It has attracted companies from Japan and elsewhere in the far east, from the Lebanon and from the United States. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in the Chamber. When he is examining the budgets of organisations that attract inward investment, I hope that he will remember that that organisation in the north-west merits a high budget, that it is doing sterling work and that it will produce good rewards.
  As for import substitution, cars represent a large slice of the balance of payments problem. I cannot underestimate the importance of attracting to this country the Nissans, the Toyotas and the Mitsubishis that will build cars using British components and British workers and that will attract money into the British economy at the same time replacing cars that are now imported from Japan. Import substitution will help us a great deal and narrow the trade imbalance. I welcome such initiatives.
  When my right hon. Friend next meets the French Trade Minister, I hope that he will bear in mind her speech yesterday, as reported in the press, in which she suggested that Japanese car firms based in Britain will face difficulties over importing into the Community—that spurious reasons will be found to prevent Japanese firms based in Britain from exporting to the Community. I hope that that will be fought tooth and nail and that we will ensure that the French are not allowed to impede us in this way. Perhaps the good lady could look at the 70 Japanese-French firms that are based there. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and their exports to the United Kingdom and the rest of the Community should be treated in exactly the same way. These are important factors.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will also consider the imbalance in trade with Japan. Japan's is still a very closed economy and that country is potentially one of the best markets in the world for British goods. That is not only my view; it is shared by the Americans. Last week, President Bush made it very clear in his summit conference with the Japanese Prime Minister in California that there has to be some movement on the part of the Japanese. We have

  795
  made a great deal of headway into that market, but the questions of seats on the Japanese stock exchange, changes in the pricing of whisky imported into Japan, and so on, leave us with a very big trade imbalance on which to work. The Japanese must realise that, when we have free trade throughout the world that underpins the whole of the EC and the world economy, they have to play the game and join in. They cannot close their market, one of the most important in the world, to manufactured goods from Britain and other European countries.
  Labour Members have tabled this motion. They can raise taxation; their party is known as the party of high taxation, so they know how to do that. They can spend money, because we hear over and over again in this Chamber promises to spend money raised from the taxpayer. But they are incapable of creating wealth. They proved that they were great borrowers during their last period in office when they had to call in the International Monetary Fund. We have avoided that.
  We see different answers to the problems that Labour Members have mentioned in this debate and we do not see increased Government subsidies to the regions as the only way of reorganising the economy. Nor do we see handing over the administration of the economy to civil servants, people with no experience of running industry or commerce—people who are essentially administrators and who do not have a great deal to do with the profit motive—as the way to establish British prosperity in the future. On "The World at One" a few months ago, the Leader of the Opposition when he was asked what answer he had to the problems of inflation said that he did not know. That probably typifies Opposition policy when it comes to getting to grips with our present difficulties.
  Finally, I want to refer to the Opposition's position on community charge, which in many respects typifies their lack of understanding of basic financing. In the county of Lancashire this year the Labour-controlled county council have increased their spending—this is before the community charge comes in—by 17·5 per cent. I have recently addressed meetings in various parts of the county in which I have asked any member of the audience who has had a wage increase of 17·5 per cent. this year to stand up. In the seven meetings at which I have spoken in the past fortnight nobody has stood up.
  Yet those same people are being asked to find extra money to pay the increased levies that the councils are making by raising their spending. Those people are living in circumstances in which inflation is just below 8 per cent. and they are getting wage or salary increases at or about that level. The councils say to the public that they must raise the money, but their understanding of sensible planning and running any kind of organisation is lacking.
  The community charge is very much under attack but the problem will not be solved by taking away education from local authorities. That is because, taking the rate support grant and the uniform business rate, in most cases the sums just about add up to the cost of education. Nor will the answer be found by throwing more money at the problem, because that money would be taken from the taxpayer and the burden of inflation would be increased. Furthermore, it would undermine the confidence that world markets and bankers must have in our ability to manage our economy properly. It would be sending out the wrong messages to the world.
  One of the major principles of the community charge must be accountability. By sticking to our principles on
  796
  this matter and saying that local government must manage its finances properly, we are making councils accountable to the electorate. Eventually, they too will realise that if inflation is at 7·5 per cent., they cannot increase expenditure by 17·5 per cent., or 25 per cent. and expect the economy and local government to run properly. That is the message that we must get over.
  We have problems in the economy but, as in 1985–86, this Government can handle them. The Government got over the problems of the decline in the value of the pound and in the price of oil. If we are positive in our thinking, advance our attack on the balance of payments arid inflation, and maintain downward pressure on inflation. I am sure that we shall succeed. The Opposition may laugh today but in two years' time when we get to elections they will sing an entirely different tune.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see three hon. Members seeking to catch my eye. I understand that the first Front-Bench spokesman will seek to wind up at about ten minutes past 9, so the arithmetic is fairly obvious—35 minutes divided by three.
  8.36 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I can take a hint as well as the next person, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I have sat here through most of the debate and all we have heard from the Government is excuses in one form or another. They have talked about the pain that will be borne during the next year or so because of the position into which they have got us because, early in the 1980s, they quite deliberately abandoned manufacturing. Because of the disastrous policies that they pursued then with regard to manufacturing, Britain is in danger of being very seriously undermined. I know what they did to manufacturing, because I come from a manufacturing town. In the north, we lost about 30 per cent. of our manufacturing jobs, or over 1 million jobs.
  The Government were warned by members of the other place. In 1984, the Lords produced a very good report on overseas trade, because they were concerned about the trade gap and what was happening. They made a number of recommendations, one of which was about interest rates. It seems to me a tragedy that the Government ignored that recommendation and continue to do so. That recommendation was clear:
  "Cheaper money would lead to more investment by small and medium sized enterprises. The Government should have more regard to the needs of industry as a borrower when they take a view on interest rates".
  Quite clearly, the Government totally ignored that excellent advice.
  Those of us who have constituencies in which there is still a high percentage of people employed in manufacturing—in my constituency, 45 per cent. of workers are still employed in manufacturing—are deeply concerned about this Government's single policy of using interest rates to control inflation.
  We have heard excuses about the trade deficit not mattering and the current interest rates, which are the highest in Europe, having little effect. A written answer in Hansard on 21 June 1989 suggested that each increase of one percentage point on base rate will cost industrial companies around £0·4 billion in a full year. That is a very serious burden for industry.

  797
  I see examples of that almost daily in my constituency because of the Government's policy of high interest rates. The employers in my constituency recognise just how damaging it has been to them and they are quite open about it. In the past two months my constituency has lost more than 400 jobs in manufacturing, 150 of them at Dorlux—which I mentioned in an application under Standing Order No. 20 a couple of weeks ago. The employer blamed high interest rates. Sixty jobs went at Crowthers, a subsidiary of Coloroll, a company which is going through some difficulties. On 23 January 1990, an article in the Financial Times blamed "casualties caused by the collapse of the British housing market" for job losses at Coloroll. Even Conservative Members would not deny that the housing market is in serious difficulties caused largely by the high interest rates and the fact that people can no longer afford to buy.
  Recently 20 jobs were lost at John Frederick, which makes UPVC windows and 30 at a local textile firm and 150 at Fredenburg, another firm in the Calder valley.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: I shall not give way, as there is not sufficient time. The Minister will have plenty of time to reply to the debate. I tried to intervene five or six times in the Secretary of State's speech, but he refused to give way, and he had plenty of time.
  Just this morning I heard that Pland Hygena, a small engineering firm, has announced another 50 redundancies. The employer blamed high interest rates.
  David Marshall, the managing director of a well-known firm in Halifax recently said:
  "high interest rates will affect sales of building materials over the next 12 months".
  and his firm recently made a number of redundancies. Another employer from a well-known textile firm in Halifax also said that the firm had planned to expand its factory because it had quite good order books, but because of the high cost of money it could not borrow so the expansion would not go ahead.
  Several of my hon. Friends have mentioned that the CBI has criticised the Government's lack of an economic policy. The January 1990 quarterly industrial trends survey published by the CBI stated:
  "Business confidence has declined further, on balance, for the fifth consecutive survey."
  That does not make good reading. It continued:
  "Respondents indicated that they were less optimistic than four months ago".
  Despite the Minister's huffing and puffing, his friends have deserted him rather quickly. I would argue that all the people I have quoted would normally support a Conservative Government.
  The textile industry, which is a constituency interest, has really gone through the mill. Textile companies have really had a shakeout, but they fought hard and did everything the Government asked them to do. They re-equipped and slimmed down their work force almost to non-existence. Conservative Members cannot say that the textile industry has a militant work force that asks for too much, as some of the pay rates are scandalous.
  The textile industry is on the verge of another recession. What help does it get from the Government? In a recent debate on the IMF and the Silberston report, the
  798
  Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who is a well known free marketeer, told us that he did not think that such a protectionist measure was any good for jobs. Professor Silberston warned that 33,000 jobs could go and Peter Booth, the national secretary of the textile trade group of the Transport and General Workers Union reckoned that the figure could be nearer 100,000. If that happens, the textile industry will be wiped out in my constituency and probably in West Yorkshire. Job losses on that scale would have a devastating effect on the lives and livelihoods of my constituents.
  When the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was making his leadership bid speech, he hinted that wage costs were partly to blame for current economic difficulties. I have just received a report from the West Yorkshire low pay unit. I recognise that we are the low pay capital of the north, but some of the figures are pretty appalling. One in eight women working full time earn less than £100 per week and nearly one third of women working full time in West Yorkshire earn less than £120 a week. One in six men earn less than £150 a week, and if overtime is excluded, the figure becomes one in four. If one compares those figures with the national average male wage of £269 a week, one gets some idea of the low pay problem in West Yorkshire. Three thousand men and women in my constituency earn less than £100 a week.
  I recognise that time is running out, so I shall conclude my speech. Reference has been made to training, and the right hon. Member for Henley blamed everything on the Labour Government. That is disgraceful, after 11 years of missed opportunities. The Government have given us nothing but YTS, CP and now ET schemes. I met a group of people on such a scheme. They came to my surgery the other morning and said it was a disgrace. They likened it to a displaced persons' camp. Nobody knew what they were doing. They told one man to sit in front of a computer and asked another man who had been in engineering all his life whether he would like to learn double entry bookkeeping, and then nobody came near him for a week.
  To return to the trade deficit and the future of manufacturing, in 1980 our trade with Europe in manufacturing was roughly in balance. Today, the deficit is about££14 billion. That is an appalling failure by any yardstick.
  The Government have failed us, and after the disgraceful speech by the Secretary of State today, it appears that they will continue to fail us. The House of Lords recognised the Government's failure. It said that a "sense of national purpose" was required and then made some international comparisons. The Government would sell the royal palaces if they could. The report said that we should create
  "Links between different groups in society".
  We have had 10 years of union-bashing and deregulation. The report said that "the long term view" was essential. That is anathema to the Government. It referred to education and training, which the Government have downgraded. It stressed that the Government should have an industrial policy, but we have heard the Secretary of State say that that is not on the agenda, as he believes in deregulation and no planning whatsoever. It talked about barriers to trade and quotas being necessary in some cases, but the other week we heard the multi-fibre arrangement might go.

  799
  If we compare what the Lords thought we should have with what we have heard in today's debate, we have no reason for optimism about the balance of trade deficit. All Opposition Members agree that it will get considerably worse before it gets better, because the Government are not for changing.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Roger King: Apart from a short meal break, I have sat listening to the debate for four and three quarter hours. I have been surprised that, on a day when Her Majesty's Opposition initiated the debate, we have not had a contribution from a Labour Member defining Labour policy on trade, industry, the balance of payments or any other problem facing the economy. We have had nothing but criticism of the Government.
  We do not know how a future Labour Government would address the challenges that face the nation. In the coming 10 years or more, we shall take steps to ensure that we continue to sustain economic growth. That process will continue so long as the Government do not lose their nerve and so long as they retain their present stringent economic policies.
  We got a glimpse of what might be perceived as Opposition policy from the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who referred to what I thought was a national plan mark 2. No doubt, should Labour become the Government, we would have something of that sort, which would be more bureaucracy as an excuse for doing nothing.
  The solution proposed by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) was to put our problems on to a European agenda. He seemed to suggest that, if that did not solve them, we should make them the subject of a world agenda. I admire his optimism and desire for a world solution to our problems, but I doubt whether that will turn out to be official Labour party policy.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) also failed to provide a semblance of Labour party policy. As he is the official Opposition spokesman, one would have thought that he would adduce the sort of policies that Labour would present should they become the Government. Instead, we got from him what might be described as negative policy.
  Hon. Members will recall that I intervened in his speech to ask about Labour's attitude towards an important aspect of investment, that of road building. I assure the House, as a Birmingham Member, that, if we do not have a good roads system with access to the ports and other areas of manufacturing, we will die. Roads are our arteries, and we must have them. We have no desire to cover the entire countryside with six-lane motorways, but we must have a basic road infrastructure.
  To their credit, the Government have embarked on a rolling programme of road building and improvement, covering 10 years and costing £12 billion. Although that is a lot of money, we must not forget that, during those 10 years, road users will contribute about £200 billion into the coffers of the Exchequer. So although in percentage terms it is a small sum, it is welcome and essential.
  The official policy of the Opposition seems to be that we should do away with such a roads programme. Indeed, a commitment to that effect appears in the columns of
  800
  Hansard. I shall make sure that all the west midlands hears about that because, as I say, without a decent roads system we will wither and die. May we be told clearly whether it really is Labour policy not to have a programme of road building and expansion? If so, Labour will be condemned at the ballot box as luddite in its approach to the challenges facing the nation. The CBI has said that, without adequate roads, it cannot guarantee that British industry can deliver the goods.
  Despite our problems, our economy is moving forward. We are getting investment from all over the world. Over 100 overseas manufacturing and service companies have established in the Birmingham region. The West Midlands development agency has played a major part in bringing investment to my constituency. A German seat manufacturing company has announced its intention to establish in my area, and I feel certain that, before long, we shall have a French manufacturer of car components, followed by Italian and Japanese firms. We are becoming a multinational area for the car component industry.
  Mr. Allen rose——
  Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. Time is short, and others wish to take part in the debate.
  The car industry in Britain is in the process of dynamic rebirth. Hon. Members who had the good fortune to visit the Rover works in my constituency at Longbridge saw a business that has been totally transformed as a result of £400 million of investment. We have in that plant state-of-the-art development and production with, especially important, state-of-the-art management-union relations. It is the first car company—the first manufacturing firm—in Britain to edge towards seven-day manufacturing around the clock. There is a temptation for the unions to accept a 37-hour week, and I hope that, when negotiations have been completed, we shall have round-the-clock working at Longbridge, because plant that remains idle for any part of the day in this cost-conscious age is not serving the nation.
  I am happy to say that, as a reult of the investment in our motor industry, not only is there a six-month waiting list for some models of the new Rover 200 being built at Longbridge, but there is a 12-month waiting list for the new Land Rover Discovery being built in Solihull.
  Perhaps the British disease reveals itself in that direction. Perhaps we under-estimate our ability so much that we finish up with enormously long waiting lists, and that attracts foreign competition. I hope, that as a result of new working methods, those waiting lists will be reduced and that the Rover 200 and the Land Rover Discovery will be produced in ever greater numbers and exported to all parts of the world, so earning vital income for this country.
  I endorse what some hon. Members have said about Japanese car companies establishing in this country. That is happening partly because we have had an open economy. We have allowed our competitors to establish their distribution systems here. I accept that, in the short term, that may have undermined our indigenous manufacturing, but because of that open policy—not just in cars but in videos, televisions and many electronic and consumer goods—overseas manufacturers have been encouraged here. Once they have built up their bedrock of demand in Britain, they have moved their manufacturing

  801
  capability here. We have provided ourselves with a Japanese manufacturing platform from which we can export goods into the European Community.
  I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who pointed out the problems that we are experiencing with the European Community, and principally with the French, who are claiming that the Japanese quota for cars sold in Europe must include not only those that come from Japan as built-up cars, but Japanese cars made at so-called transplant factories, in the United Kingdom. I reject that concept and feel sure that the Minister will bang the table in France and at the European Commission to make sure that a British-built car, whether it bears a Ford or a Nissan label, is regarded as a British car, rather than as a substitute for something else. I think I see the Minister for Industry nodding an assent. I take it that he is completely behind me in that matter.
  Our main hope for the future—I trust that the hope will be realised—is that Britain's car industry can grow to perhaps 2 million-plus units a year by the end of this decade. That would dramatically improve our economic trading balance with the rest of the world.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House have said that as a country we do not invest enough in innovation. The Japanese invest by erecting a huge glass tower over their scientists and engineers, who try to reproduce ideas originating in the West. Sometimes they have their own ideas, but while they are also innovating, they certainly go about perfecting known engineering standards.
  We do things differently. Most of our design initiatives seem to be achieved on a serviette in steak bars and round the pub. The Mini was designed in that way, as many other products have been. It is a natural way of doing things in this country, which is different from that followed elsewhere. One cannot compare one nation's ability with another's in engineering expertise, design and development. We are especially inventive, but we have let ourselves down in translating those inventions into goods that will sell.
  I am reminded of the old Ferguson formula four-wheel drive car, which was designed in the 1950s. It used a four-wheel drive system which was basic, simple and effective, yet largely ignored by United Kingdom manufacturers. I have seen only one production car using it on sale—the Jensen FF, made in West Bromwich in the west midlands. Yet that same system has now been adopted by many companies in Japan and elsewhere as the formula for four-wheel drive. We could have completely dominated that market, but for a variety of reasons, including being too early on the scene, we were unable to take up the initiative—with the exception of the immortal Land Rover, which continues to sell and is in good demand.
  Over the past 10 years, we have achieved a great deal in completely reforming our training systems. We must now go further because of the demand for higher skills. I am convinced that the Government's initiative in developing training and enterprise councils throughout the country will play a major and significant role in providing the training and skills that we desperately need for tomorrow. The challenges are great, but the country is set fair.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), because he read his Central Office brief on economics for fourth-formers very eloquently. I ask him only why, if the Government have been so successful with the motor car industry, the deficit of trade in motor cars and components has increased so steadily under this Government. Why are we in that situation if the industry has been so successful?
  The hon. Gentleman has illustrated the usual rule of Governments in a mess: when in doubt, attack the other side. He did that vigorously. This Government are now up a well-known creek with their economic policy. We might say that they are up an excretory creek without a paddle. They have got themselves into a mess from which there is no escape on current policies. The balance of payments gap cannot be closed unless British industry expands and invests, but it cannot do that with interest rates at a crippling level. The balance of payments gap cannot be closed unless the pound sterling comes down, but it will not, because interest rates are deliberately being kept high to maintain the value of the pound. They are being used as a deliberate prop for sterling. We are paying foreigners high interest rates to bring junk money to this country to close a gap in trade that we cannot close with what we produce in this country and what we sell from it.
  Interest rates have become this Government's Zimmer frame, as they are all that are keeping the Government standing. The Government have no alternative. In saying that they will depend so heavily on interest rates, they are saying that they will make imports cheap by keeping the pound high and so take jobs away from this country. They will inflict pain on every house owner with a mortgage and they will try to bring down the price of houses and assets through the squeeze. They will try to squeeze demand, which will produce bankruptcies—and not only in retailing. Sock Shop is only the beginning. A series of other bankruptcies will follow, which will then knock on to the manufacturing sector. Coloroll is only the beginning there. The knock-on effect will be cataclysmic.
  We are in for a miserable, bitter 12 months of economic wind-down. The Prime Minister will have a better year than Mrs. Ceausescu, but only just. It will be a pretty miserable year for all of us with the deflation that we are now entering, which will be reinforced by the coming Budget.
  The Government's calculations are almost certainly cynical. They want to get the problems over in a year of misery, and then to start to relax the policy next year and to look forward to an election, probably in 1992. We are in for the longest 28 months in British history, as the Government hang on, squeeze the economy and then begin to relax as the election approaches. That is the cynical aspect. The reality is rather different.
  The crisis and the figures obscure a fundamental change in our economy. We are seeing a national tragedy unfold which has been obscured by the Government's electoral gamble. We are seeing the strange death of industrial Britain. We are seeing the shrinking of our industrial base on which jobs, economic growth, our ability to pay and our way in the world all depend. It is now at a level where it is unable to do the jobs on which our economy traditionally depended.

  803
  We have not felt all the consequences so far. The oil has helped to keep us going, but we shall feel the consequences in the 1990s. The industrial base is now less than one quarter of our economy and it has lost a huge share of its home market. The home market share of British industry has come down from 83 per cent. in 1970 to 64 per cent. in 1989, which is a bigger increase and a bigger share of imports than in any comparable economy in the advanced industrial world. The base of British industry was its home base.
  The share of our exports in world manufactured trade has shrunk under this Government. British industry cannot satisfy demand, yet we cannot sustain demand unless we can pay for it with what we produce. We cannot just consume and not produce. We must shift resources back to manufacturing, return to jobs in manufacturing, and rebuild the manufacturing base of the British economy. Nothing else will do the job. Services are parasitic. We cannot be hairdressers to the world or turn London into a more expensive version of Bangkok, policed by Lord Rees-Mogg, to provide that type of service to the world. Financial services will not do it, as our share of world financial services is declining as fast as our share of manufacturing trade and invisible trade will go into deficit as the profits from Japanese investment in this country return to Japan. That was the emphasis of Mr. Keegan's article in The Guardian, which has been quoted so often.
  There is no alternative except to rebuild industry. We are in an industrial war and it is a war we are losing. We are losing to competitors who are better invested and better trained and who have some idea of co-operation between the state and industry, unlike the policy of the Department of Trade and Industry, which is as hands-off as a Saudi kleptomaniac. The dearest wish of the Minister is to get out of the business altogether. We wish him joy on his personal getting out, but not on withdrawing the Department with him.
  We need to rebuild industry, and to do that we must do many things. We must improve the human capital in industry—the skills and the training. We must also expand back into the markets that we have lost, both at home and overseas, and repair the sustaining networks of suppliers and of research and development—those things from which all new development comes. That needs several things.
  First, it needs a competitive exchange rate. There can be no transfer or shift back of resources into manufacturing—without which we have no future and upon which everything depends—unless the exchange rate is competitive enough to finance that shift back through market forces. Yet the pound is up in real terms since 1976, when we promised the International Monetary Fund to maintain the competitive position of British manufacturers. The pound is up 36 per cent. in real terms since then. We cannot retrieve the markets we have lost, the jobs that we have exported to the Common Market—about 1·5 million of them—and the trade we have lost unless we return to the competitive position that we were in then. There is no alternative—that is the only way to do it. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
  Secondly, we need cheaper money to stimulate investment. We need that to invest on the scale that we have to if this country is to fight back. We need long-term thinking, not the short-term horizons that the City, with its obsession with balance sheets and takeovers, forces on
  804
  British industry. Japanese industry thinks long-term. It invests to obtain a market share, it builds up through the difficulties, it obtains a network of suppliers and dealers together and then it takes over the market. We think no more than three months ahead. Everyone protects their backs because they are afraid of takeovers. Unless we think long-term we cannot get back.
  We need co-operation between industry and the Government, not the hands-off approach. We are facing corporate competition between the industries and Governments of our major competitors. We must have the same co-operation. We need co-operation too to restrain the inflationary consequences of a competitive exchange rate, of economic growth, and of fighting back. We do not need a Government who heighten inflation by what they have done to electricity prices, gas prices, the introduction of the poll tax and high interest rates, and then blame the people for inflation.
  What economic nonsense that is. There must be a better way of defeating inflation than putting people out of work, depressing demand and deflating the economy. I am not sure what that better way is, but there must be some co-operation that can lead us towards that better way, rather than the savage alternative that the Government are embarked on.
  There is one last thing that we need and that is a Labour Government. The next 28 months will be the longest and most difficult in British history before the people can speak and tell this Government to get out because they have failed. At the end of the 28 months we shall have a Labour Government who will work for jobs, for industry and for growth, and will co-operate with the people and not discipline them by deflation and the cruel punishment of high interest rates. We need a Government who will seize the '90s to replace this Government who have wasted the '80s.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Whatever else the House believes, everyone will accept that we have had a vigorous debate. I hope that that endorses the Opposition's choice of the important subjects for debate.
  We have heard some telling speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) talked of the importance of the manufacturing sector. M y hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said that time was running out for that sector. M y hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) made a plea for indigenous investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) reprimanded his colleagues for being too hard on the Government in judging them on their inflation record after only 10 years in office. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) expressed his horror at the Secretary of State's remark that people were lucky to get benefit when they were out of work. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) told us of the misery caused to her constituents by the Government's policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) highlighted the increasing number of bankruptcies because of the Government's most recent policies.
  We also heard interesting speeches from Conservative Members, especially from the Birmingham area. The

  805
  House will take time to ponder why there has been an increase in such speeches. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) referred to the contradiction of employers paying themselves wage increases of 28 per cent. and at the same time claiming that the 7 per cent. wage increases for which their workers were asking would cause great damage to the economy. I noted particularly that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) welcomed the work of the West Midlands industrial development agency in attracting foreign investment into the area.
  As is always the case, we heard some predictable speeches—from the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). I felt sorry for them as they scrambled round looking for arguments to support the Government. One has to give them credit for their loyalty to lost causes.
  We heard an important constituency speech from the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) who made a plea for aid from the Secretary of State for organisations in Lancashire that are seeking to attract industrial development. All credit is due to the local authorities which have supported the initiatives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made a powerful speech. He indicted the Government's record of mismanagement, not just in 1989 and 1990 but throughout the past 10 years. He further indicted the complete lack of commitment of the Department of Trade and Industry to aiding Britain's industrial recovery.
  We had a somewhat limited speech from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). As the House well knows, he has been willing to criticise in the country the Government's policy on the exchange rate mechanism and their disastrous regional policy, but unfortunately all that the House heard from him today were institutional points about more independence for the Governor of the Bank of England. But perhaps that is all we could expect from a Member who, notwithstanding his criticisms in the country of the Government, trooped through the Conservative Lobby to vote for the tax-cutting Budget in 1988 which gave rise to all the present difficulties. I believe that Conservative Members will recognise that the right hon. Gentleman's contribution was directed more at the leadership of his party than at the economic problems of the country.
  The Government's problems do not stem only from recent policy decisions. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer would not face up to the importance of the balance of payments. He said in this House:
  "The risk of a resurgence of inflation is the only real problem facing the British economy today, a risk far greater than any threat arising from the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 591.]
  But then we were told that the balance of payments did matter. We were told that we should all be concerned about the deficit. Every month, as the balance of payments figures are produced, the excuses have been reeled out: they do not accurately reflect the true position in the economy. Indeed, the Prime Minister began to take notice
  806
  of the balance of payments figures in January 1988. I remind the Minister and the Secretary of State of what she said:
  "Last month's trade figures were a freak."
  Then we were told, in a long explanatory note with last summer's figures, that the dock strike had distorted the trade figures. This month, in an even longer explanatory note, we were told of the erratic items that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East explained to the House earlier. In relation to this month's figures, we were told about diamonds. Diamonds always were a girl's best friend, but this month they have been a very convenient friend to the Prime Minister. However, they have been no friend to the millions of women whose families have faced more mortgage misery as the markets discount the long explanatory notes from the DTI, as the markets discount the freaks, as they discount the erratics, and as markets discount the diamonds. Those markets threaten to force another hike in interest rates to combat speculation against sterling.
  The Minister will know what I mean when I say that the Secretary of State does not have a reputation as the most perceptive member of the Cabinet. That was confirmed today in front of the whole House. I want to say something about the contribution of the Secretary of State. I listened very carefully to try to catch the salient points, but I was able to take only two points from the speech. The first is that, clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby pointed out, the Secretary of State was confused about the difference between capital payments and current payments in the balance of payments. Secondly—I want to give him a little credit—he was right to say that the trend matters. What he did not own up to was the trend of the past 10 years. If he were to face up to that trend, he would recognise that we have a trading problem and that his Government have turned a trade surplus of £2 billion into a deficit which, it is predicted, will be £18 billion later this year.
  But I want to be fair: I want to give the Secretary of State credit where credit is due. He has acknowledged that the trade deficit is a problem. During the debate on the address in reply to the Gracious Speech, he said:
  "I know that the trade deficit is unacceptably high. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken steps to reduce it. However, the causes of the deficit lie not in the supply side failure but in the unacceptably strong surge in consumer demand and record imports of capital equipment for industry."—[Official Report, 22 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 121.]
  Hon. Members will wonder which of the steps taken by the Chancellor the Secretary of State was referring to. Was he referring to the Chancellor's anti-inflation strategy? Did he believe that the Chancellor had endorsed the increases in electricity prices, water prices and rail fares? Did he believe that the Chancellor would be happy with the poll tax increases that have been imposed on even Conservative local authorities? Was he not alarmed by the increase in mortgage costs that the Chancellor inflicted on millions of people as he tried desperately to take steam out of an economy whose overheating had been fuelled by his predecessor in the 1988 Budget? Does not the Secretary of State accept that all those policies pushed up inflation, thus having the opposite effect to what was intended?
  If the Secretary of State was somewhat ambiguous about the steps taken by his right hon. Friend, he cannot be accused of any ambiguity in regard to this second point. There is no doubt that the unacceptably strong surge in

  807
  consumer demand has caused a problem, and the country will want to ask some questions. Did not the previous Chancellor recognise that the 1988 tax handouts to the rich would cause problems? If he did not, did not the current Chancellor—who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, before going on his package holiday to the Foreign Office—recognise that a tragic spurt in the balance of payments deficit would be the inevitable result?
  If neither of them understood the likely impact, why did not the then Secretary of State for the Environment—now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—dash along Marsham street, round Parliament square and into Whitehall to warn the Treasury of their impending folly? Did he not perceive the economic damage that the 1988 Budget would cause, or was he too busy preparing the ground, drawing up proposals and probably consulting Conservative councilors—or perhaps not—about his highly successful plans for the poll tax, or his plans for water privatisation?
  After his speech today, the House will probably not expect the Secretary of State to understand capital investment statistics, but I can tell him that it is not true that the importation of equipment for British industry took a significantly larger proportion of total imports. The shares in 1988 and 1989 were broadly similar to that of some 20 years ago. In 1986, the capital goods deficit was £0·8 billion out of £9·4 billion in total visible trade; by 1989, the deficit was £1·6 billion out of a total of £24·5 billion.
  If capital goods were distorting the trade figures, the balance of payments would not be in its present mess. With a fall in manufacturing investment in the last quarter of 1989, January's figures would have displayed an improvement.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the disastrous impact of the 1988 Budget several times. In fact, through tax cuts, the budget released taxes amounting to some £4 billion, while total credit expansion in that year was £40 billion. The problem is related not to fiscal policy but to the expansion of domestic demand, and high interest rates are the only way of bearing down on that.
  Mr. Henderson: The main question to which the hon. Gentleman should address himself is whether the 1988 tax cuts had a beneficial effect on the economy, or can be shown to have caused more damage subsequently. The Government should have devised a balanced Budget that took account of the needs of investment, as well as those of increased consumption.
  Do the Government now recognise what the country has increasingly come to recognize—that our economy is hopelessly out of balance and that even with all the benefits of £87 billion-worth of North sea oil revenues, our manufacturing sector is weaker than at any time in our history? Do the Government recognise that manufacturing output growth in the United Kingdom came 18th out of 20 OECD countries between 1979 and 1988 and that in the past three months our manufacturing output grew by only 0·2 per cent? Do they accept that manufacturing investment was only 2·5 per cent. of GDP in 1988, which I remind the House the Government claimed was a record year, compared with 3·3 per cent. in 1978?
  If the Government recognise that there is a link between those figures and the state of our manufacturing sector, do they also acknowledge that the failures of our
  808
  manufacturing sector lie at the core of our trade deficit? Writing in the Sunday Times last Sunday, David Smith described our trade performance as a "grim record", noting:
  "From 1979–1989, the volume of non-oil exports grew 43·9 per cent. while imports increased by 84·8 per cent."
  If the Secretary of State needs further convincing, will he consider the view of the Confederation of British Industry about our supply-side failures? John Banham, the director general of the CBI, told the CBI conference last November:
  "We cannot expect to deal our way out of our problems Investment in all its aspects—plant, skills, innovation and the infrastructure—remains the key".
  He believes that such investment is necessary to tackle not only manufacturing efficiency and competitiveness, but the cause of the inflationary pressures in the economy. I agree
  Inflation is not a genie that has escaped from a bottle. Britain's inflationary gap with other countries is caused by a misguided macro-economic strategy. Today's inflation is caused by the Government's specific policy choices. They introduced the tax-cutting Budget for the rich that led to a glut of money chasing luxury imported goods. Those policy choices also rely on high interest rates and on an artificially shored-up exchange rate.
  It is what economists used to call stagflation, but surely it is still stagflation. It is stagflation that will lead to cost pressures on our industrial competitiveness and have a further alarming impact on the trade deficit through its impact on export prices. That is not only my view. It was shared by David Smith in the Sunday Times last Sunday.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is Labour's policy to reduce exchange rates, creating more inflation, to reduce interest rates, to increase taxes or to have import controls? What is Labour's alternative to the present policy?
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has shown that he is even more confused than some of his hon. Friends who spoke earlier.
  The House has been asking for Labour's answers, so I shall give some answers. Like any sensible Government—like sensible Governments in Europe—a Labour Government would ensure that a proper balance was achieved in the economy and that proper choices were made between investment and consumption. A Labour Government would ensure that we invested in the important things, such as education, training and research and development, which the right hon. Member for Henley identified as key points.
  Mr. Hind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: So you should be.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne., North (Mr. Henderson) listened to my speech with care., and I apologise for missing the first part of his speech. We want to know how the Labour party would effect the policies to which he referred. It is no good talking only about trading and balances. What will a Labour Government's fiscal policy be? What will they borrow? For what rates of taxation will they aim? What will be the exchange rate? Those are the things that we need to know. How will Labour achieve their policies?
  Mr. Henderson: I am surprised that the hon. Member does not believe that training is important. After hearing his views on his local industrial development agency,I

  809
  should have thought that he would believe that in his local economy training is absolutely important. He should have listened more closely to the speeches of Opposition Members, which have highlighted the important points in seeking to restore our economy.
  We are now seeing the results of economic mismanagement. It is an economy in chaos and hopelessly out of balance, structurally and regionally. Together, those imbalances have caused further damage to the economy, which has meant that the Government have completely failed to tackle the long-standing problems of stop-go which has created a congested southern part of the country and areas in the north that are working far below their capacity.
  It is not only a question of what the Government have failed to do. Clearly, they have failed to invest in training, education, research and development for the 1990s and in roads, railways, telecommunications and other important parts of our infrastructure. But it is also a question of what the Government have done. The Government know that they have taken £5 billion out of rate support grant to local authorities which could have been spent to regenerate our inner cities. They know that they have cut expenditure on export services. They know that they have hacked regional development aid. At a time when industry is crying out for support, they are breaking up and selling off the Department of Trade and Industry.
  People are demanding a new agenda. The people of West Oxfordshire demand a new agenda and the people of Mid-Staffordshire will demand a new agenda. People want new ideas for a new decade. They demand an end to cynical consumer short-termism and an end to policies that give no thought to tomorrow. People are demanding an end to pay-offs for the rich. They want Britain to invest in its future. The British people want to be proud of British industry again. They want to be able to drive along our roads and travel on our trains without congestion. They want proper education and science for tomorrow's generation.
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr Robert Atkins): And more roads.
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, they want more roads, and more railways. They are looking forward to a better age. People want an end to greed, consumerism and the moral austerity that goes with looking after number one. People want the beginning of co-operation, concern and a moral commitment that goes with looking after the generation of tomorrow.
  9.33 pm
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): This has been in part an interesting debate, and also an important debate. It has been interesting because of the resolute refusal of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, particularly the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to spell out the detail of Labour policy.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong rose——
  Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way for the moment.
  810
  That was especially the case when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall identify one or two of the questions left unanswered by the hon. Gentleman.
  It, has been an important debate because it has been possible to put current economic concerns into their proper perspective. The Government accept that there are at least three economic issues that are of general concern and need to be addressed: the current inflation rate, high interest rates and the adverse trade gap.
  It is wholly unseemly and quite inappropriate for the Labour party to criticise the Government about the inflation rate. Of course the present rate is too high, but even at its current level, it is only about one half of the average annual increase achieved by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. It is 19 percentage points below the record level of 26·9 per cent. that the Labour Government achieved in August 1975. Moreover, the policies that the Labour party and its trade union friends constantly urge upon us, most notably an immediate and substantial reduction in interest rates, a craven concession to any inflationary wage demand that may be made and a heedless hike in public spending, would widen the trade gap and lead to an early return to spiralling inflation.
  I accept that interest rates are uncomfortably high, in that they put pressure on disposable income. However, I also accept that inflation puts yet more pressure on people's disposable income. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) so correctly said, the only effective way to reduce direct inflationary pressures is to bear down on consumer demand by and through interest rates, and that we shall continue to do for as long as may be necessary.
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose——
  Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way at this point.
  We shall not tolerate a return to the inflationary policies of the 1970s, fuelled and presided over by the Labour party, which confiscated savings, impoverished the elderly, destroyed both public and private investment and led us in shame to the IMF.
  I am astonished that the Labour party is unable to recognise, or perhaps unwilling to concede, the improvements now taking place in the balance of trade. The transformation, especially in our exports, is quite extraordinary. In the three months to January 1990, there was a fall of £1·3 billion in the visible trade deficit. I turn specifically to exports, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), and here the figures are more encouraging. In the three months to January 1990—excluding erratics and oil—the volume of exports was up 4 per cent. over the previous three months, and by no less than 11 per cent. on a year previously.
  The import figures also point in an encouraging direction. In the three months to January 1990, the volume of imports was 1 per cent. lower than in the previous three months and only 2 per cent. higher than in the year previously. It is worth peering more closely at those crude figures. In the last three months, exports of manufactured goods rose by 3·5 per cent. Imports of manufactured goods fell by 1 per cent. Exports of passenger motor cars rose by 11 per cent. Imports of passenger motor cars fell by 3·5 per cent. Those figures, simple and readily comprehensible as

  811
  they are, point to the underlying strength and continuing competitiveness of British industry. That is the fundamental truth which has become apparent during the debate.
  During the past 10 years, Britain has seen a fundamental transformation in her absolute and relative position. The facts are striking, so I shall give them. Manufacturing output in 1989 was 5 per cent. higher than in 1988 and 23 per cent. higher than five years ago. Manufacturing investment in 1989 was 5 per cent. higher than in 1988 and 34 per cent. higher than five years ago. In 1987 and 1988, economic growth was 4 per cent. higher in each year, on top of five successive years of previous growth. Manufacturing productivity has grown 25 per cent. in the past five years.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a minute.
  Unemployment has fallen by 1·5 million in the past three and a half years. In the past 10 years, the real take-home pay of a married man on male average earnings with two children has gone up by one third.
  Mr. Griffiths rose——
  Mr. Hogg: That is a transformation of a radical and rare kind.
  I do not claim that the Government are entitled to exclusive credit for all that—that would not be right—but for the Labour party to disparage that record and to pretend that it is not so, or that if it is so that it is of no significance, is to commit a yet grosser failing; grosser because it shows either that they do not know the facts or that, knowing the facts, they do not care to admit them, or that they admit the facts but they do not understand them.
  However one views it, Labour has been less than candid with the House and has had little or no significant material to contribute to the debate.
  Now I come to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. He did not deserve it, but I gave him the courtesy of listening to his speech. He said that he would say something about Labour policy. He did: it took him 30 seconds in a speech that lasted 32 minutes. There was a brief reference to more training, more research and development, lower interest rates and the exchange rate mechanism. He made only broad generalisations.
  I entirely agree with the criticisms by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) of the speech made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. He said that lower interest rates would stimulate demand, have a disastrous effect on inflation and widen the trade gap. I also agree with my right hon. Friend when he said of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East that the talk about training and education is hot air, because, had the Labour Government done it way back in the 1970s, we would not be in the mess that we are in now. We are doing something about that, and they did not.
  There may have been no policy from the hon. Gentleman but, goodness me, there was a great deal of ignorance. For example, he complained about a shortfall in research and development. The hon. Gentleman has not been doing his homework.
  Mr. Ridley: He never does.
  Mr. Hogg: Had he done it, he would have found some interesting facts. Between 1983 and 1987, industry invested more than 27 per cent. in real terms in research and
  812
  development. The number of scientists and engineers employed in industrial research and development rose by 13 per cent. between 1981 and 1987. The Department of Education and Science's science budget is now 25 per cent. higher in real terms that it was 10 years ago. Total United Kingdom spending on research and development has grown by 4 per cent. a year in real terms since 1983. Those facts are clearly unknown to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, and that is a pity.
  Ms. Armstrong: Would the Minister like to tell us why R and D investment by the Government in the last year for which we have figures was 2 per cent. for the northern region and about 60 per cent. for the southern region?
  Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.]—that the hon. Lady has raised that, because I shall now discuss the difference, if any, between the north and the south.
  Another curious mistake made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was to refer to what he described as a gap opening up between the north and the south. He is clearly unaware of the latest unemployment figures, and he is clearly unaware that, in Wales, the north-west, Scotland and the north, unemployment fell faster in the past year than in London, the south-east and Greater London. Indeed, in the north and in Wales, it fell by almost 25 per cent. While we were having a little candour from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, why did he not tell us about the unemployment figures in his constituency? He did not, but I will. In the past 12 months, they have fallen by nearly 19 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East talked a great deal of nonsense about failure on the part of the regions to attract a high level of inward investment. What nonsense. Has he not heard of Toyota going to Derby and of Fujitsu going to Durham, and does he not know that, in Wales between 1984 and 1988, more than 250 overseas investment projects were created, resulting in some 31,000 new jobs?
  The hon. Gentleman gave us stale jokes mixed with ignorance. In common with my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor), and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), I have some questions that I would like to ask, because it is right that we should know what Labour party policy is.
  Is it still Labour party policy to impose a payroll tax of half a per cent. on the pay bill? Is it still Labour party policy to hike national insurance subscriptions for employers? If the hon. Gentleman has forgotten where to find that, it is on page 33 of the policy review. Does the Labour party intend to oblige all employers to pay a minimum wage to some 4 million employees? If he does not know where to find that, it is on page 30 and 31 of the policy review.
  Does the Labour party intend to have a national investment bank? Does it intend to have a network of regional banks? Does it intend to encourage pension trustees by changing the law to take account of the interests of regional economy? What are the answers to those questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Well, the House will draw its own conclusions. Either the Labour party has changed its policy in the past six months, or it Js trying to conceal it. Either way it is disreputable.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley made an extremely powerful speech, in the course of which he called for distancing the Bank of England from Government

  813
  policy. I am sure that he will agree when I say that that issue is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley will forgive my asking this question, at least rhetorically, of him: if the German central bank is indeed such a model of independence, how much independence did it have when the German Government decided to amalgamate the ostmark and the deutschmark? I suspect, not that much. There is, however, one matter on which I think that my right hon. Friend and I can agree: that all responsible bankers, whether or not. they are independent, accept that interest rates are the only effective way to bear down on inflationary pressures. From that perspective, it is policy, not institutions, that matter.
  My old sparring partner, the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), referred to training. He made a stirring call for more training, as did the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). We all agree about the merits of training. That is why we are putting policies in place. However, their speeches would have been a great deal better had they referred to the facts—for example, to the fact that industry is spending £18 billion on training, that the Government are setting up training and enterprise councils with budgets of £2·5 million, that we have introduced the core curriculum, that we have placed increased emphasis on science and engineering in higher education. We can all quarrel about policy adjustments, but to talk about training without mentioning these elements is, frankly, to admit ignorance on a grand scale.
  Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has made great play of education and training, but does he not agree that Siemens in West Germany has trained more graduate electrical engineers than are are trained in the whole of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Hogg: That particular fact is not in my head. However, the hon. Gentleman is in no position to talk about facts. During the five minutes of his speech that he spent on training, he failed to mention any one of the four facts that are central to the issue that I have just mentioned. He failed to mention the very encouraging downward trend in unemployment in his constituency, although he whinged about that. Unemployment in his constituency has fallen by about 18 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Warrington, North also taxed me about Sunderland and referred to the end of shipbuilding there. However, shipbuilding is a cyclical industry. During the decade that led up to the decision in December 1988 to end shipbuilding in Sunderland, there was a dramatic downturn in the Sunderland work force. That downturn was associated with subsidies and loss. The Government have put in place a closure package that involves remedial measures to the value of £45 million. We are creating a diversified and more prosperous economy in Sunderland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) referred to the considerable improvement in industrial relations. He is wholly right. The facts deserve to be repeated. In 1989, working days lost were a third of the average during the period 1970 to 1979. The number of stoppages, at 672, was the lowest for about 50 years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West made an extremely powerful case in favour of Japanese manufacturers coming to the United Kingdom. In this, he
  814
  was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, with whom I entirely agree that cars produced in the United Kingdom, albeit by Japanese-owned companies, are European cars and ought to be treated as such. We should welcome that fact, because it is having a dramatic impact upon our indigenous capacity. At the moment, we have a United Kingdom car production capacity of about 1·3 million vehicles. By the mid-1990s, this will rise to about 2 million. That gives us an opportunity of unique proportions, not least for component manufacturers. I am sure the House will be pleased to know that, in 1989, car exports to Japan rose by no less than 75 per cent. in value.
  When hon. Members talk about foreign penetration of our car market, it perhaps behoves them to remember that it was between 1974 and 1979 that import penetration doubled to 56·3 per cent., and it has remained stable since that time.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) made two cardinal mistakes. He doubted the value of inward investment. I do not suppose that that feeling is shared by the employees of Nissan, Honda and Toyota or by the employees of Rheinhagen in or near his own constituency. Secondly, he did not mention the fall of 12 per cent. in unemployment in his constituency during the last 12 months. Moreover, he misunderstands the changes being undertaken by my right hon. Friend within the Department of Trade and Industry. The purpose of those changes is to make the delivery of services yet more effective.
  So we come to the end of this debate, and I hope that hon. Members will read and reflect upon the terms of the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say to the House that, for ignorance or lack of candour, or a combination of both, it takes some beating.
  The right hon. Gentleman refers to the present rate of inflation. True, it is too high, but it is a quarter of the level achieved by Labour in August 1975, and it is destined to fall. He refers to the trade deficit, but he ignores the fact that we have just had the best export figures for 17 years. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of business bankruptcies. Does he not understand that business is a dynamic process, with firms opening and firms closing? What matters is the net figure. In 1988, over 60,000 more firms opened than closed, which is a fourfold increase over 10 years previously.
  The right hon. Gentleman refers to redundancies. He appears not to know that since 1983 employment has risen by 2·9 million and that our unemployment rate is now two thirds of the Community average. He speaks of investment cuts. Has he not been told that, in the three years to 1989, business investment increased by over 40 per cent., the largest increase in any three-year period since the war? He refers to cuts in regional investment, but appears not to know that, over the last few years, the regions have seen a dramatic upturn in their prosperity and employment levels and have received a dramatic proportion of that inward investment from Japan and America, which rightly regard Britain as the most attractive of the European countries in which to establish their manufacturing businesses.
  The Opposition should be ashamed of the motion. It exudes ignorance, it is couched in half-truths, it reeks of humbug and we should reject it with contempt.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on policies which have achieved the highest rate of economic growth in the European Community, the largest increase in manufacturing productivity of any major industrial country, and record levels of industrial output, investment and exports; welcomes the continuous fall in unemployment for 42 months, and the creation since 1983 of nearly three million jobs in the United Kingdom; and commends the resolve of Her Majesty's Government to bear down on inflation and to continue with the supply side policies which have contributed to these achievements.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, M r. Speaker. You may have heard reports that this evening in Bristol 21 people have been arrested and at least three policemen injured during demonstrations by the extremists of the Left wing of the labour movement and the Socialist Workers party. Would you be amenable, Mr. Speaker, to a private notice question or a Standing Order No. 20 application tomorrow?
  Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask that question in the Chamber, as he knows the rules for applications for private notice questions. I am not aware of what has happened in Bristol

  Prevention of Terrorism
  10.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move,
  That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
  The House is being asked to continue in force the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which was given Royal Assent less than one year ago. I have no hesitation today in asking the House to agree that all the powers that require renewal should continue in force for another year. I do so because of the continuing threat of terrorism to the lives and property of the people of this country. All right hon. and hon. Members can rest assured that the Government have no intention of weakening our resolve to meet that threat or of ceasing to provide the security forces with the powers that they need. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely a subject of this importance should he heard in silence.
  Mr. Waddington: During 1989, the nation witnessed not only 62 further killings in Northern Ireland, including the murder of 23 members of the security forces, but the terrible incident at Deal in which 11 soldiers were brutally murdered, and the callous shooting of an RAF corporal and his baby daughter in West Germany. The Deal bombing caused the largest number of mainland deaths in a single Irish terrorist incident since 1974. In November, a car bomb in Colchester injured a soldier and his wife while another was placed in Kensington, but, by good fortune, did not explode. The bomb that exploded in Leicester last month could have caused many deaths and appalling injuries. There was also a bomb in Halifax.
  No one can doubt that Irish republican terrorism continues to pose a deadly threat to the armed forces and to members of the public. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 forms an essential part of our defences against that threat. I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge once again the invaluable work and ceaseless vigilance of the security forces in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The last year was marked by some notable successes, including the arrest of two men on the Dyfed coast just before Christmas, and of the arrest of several Iranians in Manchester and London at about the same time. Those cases are now sub judice and the House will not expect me to comment further. However, I can say that the Dyfed arrests were the culmination of a seven-week police operation in the most atrocious conditions, and our thanks should go to all the officers involved.
  In December, we had the anniversary of Lockerbie and were reminded of the wickedness of international terrorism. It is right that I should say a word about co-operation with other countries, which now so often plays a part in counter-terrorist investigations.
  In 1989 there was successful collaboration with the police in the United States of America, France and West Germany. Suspected IRA terrorists, and others who, it is thought, were seeking to supply them with weapons, were arrested in each of these countries. Co-operation in investigations is supported by regular exchanges of
  820
  information and ideas among Governments and their agencies, and the Trevi group is proving to be an increasingly useful forum.
  The House will be grateful to Lord Colville for his fourth annual report on the legislation, and I am grateful to him personally. I am glad to say that he makes no criticism of the use of the executive powers of extended detention and exclusion, and is satisfied that any complaints made against the police for their use of the Act have been properly dealt with. This year, Lord Colville has carried out an investigation of the arrangements for implementing the Act at ports, and has found the standards of port controls acceptable.
  I should mention three specific points that he raised in his report. First, Lord Colville says that some police forces seem uncertain about how their functions are to be exercised after 1992. I am pleased to have this opportunity to put the record straight. The Government remain committed to maintaining the system of police checks for counter-terrorist purposes which are operated under the powers in schedule 5 to the Act, and this is wholly in keeping with the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome.
  Secondly, Lord Colville draws attention to the problem of preventing small boats being used by terrorists to bring people and supplies into the country. The difficulty is one of enforcement rather than any inadequacy of law. The police already enjoy sufficient powers under the Act to examine people entering the country, even by small boat, but we have to rely in the main on the vigilance and co-operation of boat owners and the general public for the powers to be brought into play.
  Thirdly, it is, as Lord Colville observes, still too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the new provisions of the 1989 Act which provide powers to investigate, restrain and forfeit terrorist funds. The police have begun to use the new investigative powers, and since the Act came into force on 1 September, they have successfully applied for a total of 45 production orders. It is likely, however, to be some time before we can report that the full procedure has been used to obtain the forfeiture of terrorist funds.
  There has understandably been interest in recent months in the safeguards available to suspects held under the prevention of terrorism legislation while they are subject to police investigation. There is a balance to be struck between the importance of having powers to increase public protection against terrorist outrages and the need to safeguard the rights of suspects. The legislation provides powers of detention and investigation which go beyond the ordinary criminal law and are necessary because of the nature of the terrorist threat; but this is not something which we accept lightly.
  We believe that, wherever possible, the procedures for investigating terrorist suspects should follow those for suspects arrested under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—PACE. Indeed, those arrested under the 1989 Act are defined as being in police detention for the purpose of PACE. Lord Colville welcomes the recent extension of PACE procedures to Northern Ireland, and so do I. I also welcome the system of review of detention within the first 48 hours which is provided by schedule 3 to the 1989 Act, and it is helping to ensure that the reasons for detention are sound.
  I am asking the House to renew the power to extend detention of terrorist suspects for up to a total of seven days because I believe that it is crucial to the operational

  821
  effectiveness of the police in these difficult cases. Because I so believe, I confirmed last year our decision to make a limited derogation from the European convention on human rights in Northern Ireland cases. We took the decision reluctantly and after the most serious consideration, but it would have been quite wrong for us to shrink from making it.
  I announced on 1 March that an experiment would begin in the Merseyside and Metropolitan police forces in taping summaries of interviews with terrorist suspects, together with suspects' comments on the summaries. These interviews are at present excluded from the provisions of PACE code (E) on tape recording. We have had to take account of the need to protect sources of intelligence and police operational methods, and that is why we have not introduced tape recording on the same basis as in other cases in which the whole interview is taped.
  The experiment is planned to run for two years. It will be monitored by the Home Office research and planning unit, and evaluated by a steering committee on which the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association, as well as the police and the Crown prosecution service, are represented.
  Last year saw the 20th anniversary of the deployment of troops in Northern Ireland. The prevention of terrorism legislation has been in existence for 15 years. We are certain that, without it, the work of the security forces in countering terrorism would have been more difficult and less effective, and a it the appalling toll of casualties would have been greater still. As time goes on, we are more—not less—resolved to defeat terrorism. Any signs that the determination of the citizens of the United Kingdom who believe in the rule of law is weakening will serve only to encourage those who respect neither law nor democratic government.
  For many years, the Opposition recognised this and voted each year to renew the legislation that they had introduced. Then suddenly, in 1982, they changed their mind. Why? Not because terrorist killing had ceased; not because the threat to our armed forces and civilians was over. It was not the terrorists who had changed; it was the Labour party, and in so doing it lost any claim to be considered a responsible Opposition.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Waddington: Not just now.
  Tonight the Opposition could change their mind again and show that they are made of something and are fit to govern. But I am pretty sure that they will not, and I shall certainly do my level best to keep the public aware that when it comes to the most fundamental issues—the country's defence against attack from without and from within—the Opposition cannot be trusted.
  I commend the order to the House.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary began by reminding the House—very properly, in my view—of the terrorist outrages that have been perpetrated during the year since we last debated this subject. He went on—again very properly, in my view—to
  822
  reassert the Government's determination to defeat terrorism. In that resolve the Government are certainly supported by the Opposition.
  There was, however, an omission from the speech of the Home Secretary. At no time did he relate the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act to the battle against terrorism. At no time did he tell us how the Act was helping in that campaign. He asserted it—he announced that it was his belief—but I think that he will come to realise, as the days and months go on, that the fact that it is his belief neither makes it necessarily true nor convinces the House that what he has to say is accurate. He made no attempt whatsoever to indicate a rational relationship between what the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act does and the defeat of terrorism.
  Mr. Waddington: It was necessary to the fight against terrorism for the same powers to exist before 1982.
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall come to that point. As the Home Secretary may well remember, when the powers passed into law they were called temporary powers—as they are now, but perhaps the title was rather more appropriate in 1972—and, as public statements confirm, they were intended to meet the immediate emotions and circumstances surrounding the Birmingham pub bombing. Hardly any Opposition Member who voted for them then—and I was one—contemplated for a second that 15 years later we should put the same legislation on to the statute book year after year. Whether or not the Home Secretary understands it, there is a substantial difference between emergency powers taken at a time of real crisis and emotion and their passage into permanent law.
  The Home Secretary reminded us that this was our first opportunity to debate the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act since the Government announced their response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of Terence Brogan. The court's judgment was that to detain suspects for up to seven days without charge and without judicial review was in breach of the European convention on human rights, but, notwithstanding that clear breach, the Government have chosen to go ahead with their policy.
  It is no good the Home Secretary saying that there are safeguards for suspects because Ministers carry out reviews; the only safeguard for a suspect against arbitrary arrest is a review by some authority outside the Government who arrested him or her. If the Government are wrong in the first instance, they may be wrong in the second: that was the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
  The fact that the Government have chosen to ignore or defy that judgment—let hon. Members describe the derogation as they will—is in itself cause for us to vote against the order. A second cause is the renewal of the powers that, in the words of a previous Attorney-General, amount to "internal exile"—the exclusion orders. Both grounds—detention without charge and without judicial review, and internal exile to parts of the United Kingdom—involve the principle of civil rights.
  Let me emphasise, however, that we also have pragmatic arguments against the continuation of the order for a further year. The defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland, to which I believe every hon. Member is committed, certainly requires strong action by the Government——
  Mr. Sayeed: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question, so that the Labour party can establish its credentials as an anti-terrorist party? Is he aware of the existence of a Mr. Kuomba Balogun? Mr. Balogun lives in Bristol, and is the chairman of the Bristol, West Labour party. He has been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, firebombing police stations and assaulting police officers. In September 1987, he was a guest of Gerry Adams in Belfast.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Balogun has just called on the IRA to assist the ANC in the same way in which Libya helped the IRA? Is it not essential for Labour to repudiate Mr. Balogun's actions, and to kick him out of the party?
  Mr. Hattersley: First, I do not believe that we need to establish our credentials as an anti-terrorist party: our record speaks for itself. Secondly, I think that it is a misuse of the procedures of the House to ask me or any of my right hon. Friends a question about a gentleman of whom I have never heard in my life.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The right hon. Gentleman is the deputy leader of the Labour party.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Minister of State, who is known for his gregariousness, reminds me that I am the deputy leader of the Labour party. Ours is a mass movement; I cannot know every member of the party, and the idea that I should be required to comment on facts launched at me in such a way and at such a time of night about an individual of whom I have not heard until this moment really is a misuse of our procedures. I am sure that it will get the hon. Gentleman's name into his local newspapers tomorrow, but it is not how a responsible Member of Parliament behaves——
  Mr. John Patten: The right hon. Gentleman has said that, in his position as deputy leader of the Labour party, he cannot know what is going on in every part of the country. I agree that it must be difficult to know what is going on in every part of any political party, but I am sure that, in his normal assiduous way, the right hon. Gentleman reads the Order Paper on which there has been an early-day motion about Mr. Balogun for the past fortnight. The right hon. Gentleman should pay attention to what is going on.
  Mr. Hattersley: The idea that I should spend my time reading early-day motions tabled by Conservative Back Benchers is simply preposterous. The Minister of State recognises pomposity when he sees it, and I am sure that he would be well advised as would the House—to allow us to proceed to consider these enormously serious matters in a serious way——
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: Not for a moment. I do not believe that anybody can seriously argue that an appropriate way in which to discuss the order is that suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed).
  I return to my point which, despite the interruptions, I gladly reiterate—that the defeat of terrorism requires strong action by the Government and that we are prepared to and will support such strong action by the Government. However, the defeat of terrorism also requires the whole-hearted co-operation of the vast majority of
  824
  law-abiding Irish men and women. To achieve that co-operation, the Government must convince them that the Government are themselves operating in and about Northern Ireland with proper respect for the law. They must convince the men and women of Northern Ireland——
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Mr. Hattersley: They must convince the men and women of Northern Ireland that their Province is treated like any other part of the United Kingdom and that the normal processes of equality before the law apply in Northern Ireland just as in the rest of Great Britain.
  I believe—and I think that many men and women who reside in the Six Counties also believe—that exclusion orders are inconsistent with the view that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, because the exclusion orders, which the House is being asked to endorse, allow the Government to say that a man or a woman is not fit to live in Scotland, Wales or England, but can be required to live in Northern Ireland. Anyone who ever talks to the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland knows the resentment that is built up by that sort of policy.
  I re-emphasise that, as well as the issues of principle that the Home Secretary raised, such as the denial of civil rights, the objections to many of the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act also relate to the arguments that they provide to those people who wish to argue that this Parliament will impose policies on Northern Ireland, that it would not contemplate on this side of the Irish sea—
  Sir Alan Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that circumstances are entirely different on this side of the Irish sea from those in Northern Ireland and that the dangers are much greater in Northern Ireland, which means that the provisions must therefore be slightly different?
  Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the point that I was attempting to make—that it is necessary to defeat terrorism by convincing the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland that the Government here in Westminster operate according to the normal canons of the law. Measures such as this do not give that impression and do not create that confidence in the British legal system.
  I believe that the Government understand that. I have heard the Home Secretary's predecessor say that one reason why the Government reject the idea of internment is that it would alienate many men and women in Northern Ireland who must be on the side of the forces of law and order. However, in a number of particulars—such as the exclusion orders and detention without charge—the Government are prepared to risk that alienation. They do it in such a way—as in the Home Secretary's speech—that it makes their policy a liability in the real political battle against terrorism—
  Mr. Waddington rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: When the Home Secretary intervenes, I hope that he will not say that we do not have to win the

  825
  political battle against the terrorists as well as the legal battle. I subscribe to the view expressed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he talked about the need to win the political arguments as well as the military arguments. Those two things must be borne in mind tonight.
  Mr. WaddingtonI have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but he has not began to explain why they are valid now but apparently were not valid until 1982. What has changed which makes the right hon. Gentleman say that certain arguments are now valid which were rubbish before 1982?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall give the Home Secretary the answer that I gave him when he asked the question 10 minutes ago. If he asks me again, I shall give him the same answer the next time. These emergency powers, which are called temporary and were intended as temporary, were, as Hansard shows, meant to meet the special emotions as well as the circumstances of the Birmingham pub bombing. I well remember the then Home Secretary saying that it was necessary to demonstrate at that moment the strength of our feeling. He said that it was necessary to do so to protect the Irish community in Britain. The circumstances of the year of the Birmingham pub bombing no longer exist. That is the difference.
  Before I develop—if the Home Secretary will allow me—our arguments against the two major powers, detention without charge and the exclusion orders, I make it clear that we welcome and support parts of the Act and parts of the renewal of the Act. We support part III, which provides for the confiscation of terrorist funds. We made that clear when the Act was passed, and we support it again tonight.
  I also welcome the Home Secretary's statement last week about the central provision of the Act—internment without charge. Last week the Home Secretary announced that what he described as "suspected terrorists"—I presume that by that he meant people detained under the Act—would in future have limited tape recording of their interviews in police stations. They would be limited in scope and in the area where the experiment was held. That provision is very much to be welcomed.
  In previous debates, we have called for the protections provided under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to be extended to men and women detained under the PTA. When we did so two years ago, we were told that that was an example of how we were soft on terrorism. The Home Secretary has moved a step in our direction and I welcome that. I hope that we shall continue to examine more ways in which men and women detained under the Act can have the proper protection that a civilised country provides.
  I am particularly glad that the tape recording, although limited, will end the intolerable practice that Sir Leon Brittan, then Home Secretary, described to the House. I asked him:
  "Is he saying that it is right … to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information"
  He replied:
  "It has been made clear … that that is a legitimate … use of the power."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 56.]
  Both on the Government Front Bench and on Opposition Benches, there is now wide agreement that it is
  826
  intolerable to detain innocent men and women without charge as part of an intelligence-gathering operation. The tape recording of interviews, although limited, will not make that practice impossible, but it will certainly make it more difficult.
  It is enormously important to remember when we discuss the principle of detention—which means detention without charge for as long as seven days—that we are talking about the detention of innocent men and women. In their statement to the European Court of Human Rights, the Government said that it would be impossible to reveal the evidence on which charges are made without prejudicing security by revealing the sources from which the evidence emanated. In most cases of detention under the PTA, there is no information leading to a charge. In most cases of detention, no charge is ever made. Last year, 163 men and women were detained under the powers that the Government now wish to renew. Only 19 were even prosecuted. Of the 19, eight were prosecuted for offences that were not involved with Northern Ireland terrorism.
  The Home Secretary said that, in his annual review of the workings of the Act, Lord Colville had found no criticism to make of the executive action in applying the Act. That is true but it is a little disingenous of the Home Secretary to put it in those terms, for last year, when considering the principles on which the Act was based—not the way in which the principles have been applied since the Act became law—Lord Colville referred to
  "the worrying indications in the level of charges brought as a proportion of detentions made under the Act."
  What Lord Colville said about detentions and prosecutions was that men and women detained outnumber intolerably the number of men and women who are actually charged and against whom a case is made.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The right hon. Gentleman has based his case on principle. Will he say on what principle he assesses the European Court of Human Rights' implied judgment that four days' detention before charge is all right, but seven days is wrong in principle?
  Mr. Hattersley: Four days happens to be three days shorter than seven days. We all accept that detention occurs under normal criminal procedure. We all accept that there may be a brief period before the charge is made. What is intolerable is when that period is prolonged. I could ask the Attorney-General exactly the same question: what is the difference between two days and seven days? At the end of two days, the powers have to be renewed. The implication of the provision, which provides for two days to be renewed to seven, is that the longer the period, the greater the offence.
  The Attorney-General rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can try again if he wants, with the greatest of pleasure.
  The Attorney-General: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that, under PACE, the time limit is 96 hours, subject to the safeguards of the approval of Her Majesty's court, obtained first at 56 hours and then at the ultimate period. The safeguards are slightly different in detention in Northern Ireland, but they are stringent and require the personal approval of the Secretary of State. I am not sure where the point of principle lies.
  Mr. Hattersley: I repeat that the point of principle is that, the longer a man or woman is detained without charge, the worse the offence. The longer a man or woman is detained without judicial review, the greater the offence. We all accepted, in PACE, that an initial period may be necessary. It is the extension of that period which is wrong in principle.
  I hope that the Attorney-General will struggle to remember that he is not simply a member of the Government but a Law Officer. It is unacceptable to say that there are safeguards when the Minister who approves the detention in the first place also approves an extension of that detention. The safeguard must be an independent authority, not the Minister who took the original decision.
  One of the differences between detention under this Act and normal procedures of arrest and charge, is the discrepancy, to which I referred, between the number of people detained and the number who get into court and have a charge made against them. Of the 163 cases of men and women detained without charge last year, in 144 cases there was not even sufficient evidence to bring a case into court. I suspect that that disturbs the Attorney-General. If it does not, he does not hold the views on the judical system that I have suspected him to hold for a long time.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the differential between those taken into custody for questioning and those charged has more to do with the inadequacies of the law in dealing with terrorism? Does not he acknowledge that such things as intimidation and the reluctance of witnesses to come forward to give evidence have much to do with the differential that he mentioned? I can illustrate that by reminding him that, of 183 murders in my constituency by the IRA only 15—less than 8 per cent—have been resolved through the courts. Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell me that the other 169 murders did not really take place or that no one was responsible for them?
  Mr. Hattersley: During a series of debates on this subject, I have always been reluctant to take issue with the hon. Gentleman, because I know of the suffering in his constituency and I understand the strength of his feeling about it. I do not regard it as a giggling matter but as a matter of great seriousness, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that those are my feelings.
  But the point that the hon. Gentleman made, with force and with feeling, is dangerously near to the position that I was about to offer some criticism of—the feeling that we cannot convict such people within the rule of law but we know they are guilty so we must do something about them. It is enormously dangerous in a free society to talk or think in that way.
  I understand the penalties of there being men and women who we have strong reason to believe are guilty but whom we cannot convict through the normal processes. But during the past 20 years, so many crimes have been committed in the judicial system by people who knew somebody was guilty, but could not provide the appropriate evidence at the time, that that is a principle which we must avoid at all costs. One of my complaints about the Act is that it works on the principle: there are men and women whom we cannot convict under the normal process of law, so let us invent abnormal processes of law to make sure that they are convicted.
  828
  Let me deal briefly with what I regard as the second denial of justice involved in the Act—the continuation of exclusion orders. The Home Secretary—he will forgive me a second time for calling him disingenuous—told us that Lord Colville has no objection to the way in which exclusion orders are being administered. The Home Secretary will recall that, in his basic report last year, Lord Colville objected to the existence of exclusion orders, so he is a rather strange witness to call in defence of what the Home Secretary has done during the past year. Both Lord Colville and Sir Cyril Philips, who were asked to examine the principles of the Act, came down against exclusion orders. Will the Minister of State, who I believe is to reply, give us a cogent explanation of why exclusion orders, with all the offence that they cause to Northern Ireland, are still necessary?
  Only nine exclusion orders were made last year, but that did little or nothing to reduce resentment, because every traveller from Ireland to England is required to answer questions on the basis that they may be subject to exclusion orders. I know from experience that anyone who has been subjected to that experience finds it difficult to believe that Irishmen are treated in Britain in the same way as citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Opinions against exclusion orders are so strong and the use of them is so rare that I ask again why the Government persist in causing deep offence by maintaining the power. The answer, I fear, is the same as the answer to the general question about the Government's support for the Act. The Act is intended to create the illusion of tough action. It is exemplary and declaratory rather than necessary. It is intended to allow the Home Secretary and people of his ilk to make the sort of perorations that he made this evening, with all their lack of justification, logic or intellectual content.
  If the Home Secretary contests that point, I hope that he will answer a single question about the need for the powers, based on the way in which the powers are used. Two years ago in my constituency, an elderly consultant psychologist was detained under the powers of the Act. She was eventually charged with an offence concerning explosives and was acquitted. Why was it necessary, when it was suspected that explosives, or those who might use them, were being hidden or harboured in the suburbs of an English town, to arrest under the powers of the Act rather than under the normal powers of the criminal law?
  When I asked the previous Home Secretary exactly that question, he answered with an example of his own—a policeman who had been shot in cold blood in his constituency. Tragically, several policemen are murdered every year in Britain and the criminals responsible are pursued with proper determination and they are usually caught and convicted. We do not need the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act to do it. The Act i now often used for purposes that could be wholly met by the common and criminal law.
  The only possible justification for continuing with the Act is the declaratory purpose that I have described, or something that I regard as much more sinister. It was the revelation of a Home Office Minister, not the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who defended the special powers by saying:
  "under PACE the powers of arrest can be exercised only where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that a particular offence has been committed or is about to be committed."

  829
  He could not then have gone on to be clearer about his view of why the Act is necessary. He said that it made possible the arrest of a suspect
  "where one cannot prove, or does not have reasonable grounds to suspect, the commission of a specific … offence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B 10 January 1989; c. 295.]
  830
  In a democracy, men and women are not detained for seven days without charge when the police cannot demonstrate reasonable grounds for suspicion that they have committed or are about to commit a specific offence. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is intended to provide that unacceptable power. For that reason, it is unacceptable, and I shall vote against the order.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Barry Porter: I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about what happened in 1974 and 1976, when the Acts were passed. Nobody thought that we would be debating them again in 1990, and it is regrettable that we have to do that. He also made the point that it is not possible to prove that the Prevention of Terrorism Act deals with the problem of terrorism. That is true, but it is also not possible to prove the contrary.
  Common sense dictates that the Act restrains terrorists and potential terrorists. It may or not be true, but it is my view that it does. I would not wish to be in the House in a year's time—when, or if, the number of murders or terrorist activities had doubled—and have to say that I was terribly sorry but I was wrong, and the Act should be reintroduced. I would not wish to have to face the families and the relatives of those people who had been killed.
  This is a matter for caution, as was said in 1974 and 1976. Caution should also be expressed now, because the position has not got much better. I am sure that, if the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook examines his conscience, he may decide that that is not an unreasonable view. I hope that there will come a time when the Act is not necessary, but the only way it will become unecessary is if people in Ireland and in mainland Britain believe that terrorism has no result.
  I ask hon. Members to consider the speech made by the Leader of the official Opposition—Fine Gael—in the Dail, advising the Taoiseach to say that there was no purpose in pursuing the ideal of a united Ireland. That is the most positive and sensible statement that a Republican politician has made in recent years, and I trust that the Taoiseach will take advantage of that advice.
  I do not believe in negative Unionism—the wish that Northern Ireland should not be part of the Republic. I believe in positive Unionism—that the people of Northern Ireland wish to be citizens of the United Kingdom—and that is a very different thing. I use every possible opportunity and any available forum to advance that view, but it is not much good for an English Conservative and Unionist to advance that view almost by himself. It is important that those who represent the Unionists should use every forum available to them to advance that view, whether it be in the House or in the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier. I know of the difficulties that my right hon. and hon. Friends have in that direction. Difficulties exist, but they should be overcome.
  That tier was to some extent a success last week, but it had one weakness—the Unionist representatives were not present to advance the view which I tried to represent in my own poor way.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: We are discussing the renewal of the Act. The hon. Gentleman made a fundamental point: that if the Act were repealed and the killing increased, we should have to legislate again. Does he attribute the reduction in the number of killings to the Act, and is he saying that, if it had to be reintroduced it would stop the killing?
  Mr. Porter: I cannot have made myself clear. I said that it cannot be proved either way, but that I should not want to have to prove it one way or the other by having an increase in murders and acts of terrorism.
  832
  The only way in which the Unionist cause can be advanced is in any forum that is available. It would be regrettable if the Unionist politicians in the House—again I repeat the phrase: those whom I treat as my right hon. and hon. Friends—did not take the opportunity to advance the cause that I hold dear, and that I know they hold dear, for domestic political reasons. There is a forum. There is a reason for Unionist Members of Parliament to overcome their local difficulties and to stand up and speak to that in which they believe. Only then will the cause of positive Unionism lead to the defeat of terrorism. Only then will the Act be unnecessary.
  11 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary began the debate with a straightforward account of the events of the past year. From what he said, it is plain that the threat of terrorism has in no way diminished since we previously debated these matters. The bombing at Deal and the other car bombs on the mainland of Great Britain show that we are faced with a present threat, close to home. The outrages that have affected our troops in Germany show that they are at the forefront of the battle.
  However, it is right to consider the legislation on its merits and with due regard to its effectiveness in dealing with the threat. It will not do simply to treat the legislation that we seek to renew tonight simply as a totem, as a test of whether one is opposed to terrorism. I thought that the Home Secretary's remarks at the end of his speech, in which he attacked the Labour party, came perilously close to suggesting that it was such a totem. There was some deficiency in the way in which he deployed the case for the continuance of these extensive powers. The deficiency was in his argument as to the effectiveness of these powers to combat terrorism.
  Throughout the operation of these powers, my right hon. and hon. Friends have supported their renewal with consistency and in the belief that they play a significant part in dealing with the terrorist threat. We listen to the debate and participate in it with a strong sense that fundamental rights and freedoms are important. If we are to abridge them in the serious manner that is provided for, particularly with respect to the power of detention for up to seven days and the exclusion powers that provide for internal exile, we have to be satisfied that they are effective.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) failed to address the attitude of those who are responsible for policing and the attitude of Lord Colville, who was charged with the review of these powers and their effectiveness. It is quite clear that, according to the evidence in Lord Colville's report, the powers are effective and need to be renewed. He went so far as to say that he considered that they would probably have to be in place for some time to come.
  Who are we, who are not privy to the difficulties of policing, to say that these powers are not effective? The mere fact that prosecutions do not inevitably follow from detention is no evidence that deterrence has not been at play. Who are we to say that the exclusion powers, which are so draconian and unwelcome, do not result in those who are organised for terrorism remaining within the Province, where their movements can be tracked and

  833
  where the policing of them is much more straightforward than it could be if they were moving freely round the British Isles?
  No one likes these powers. The question that the right hon. Gentleman must address is whether they are effective, and he did not even touch on that.
  Lord Colville, in the context of detentions, drew some attention to what he thought was striking. He spoke in paragraph 4.3 of the power to detain beyond the first 48 hours and pointed out:
  "All but nine extensions were for two days, one was two days and 10 hours, four for three days, two for two days plus one day and two for three days plus two days. I have seen nothing about these cases which requires comment, except for one case in Tayside."
  This case concerned six men who were held for a period under the Act and beyond the normal Scottish six-hour limit. Lord Colville went on to say:
  "At a trial in the High Court in Perth all six were convicted and sentenced to between seven and 16 years in prison."
  That seems to be a pretty remarkable testimony to the effectiveness of these powers, and the fact that Lord Colville thought it appropriate to draw attention to that case shows that he thought it was of significance. Since we are not privy to the policing, the interrogations or the evidence in the cases that come before us, the evidence of Lord Colville as to the effectiveness of what is being done under this Act is bound to carry immense weight with the House.
  Since we last debated this, the Brogan case denouement has occurred. The Government have derogated effectively and for the time being on the ground that it is not possible to meet the requirements of a judicial interposition within the seven days. I am bound to say that I deeply regret that, and am not wholly convinced that it would not be possible to meet the requirements of the European convention. I understand that the inquisitorial procedures of continental jurisdictions are very different, although there are some analogues in the Scottish system which, however, would not be regarded as acceptable within this legislation to bring it within the European convention. But I wonder whether it is possible for this matter at least to be reviewed during next year, for I cannot understand, and do not believe any good reason has been given for, the failure to meet this requirement of the European convention.
  It must, however, be said that this derogation is not unique in the history of our emergency powers. The Labour Government derogated in 1978, at that time without the opposition of the House, and I do not think they had any other choice. There is not a particularly strong case for criticising the derogation on this matter.
  The exclusion orders are undoubtedly the part of the legislation that give rise to the greatest anxiety and justifiable concern that they should be properly scrutinised and not used lightly. The evidence produced by Lord Colville on the process of appeal to the advisers of the Home Secretary, which was relied on successfully in a number of cases leading to the termination of exclusion, shows that that process of review is by no means a fig leaf. It is an effective control over the abuse of those powers.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has availed himself of the opportunity to discuss with the police the use of exclusion powers or the practical difficulties for policing in Great Britain which
  834
  would flow from the abandonment of those powers, but my discussions with the police leave me wholly persuaded that they are a practical necessity.
  I do not believe that the threat to this country from terrorism has diminished since we last debated these provisions. The arguments that led us to support the powers in the past remain strong, but the argument for continuing an effective scrutiny and appeal procedure is also strong. We must regard the provisions as temporary powers to be renewed only following the most comprehensive and detailed review by Lord Colville or some other Government appointee and by Parliament. It is wholly correct that the Home Secretary should come to the House to seek such draconian powers and to seek the support of Parliament for their use again. He will enjoy that support from my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, there is a need to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the need to protect innocent members of the public and the lives of our security forces.
  When I visited Northern Ireland two years ago, I was struck by the fact that the UDR regiment which I visited—a unit of only 400 or 500 men—had lost 28 men, nearly all of them killed while off duty, since the troubles began. The House is not divided on intention. With only one or two exceptions, all right hon. and hon. Members want terrorism to be defeated. The division in the House concerns the willingness to do something about it.
  The IRA does not believe that its members are common criminals. It uses the language of war, talking about "active service units", "staff officers" and "adjutants". Its members use the phraseology of war. I do not know a single example anywhere in the world of an organisation of the size and strength of the IRA that is organised and equipped to the same extent as the IRA having been defeated within the confines of the ordinary criminal law. But that seems to be what the Labour party is suggesting as the way to tackle the present problem. I do not know an example of such a threat even having been contained, let alone defeated, within the confines of the ordinary criminal law.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) repeatedly mentioned the principle of equality—the idea that we should treat people in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as those on the mainland. I am sure that, in our hearts, we would all like to adhere to that principle, but surely, whichever of the provisions we are considering, the right that people in Northern Ireland must want most—I am glad that several right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are here—is the right to stay alive and live their lives in an ordinary fashion.
  Mr. Hattersley: How does the hon. Gentleman think that that right would be preserved by exclusion orders which send terrorists back from Britain to live among the people of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Brazier: The right hon. Gentleman said that such orders had been rarely used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] To the extent that they have been used—[Interruption.] Do Opposition Members really want to hear my answer? The order gives the Secretary of State power in rare cases

  835
  —such provisions have been used only rarely—to interfere with the movement of specific terrorists in the course of specific operations. On those rare occasions when they have been used, they have no doubt been used to good effect to prevent certain operations.
  But the basic purpose of all these provisions is to try to contain and defeat terrorism. If they are not fully effective, it may be necessary to consider strengthening them. When, last year, we took steps to strengthen them, Labour Members did not support us. Those on the Opposition Front Bench decided to abstain, but 50 Labour Members voted against our proposal.
  It has become too much of a charade that, year after year, since the Labour party changed its colours in 1982, it has been taken for granted that the Labour party would be against the renewal of these provisions. It is wrong that we should take that for granted. The country should appreciate that, while Labour Members say fine things about intentions, they are firmly against any action on terrorism.
  I commend the order and urge the House to support it.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing the measure and in particular on introducing—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member at a time may address the House.
  Mr. Allason: I also congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing an aspect of PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1983—into the prevention of terrorism legislation. The idea of recording—and, I hope, eventually video recording—will be of great assistance, not just in obtaining convictions but in protecting the rights of police officers who conduct investigations, particularly during interrogations at police stations. An advantage of PACE tape recordings is that we have been able to get away from suspects' claims of having been "verballed". I hope that it will be successful if it is extended to counter-terrorism measures.
  I offer a word of caution to my right hon. and learned Friend. The key to beating the Provisionals or any other terrorist group is good intelligence. There have been several examples of poor intelligence. He mentioned in his summary of recent cases the suspects arrested at Dyfed. It would appear to many observers that that occurred not as a consequence of good intelligence work but because of the cock-up theory, as opposed to the conspiracy theory, of history. It was an example of people being vigilant and reporting the information to the police, with a surveillance operation then being mounted. In other words, it did not originate from good intelligence.
  Similarly, more than a year ago, two photographs taken by Provisionals of themselves for false identity documents were found in a flat in south London. Those photographs were widely distributed, yet it seems that one of the suspects was on the loose in Nottinghamshire and the north of England. That, too, was an example of poor intelligence.
  I urge the Home Secretary to consider undertaking a serious review of the performance, structure and role of the Security Service. I hope that a consequence of the changes that have taken place in eastern Europe will have been a change in the Security Service's targeting of eastern
  836
  European embassies. If we can move some of the counter-intelligence surveillance experts who keep suspect intelligence officers from the eastern bloc under surveillance to counter-terrorist duties, it will be extremely useful.
  I have one small plea. In the post-Lockerbie era, it is clear that not only intelligence, but co-operation between intelligence services of different countries, is vital in the fright against terrorism. I regard it as a disappointment that the European security group, which meets regularly in Brussels and elsewhere to discuss common security problems, includes Canada and Israel, but excludes the United States. I hope that its membership will be reconsidered as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the House.
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I oppose the order. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the first person in this country to be arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act was Paul Hill, a constituent of mine, who was arrested after the Guildford arid Woolwich pub bombings. It later transpired not only that he was not in Guildford or Woolwich and, therefore, did not plant any of the bombs—he was not guilty and could not have been—but that the other three who were imprisoned as a result of confessions that were extracted from them under the Prevention of Terrorism Act could not have been guilty. They served 15 years in prison and an enormous campaign was mounted for their release. They were released because of that campaign, the widespread national and international support that they received arid the admission that was finally made by the Director of Public Prosecutions that he had no further evidence to offer against them. Lord Lane acquitted them and the Home Secretary appeared at the Dispatch Box to make a statement on the acquittal.
  I remind the House that at the time that Paul Hill, Gerry Conlon, Paddy Armstrong and Carole Richardson were arrested and convicted, many hon. Members called for the restoration of the death penalty. Had the death penalty been restored, we should have been talking about a royal pardon for four people who had been wrongly executed.
  I also remind the House that the use of confessional evidence, which is the basis of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, has led to the imprisonment of the Birmingham Six, who have now served almost 16 years in British prisons. I have visited them in prison several times. It is a humbling experience to go to a prison and to talk to people about all the things that we have done in the past 16 years of our lives when the only experience that those six men have had is being inside a series of British prisons—and being badly treated in them initially.
  I am convinced that no one in the Home Office or in the Government believes that the Birmingham Six are guilty. We know that there is new evidence which the Home Secretary is considering. I hope that the Home Secretary will give us an idea tonight of when he will be able to reply to the new evidence that has been submitted on behalf of the Birmingham Six.
  The House will commit a serious act if it passes this legislation. We shall be saying that it is all right to imprison people on the basis of confessional evidence, to hold people without recourse to legal assistance, to have

  837
  the principle of internal banishment within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to fly in the face of a great deal of legal and judicial opinion and to set ourselves apart from what we consider to be civilised legislation anywhere else in the world.
  My experience of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is that it has nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism and everything to do with policing and patrolling the Irish community in this country. I have lost count of the number of occasions that I have had telephone calls late at night from Irish people who live in my constituency, who were expecting a son, a daughter, an uncle, an aunt or a father to come across to visit them from Dublin or from Belfast, but who find that they have not arrived. They ask me, "Do you know where they are?" I have no idea where they are. We then start an amazing series of telephone calls to find out whether someone is being held under the Act. A Kafka-like mystery surrounds it and it is not clear whether that person is being held until lawyers make contact and eventually application is made for a writ of habeas corpus.
  If we are serious about a judicial legal system and about a system of real justice, we should not agree to the order. It flies in the face of everything that we understand about justice. Too many people are in British prisons because of confessional evidence and because of the Act. Many people have been stopped, searched, held, interrogated and subsequently released without any charge, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. The Act gives the power to investigate, to hold without due process and to collect a great deal of evidence about the activities of the Irish community in England, Wales and Scotland and the views of those who may believe that Ireland should be united and not part of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly legitimate to hold such an opinion.
  I hope that the order will not be passed, although I suspect that the payroll vote will ensure that it is. Instead, we should concentrate on the serious miscarriages of justice. I have mentioned the Guildford Four, who, thankfully, are now free. I also mentioned the Birmingham Six, who I hope will soon be free. There are many other people in British prisons because of the collection of confessional evidence, which is enshrined in the Act, such as those imprisoned after the Broadwater farm riots. Again, confessional evidence was used there. It is a serious step to enshrine that permanently in legislation and I hope that the House will not agree to that.
  11.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who is the only Labour Back-Bench Member to get up and debate the issue, which I think is one of great importance. As I have told him before, I am aware of how seriously he takes these issues and I respect the way in which he deals with them—even though, as he knows, there is quite a gulf between our attitudes.
  The hon. Gentleman made something of the position of the Birmingham Six. It is not for me to say whether he was in order to do so. The Birmingham Six were not arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. However, I can tell him that
  838
  my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are studying with great care papers put to the Home Office about that matter. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make an announcement as soon as he is in a position to do so.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) for his welcome for the order and for the congratulations that he extended to my right hon. and learned Friend. In many ways, however, the scene was set in the first speech by a Conservative Back Bencher, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) clearly and precisely drove home the fact that we are talking about a preventive power. We are trying to prevent things from happening. It is all too easy to lose sight of the preventive element in the Act—a theme that I intend to develop.
  It is often suggested that the exceptional powers provided by the Act are unnecessary because the ordinary criminal law should be adequate to deal with offences committed by terrorists. As I understand the Labour party's emerging new policy, its stance is that the ordinary criminal law is adequate to deal with terrorist offences. I do not think that it is. The Labour party's stance is not realistic. I agree with everyone, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that terrorists are common criminals. We are firm in our belief that, once they are brought to justice, there should be no special treatment for common criminals and no special status for self-styled terrorists or freedom fighters—a point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
  I am sure that the substantial number of Unionist Members here this evening, who have first-hand experience of these matters—which I shared with them for two and a half years—agree that terrorist organisations present a special problem for the security forces, requiring a response which, alas, goes beyond the powers available in the normal criminal investigation of alleged offences or the prevention of outbreaks of criminal activity. In the case of terrorist organisations such as the IRA, their systematic ruthlessness, destructiveness and organisation are far in excess of those of organised crime anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
  Irish Republican terrorists have staged a campaign in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years which is unparalleled elsewhere in western Europe. No other country in western Europe has put up with the things that we and those in the Province have had to endure over the past two decades. I do not accept that the persistence of the terrorist threat is a sign of the failure of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Without it, there would be still more victims and still more destruction, and fewer of those responsible would be brought to court. On that point, I think that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—I was about to call him my hon. Friend—and I are in complete agreement.
  In our resistance to terrorism, we are rightly bound by the rule of law. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook alluded to that, but it was only subjected to close examination by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in his thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. We are bound by the rule of law and the principle of democratic accountability, to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred. But terrorists could not give anything for democratic accountability or the rule of law. I guess that

  839
  the Opposition have begun to forget that in their opposition to the prevention of terrorism legislation since 1982.
  Terrorists have a disregard for the lives of others and for the democratically expressed wishes of the people in both communities in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water. It is a positive tragedy that we cannot rebuild bipartisan agreements between both sides of the House to attempt to defeat terrorism. There is obviously everything to be said for the official Opposition, ourselves and every party in the House seeking to rebuild the consensus which I guess exists tonight between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democratic party, and in many senses between us and the Ulster Unionists, my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and others.
  Mr. Roger Sims: Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of Members of the Labour party men of honour—could not see their way to opposing the measure and will be conspicuous by their absence from the Division Lobbies?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend draws our attention to the importance of reading the Division lists tomorrow to see which hon. Members were not here to vote against the order.
  I was asked specific questions by the right hon. Member for Spark brook. He said that the Act did not seem to prevent anything and he wanted hard evidence of successes. Sometimes, as in all crime prevention, it is hard to judge when legislation has prevented something from happening. That is common ground on both sides of the Chamber.
  Let me give a recent example which was close to home in the Chamber. I hope that hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench are listening. Three people arrested in Wiltshire were held for seven days under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Those three people were later convicted of conspiracy to murder my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They were sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment.
  Is that not good enough for everyone on both sides of the House as an indication of the need for the Prevention of Terrorism Act? I dread to think what would have happened on that occasion had we not had the provisions of that Act.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Minister of State may recall that the previous Home Secretary gave this example when we were debating these matters in a slightly calmer vein a year ago. Let me repeat a question that I put earlier tonight—not the one that he has not yet begun to answer. I shall put it to him in exactly the terms of his example. Last year the former Home Secretary told us that three men had been found in the grounds of the house belonging to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The three men were carrying offensive weapons and had no legitimate reason to be in those grounds. Is the Minister of State really asking what would have happened had the Prevention of Terrorism Act not existed? We know what would have happened. The three men would have been arrested, just as three men carrying firearms in any other grounds would have been arrested. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was not needed for that.
  Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman has just given an excellent example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am trying to do so.
  I have just been advised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that an appeal is outstanding and that, therefore, the case is sub judice—[Interruption.] No. That is a reference to the situation in the past. I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend that I cannot go further, any more than I could, in detail—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Attorney-General, through the Minster of State, has just informed us that an appeal on this matter is outstanding. Obviously, then, it is not in order for Ministers to speculate. As the case is sub judice, should not the Minister withdraw——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The sub judice rule does not apply to legislation, and this is delegated legislation.
  Mr. Patten: There are also other cases, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred in his opening speech—such as the Dyfed case and the Iranian arrests.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: I have very little time, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Porter: If people had been convicted for carrying offensive weapons they would not, without the Prevention of Terrorism Act, have been given 25 years, even if I had been the judge.
  Mr. Patten: I had better be guided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and refrain from discussing examples that might be seen as too close to home
  Let me return to the second point of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The fact that the police do not bring a charge does not invalidate the grounds on which a detention was made. The information may be too sensitive to bring before the court. This point was referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The powers are preventive, and they may frustrate terrorism.
  Let us consider the cases that have arisen since the Brogan judgment—the incidents that we have had in Great Britain which, alas, have escaped the attentions of the ordinary forces of law and order, and have escaped the attentions of provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I refer to incidents such as the bomb at Turnhill barracks on 20 February 1989; the bomb at the Royal Marines school of music on 22 February; and the car bomb discovered and defused outside the home of the commander of the United Kingdom field army on 15 November 1989. The Opposition do not seem to treat this very seriously.
  Then there were the car bomb that exploded at the married quarters in Colchester on 18 November 1989; the car bomb that exploded outside the Combined Services recruitment centre in Leicester on 20 February 1990, on which one Leicester Member, by his comments immediately afterwards, covered himself with such glory; and, most recently, the bomb that exploded at the Army recruiting office in Halifax on 25 February 1990. What a

  841
  litany that is. But, alas, the Labour party does not want powers to enable the forces of law and order to deal with a terrorist threat that is unique in western Europe.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Surely the argument that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be scrapped because it has not been successful in every case is fallacious. The same argument could be applied to the criminal law, and that would put us all out of business.
  Mr. Patten: I can add nothing to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is entirely right but, for reasons that I cannot understand, that point is lost on Labour Front-Bench Members.
  Mr. Hattersley rose——
  Mr. Patten: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not give way? [Interruption.] I have three more questions to answer in five minutes.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the length of detention in this country under the PTA, as opposed to that in other countries. We have heard a good deal about seven days' detention without charge being draconian. In Belgium, detention by the police lasts for 24 hours, and is followed by indefinite detention without charges while investigations are carried out. In France, suspects can be detained for two years without charges. [Interruption.] I do not think that Labour Front-Bench Members like hearing the facts. In Italy the detention period is two years; in the Netherlands it is 106 days; in West Germany it is indefinite. Yet the Opposition insist on criticising our wish to allow detention for up to seven days to deal with the most serious terrorist threat in western Europe.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked what was our justification for the exclusion order provision in the PTA. The power of exclusion is intended for those whom the Secretary of State is satisfied have been involved in some form of terrorist activity, but who cannot be prosecuted successfully—[Interruption.]Opposition—Members should listen before breaking out into uproar and outrage—because the evidence cannot be presented in court without endangering the sources of intelligence on which successful counter-intelligence depends. That point was made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland—but I suppose I have already praised the hon. Gentleman too much this evening; three tributes are too many for any speech.
  Exclusion is a preventive measure, and one that the police firmly believe to be very useful in the fight against terrorism. They do not consider that any of the suggested alternatives would be effective.
  I think it wise to listen to people who are much more experienced in the prevention of terrorism than I am, and we have cited a number of Conservatives with such experience; but why does not the right hon. Gentleman listen to what has been said by his noble Friend Lord Mason? I shall not quote what Lord Mason said in another place, but in an interview with the Sunday Times——
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: When?
  Mr. Patten: On 13 February 1988. May I ask the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to listen, rather than laughing and joking on the Front Bench? Lord Mason said of the Act:
  "There is no telling how many lives it has saved."
  All that Lord Mason gets from Labour Front-Bench Members is derision. But he knows more about the prevention of terrorism than all the Labour Front-Bench Members put together. They understand nothing about it. Tonight they have shown themselves to be in total intellectual confusion about their position, unable to explain their change in 1982 and why they will not back the renewal order, which I commend to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 136.

  Division No. 106]

  [11.44 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Durant, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Allason, Rupert

  Eggar, Tim

  Alton, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amess, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Ashby, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Atkins, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Atkinson, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Gregory, Conal

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hannam, John

  Benyon, W.

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Harris, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hayes, Jerry

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hayward, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Bowis, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hind, Kenneth

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bright, Graham

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Irvine, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jack, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Jackson, Robert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Butler, Chris

  Jessel, Toby

  Butterfill, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kilfedder, James

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cran, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

  Knowles, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knox, David

  Day, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Devlin, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  843

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lord, Michael

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Speller, Tony

  Maginnis, Ken

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Malins, Humtrey

  Squire, Robin

  Mans, Keith

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stokes, Sir John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Trippier, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Norris, Steve

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Paice, James

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Waller, Gary

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Ward, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Portillo, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Price, Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Redwood, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowe, Andrew

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Ryder, Richard

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Donald

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clay, Bob

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Crowther, Stan

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

  Cryer, Bob

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blair, Tony

  Darling, Alistair

  Boyes, Roland

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Buckley, George J.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  844

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fisher, Mark

  Maxton, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Meale, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foulkes, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fraser, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morley, Elliot

  Galloway, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mullin, Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Murphy, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Nellist, Dave

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Patchett, Terry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Prescott, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Henderson, Doug

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hinchliffe, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Hood, Jimmy

  Robertson, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ingram, Adam

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Lambie, David

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Lamond, James

  Soley, Clive

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leighton, Ron

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Stott, Roger

  Livingstone, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Turner, Dennis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Walley, Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McAllion, John

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McFall, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Winnick, David

  McLeish, Henry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McNamara, Kevin

  Worthington, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Madden, Max

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 19th February, he approved.

  Prevention of Terrorism

    SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That, in the course of its consideration of the Matter of Scottish Local Government Finance, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 19th March at half-past Ten o'clock—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 7th March, if proceedings on the Motions in the name of Sir Geoffrey Howe relating to Members' Interests have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Ten o'clock—

    (1) in relation to the Motion then under considera-tion—

    (a) if the Question last proposed from the Chair is the Main Question, call a Member to move any amendments thereto which he may have selected, and the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and then put the Main Question or the Main Question as amended; or

    845

    (b) if the Question last proposed from the Chair is for the amendment of the Motion, put that Question and then proceed as aforesaid; and

    (2) in relation to any further such Motions as may then be made, put forthwith any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings thereon, including the Questions on any amendments thereto which he may have selected and which may then be moved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

  Blood Transfusions (HIV Infection)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  11.56 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I speak to this Adjournment from the Back Benches partly to signal that I regard this as a non-party political issue for which there is considerable cross-party feeling. I do so also because, on this occasion, I speak as a constituency Member. It is unusual for a member of the shadow Cabinet to retire to the Back Benches willingly, and it requires unusual circumstances to persuade me to do so. On this occasion, there are unusual circumstances, which I have observed at first hand and have left me with a strong feeling that an injustice is being done.
  I represent two constituents who are both HIV-infected as a result of blood transfusions in the Health Service. Neither is a haemophiliac—that is a relevant and important point which I will develop later. I suspect that my case is unique because there are only 19 such patients alive in Britain. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who will intervene in the debate with my permission, has one other case in her constituency.
  The facts are quickly rehearsed, and I do not think that they are in dispute. As the Secretary of State said in his letter of 12 February, 32 such cases are known to have occurred from transfusions that took place in Britain. Of those 32, 13 have since died. Those figures give rise to two observations relevant to my case.
  First, we are dealing with a small number. It is probable that there are still some in our community who have not yet been diagnosed, although they may have been infected from blood transfusion before 1985. It is equally probable that there will be few of them. Even if there were as many again as are at present alive and diagnosed, we are talking about a total throughout Britain of some 50 people.
  Secondly, not only is that number small, but it is not getting any larger. There is no known case of a patient who has been infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusion since 1985. So we can tackle the public policy questions that arise from this group confident that they are few and that they are not getting larger.
  The key issue of public policy to which I wish to address the mind of the House tonight, is the discrimination against this handful who are excluded from the special financial support that the Government have created for those haemophiliacs who are HIV-infected through blood products.
  It is no part of my purpose tonight to debate those arrangements. I shall content myself with two brief observations. First, I welcome the fact that Ministers have created those special arrangements and, secondly, for balance, I express no view tonight on whether those arrangements are adequate or inadequate. But whichever view is taken on how adequate are the arrangements that have been made for haemophiliacs, the purpose of my Adjournment debate tonight is to query how on earth the Government can justify excluding from those arrangements this small handful of people who have also been infected as a result of treatment within the NHS but who happen not to be haemophiliacs.
  As the Minister will be aware, as I have no doubt that he has seen the file, I have had correspondence over two

  847
  years with two successive Secretaries of State on this issue. I have repeatedly asked how they can justify leaving that tiny group of infected patients out in the cold. The attempts in the replies that I have received to make a logical defence of the arrangement are so threadbare that they have a hint of desperation. They have not convinced me, and I am authorised to say that they have not convinced the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who was offered the same explanation in a parliamentary answer last month.
  Briefly, three grounds are advanced by the Government for justifying the exclusion of those who are infected but are not haemophiliacs. First, they say that haemophiliacs were already disabled at the time of infection. All those people who have become infected through whole blood transfusion were so infected as a result of undergoing treatment within the NHS. By definition, at the time of that treatment they may well have been less fit than many haemophiliacs.
  I put it to the Minister that the defence that is being arranged by the NHS throughout Britain against legal action being taken by those people is that, at the time of the transfusion, they were in a life-threatening condition and the risk from transfusion was substantially less than the probability of death without transfusion. In those circumstances, it is difficult now to tell those people that they should be excluded from the special arrangements because they were not disabled at the time of infection.
  Secondly, it is argued that haemophiliacs were already financially disadvantaged by their condition and were barred from taking out life insurance. The relative financial security of the patients with whom we are concerned varies from circumstance to circumstance and from individual to individual. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether any data have been collected by or are available to the Department to suggest that the financial background of haemophiliacs is worse than the financial circumstances of the small group whom we are debating tonight.
  One of my constituents, whose financial circumstances I know in detail, was a single parent who for many years lived on benefit and had been on social security for some time before she became infected through blood transfusion. She very reasonably made the point to me that, when one is living on the extremely tight budget of social security for many years, the very last priority one is likely to have is paying the premiums on a life insurance policy. She has always been in financial difficulty and now has to subsist on £26 a week disablement benefit, quite unable to supplement that from earnings because it is now increasingly rare for her to be able to leave the house, far less obtain employment.
  The third justification advanced by Ministers as to why the scheme should be confined to haemophiliacs is that haemophilia is hereditary, so more than one person may be infected in a family. That undoubtedly is the case, but it has rightly not stopped Ministers making payment to those families in which there is only one infected member. They make up the great majority of cases where payment has been made.
  Not only is haemophilia hereditary—so is HIV infection. If there is no example of two such infected cases in the households of the small handful of people that we are discussing tonight, it is entirely fortuitous, and it does not exclude the possibility that such a case may be discovered in the future. We know that one patient was
  848
  infected by a whole blood transfusion while giving birth, and in those circumstances it is as much a matter of luck as of anything else that there are not two infected people in that household.
  The more one contemplates the cases of those who are haemophiliac and those who are not, the more difficult it becomes to see the basis for the distinction. Indeed, it becomes more obvious that there are greater similarities between the two groups than there are differences. The most obvious similarity is the financial pressure. Both groups face the same extra expenses for being HIV-infected. Both groups have a reduced opportunity to earn as a result of the infection, and both may be unable to discharge family responsibilities. In those circumstances, it is natural to find that many haemophiliacs strongly support the case of those who are infected as a result of NHS blood transfusions, although they are not haemophiliacs.
  I understand that those who administer the Macfarlane Trust, funded by the Government to assist cases of hardship among haemophiliacs, would be willing to consider extending the trust to include those who are not haemophiliacs but who are infected through NI-IS treatment, provided that the Government also act to widen the terms of reference of the trust and to provide the additional modest amounts of money necessary to meet that additional responsibility.
  Money cannot be the reason why the Government resist the case, because it is a very modest sum. The Government have already provided £34 million for special arrangements for ex gratia payments to those haemophiliacs who have been infected. The sum of money required to meet all the cases that we are discussing tonight would be less than an additional £1 million.
  The real reason why the Government resist extension of the scheme is not revealed in the letters or the parliamentary answers on the matter. However, I have glimpsed in conversations with Ministers that the real reason that they are reluctant to extend the scheme to embrace those people who are not haemophiliac is the stark terror of their advisers at the precedent that such a payment would cause for other NHS patients.
  I understand that a genuine problem exists, and I appreciate that a condition of the special scheme for haemophiliacs was that it was capable of being ring-fenced so as to protect the Department of Health against other patients who might make parallel claims on the back of that precedent. The problem is that the ring fence, important though it is, has been drawn in the wrong place. It should have included and not excluded those other patients who are HIV-infected as a result of blood transfusions.
  I suggest to the Minister and to his advisers that, if they amend that obvious weakness in the ring fence, they will have a much more logical case to defend and it will be much easier for them to protect the integrity of the ring fence. I understand that in Canada, where they have adopted similar ex gratia payments for people infected through treatment within the health service, they have not made any distinction between those who are haemophiliac and those who are not, for precisely that reason.
  In one respect, there is a distinction between the two groups. In talking to a constituent who has been to see me about her own problems, what came across most strongly was her sense of isolation. Because she does not belong to one of the normal risk groups, there is no support group

  849
  with whom she can readily identify. I recently forwarded to the Secretary of State a letter from her which spelled out that sense of isolation. She asked why she was any different from any of the haemophiliacs.
  I leave that question with the Minister. I know that he is an honest man and that he has a clear mind. He must be troubled to know that he can advance with a good face no logical reason for excluding this group of people from ex gratia payments that are already available to a much larger group.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to respond positively to the debate. If he cannot do so, I beg him at least not to dig himself further into the morass of logical inconsistencies by trying to defend the present position. I ask him to return to his Department and to say to his advisers, "You do not have to go out there and defend the present position. We cannot hold this line any longer. Let's get rid of this piece of petty discrimination, which is as much nonsense in logic as it is unjust in equity." Were he to convey that message to his advisers in his Department, I assure him that he would be speaking for almost all hon. Members.
  12.10 am
  Ms. Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for allowing me to speak in the debate.
  I had a constituent who was in this position. She died just before Christmas. She was a lone parent—the mother of four children. I got to know her and the children extremely well during the time that she was ill. I have written to the Department of Health. I met the previous Secretary of State and got nowhere. I confirm what my hon. Friend said: that the reason is terror of future infection through needles, or whatever, not concern about justice for this small group of people.
  My constituent, whose life was taken from her by the National Health Service through a blood transfusion, lived out her remaining years in poverty. She was unable to afford the kind of food that would have made the quality of her life better. She was unable to give her children the kind of treats that she wished to give them. It is insufferable that she was treated in that way by the Government and the country. It is insufferable, too, that her children have been left with absolutely nothing. She died in poverty and left nothing to them.
  The Government will say that there is the possibility of legal action and compensation. If that ever comes to anything, it will be too late for my constituent. It may help her children, but she is dead. The quality of her life was massively diminished because she lived her remaining years in poverty. That is not good enough. I appeal to the Minister to do better than that for other people who are in the same position.
  12.11 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am sure that I speak for the whole House in extending heartfelt sympathy to all those who have suffered by contracting HIV and AIDS through blood transfusions—not necessarily whole blood transfusions; in some cases it has been through partial blood
  850
  transfusion. Those comments are not trite; they are deeply felt and I am sure that all hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, feel exactly the same.
  The hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) eloquently expressed their views. The hon. Member for Livingston has campaigned long and consistently for the inclusion of the group that he has described within the provisions that have been made for haemophiliacs. I know that I shall not convince him tonight of the Government's position. His campaign will continue.
  I am a great believer in debate being a process of discovery. All sides learn something from parliamentary debate. I do not relish ever being put in an invidious position by having to place too much reliance on logic, thus excluding ex gratia payments to a certain group of individuals when such payments have been made to other groups.
  The position was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) when he was Minister of State for Health, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) when he was Secretary of State for Social Services and, most recently, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. That was during the period from 1987 to 1990. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issue. It always deserves careful attention. I do not believe that additional payments to haemophiliacs—a second payment from the Macfarlane Trust—necessarily change the position, but they prod careful thought again about their predicament. It is tragic that a number of people have HIV infection as a result of receiving blood transfusions, and that some have developed AIDS and have died.
  HIV was identified in 1984 and since 1985 we have screened blood in the United Kingdom. We all have great sympathy, of course, for those people and their families—indeed, for all people who have HIV and AIDS. It is estimated that 113 people in the United Kingdom have been infected with HIV through blood transfusions. Of those, 17 were transfused, we know, in the United Kingdom, 35 were transfused abroad, and for the remaining 61 the place of transfusion is unknown. According to a completely different source of statistics, including some overlap, the numbers of reported AIDS cases among transfusion recipients are 21 transfused in the United Kingdom, of whom 15 have died, and 26 transfused elsewhere, of whom 17 have died. It may be that some of the deaths are attributable to the patient's original illness and not to AIDS.
  Fortunately, as medical and scientific knowledge about the screening of donors and testing donations has increased, the risks of HIV being acquired from blood transfusion in this country have been reduced considerably, I understand that the risk is now very remote indeed—about one in 1 million. However, we should not pretend that we shall ever get to a stage at which there is no risk from medical procedures.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to haemophiliacs. The Government and the whole House acknowledge the tragedy of those who received infected blood products prior to 1985. Some 1,200 haemophiliacs were affected. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that there is no doubt that, to an extent, haemophiliacs suffered a double tragedy. They had a disadvantage—there is no denying that—before the accidents occurred. The establishment of the first and second Macfarlane Trusts

  851
  acknowledged the tragedy of this group. Both, of course, were ex gratia payments: they were not compensation payments in the strict sense of the term. They were not in lieu of the legal right to sue. Indeed, that right remains.
  The Department of Health maintains that there was no negligence. One is not denying the consequences, but I stress again that the Department of Health believed that it was offering the best available treatment, in good faith, at the time. Tragically, we know now that, before 1985, the consequences were not what was desired.
  I presume that, although he did not say so, the hon. Member for Livingston would naturally extend his argument about blood transfussions to whether the transfusion occurred in the United Kingdom or abroad. It is interesting to note that the majority of cases in which we know where the transfusion occurred were abroad. Secondly, he would presumably extend his argument to all those who are living here. Thirdly, he would extend the provision without relying on exhaustive proof of the cause of HIV—it is very difficult to prove; and he would also extend his argument without seeking to ascertain whether the death would have occurred anyway—again, something that is very difficult to prove.
  So one assumes that the group to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is a comprehensive one. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would seek to subdivide that group in—to use his own expression—any logical way, so I think that one must cast doubt on an estimate of £1 million. I do not seek this evening to debate the cost of any settlement in relation to this group; I simply put it to the hon. Gentleman that, even among those who have suffered through transfusion, it is very difficult to divide and subdivide, using his criteria, into categories which are or are not deserving.
  I believe that it is very difficult for the hon. Gentleman honestly and logically to find any resting place in his argument. In terms of what he is essentially arguing for—his universal no-fault scheme, whether there is negligence or not, for medical accidents—I do not believe that there is any comfortable resting place for the hon. Gentleman. I put four examples to him. There are clearly cases that fall into the category of those who acquired HIV through skin grafts or organ transplants; the tragic cases of those who suffer serious side effects from the treatment of leukaemia; those who suffer brain damage as a result of anaesthesia during operations; and those who suffer post-operative complications having undergone neurosurgery. I could go through a long list of categories for which other Members of Parliament would argue lucidly that there was real disadvantage and financial hardship as a result of an accident whether or not there was negligence.
  Although he has argued his case very coherently, in his heart of hearts I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to draw a hard and fast line and say that we are dealing only with one particular group of individuals. If he were standing at this Dispatch Box, he would then be faced with exactly the same arguments from other hon. Members, arguing just as eloquently, to extend to the final resting place the argument he has put tonight, which is that there should be a universal no-fault scheme, whatever the cause and whether or not there was negligence.
  I have looked at the vaccine damage compensation scheme again, anticipating that the hon. Gentleman might raise it—and he would have been right to do so. That scheme, which provides automatic payment for those families whose children have suffered as a result of vaccine
  852
  damage, is justifiable because it is clearly in the public interest that all children should be vaccinated, and the small but significant risk is a price that society and the taxpayer should bear to ensure proper compliance with and acceptance of our vaccination programmes.
  The argument for no-fault compensation with a preserved right to sue—I understand that some days ago in a Committee in the House the Member for Ladywood argued the case for no-fault compensation with the right to sue—would have the benefit of some automatic payment to relieve financial pressures. I strongly believe that that system, which is the only logical resting place for the hon. Gentleman's argument, would lead to a low, complicated and bureaucratic tariff, which would prove an impediment or discouragement to suit.
  In cases of admitted negligence—such as in radiotherapy where, sadly, there have been some examples in recent years—the better system is one of interim payments by the health authority concerned, with the prospect of an ultimate out-of-court settlement or settlement in court. That would be a fairer and more flexible solution.
  In cases of no or disputed negligence, as in this case, we have to rely on our free National Health Service and our social security system for support, with the right of any affected party to sue. That is a generous system and I hope, as I am sure do all right hon. and hon. Members, that there will soon be an effective treatment for HIV and for AIDS.
  Mr. Robin Cook: First, the difficulty of relying on the courts as a means of recompense and compensation is that the time scale of the courts is wholly out of synchronisation with the time scale available to many sufferers—13 out of 32 people have already died. Secondly, although I am tempted to follow the Minister's argument about no-fault compensation, let me remind him that the Government, in their wisdom, have provided a scheme for haemophiliacs who are infected through blood products in the NHS. The point of the debate is not whether there should be a no-fault compensation scheme for all those who suffer cryogenic diseases or injury at the hands of NHS, but about how, having created such a scheme, the Government can exclude from it those small additional numbers.
  Mr. Freeman: I accept that time is short for many who have HIV, although there is not necessarily a death sentence hanging over them. That is not disputed; indeed, it is one of the pressing arguments in favour of compensating the haemophiliacs who have become infected. It is a difficult issue, as one is asked to extend on behalf of the taxpayer an act of relative generosity and charity to one group of sufferers to another group, however logically the hon. Gentleman may group them by cause—and the common cause is blood transfusion.
  The hon. Gentleman will concede that there is no hiding place for a Minister in terms of drawing a particular line if he were to move the line case by case beyond where it has already been drawn to relieve the financial pressures on a group which has suffered double jeopardy—double disadvantage, as it were. There is no logical resting place until we have a relatively generous, universal no-fault compensation scheme, and I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of the National Health Service.
  I genuinely meant what I said at the outset: I do not believe that these debates are merely a pro forma exercise to enable an hon. Member to raise a constituency matter

  853
  for the benefit of the media. There is a process of discovery in all these debates, because thought goes into their preparation and answer. I shall study the Official Report of the debate and bring the matter to the attention of Ministers at the Department of Health. It is only fair that I should do that, the hon. Gentleman having asked me to do so.
  I cannot give him the assurance for which he asked, and he would not expect me to do so, but I join him again in expressing sympathy to those who have suffered. They have the sympathy of the Government. We shall reflect, as
  854
  I said at the outset, on what the hon. Gentleman said. I can give absolutely no commitments, and I would not wish him to convey to his constituents or any others in this difficult position that the Government are about to rethink their already clearly declared position.
  However, it would be wrong of me to slam the door in the hon. Gentleman's face and say that there is absolutely no prospect of any hope in future for this category of individuals. Of course we will reflect and listen carefully to the arguments, and I have set out as clearly and sympathetically as I can the Government's position.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has reached a decision on the future of the wages councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have decided not to proceed with the abolition of the councils for the present. However, the consultation exercise showed that our concern about their adverse effects is widely shared by employers, who have confirmed the Government's view that the system should have no permanent place in the labour market. I therefore intend to keep its operation under close review.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the total number of unemployed and (b) the total number of long-term unemployed for each of the months between July 1986 and December 1989 inclusive for each of the standard regions, Scotland, Wales and Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: As the information requested is detailed and lengthy, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Business Incentives (Women)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what incentives his Department promotes for women wishing to start up their own business.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The Government's policy is to create a beneficial climate for small businesses generally, mainly by encouraging conditions of fair competition and minimising regulation, and by providing a complementary range of fiscal, financial and advisory measures.

  My own Department's services include the development of a wide range of business training, the loan guarantee scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme in which over one third of participants are now women, and the small firms service. All these opportunities are open equally to men and women. My Department is keen to encourage women to set up in business, and part-funded a study into the barriers faced by female entrepreneurs conducted by the Scottish Enterprise Foundation, published in November 1988. Following that, the Training Agency has invited organisations to compete for a contract to develop enterprise training for women within employment training.

  Women are increasingly taking advantage of enterprise opportunities. Between 1979 and 1988 the number of self-employed women in the United Kingdom more than doubled, compared with an increase of just under 50 per cent. for self-employed men.

TRANSPORT

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken by his Department to develop national policies for coastal protection and sea defence work in respect of the threat to ports from erosion of the coastline and the rise in sea levels.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The main policy interest relating to coast protection and sea defence work rests, in England, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and elsewhere with the territorial Departments. In specific cases where problems arise with respect to ports it is normally for the harbour authorities to assess the need for work and to take such action as may be necessary.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current financial targets and limits set by him which apply to Network SouthEast and the assumptions as to the increase in passenger fares made in connection with their plans for future revenue and capital expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  For 1989–90 the British Railways Board's external financing limit is now £635 million. The PSO cash limit is, at present, £496 million. The EFL applies to BR as a whole and the PSO limit to supported sectors. They are not broken down by sector.

  In the medium term, the board has set Network SouthEast the objective of reducing its grant requirement to zero in 1992–93. This was endorsed by my right hon. Friend in his letter to Sir Robert Reid of 20 December, which set out BR's objectives for the next three years. Over the same period, planned investment will amount to £1·2 billion—an increase of 30 per cent. in real terms over the previous three-year period. According to BR's own plans, on which the medium-term objectives are based, fares on NSE are likely to rise by less than 10 per cent. in real terms over the next three years.

  Air-conditioned Rolling Stock
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of existing rolling stock on British Rail and the London Underground have air conditioning; and what percentage of the new rolling stock will have it.

  Mr. Portillo
  The figures for BR are given in the table below.

  Percentage of fleet with air conditioning

  1Percentage of planned future rolling stock with air conditioning

  1989–90

  11993–94

  InterCity

  85

  2100

  100

  Network SouthEast

  2

  15

  50

  Provincial

  2

  24

  75

  1Taken from British Rail's 1989 corporate plan. For Network SouthEast the figure includes all rolling stock that will have been ordered by March 1995.

  2 Percentage of carriages in regular, all year round service. A very small number of vehicles used for charter will not be air conditioned.

  543
  London Underground has no air conditioned rolling stock, and none of the planned new rolling stock will have air conditioning.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the proper equipment is available and arrangements made to ensure that when a vehicle overturns on the Severn bridge quick remedial action can be taken.

  Mr. Atkins
  The equipment necessary for the recovery and removal of overturned vehicles on the Severn crossing is already available. High winds are almost invariably the cause of vehicles overturning on the crossing and these winds also impede and delay vehicle recovery.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the reason for the closure of the Severn bridge on 26 February; and for how long traffic was disrupted.

  Mr. Atkins
  A high-sided heavy goods vehicle overturned in high winds on the westbound carriageway of the Severn crossing at approximately 3.30 am on 26 February. The vehicle came to rest across the central reservation, spilling diesel fuel on both carriageways. As a result, both carriageways were closed to traffic. The vehicle and spillage was cleared by early afternoon, but with winds gusting to 70 knots, it was not considered safe to reopen the crossing until 4.50 pm. High-sided vehicles were banned until 3.30 am the following day.

  Newbury Bypass
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decision he has reached about the route for the Newbury bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment are still considering the inspector's report on the A34 Newbury bypass public inquiry. We would hope to be able to announce their joint decision during the spring.

  Roads, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new road building funded by his Department is planned for the city of Liverpool for the next decade.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are none of our trunk roads within Liverpool. We support local authority spending on some of their more important roads through transport supplementary grant (TSG), currently paid at 50 per cent. of accepted expenditure. In Liverpool we are at present supporting phases of the Park road relief road and the Great Howard street improvement. It is for the city council to settle its forward programme and the schemes to be included in future annual bids for TSG.

  Roads (Congestion)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken to reduce congestion on the roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  Last year we announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" a doubling of the trunk road 544
  programme. Our proposals to add some 2,700 miles of new or improved road to the trunk road network will make a significant impact on congestion on major inter-urban routes. Plans for over 150 bypasses will remove through traffic from towns and villages. In city centres better traffic management measures, parking controls and improvements to public transport, including the development of new facilities such as light rail systems will contribute towards reducing congestion.

  Full details of the trunk road programme are contained in the roads report "Trunk Roads, England—Into the 1990s", published on 20 February. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Traffic Information
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to improve access to motorists of up-to-date traffic information by means of radio.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have held discussions with the BBC, AA and others involved in the provision of travel information about ways of improving the availability and reliability of information through better arrangements for its collection, co-ordination and dissemination. The Department is contributing to a trial by the BBC of radio data systems, a newly developed system to allow improved dissemination of travel information by radio.

  A1 (Fatal Accidents)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal accidents have occurred between Doncaster and Scotland on the A 1 in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Figures available are for the A1 and A1(M) between the Scottish border and the border of Doncaster metropolitan district, which is approximately five miles south of Doncaster. In 1984, there were 22 fatal accidents. The figures for successive years are 19 fatal accidents in 1985, 38 in 1986, 25 in 1987 and 23 in 1988. The table shows fatal accidents for A1 and A1(M) separately and the resulting fatal casualties.

  Fatal accidents and casualties on the A1 and A1(M) between Doncasler and Scotland, 1984 to 1988

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Fatal accidents

  A1

  21

  14

  31

  20

  22

  A1(M)

  1

  5

  7

  5

  1

  Total

  22

  19

  38

  25

  23

  Fatal casualties

  A1

  24

  16

  45

  22

  28

  A1(M)

  2

  5

  7

  5

  3

  Total

  26

  21

  52

  27

  31

  Environmental Pressure Groups
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with environmental pressure groups on 23 February.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of Transport 2000, Friends of the Earth, the Council for
  545
  the Protection of Rural England, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation on 23 February. He exchanged views with these organisations on a wide range of transport and environmental issues, and hopes to have further meetings with them.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policies he has to develop measures to improve driver efficiency as part of Her Majesty's Government's policy to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

  Mr. Atkins
  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. We are considering what further measures are necessary to encourage driver efficiency.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies are being undertaken into the development of advanced catalytic converter technology for turbo-diesel engines by the transport road research laboratory.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: None at present. Industry has its own longstanding development programmes in this field. These will be furthered by the £2·3 million joint venture programme between Government and a consortium of United Kingdom companies, directed towards cleaning up vehicle exhaust emissions, announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Enterprise on 15 February.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for testing the effectiveness of motor vehicle emission control devices once fitted and in use.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: Our proposed amendments to the Construction and Use Regulations include a requirement for the user of a vehicle to keep the engine in tune and any emission control equipment in working order. This can be checked by most garages. We are also considering whether changes are needed in the existing annual testing schemes and roadside spot checks of exhaust condition.

  Ship Registers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce incentives to United Kingdom shipping companies to stop them registering their shipping in other countries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No.

  Radioactive Materials (Ports)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list by year for the last 10 years(a) the sources and (b) the destinations, of radioactive material (i) imported and (ii) exported, through the ports of Immingham and Hull;

  (2) if he will list by year for the last 10 years how many tonnes of radioactive material were (a) imported and (b) exported through the ports of (i) Barrow, (ii) Dover, (iii)
  546
  Felixstowe, (iv) Harwich, (v) Liverpool, (vi) Portsmouth, (vii) Southampton and (viii) Workington; and in each case what method of transport was used to convey the material to or from the port.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 22 January,Official Report, column 491.

  Tyres
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he will issue to local authority trading standards departments in relation to current offences alleged to have been committed under sections 10 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with respect to the alleged breach of regulation 4 of the Motor Vehicles Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1984 in the light of the acceptance and imminent introduction of BS A Lf144C 1988 retread car and commercial vehicle tyre specifications.

  Mr. Atkins
  We shall consult on proposed amendments to the regulations, which will include the introduction of the BS AU 1440 requirements, later this year. As usual, the trading standards authorities, who are responsible for enforcement, will be included in the consultation.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to replace the British Standards AU144B 1977 specification for retreaded car and commercial vehicle tyres with British Standard AU 144C 1988 requirement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: I shall be consulting on amendments to the Motor Vehicles (Tyre Safety) Regulations 1984 later this year. The amendments will include the change proposed by my hon. Friend.

  Minibuses
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what documentation and tests are to be required after 1992 for a person to be qualified to drive a minibus in the United Kingdom and other European Community countries; and what are the present arrangements.

  Mr. Atkins
  Minibuses with up to 17 seats that are not used for hire or reward may be driven in the United Kingdom by holders of full ordinary licences who are over 21 years of age. Younger drivers are also allowed to drive minibuses in closely defined circumstances. In order to drive these vehicles in other European Community member states, drivers must obtain a certificate of driving experience from the local traffic area office.

  Proposals for a second directive on the driving licence, as published by the European Commission, would require new drivers of minibuses to take a second test and meet tougher health standards. The United Kingdom has been pressing for the retention of the present arrangements. Useful progress has been made in direct discussions with Commission officials. Details of the modifications agreed with the Commission were announced in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 21 July 1989, Official Report, column 336. There is still a good deal of negotiation ahead before the proposals are finalised. Any changes arising from the directive are unlikely to be in place by 1992.

  M3 Extension
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact the recently approved extension of the M3 through Twyford Down near Winchester, Hampshire, will have on the natural landscape; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The impact on the landscape of the Department of Transport's proposals for this section of the M3 motorway is set out at length in the letter conveying the decisions of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment on the reports of the two independent inspectors who conducted the public inquiries. I am sending the hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the letter and arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Beach Pollution (Sussex)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Worthing of 28 February,Official Report, column 237, regarding the MV Fathulkhair, (1) whether he was informed by the French authorities of the loss of the vessel's dangerous cargo and potential risk on British beaches; when he first knew of the problem; whether the other dangerous chemicals found were on the MV Fathulkhair's manifest; and what information he has on whether the initial stowage and subsequent securing in Cherbourg were in conformity with Merchant Shipping Regulations;

  (2) where the MV Fathulkhair is registered; when the master of the vessel notified the authorities in Cherbourg of the loss of dangerous cargo; when the French authorities notified his Department of the danger; and if he is satisfied that the communications arrangements are adequate to warn of such dangers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As explained in my answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 237, the MV Fathulkhair is registered in Qatar. I understand that the loss of dangerous goods was not reported by the master to the French authorities although the vessel at one time put back into Cherbourg to re-secure and survey cargo. Had the loss been so reported I am satisfied that the French authorities would have notified my Department's marine pollution control unit (MPCU) of the potential risk to British beaches under a longstanding bilateral agreement for co-operation in dealing with pollution in the Channel—Mancheplan.

  These arrangements have worked well in other recent incidents in the Channel involving the loss of dangerous goods, such as the Perintis and the Murree. Within the framework of Mancheplan there are also twice-yearly meetings between the MPCU and its counterparts in Cherbourg and annual counter-pollution exercises are held to ensure that communications are both speedy and effective.

  On this occasion, the first my Department knew of the danger on British beaches was when a canister of potassium cyanide was reported on the morning of 21 February to Sussex police who immediately informed Her Majesty's Coastguard. The MPCU was subsequently able to determine that this had been shipped on the MV Fathulkhair and was then advised by the shipping agent of other dangerous cargo which had been lost overboard
  548
  from the vessel. This information was passed by the MPCU to the French authorities and to all United Kingdom coastal local authorities which might be affected. Other dangerous chemicals found on beaches on 21 February and on succeeding days are consistent with those reported by the shipping agent as being lost from MV Fathulkhair. Marine surveyors of my Department are investigating to see whether cargo loaded on board the MV Fathulkhair at Sheerness was stowed in conformity with merchant shipping regulations. Any subsequent re-securing of the cargo in Cherbourg is of course a matter for the competent French authorities.

  Lowland Airports
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has concluded his review of Scottish lowland airports policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have now concluded my consideration of the views put in the over 1,100 submissions received during the recent consultation. I was much impressed by the scale and quality of the response, and I am glad to have been able to consider the issues against the background of this very full expression of Scottish opinion.

  I believe it is right in principle for Government to intervene in the operation of the aviation market only to the extent and when circumstances make it necessary. My intention in ordering the consultation was to determine whether to maintain a special policy for the lowland airports, or to adopt the less restrictive approach which applies more generally in the United Kingdom. I have concluded, in close consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the interests of Scotland generally and of the users and providers of air services in Scotland are best served by allowing each of the lowland airports to handle the traffic they are able to attract, subject of course to the licences held by airlines, to international air service agreements and to the physical capabilities of the airports. I shall not, therefore, be making fresh traffic distribution rules for the lowland airports. I did not find that there was a persuasive argument for construction of another airport in Scotland.

  The benefits to Scotland that can be expected to flow from this, and the rate at which those benefits will be become manifest, are necessarily difficult to state with precision. Much depends on the response of the industry and of users to the additional opportunities that a more liberal policy will open up: already two airlines have announced proposals for new services between Glasgow and the United States of America. It is the firm belief of almost all those well placed to take an informed view that the policy of confining long-haul services to Prestwick has hampered Scotland's economic development and that a less restrictive approach could be expected to enhance business efficiency and help encourage inward investment. I am myself clear that airlines' ability to respond flexibly to the needs of users is very important.

  I recognise and regret that the change in policy is likely to have an adverse impact on local Ayrshire employment. However my right hon. and learned Friend and I are confident that this will be more than offset by wider benefits to Scotland as a whole, and in the meantime I welcome BAA's firm policy of making no forced redundancies at Prestwick.

  I am conscious of the concern on safety grounds at the prospect of additional traffic at Glasgow and Edinburgh.

  549
  I should stress that there is no question of any unsafe operations being permitted at either airport. A statutory responsibility for the safety of civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. Objectivity in assessing safety standards is one of the key elements which take the regulation of aviation safety out of the commercial market place as far as is humanly possible. Thus, while the length of Glasgow's runway might impose a commercial penalty—which would be a matter for the airlines—there is no question of safety standards being compromised. Much higher levels of air traffic than are envisaged at Glasgow are already present at, for example, Heathrow and Manchester, airports also located in urban areas.

  There is concern, too, about additional noise and vibration at Glasgow and Edinburgh that an increase in traffic may bring. Responsibility for noise control measures at these airports rests with BAA as airport operator, and I am satisfied that this arrangement should continue, as indeed it does at all United Kingdom airports outside the London system. A number of noise abatement measures are already in place at Glasgow and Edinburgh, and I am asking the chairman of the BAA to ensure that these are kept under review.

  It is suggested that the withdrawal of Prestwick's sole gateway status would lead to the airport's closure. BAA has said that it will move to a common tariff at Glasgow and Prestwick for long-haul traffic, allowing Prestwick to compete fairly. Although it believes that passenger services will nevertheless in due course transfer from Prestwick, the BAA has made clear its firm intention of keeping the airport open and of intensifying its marketing of its other facilities, notably for all-cargo operations. I welcome those intentions, because I know there is concern among some Scottish business interests for the future of air freight facilities in Scotland. I very much hope that BAA will be successful in realising Prestwick's advantages for all-cargo services. It starts from a strong position, such services having accounted for 38 per cent. of all air transport movements at Prestwick in 1988, and for 80 per cent. of cargo moved through the airport in 1988–89. With the continuation of cargo operations at Prestwick and the hellyhold capacity offered by any additional long-haul services at Glasgow and Edinburgh, I believe Scotland will continue to enjoy good air freight coverage.

  Lowland Scotland is fortunate in having three fine airports. By extending freedom of choice, allowing the market to respond freely to the wishes of users, I am confident that each of the airports will be encouraged to realise its proper potential, to the benefit of Scotland as a whole.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the United Kingdom's preparedness to deal with an oil spill at sea has been reviewed in the light of recent tanker accidents.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Contingency arrangements to deal with pollution at sea in United Kingdom waters are kept under constant review by the Department's marine pollution control unit (MPCU) which was set up in 1979 with specific responsibility to do so and to take charge of operations.

  A thorough examination covering United Kingdom counterpollution responsibilities, communications and resources has been carried out. As a result of this the
  550
  capability of the MPCU to deal with major oil spills is being increased by doubling its contracted aerial dispersant spraying capacity by the use of larger aircraft. The unit's ability to detect oil slicks at sea is also being doubled by increasing to two its complement of remote sensing aircraft, which are used to control and direct counterpollution operations. Additionally this enhanced remote sensing capability will be used to increase by more than 60 per cent. regular aerial surveillance patrols of United Kingdom waters to deter and detect ships making illegal operational discharges of oil. Overall spending in 1990–91 will depend on the number of incidents in the year but is expected to be of the order of £4 million.

  Trunk Roads and Motorways
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of local authority agents in relation to the sections of the Department of Transport chapter of the Public Expenditure White Paper for 1990–91 to 1992–93 dealing with trunk roads and motorways, Cm.1007.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: Under current agency arrangements it will fall in general to local highway authorities to manage maintenance of trunk roads on behalf of the Department. Authorities will also be responsible in general for designing and supervising the less expensive new construction schemes, normally those costing less than £1 million.

  It is the Department's policy to use private firms of consultants, selected by competition, for design and supervision of major schemes. We are however prepared to employ an agent authority on such a scheme where this is justified for reasons such as invested knowledge, linkages with local road schemes, or traffic management considerations.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the proposed new regulations on road humps and other traffic calming measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: My aim is for these regulations to come into force before Easter.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those authorities which have set a poll tax(a) below and (b) above the Government's assessed level.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 21 February,Official Report, column 741.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in descending order of magnitude for each non-metropolitan county in England the percentage amount by which its 1990–91 standard spending assessment represented an increase or decrease from the comparable adjusted figure for the 1989–90 grant-related expenditure assessment.
  551
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: I will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, further to his replies of 27 February,Official Report, column 178, to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, concerning the average amount of Government contribution to local expenditure, he will now publish the information in the Official Report.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 23 February at column 929.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) of 23 November 1989,Official Report, columns 16–17, whether he intends the proposed country agencies of the Nature Conservancy Council to have responsibility for making nature reserve agreements under section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes. Amendments to the 1949 Act contained in paragraph 1(2) and (3) of schedule 6 to the Environmental Protection Bill which is currently before Parliament are intended to achieve this.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 1 February,Official Report, column 245, what is the maximum number of new members appointed to the Nature Conservancy Council or its predecessor bodies with effect from the same date; and on what date and on how many occasions there have been more than 18 members on the council.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The maximum number of new members appointed to the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) with effect from the same date is 11 from 1 November 1973. From 1 April 1989 until 28 September 1989, there were 19 members on the council. On no other occasion have there been more than 18 members. Information on the NCC's predecessor bodies is not readily available.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many D and F grades were employed at TCS on 16 February; and how many had applied for early retirement or severance at that date.

  Mr. Chope
  On 16 February 1990, a total of 318 permanent of D and F grades were employed in TCS. At that date, 152 had applied for early retirement or severance.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often he met members of the privatisation unit of the Crown Suppliers in 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend meets his officials as necessary.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often the Parliamentary Under-Secretary met members of the management buy-out team for the product supply services division and the buying agency of TCS in 1989.
  552
  Mr. Chope
  I had one formal meeting with the management buy-out team for PSSD and the buying agency, to discuss its proposals.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he encourages managers from the buying agency of TCS to bid for their business separately; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government welcome staff interest in bidding for the business of the Crown Suppliers. Managers of the buying agency of the Crown Suppliers are among those buy-out teams and outside organisations which have been invited to bid for the contract furnishing business, which consists of the product supply and services and the buying agency divisions of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether in 1989 TCS received any advice about EEC directives on procurement.

  Mr. Chope
  Like other Government Departments, the Crown Suppliers receive advice from the Treasury on EC directives from time to time. In 1989, some 20 such papers were received.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of consultants employed by the Property Services Agency at DWO Teddington; and what was the total cost in 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  Five consultants were employed at the district works office at Teddington during the financial year 1989–90 at a cost of £177,000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of consultants employed in place of in-house staff at DWO Westminster in 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  There were no consultants employed in place of in-house staff at DWO Westminster during 1989.

  Hostel Rents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to local rent officers to ensure that nominal rent levels for hostels for single people do not vary widely from one area to another.

  Mr. Chope
  The Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989 lays down the basis on which rent officers assess the rents paid by, and accommodation occupied by, private tenants claiming housing benefit. The order broadly requires the rent officer to assess the claimant's rent by reference to the level of rents being paid for similar accommodation within the locality by tenants who are not in receipt of housing benefit. Advice on how rent officers might approach this task—particularly in circumstances where no direct market evidence is available—was included in a study of the private rented housing market commissioned by the Department from the consultants Price Waterhouse. Copies of that report were circulated to rent officers and placed in the Library in February 1989. We have not issued any specific guidance as to the assessment of hostel charges.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what mechanisms exist to(a) review the

  553
  level of nominal rent set by rent officers for single person hostels and (b) replace rent officers whose assessments are grossly out of line with reasonable rents.

  Mr. Chope
  Where a local authority is dissatisfied with the rent officer's determinations under the Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989, it can apply for the case to be redetermined by another rent officer, drawn from a different rent registration area. The redetermination will be made by reference to the same criteria as applied to the initial determination. The redetermining officer is normally required to seek the views of two other rent officers, neither of whom will have previously dealt with the case. Responsibility for the day-to-day management of the rent officer service in each registration area lies with the chief rent officer, but overall responsibility lies with the proper officer of the local authority concerned.

  Westminster Cemeteries (Sale)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking in respect of the report by the district auditor on the sale by Westminster city council of three cemeteries.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Action on the report is for the city council and the auditor to take. The auditor's findings are provisional and the council has until 30 March to make representations to him. The auditor will then decide whether to apply to the High Court for a declaration that the items in the accounts relating to the transactions are "contrary to law".

  Environmental Initiatives
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce initiatives on(a) prevention of sea disposal of wastes, reductions in atmospheric pollution from transport, long-term monitored storage for radioactive waste, and (d) measures to combat the greenhouse effect at the next Council of European Environment Ministers in Brussels on 22 March.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is the sole prerogative of the Commission to put forward proposed measures for action by the European Community. Responsibility for setting

  Net current expenditure

  Year-on-year Percentage Change

  Cash Terms £ million

  Real terms 1989–90 Prices 1£ million

  Cash terms

  Real Terms

  1981–82

  101·787

  157–831

  —

  —

  1982–83

  112·024

  162·009

  10·1

  2·6

  1983–84

  116·162

  160·501

  3·7

  –0·9

  1984–85

  122·959

  161·851

  5·9

  0·8

  1985–86

  132·523

  165·548

  7·8

  2·3

  1986–872

  164·623

  198·947

  24·2

  20·2

  1987–88

  178·736

  205·117

  8·6

  3·1

  1988–89

  196·764

  210·537

  10·1

  2·6

  1989·90

  212·809

  212·809

  8·2

  1·1

  1981–82 to 1989–90

  109·1

  34·8

  1981–82

  270

  419

  —

  —

  1982–83

  297

  430

  10·0

  2·6

  1983–84

  308

  425

  3·7

  -1·2

  1984–85

  326

  429

  5·8

  0·9

  1985–86

  352

  439

  8·0

  2·3

  554
  the agenda for meetings of the Council of Ministers rests with the member state holding the Presidency of the Council, currently Ireland. Nevertheless I have asked the Presidency to consider a number of possible initiatives for consideration by the Environment Council on 22 March, including the Community's role in global action to tackle the greenhouse effect.

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1979(a) the full-time, (b) the part-time and (c) the total staffing levels of Kirklees metropolitan council.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Kirklees metropolitan district council: Staffing levels at June

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1979

  10,678

  7,734

  18,412

  1980

  10,505

  7,679

  18,184

  1981

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1982

  10,206

  8,231

  18,437

  1983

  10,381

  8,496

  18,877

  1984

  10,587

  8,107

  18,694

  1985

  10,748

  8,084

  18,832

  1986

  11,440

  8,507

  19,947

  1987

  11,707

  9,292

  20,999

  1988

  11,808

  9,954

  21,762

  1989

  10,908

  8,983

  19,891

  1 Data not available.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the expenditure of Kirklees metropolitan council for each year since 1979 per head of population in(a) cash terms and (b) constant 1989–90 price terms; what was the percentage increase in each year; and what was the percentage increase between 1979 and 1990;

  (2) what was the expenditure of Kirklees metropolitan council for each year since 1979 in (a) cash terms and (b) constant 1989–90 price terms; what was the percentage increase in each year; and what was the percentage increase between 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  The available information is as follows:
  555

  Year-on-year Percentage Change

  Cash Terms £ million

  Real terms 1989–90 Prices 1 £ million

  Cash terms

  Real Terms

  1986–872

  437

  528

  24·1

  20·3

  1987–88

  476

  546

  8·9

  3·4

  1988–89

  524

  561

  10·1

  2·7

  1989·90

  567

  567

  8·2

  1·1

  1981–82 to 1989–90

  110·0

  35·3

  1 Using the GDP deflator to convert from cash values to constant prices.

  2 Metropolitan county councils were abolished on 31 March 1986 and their functions transferred to metropolitan districts.

  3 Population figures used to derive per capita values are latest available Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid·year estimates of total population.

  Major Developments (Design)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his policy in relation to the design of major development proposals.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government have advised local planning authorities, in circular 22/80, confirmed by circular 31/85, and in planning policy guidance note No. 1, that they should not seek to impose their tastes on developers simply because they believe them to be superior. Judgments about external design are essentially subjective, and I have seen no evidence that a more interventionist approach by local authorities would result in improved standards overall. Indeed, there is a risk that attempts to compromise between differing aesthetic judgments may produce bland buildings which satisfy no one.

  Accordingly, where they consider it essential to refuse planning permission or to impose conditions related to design, local planning authorities should ensure that the grounds for refusal or for conditions relate to relevant planning issues such as the density and bulk of the development and its compatibility with its surroundings. This may include, in sensitive areas, the use of materials appropriate to the locality. Such control of external appearance may be particularly important where development proposals affect national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, or the setting of important historic landmarks. Authorities should in general confine their concern to those aspects of design which are significant for the aesthetic quality of the area. Only exceptionally should they control design details, if the sensitive character of the area or the particular building justifies it. Alterations to buildings of special architectural or historic interest are controlled through listed building consent procedures, for similar reasons.

  Although I have no plans to impose further measures of aesthetic control, I am deeply concerned to promote good design. My concern relates particularly to the standard of planning applications made for major developments. I hope that developers will bring forward schemes which will make a major contribution to the architectural fabric of the country in the long term.

  Year

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (i) Appeals allowed

  12

  15

  10

  14

  13

  Dismissed

  16

  26

  23

  28

  32

  (ii) Appeals allowed

  7

  7

  4

  6

  4

  Dismissed

  8

  7

  6

  10

  4

  556
  Pursuit of the highest architectural standards should not be deflected by debate about style. I acknowledge that style is important, but dressing a building in different stylistic devices, whether classical, gothic, high tech or of the modern movement, is essentially a subordinate activity. I attach great importance to the more fundamental architectural values of good proportion and scale, and skill in the use of space and light, which distinguish good buildings of any period.

  I do not believe that these qualities can be achieved by regulation, control or Government edict. I cannot and would not want to try to impose my own views on design through individual planning appeals. So I must look to developers and designers to have greater regard for the impact of their buildings on the environment, now and in the future, and to aim always to achieve the highest possible standard.

  County Structure Plan, Leicestershire
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the costs to local planning authorities in Leicestershire of advancing the present expiry date of the county structure plan of 1996: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: My Department has no information on costs relating specifically to the review of the Leicestershire structure plan. All such plans have to be reviewed well in advance of their end date if they are to continue to perform their planning function.

  Planning Appeals (Staffordshire)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of planning appeals(a) upheld and (b) rejected by him in each year since 1980 in respect of planning refusals by (i) Lichfield district council, (ii) Cannock Chase district council and (iii) Stafford district council.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: This information is available only in respect of appeals decided since 1 April 1984 and is as follows.
  557

  Year

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (iii) Appeals allowed

  10

  20

  16

  25

  19

  Dismissed

  21

  30

  31

  43

  29

  Litter
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the definition of litter as adopted by his Department in regard to legislation covering waste and pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: We have not sought to define litter in the Environmental Protection Bill. Clause 71 of the Bill defines the offence of littering in terms of throwing down, dropping or otherwise depositing, and leaving
  "any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place."

  It is for the courts to decide, in all cases brought before them, whether the item complained of constitutes litter.

  Commons
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce his legislative proposals in respect of the Common Land Forum's recommendation on commons.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, on 12 February 1990, Official Report, column 64.

  Thatched Roofs
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue an urgent planning circular to planning authorities recommending that they relax planning requirements that storm damaged thatched roofs must be repaired or replaced with thatch, where shortage of available thatchers renders such a course impractable for the householders concerned.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: In those cases where planning or other permissions are required, each proposal must be considered on its merits, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. Wherever possible, local planning authorities should adopt a flexible approach, but they will need to take account of the long-term consequences for the special character of thatched buildings and their surroundings.

  Lindane
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the container of lindane lost in the Channel in 1989 has been found.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The container was lost in an area of the Channel in which under a longstanding bilateral agreement the French authorities are responsible for co-ordinating counterpollution action. Despite an intensive and very comprehensive search mounted by the French Navy and continuing vigilance, it has not been found. My
  558
  Department's marine pollution control unit maintains close contacts with the French authorities and is satisfied that every effort has been made to try and locate the missing container. Sampling and analysis of seawater and fish both in the area where the container was thought to be lost and in the English Channel as a whole has been undertaken by the French authorities and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) respectively. No increased levels of lindane have been detected. Further sampling and analysis will be undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later this year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Gallows (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the gallows kept at Wandsworth prison are next to be tested; and who will do this.

  Mr. Mellor
  The gallows will next be tested in June. This will be done by a member of the prison's works department.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 15 February,Official Report, column 371, how many of the 31 Iranian citizens served with the notice of the intention to make deportation orders against them on the grounds that this would be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security were involved in full-time or part-time education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Fifteen.

  Foreign Office Employees (Special Branch Detentions)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by name since 1979 the number of employees of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that have been detained by special branch officers; on what charge they were detained; and what was the result of their inquiries.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information requested is not available.

  Immigration (West Indies)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Jamaica, (b) Trinidad and Tobago, (c) Guyana, (d) Barbados and (e) St. Lucia have made applications for entry clearance certificates at the respective British High Commissions in the West Indies; how many such applications have been refused during the 12 months of 1989; and what are the figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on entry clearance applications refused initially in 1987–88 was published on
  559
  5 April 1989, Official Report, columns 221–24, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). Information on applications in 1989 is given in the table. The other information requested is not available centrally.

  Applications for entry clearance1 to the United Kingdom in 1989

  Number of persons

  Applications

  Country2

  Newly received3

  Granted4 5

  Refused initially5

  Jamaica

  3,140

  2,950

  470

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1,920

  1,780

  240

  Guyana

  1,840

  1,560

  160

  Barbados6

  1,580

  1,460

  110

  Citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Barbados admitted to, and refused leave to enter and removed from, the United Kingdom

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Guyana

  Barbados

  Year/Month

  Total admitted

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  Total admitted

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  Total admitted

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  1979

  18,000

  20

  7,600

  26

  8,900

  9

  1980

  18,000

  17

  7,200

  23

  9,000

  10

  1981

  17,000

  17

  6,700

  10

  8,800

  7

  1982

  19,000

  13

  5,500

  19

  8,100

  7

  1983

  20,000

  10

  5,750

  17

  8,120

  5

  1984

  22,200

  10

  5,920

  29

  8,280

  4

  1985

  24,600

  6

  6,490

  16

  9,230

  2

  1986

  18,400

  20

  6,120

  16

  9,260

  7

  1987

  18,500

  31

  5,680

  27

  9,100

  9

  1988

  17,300

  42

  5,640

  27

  9,520

  20

  1989

  17,500

  76

  6,230

  44

  9,510

  31

  January 1989

  1,200

  5

  400

  3

  700

  —

  February 1989

  900

  7

  300

  1

  300

  2

  March 1989

  1,100

  6

  400

  7

  500

  4

  April 1989

  1,300

  5

  500

  4

  500

  3

  May 1989

  1,200

  7

  400

  2

  600

  4

  June 1989

  1,700

  4

  600

  3

  1,200

  —

  July 1989

  2,400

  6

  800

  5

  1,600

  3

  August 1989

  2,100

  9

  800

  3

  1,400

  5

  September 1989

  1,800

  9

  700

  2

  1,000

  4

  October 1989

  1,600

  6

  600

  5

  700

  3

  November 1989

  1,000

  6

  400

  5

  500

  2

  December 1989

  1,100

  6

  400

  4

  500

  1

  Immigration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are being held in detention for immigration reasons; where they are being held; how many are asylum-seekers; and how many in the latter category are women.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No central record is maintained of the number of people held in detention for immigration reasons. On 28 February there were 187 people detained solely under Immigration Act powers in the following establishments:

  Number

  Harmondsworth detention centre

  70

  Queens Building, Heathrow

  13

  Gatwick Airport

  6

  Newhaven

  11

  HMP Haslar

  87

  560
  1 Including applications for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

  2 Country in which the application was received, irrespective of the nationality of the applicant.

  3 Including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  4 Granted initially or on appeal.

  5 These applications may have been received in an earlier period.

  6 Including applications by persons in St. Lucia.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Trinidad and Tobago, (b) Guyana, (c) Barbados and (d) St. Lucia have (i) been admitted and (ii) been refused admittance and removed during the 12 months of 1989; and what are the figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table. St. Lucia is not separately identified in the statistics of admissions and removals.

  It is estimated that some 30 people were detained at other prisons and in police cells in the south-east of England on the same day. There is no central record of how many of those detained had sought asylum.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been detained in Holloway for immigration reasons over the last 12 months; and how many of these are asylum-seekers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The most recent figures available are for the calendar year 1989. In this period, 16 women were detained in Holloway under the powers conferred by the Immigration Act 1971. There is no central record of how many of these had sought asylum.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes dated 28 November (reference 27880/89).
  561
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 28 February. I am sorry for the delay in his receiving a reply.

  Tobacco Sales to Children
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to increase penalties for people who sell cigarettes to children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Our proposals for strengthening the law to prevent illegal sales of tobacco to children will be put before Parliament when there is a suitable opportunity.

  Police Shifts
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the use of the Ottawa system of police shift patterns.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are aware of the experiment that is being conducted with the Ottawa shift system but no representations have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend about it.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has conducted any studies in the last five years into alternative shift systems for the police service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No such studies have been conducted by the Home Office. However, a report prepared by the Home Office police requirements support unit, which was sent to all chief officers of police in England and Wales on 30 January, collates all the research into shift patterns which has been done in forces during the past three years and proposes further research into alternative shift systems.

  Police Rent Allowances
  Mr Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost of implementing in full the agreement reached by the Police Negotiating Board; and what will be the cost resulting from his decision to set aside the agreement on rent allowances and related matters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that serving officers who are receiving rent allowance on 31 March should receive no less after that date and that officers living in accommodation provided by the police authority on the same date should receive a transitional allowance of £300 a year for up to three years. These decisions mean that the level of expenditure on rent allowance is unlikely to be significantly reduced in the next financial year. There are too many hypothetical factors for a meaningful comparison to be made between this situation and what would have happened had my right hon. and learned Friend accepted the agreement of the Police Negotiating Board in full.

  Asylum
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a decision has been reached regarding the request for asylum by the Chinese diplomat Ning Hong Shan.
  562
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Ning Hong Shan was granted refugee status on 3 August 1989.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the outcome of the study into regional co-ordination of home defence planning undertaken in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have received a report on the study, and I have today placed in the Library a summary of its main findings. The study has identified a number of deficiencies in the co-ordination of home defence planning at regional level, and proposals are made for improvements. In the light of this study, and with the continuing support of other Departments, it has been decided that a small centrally led team should be established whose aim will be to improve co-ordination of planning in each region, drawing on and extending the work of the original study. Under these arrangements, responsibility for writing plans would remain with individual authorities, departments and public utilities at the local level, but the team will provide additional guidance, working through existing emergency planning fora.

  I have asked officials to put the arrangements into effect as soon as possible and to consult interested parties at national and local level.

  Cyclists (Convictions)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pedal cyclists have been convicted in each of the last five years for offences involving(a) going through traffic lights, (b) riding on the pavement and (c) going the wrong way along a one-way street.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 21 February 1990]: Information available centrally cannot separately identify the number of pedal cyclists who commit offences of going through traffic lights and going the wrong way along a one-way street. Information on the number of pedal cyclists convicted of riding on the pavement for 1984 to 1988 is given in the table.

  Pedal cyclists convicted o riding on a footpath1 England and Wales

  Year

  Convictions

  1984

  1,990

  1985

  1,198

  1986

  936

  1987

  502

  1988

  549

  1 Offence under Highway Act, 1835 (section 72), Metropolitan Police Act, 1839(section 54 (7)) and Byelaws.

  Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters she has received regarding the increases in mortgage interest rates.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received approximately 360 representations this year on the subject of interest rates.

  North Downs
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit the North Downs area of outstanding national beauty in mid-Kent.

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

  Homelessness (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received concerning homelessness in London.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations and reports on homelessness in London. I and my colleagues look at them very carefully in the light of the action we are taking as follow-up to our review of the homeless legislation.

  South Africa
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the procedures operated by the Commission to ensure that EEC legislation is adhered to by member states, with particular reference to the South African sanctions measures; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Commission is in no doubt of our commitment to implementing Community legislation, nor about our concern that it should be adhered to similarly by other member states.

  Young People (Inner Cities)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she has any proposals to introduce a consultation programme as part of the review into the effects of policies of a number of Government Departments towards young people who leave home and come to live in the inner cities;

  (2) which Government Departments are involved in reviewing the effects of those Departments' policies towards young people who leave home and go and live in the inner cities; and which Department is taking the lead.

  The Prime Minister
  The main Departments involved in these discussions are the Department of the Environment, which has a co-ordinating role, the Department of Health, the Department of Employment, the Department of Social Security, the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science. When we have fully considered the issues, appropriate consultation arrangements will be made.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what arrangements she has made for the representation of Scotland in the review of the effects of a number of Departments' policies on young people who leave home and go to live in the inner cities;

  (2) whether consideration of young people who leave home and live on the peripheral estates and in rural areas will be included in Departments' reviews of the effects of policies on young people who leave home and go and live in the inner cities.

  The Prime Minister
  Scottish Ministers are kept in touch with all discussions on this matter. The Scottish Development Department itself considers all situations which may contribute to homelessness.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to extend the poll tax to Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The local government arrangements in Northern Ireland are significantly different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom and we have no present plans to replace them.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to provide assurance in respect of the financial position of Nuclear Electric.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have today laid before the House a minute informing the House of an assurance I propose to give to Nuclear Electric in respect of its financial position. Copies of the minute have been placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Pre-school Playgroups
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to set up a fund from which money can be handed over to pre-school playgroups so that they can pay the proposed fees for inspection of playgroups alluded to in the new Children Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There are no plans to set up a fund from which the costs of registration and annual inspection of pre-school playgroups may be met.

  We have received a number of representations on this issue. The Government do not propose to use the powers contained in the Children Act, to charge playgroups high registration or inspection fees. It is proposed that the charge will either be a nominal one or it may be possible for playgroups to be exempt from the fees regulations. This is to be considered in more detail during the process of consultation on new guidance and regulations which will lead to the introduction of the Act.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the health implications for people eating substantial amounts of fish from Lake Trawsfynydd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Annual assessments are made of the maximum dose of radioactivity received by people eating
  565
  fish from Lake Trawsfynydd. The latest information shows that only 7 per cent. of the internationally recommended dose limit of 1 milliSievert was received in 1988 by the most exposed groups.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of Legionnaire's disease have occurred in the Mid Glamorgan health district in the past two years.

  Mr. Grist
  As cases of Legionnaire's disease are not notifiable, the information is not available centrally.

  Park and Ride
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of British Rail concerning park and ride facilities in south Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. This is a matter for British Rail in consultation with the local authorities.

  Skomer, Dyfed
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his decision regarding the designation of Skomer, Dyfed, as a marine nature reserve.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend expects to publish the requisite notice and draft order this month, with a statutory period of not less than 28 days within which representations on the draft order may be made. If at the end of that period there are no objections the order designating the area as a marine nature reserve may be made with or without modifications. If there are objections there is a statutory requirement either to hold a local inquiry or appoint a person to hear the objections before the order, with or without modifications, can be made.

  Roads (Tolls)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the building of roads and the imposition of tolls by private companies.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government wish to encourage greater private sector involvment in the provision of roads. The Green Paper "New Roads by New Means—Bringing in Private Finance" published in May 1989 set out our ideas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be publishing our response to the consultation shortly. Tolling is envisaged as the principal source of revenue for privately financed roads but in general road users will continue to have a choice between tolled privately financed roads and other roads. Where there is a monopoly, such as an estuarial crossing, the Goverment will impose some form of control on the level of the toll to be charged.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to detect cervical cancer at an early stage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  All district health authorities in Wales operate cervical screening services for women aged 20 to 566
  64 based on computerised call and recall, which are designed to detect both pre-cancerous changes and the early stages of cervical cancer. Their efforts have been supported by a total of £1·3 million of recurring Welsh Office funds and, in addition, a further £390,000 has recently been allocated for the purchase of additional equipment. Welsh Office officials are continuing to work with health authority managers and clinicians to ensure maximum effectiveness of the programme.

  Integrated Development Operation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement as to the allocation of funds originally intended for the integrated development operation for Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In 1988 the European Commission allocated £108 million of European regional development fund grant to Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys, and £30·5 million has already been committed to projects in the area. The Commission has not yet taken a decision on the allocation of additional funds from the European social and agricultural guidance funds which will convert the original programme into an integrated development operation.

  Businesses
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) small businesses, (b) medium-sized businesses and (c) large businesses are registered as employers in Wales;

  (2) what is the definition in terms of members employed of (a) a small business, (b) a medium-sized business and (c) a large business registered in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There is no single, accepted definition of small, medium or large businesses in terms of their employment. However, a breakdown of census of employment data units in Wales over a wide range of employment size bands is as follows:

  Numbers of Census of Employment Data Units with employees in Wales: September 1987

  Size of units (Number of employees)

  Number of units1 (thousands)

  1 to 10

  36·2

  11 to 24

  7·7

  25 to 49

  2·9

  50 to 99

  1·4

  100 to 199

  0·8

  200 to 499

  0·4

  500 to 999

  0·2

  1,000 or more

  0·1

  All sizes

  49·7

  1 The figures relate only to data units with employees. Sole proprietors and Her Majesty's Forces are excluded. Also excluded are agriculture and horticulture holdings. Some worksites may comprise several data units because of the way the information is collected eg because of different pay arrangements for weekly and monthly paid staff.

  Source: 1987 Census of Employment.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many small businesses in Wales have taken advantage of the services offered by the business improvement scheme and the enterprise initiative with respect to preparations for the single market in 1992.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A total of 2,362 Welsh companies have applied for assistance under the enterprise initiative
  567
  consultancy schemes, of which 2,208 have benefited from the initial business review. Since June 1989, the business review has automatically included specific questions and guidance on the implications of the single European market.

  The enterprise initiative consultancy schemes are only one part of the Government's efforts to ensure that small businesses are aware of the importance of the single market. My Department's exports branch staff regularly raises such issues in its contacts with business while the single market unit provides guidance on all aspects of the single market. Since January 1989, the Welsh Office has provided speakers at seminars or conferences on 89 occasions, including a series of 14 Welsh Office seminars currently under way.

  In total, some 3,425 grants, totalling £10 million, were offered under the business improvement services scheme, which operated from December 1984 to March 1989. It is not possible to provide information on how many of these were relevant to single market issues.

  Eye Tests
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total number of eye tests carried out in Wales annually from 1985 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of eye tests carried out in Wales which were paid for by the family practitioner committees for each financial year were as follows:

  Number

  1985–86

  600,714

  1986–87

  626,644

  1987–88

  697,280

  1988–89

  733,469

  Most of the sight tests since April 1989 will have been private transactions and statistical information on these is not available centrally. The Government have commissioned a survey of sight tests to cover the period from Christmas 1989 to 31 March 1990. The report on the survey results will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons, some time in early summer.

  Langland Bay

  Limeslade Bay

  Date of Sample 1989

  Total Coliforms per 100 ml

  E. Coli per 100 ml

  Total Coliforms per 100 ml

  E. Coli per 100 ml

  3 May

  1,300

  760

  2,400

  1,000

  9 May

  2,800

  640

  2,500

  2,000

  16 May

  1,100

  400

  700

  200

  22 May

  1,800

  540

  2,300

  800

  31 May

  7,200

  2,200

  15,000

  2,000

  5 June

  200

  110

  2,100

  200

  13 June

  840

  190

  800

  500

  20 June

  5,000

  470

  6,000

  3,000

  27 June

  300

  100

  100

  100

  4 July

  1,400

  580

  2,900

  2,000

  10 July

  200

  100

  10,000

  6,000

  18 July

  700

  680

  1,600

  300

  25 July

  100

  100

  700

  300

  31 July

  600

  100

  500

  100

  8 August

  100

  100

  400

  400

  14 August

  600

  50

  500

  400

  22 August

  400

  100

  1,400

  900

  31 August

  4,000

  2S0

  200

  100

  5 September

  110

  70

  7,000

  540

  11 September

  800

  340

  3,200

  450

  Dental Treatment
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total numbers of individual appointments kept at dentists' surgeries in the Principality annually from 1985 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available.

  Colliery Waste
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take measures to bring together the relevant authorities to prepare for the immediate removal of the Albion colliery waste tip above the village of Cilfynydd in Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. Grist
  The relevant authorities, the Mid Glamorgan county council, as owners of the land, and the Welsh Development Agency. which would provide funding, are already discussing the best course of action for dealing with the remains of the Albion tip.

  Flooding
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take measures to bring together the relevant authorities in Mid Glamorgan to undertake the remedial work needed to ensure that there will be no repeat of the flooding suffered by householders and owners of commercial premises in Pontypridd and Telapod in 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the relevant authorities to resolve, but I understand that they have met to discuss how a solution may be best achieved.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report for (a) Langland bay and (b) Limeslade bay (i) the dates in 1989 when total coliforms and E. Coli samples were taken, (ii) the corresponding total coliforms and E. Coli results for each date and (iii) the EEC Bathing Waters Directive (76/160/EEC) conforming level for both total coliforms and E. Coli.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:
  569

  Langland Bay

  Limeslade Bay

  Date of Sample 1989

  Total Coliforms per 100 ml

  E. Coli per 100 ml

  Total Coliforms per 100 ml

  E. Coli per 100 ml

  19 September

  13,000

  10,000

  2,200

  2.000

  26 September

  2,000

  100

  3,000

  650

  A bathing water conforms with the bacteriological standards of the EC bathing water directive if 95 per cent. of samples taken do not exceed 10,000 total coliforms per 100 ml and 2,000 E.Coli per 100 ml.

  Steel
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list with dates meetings at ministerial or senior official level between the Welsh Office and British Steel since privatisation;

  (2) if he will list with dates the meetings he has had with the chairman of British Steel since privatisation;

  (3) if he, any of his Ministers, or senior officials had discussions with British Steel about its current capital investment programme before that programme was finalised.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There have been no formal discussions between myself, my ministerial colleagues or senior officials at the Welsh Office and the chairman or other senior officials of British Steel since privatisation, although public life in Wales provides frequent opportunities for informal meetings and discussions on a range of issues. British Steel's capital investment programme is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will examine the effectiveness of current legislation relating to dumping, tipping, and land infilling; and if he will consider bringing forward fresh proposals about (i) the unsightly desecration of the countryside, (ii) destruction of wildlife habitats and (iii) the problems of recycling.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The existing legislation in Northern Ireland on waste management is at present under review. I intend to consult district councils later this year with proposals for improved powers to control waste disposal.

  The powers will include measures to minimise any detrimental effects of landfill on the amenity of the countryside and to ensure site restoration after disposal operations cease. Proposals will be put forward for more recycling of waste.

  Fisheries Research
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish(a) the draught and tonnage of the fisheries research vessel Lough Foyle, (b) the type of fish covered by research carried out by the vessel since it came into the possession of the Northern Ireland authorities, (c) the number of full-time crew employed on the vessel, (d) the number of scientists employed on the vessel, (e) the number of other staff
  570
  employed on the vessel, (f) the number of staff employed at the shore establishment and which directly support the vessel, (g) the port at which the vessel is based, (h) the sea area which is covered by research cruises on behalf of the Northern Ireland authorities, (i) the number of days spent at sea in each year since the vessel came into the possession of the Northern Ireland authorities and (j) the costs attributed to the vessel in each such year, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The information is as follows:

  (a) RV Lough Foyle:

  —draught: 4·09 m

  —gross tonnage: 547 tonnes

  (b) Cod, whiting, herring, haddock, plaice, hake, scallops, nephrops.

  (c) 13.

  (d) None employed full-time on the vessel. Two permanent scientific staff and four permanent technical staff have taken part in research cruises. Additional scientific and technical staff are currently being recruited.

  (e) Three administrative officers have participated in research vessel duties. Additional staff are currently being recruited.

  (f) Staff at (d) and (e) above plus part of the time of management at the Fisheries Research Laboratory.

  (g) Belfast.

  (h) North coastal waters, the Irish sea and the Celtic sea.

  (i) Since the maiden cruise of the RV Lough Foyle on 31 October 1988 until 23 February 1990 the vessel has spent 37 and 140 days at sea in 1988–89 and 1989–90 respectively.

  (j) The operational costs of the vessel were £290.000 in 1988–89. The estimated cost in 1989–90 is £504,600.

  Arts
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total expenditure by the Government on the arts in Northern Ireland; and in what specific areas the sums are expended.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Total expenditure for the 1988–89 financial year was £4,660,310.

  Within this total expenditure, the specific areas in which sums were expended are as follows:

  1. Arts Council Expenditure

  £

  Visual arts and film

  342,798

  Drama and dance

  567,137

  Grand Opera House

  515,000

  Music and opera

  275,603

  Ulster Orchestra

  788,000

  Literature

  100,404

  Traditional arts

  58,428

  Education

  101,695

  Community arts

  129,709

  Regional projects

  70,878

  Belfast Festival at Queen's

  80,500

  Further information is published in the Arts Council's 1989 annual report.
  571
  Capital Programme for the Arts

  Under this programme the Department of Education paid the following grants:

  £

  Down Arts Centre

  236,865

  Derry Civic Theatre

  412

  Coleraine, Flowerfield

  18,129

  Newry Arts Centre

  560

  Grand Opera House

  117,918

  Lyric Theatre

  160,000

  Arts Theatre

  53,000

  Old Museum Building

  61,226

  Crescent Arts Centre

  50,000

  Business sponsorship incentive scheme for the Arts Under this scheme the Department of Education made the following awards:

  £

  Bardic Theatre Group

  7,834

  Garvagh Historical Society

  1,000

  NI Association of Youth Clubs

  3,000

  Newtownabbey Drama Festival

  5,000

  Royal Ulster Academy

  500

  Orion String Quartet

  500

  Newry and Mourne Arts Centre

  650

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  8,334

  Opera NI

  9,334

  Tinderbox

  1,000

  Broken Nails Production Co

  2,500

  Belfast Festival at Queen's

  13,700

  Riverside Theatre

  500

  Ulster Museum

  11,386

  ACNI Youth Drama Group

  834

  Ulster Orchestra Society Ltd.

  20,000

  Orchard Gallery/Art Insight

  2,817

  St. George's Singers

  500

  QUB Choir and Orchestra

  667

  Portavogie Harbour
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why access to Portavogie harbour was blocked in the evenings of Friday 16 and Saturday 17 February; how many fishing boats had to anchor outside the harbour entrance and how many were within the harbour; whether Portavogie harbour was occupied to its full capacity that weekend; and how many fishing boats were damaged that weekend.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: One fishing vessel is known to have suffered damage during that weekend when she broke her moorings in the early hours of Monday morning. The mooring basins were occupied substantially in excess of their design capacity. Two vessels had to berth at the eastern breakwater in the outer harbour and approximately 80 vessels were berthed within the mooring basins or alongside the north pier. No fishing vessels had to anchor outside the harbour. During the evenings of Friday 16 and Saturday 17 February, the entrance to Portavogie harbour was not blocked although access to the mooring basins was not possible as the area was fully utilised.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many councillors there are in Northern Ireland; and how many of these are women.
  572
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: Of the 564 councillors currently in office, 64 are women. Two council seats are vacant.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Biological Warfare
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of biological warfare proliferation amongst developing countries.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of biological warfare proliferation amongst developing countries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are concerned about the possible development of biological weapons in several developing countries. We believe this is taking place, despite the 1972 biological weapons convention, which bans the production and possession of biological and toxin weapons, and to which over 100 states are party. It is not, however, our practice to comment on the detailed information available to the Government on such matters.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether talks have been instigated between Her Majesty's Government and the new Somali Government with a view to encouraging the conditions under which Britain might be able to restore aid to Somalia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a useful discussion with the new Somali Foreign Minister, Mr. Ahmed Jama Abdulle, on 23 February during which he encouraged the new Somali Government to persevere in pursuing the goals that they have set themselves of improved human rights observance, achievement of national reconciliation, liberalisation of the constitution, and economic reform.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much famine relief has now been sent to Ethiopia by Her Majesty's Government; and what percentage has arrived in Ethiopia so far.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since mid-1989 we have made bilateral commitments via British NGOs of food aid totalling 44,250 tonnes, at a cost of some £10 million, together with other bilateral emergency aid commitments totalling £4 million. A total of 15,850 tonnes of food have already arrived, a further 14,700 tonnes are due for delivery before the end of April and the balance thereafter. Of non-food commitments our expectation was that about half would be delivered by the end of April but this is subject to the port of Massawa returning to normal functioning.

  Arms Reduction
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to attend the next six-monthly meeting arranged by his
  573
  Department with non-governmental organisations to discuss arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation matters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs sees no reason to change the customary practice whereby these meetings are chaired by the responsible Minister of State.

  Hungary
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his meeting with Hungarian Ministers in Budapest on 27 February to I March, he raised(a) the forthcoming nuclear non-proliferation treaty fourth review conference, (b) energy and environmental protection technological assistance for Hungary and (c) joint ventures between Hungary and the United Kingdom on the environmental clean-up in Hungary.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his visit to Spain on 26 February, he raised the matter of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with the Spanish Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his recent visit to the United Nations in New York, he raised the issue of the forthcoming fourth review conference of the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty with(a) the Secretary-General, (b) officials of the United Nations, (c) the United Kingdom permanent representative or (d) any of his counterparts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This issue was not raised during my right hon. Friend's visit.

  United Nations Disarmament Handbook
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in regard to the distribution in the United Kingdom and dependent territories of the United Nations annual disarmament handbook and periodical disarmament review.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no arrangements for public distribution of these publications.

  Diplomats
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by year since 1979 the names of officials in his Department employed on diplomatic duties who have been(a) suspended from duty or (b) dismissed from the service; what offence they committed; and of those listed, if he will show in his answer, those who were fully reinstated to diplomatic duties.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As a general principle, Government Departments do not disclose to third parties personal information relating to their employees, without the consent of the employee concerned.

  Mr. Andrew Balfour
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 24 January,Official Report, column 686, if he is yet in a position to make a statement on Mr. Andrew Balfour's future in the diplomatic service.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Mr. Balfour has been informed as recently as 23 February that his future is still under consideration and that we will be in touch with him shortly regarding the outcome.

  Daphne Parish
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations his Department has had with the Iraqi authorities over the forthcoming trial of British citizen Daphne Parish charged with spying; and what assistance will be given by his Department for her defence.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made almost 50 representations to the Iraqi authorities on Mrs. Parish's behalf since the arrest last September, and have been in close contact with her family throughout.

  In response the Iraqi authorities have assured us that Mrs. Parish's lawyer will be given proper access to her and her case file before the trial takes place, and that a representative from the embassy will be able to attend the trial. We look to the Iraqi Government to ensure that the trial is a fair one and that Mrs. Parish has the opportunity to present a full defence.

  Czechoslovakia
  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), discussed verification of demilitarisation with the Czech authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I did not.

  Miss Toi Kwanran
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when the Bankok entry clearance officer's statement of refusal of entry concerning Miss Toi Kwanran, FCO Ref. GV100/6949 was forwarded(a) to his Department in London and (b) to the immigration appeals office;

  (2) when the entry clearance officer's explanatory statement of refusal of entry was prepared in Bankok concerning Miss Toi Kwanran, who wishes to join her husband Mr. Neil Houghton of 32 Skelwith drive, Barrow.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members of 14 December 1988, I have referred the questions to the correspondence' unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My hon. Friend will receive a reply from the unit as soon as possible.

  Angola
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the question of the withdrawal of Russian military advisers from Angola with Russian Government representatives in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have discussed the presence of the Soviet military advisers in Angola with the Soviet Government on a number of occasions, most recently on 13 February in Moscow. Withdrawal of the advisers would promote the cause of peace in Angola.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Deaf-blind Children
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional provision is being planned for the training of teachers of deaf-blind children.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The cost of training teachers of deaf-blind children is already provided for within the national priority areas within the LEA training grants scheme and consequently attracts financial support at the higher rate.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what consideration he has given to providing financial assistance to voluntary organisations to provide educational services, including pre-school services, for deaf-blind children;

  (2) what financial support is being offered to local education authorities which wish to set up family centres as recommended in the policy statement, "Educational Provision for Deaf-Blind Children";

  (3) what plans his Department has to offer financial support to local education authorities to enable them to carry out the recommendations made in the policy statement "Educational Provision for Deaf-Blind Children";

  (4) what responses he has received from local education authorities to his Department's policy statement "Educational Provision for Deaf-Blind Children";

  (5) what steps are being taken by his Department to follow up his Department's policy statement "Educational Provision for Deaf-Blind Children" published in March 1989.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for educational provision for deaf-blind children rests with local education authorities. The Department's policy statement on the educational needs of these children is intended to provide a framework within which local education authorities and bodies responsible for non-maintained schools will be able to plan services and provision for deaf-blind children. The Department will be following up this document later in the year, to see what progress has been made by authorities towards providing for the needs of deaf-blind children. It is for individual authorities, in the light of local circumstances, to decide upon the allocation of resources for the provision for deaf-blind children from the total funds available.

  Manchester Local Education Authority
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet representatives of Manchester local education authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend recently visited Manchester LEA. I have myself agreed to meet a delegation from the authority.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the arrangements for assessing pupils' achievements under the national curriculum.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Secretary of State for Wales and I have today broadly endorsed the recommendations of the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) about arrangements for administering assessments in the core subjects of the national curriculum at key stage 1.

  We have in particular accepted the council's advice that it should have responsibility for the national administration of the assessment arrangements; and that the local responsibility should rest generally with local education authorities (LEAs). We believe that this should apply to key stage 2 as well as key stage 1. We do not propose to prescribe in detail how the assessment arrangements should be implemented. In our view, effectiveness will best be secured by arrangements which, whilst conforming to the overall criteria of national policy, take account of LEAs' local circumstances and their existing patterns of organisation for monitoring and evaluating the performance of their schools.

  LEAs and schools will need to make appropriate provision within the resources available to them for the establishment of these assessment arrangements as an integral part of the national curriculum. We have provided specific grant support to help redirect resources to these new priorities in 1990–91. We propose to extend this support in later years, and will be announcing details as soon as possible after Easter, following consultation with the local authorities. As a means of securing effective planning within the framework of national policy, we intend to make it a condition of grant that LEAs underpin their bids with coherent national curriculum assessment implementation plans.

  A draft order under section 4(2)(c) of the Education Reform Act, setting out the proposed statutory requirements, will be published around Easter, and submitted to the House in final form by November 1990 in readiness for the first statutory assessments in summer 1991.

  These arrangements are an important element in ensuring that the national curriculum does raise standards of teaching and learning in our schools.

  I am arranging for copies of SEAC's advice and of my reply to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of National Health Service spending per capita in relation to both capital and revenue spending by district health authorities.
  577
  Mr. Freeman
  Tables showing district based figures of average total revenue and capital expenditure per head of resident population for 1988–89, the latest year available, have been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Laundering
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all appropriate cost headings taken into account by health authorities in determining the true cost of in-house laundering and dry-cleaning facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  We expect health authorities to take account of all relevant expenditure in determining the cost of their in-house laundering and dry cleaning facilities.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what capital expenditure has been incurred by health authorities on the purchase of new laundering and dry-cleaning equipment over the past two years;

  (2) what proportion of the capital expenditure incurred on the purchase of new laundry and dry-cleaning machinery and on the construction of new and renovation of existing laundry facilities over the last two years was for the creation of additional laundry capacity.

  Mr. Freeman
  Capital expenditure incurred by health authorities on the purchasing of laundry and dry cleaning equipment over the last two years is as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  2,350,000

  1988–89

  2,069,000

  It is for health authorities to determine the laundry facilities required to meet their needs.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital expenditure has been incurred on the building of new National Health Service laundries and the renovation of existing laundry facilities over the last two years.

  Mr. Freeman
  No new National Health Service laundries have been built in the last two years. Renovation of existing laundries is a matter for local health authorities.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of uniform business rate to be paid for each district health authority and special health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not held centrally about the contribution in lieu of the uniform business rate to be paid in respect of individual district health authorities. The estimated contributions for London postgraduate special health authorities to be paid in 1990–91 are as follows:

  SHA

  1990–91 Contribution in lieu of the Uniform Business Rate

  (£000s)

  Hospital for Sick Children

  588

  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  283

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  118

  578

  SHA

  1990–91 Contribution in lieu of the Uniform Business Rate

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley

  267

  National Heart and Chest

  232

  Royal Marsden

  241

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  654

  Eastman Dental

  62

  Nuclear Weapons Testing
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any communication over the past three months from his counterpart in the Soviet Union on the subject of the health effects of nuclear weapons testing.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes. In December last, I received a letter from Mr. E. Chazov, Minister of Public Health of the USSR, about nuclear weapons testing. I sent a reply on 19 January.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he requested that any official papers concerning public health effects of atmospheric atomic weapons tests be withheld from publication on 1 January under sections 3(4) and 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No.

  Ugilec
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to initiate a study of the potential adverse health effects on(a) the general public and (b) the production work force on the development of the chemical ugilec.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Commission of the European Communities has recently made a proposal to the Council of Ministers for a directive to prohibit the marketing and use of ugilec 141 and ugilec 121 in the Community. I understand that neither of these substances has been used to a significant extent in this country nor has either been manufactured here. However, the Government will be pressing for a full assessment, at the Community level, of the risks posed by these substances compared with the risks of PCBs which they are intended to replace.

  GP Drug Budgets
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report details of cash limits on general practitioners' drug budgets that he plans to introduce in the next 12 months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to introduce cash limits on GP drug budgets.

  AIDS
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to change the current methods of funding AIDS education and research.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that all working papers, implementation documents, consultative documents, departmental circulars and other publications in regard to the implementation of(a) the National Health Service aspects and (b) the care in the community aspects of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and the associated White Papers shall be numbered sequentially and shall be available in the Vote Office and the Library, together with a comprehensive list of all such publications which is brought up to date from time to time.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All relevant documents are already placed in the Vote Office or Library as appropriate.

  Goodmayes Hospital, Essex
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions his Department has drawn from investigations into the causes of the recent outbreak of food poisoning at the Goodmayes hospital, Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  This is a matter for North East Thames regional health authority; in implementing its food hygiene policy, the region has taken note of the recommendations in the report into the outbreak of food poisoning at Goodmayes hospital.

  Vasectomies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions his Department has drawn from the retrospective study into the possible connection between vasectomy operations and the development of testicular cancer, undertaken at Bangour central hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am advised that this study provides no conclusive evidence of a causal association between vasectomy and testicular cancer.

  Condoms
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will introduce mandatory kite-marking of condoms on sale in Britain, to conform to the British Standard Institution's requirements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to make the new standard mandatory, although the matter is under review while an international standard is being considered.

  The standard for condoms set by the British Standards Institute (BS 3704.1989) was issued on 30 March 1989. It has been approved under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which makes it easier for action to be taken, for example, by trading standards officers, against suppliers of condoms which do not meet the standard.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will define the necessary level of senior professional staff involvement in the management of the hospitals in assessing applications for National Health Service trust status.
  580
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Each application will be judged on its own merits taking into account local circumstances.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the types of organisations he will expect regional health authorities to consult on National Health Service trust applications;

  (2) what procedures regional health authorities will be required to follow in local consultations on National Health Service trust applications.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It will be for regional health authorities to determine locally the detailed arrangements to be made for consultation on NHS trust applications. We would, however, expect them to seek the views of district health authorities, the staff of the unit concerned, general practitioners, community health councils, and the local community.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he will be issuing on the format of National Health Service trust applications.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An outline application document was circulated on 16 August 1989, under EL(89)(MB)148, and has been placed in the Library.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions have been performed by the procedure of killing the unborn baby by an injection of intra-cardiac potassium chloride administered through the wall of the womb.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: There were 15 abortions recorded in England and Wales during 1988 where an injection of intra-cardiac potassium chloride was administered through the wall of the womb.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnancy terminations were made after 24 weeks in the last year.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The latest complete year for which data are available is 1988. In that year, the number of terminations performed after 24 weeks gestation in England and Wales was 22. The provisional figure for the first nine months of 1989 is 17.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of any firms of outside consultants and the terms of their contracts employed by his Department in connection with the National Health Service reforms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 27 February 1990, c. 127–28]: I regret that the following details of consultants used for the launch of "Working for Patients" in 1989 were inadvertently omitted.

  NML Presentations Limited—To assist with the launch of the White Paper.

  NML Presentations Limited—To assist with the launch of the Self Governing Hospitals initiative.

  Kingsley Lord—To assist with the development of an NHS Communications Programme.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving income support 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 information requested is in the table.

  Local office

  Income support live load1

  (a) Poplar

  13,680

  (b) Stepney

  8,901

  (c) Shoreditch

  9,917

  Tower Hamlets is served by four social security offices—the three listed in the table and Hackney local office. The total income support live load1 for these four offices is 47,870.

  1 Source: 100 per cent. of the cases in action on 30 November 1989. These figures include a number of cases where benefit has ceased but other action on the case is continuing.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 18 December 1989,Official Report, column 68, he will list the six accountancy firms and provide details of the payments made to them during 1988 and 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about the five accountancy firms employed by the Department is set out in the table. The firms have been employed on accountancy-orientated tasks which includes work on management information systems.

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 to date £

  Touche Ross

  73,647

  53,112

  Price Waterhouse

  380,000

  236,000

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  34,063

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  19,603

  Ernst Young

  25,404

  85,863

  I regret that the sixth firm referred to in the answer of 18 December at column 68 was a management consultancy firm included in error, which has not been employed on accountancy related work.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to meet pensioners' representatives to discuss pensions, standing charges, concessionary fares and other matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We regularly meet representatives from pensioners' organisations. Most recently my right hon. Friend the Minister of State accompanied the Prime Minister at a meeting with a delegation from the National Pensioners' Convention and discussed a range of issues of concern to them.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his answer on 14 February,Official Report, column 298, he will now provide the information on single payments and social fund expenditure by local offices in machine-readable form to the Library.

  Mr. Scott
  Information in the form requested is not currently available. However, we hope to make available details of social fund expenditure in a machine-readable form early in the new financial year.

  Disability
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many deaf people are in receipt of(a) disability premium and (b) severe disability premium.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information requested is not available. However, in May 1988, the latest date for which information is available, 248,000 income support claimants were receiving the disability premium; and 35,000 the severe disability premium.

  Source: Annual Statistical Inquiry.

  Taxable Incomes
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the total number of families with children whose taxable incomes are below the income tax thresholds; how many are in paid work; how many are receiving income support; and how many are receiving invalidity benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 January 1990]: The number of families with children in 1987, the latest year for which information is available, whose taxable income was below the income tax threshold was about 1.5 million. Of these, 300,000 were in paid work, 100,000 received invalidity benefits and all but about 30,000 received supplementary benefit.

  Notes:

  (1) Paid work is defined as where either the head or the spouse earns more than £4.00 per week.

  (2) Invalidity benefits included are:

  Invalidity pension/allowance

  Non-contributory Invalidity pension

  Statutory sick pay

  Sickness/industrial injuries benefit

  Source: 1987 Family Expenditure Survey.

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what financial assistance he is providing to the British library(a) to help it relocate 300 staff from London to Yorkshire and (b) to purchase new buildings at Boston Spa.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: Relocation of staff from London to Yorkshire is part of the library's requirement for its future operations and is based on best value for money. The costs would normally be found from the library's grant-in-aid. Exceptionally, because the move will bring significant savings in long-term running costs, the Government are prepared in principle to allow the British library to retain up to half the receipts from the sale

  583
  of the building which it currently occupies at Store street in London as a contribution to the costs of constructing a new building at Boston Spa in Yorkshire and the relocation of staff.

  This is subject to a satisfactory proposal for major expenditure commitments being presented by the board for my approval in the normal way.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what he estimates will be the costs of rehousing 300 British library staff from London to Boston Spa in(a) capital, for purchasing or existing buildings and (b) personnel costs in relocation allowances.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: Building costs at Boston Spa are estimated by the British library to be in the range of £2·5 million to £5 million. Final figures will depend on the construction strategy chosen by the library after further investigation. Personnel costs in relocation allowances are estimated to be £1 million.

  Export of Goods
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter from Mr. Neil Chalmers, director of the natural history museum to him, dated 2 February, concerning the Export of Goods (Control Order) 1987.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: I have today laid in the Library of the House a copy of the letter of 2 February to me from Mr. Neil Chalmers, director of the natural history museum.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what action he will take to make it possible for "Lizzie", a 340 million-year-old fossil, to remain in Britain; and if he will urgently bring forward an amendment order to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987 to bring natural objects such as fossils within its ambit.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: Statutory responsibility for export licensing rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Any amendment to Export of Goods (Control) Orders, the latest of which is SI 1989/2376, is therefore a matter for the Secretary of State. However, I have asked the reviewing committee on the export of works of art, which advises me on such matters, to submit recommendations about the export control of natural heritage items, so that I can advise my right hon. Friend on this matter.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The report was prepared for the European Commission which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up and how parents, who wish to do so, can best
  584
  combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues, has encouraged the development of a range of high-quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: My Department has issued a policy statement about sexual harassment to its staff. The statement explains that all sexual harassment is unacceptable and outlines the complaints procedure. One complaint has been reported in the past five years. The individual initially received an oral warning. Her behaviour however continued, and following a written warning she resigned from the Civil Service as further disciplinary proceedings were instigated.

RADE AND INDUSTRY

  Money Management Group
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has about the Money Management group of companies; their shareholders and directors and any current investigations being undertaken into their activities.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that the hon. Member is referring to those companies controlled by Mr. Adrian Ward. Information on Money Management Financial Services Ltd. and Money Management Associates Ltd. is on the companies public files at Companies House. The chief executive advises me that Mrs. Linzi Ward is shown as director of both companies. In each case, the two subscribers to the memoranda of association, Instant Companies Ltd. and Swift Incorporations Ltd., are shown as the only shareholders. I understand that Adrian Ward, trading under the name Money Management Financial Services, holds a licence issued by the Director General of Fair Trading under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. My Department does not hold records of other companies operated by Mr. Ward. MMFS had an interim authorisation which was withdrawn on 26 February. This is a matter for FIMBRA and the SIB.

  As regards the question of investigations, my Department does not comment on the affairs of various companies.

  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 the supervisory bodies to ascertain whether or not an auditor has received more than 15 per cent. of his income from one client.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Under the Act the Secretary of State may recognise a supervisory body only if, among other things, it appears to him that it has adequate arrangements and resources for the effective monitoring and enforcement of compliance with its rules. Such arrangements
  585
  would need to cover any rules that required company auditors to observe the body's guidance on the proportion of income which they may receive from any one client.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward legislation to prevent individuals criticised by his Department's inspectors from acting as auditors for companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  No, but under part II of the Companies Act 1989, the Secretary of State may not recognise a supervisory body unless it appears to him that it has adequate rules and practices designed to ensure that company auditors are fit and proper persons for appointment.

  EC Structural Funds
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of "The Structural Funds of the European Communities", compiled by Graeme de la Mer for the London chamber of commerce.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The publication in question is available for companies to inspect in the world aid section of my Department. The world aid section is a central source of information on commercial opportunities arising from projects financed by the European structural funds in the other member states of the Community.

  Funerals
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the 1989 Office of Fair Trading report entitled "Funerals", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have written to the Secretary of State and me recently about the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) 1989 report on funerals. Most of them had seen a report prepared by the National Association of Funeral Directors (NAFD) detailing its criticisms of the OFT report.

  The OFT report was the result of a monitoring survey of the effectiveness of the NAFD's code of practice. The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to encourage industry associations to adopt codes of practice which promote and safeguard the interests of consumers. In carrying out this duty he acts independently and the report on funerals is therefore a matter for him. I know that he is concerned about the comments made in the NAFD report and he has prepared a comprehensive response. I shall ask him to write to the right hon. Member.

  Electronics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from the electronics industry on the subject of skills shortages.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been no direct representations from the electronics industry on skills shortages during the past two months, but there have, in the past, been approaches with regard to IT skills shortages. In recognising this my Department announced support of up to £440,000 over three years for the recently launched Women into Information Technology (WIT)586
  campaign, where this support is appropriately matched by industry. My Department supports a programme aimed at stimulating the production of distance learning video courses on subjects directly relating to skills in microelectronics, information technology, and their applications. Support is also being given to an industry-further education collaborative programme aimed at producing interactive video courses relating, in the main, to IT skills.

  My Department also has an information technology advisory board (ITAB) with representatives from industry, commerce and academia. One of ITAB's support committees advises specifically on education and training and comments on IT skills issues.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the European Community's plans in respect of animal testing for cosmetics.

  Mr. Forth
  The proposed amendments to the cosmetics directive are designed to improve the level of public safety. The United Kingdom has succeeded in limiting the animal testing required to the essential minimum.

  European Commission
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his counterparts in the European Commission; and what topics were discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I meet European Community Ministers and Commissioners on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has carried out any studies into the effects of Government regulations on productivity improvements in manufacturing industry and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department co-ordinates the Government's deregulation initiative, under which individual Departments review existing regulatory require-ments and scrutinise new proposals in order to minimise any unnecessary constraints these may impose on business performance. In assessing the costs to business of complying with new regulations, Departments have particular regard to the impact on the management resources of small firms.

  Japanese Companies
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Britain's manufactured exports are made by Japanese-owned companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Steel
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings since privatisation there have been between(a) Ministers, and (b) senior officials, and the chief executive or other board members of British Steel.
  587
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the flotation of British Steel my noble Friend the Minister for Trade has met a member of the company's board in connection with an overseas trade mission.

  There have been meetings between officials in various parts of the Department and members of the British Steel board since the flotation on a variety of subjects, but the precise number could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list with dates meetings between himself and the chairman of British Steel since privatisation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Neither I nor my predecessor has formally met the chairman of British Steel since the flotation of the company.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has formulated a policy view about a single plate mill strategy in the steel industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Internal Market Council held on 22 February.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Council reached a satisfactory agreement on the main agenda item: a directive on public procurement in the water, transport, telecommunications and energy sectors. This represents an important step towards the liberalisation of public procurement in the Community. The Council also received a progress report from the Commission on further work in this area.

  The Council also agreed a timetable for future work towards liberalisation of the insurance market in the Community, and discussed amendments to the fourth and seventh company law directives.

  This was a satisfactory first Council under the Irish Presidency, which maintains the momentum on the single market built up during the French Presidency.

  EC-USSR Trade Agreement
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the EC-USSR trade and economic co-operation agreement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Following discussions in the Community, this agreement was signed after the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 December. While welcoming the conclusion of this significant agreement the Government very much regret that they had not allowed enough time for the parliamentary scrutiny process to be completed before they felt bound to give their consent to the signature of this agreement. Unfortunately, since both the Soviets and our EC partners attached so much importance to the early signature of this agreement any attempt to delay it would not have been understood and could have put at risk any commercial benefit that the United Kingdom may stand to gain from the momentum and climate of good will which the agreement has generated.

  I hope that the House will understand, therefore, why the Government agreed, exceptionally, to the signature of the agreement before the scrutiny process had been completed.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in support of the proposal by the Anglo-Greek Consortium to acquire the NESL Southwick shipyard for the purpose of vessel construction after 9 December 1993.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: I have received representations of support for this proposal from the hon. Member, British Shipbuilders, Sunderland metropolitan borough council and A and P Appledore International Limited. The Tyne and Wear development corporation expressed a preference for the use of Southwick rather than North Sands if the Anglo-Greek consortium's proposal were to go ahead.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: All my Department's management training courses, including those courses specific to women, deal with equal opportunities issues.

  Staff are also able to attend a separate training course on equal opportunities, and are guided by my Department's policy statement and programme of action on equality of opportunity for women.

  We do not have the figures available on the proportion of managers at grade six level and above who have received formal training on equal opportunities issues, but all have received guidance.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The DTI is considering arrangements for workplace child care for pre-school age children. We are, for example, giving strong financial support to an OMCS-led child care study considering the feasibility of interdepartmental nurseries in both central and outer London.

  In conjunction with other Government Departments we organise holiday play schemes for five to 12-year-old children in London and Cardiff. Future provision will depend on the outcome of the OMCS-led study, and on other discussions.

  Child care schemes are funded by the users. However, my Department expects to contribute to the start-up costs, and to provide ongoing financial support to running costs where this offers value for money and can be contained within departmental running costs.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: My Department's equal opportunities officer is a grade seven.
  589
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: Our recruitment and promotion policy and procedures are monitored regularly to ensure that they operate equitably for all groups of staff. My Department's equal opportunities officer is involved in that monitoring.

  With women returners in mind, my Department is about to embark on a trial recruitment exercise for clerical staff in the Westminster area. Women will also benefit from a career break scheme including a definite right of return which my Department will be introducing shortly.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 March 1990] The proportions as at 26 February 1990 were:

  Per cent

  G1

  0

  G2

  11

  G3

  4

  G4

  11

  G5

  12

  G6

  8

  G7

  12

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The policy of my Department is to regard any form of sexual harassment as totally unacceptable. Guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff. Five complaints have been reported in the past five years. Of these, one was withdrawn by the complainant before it was investigated, and two were found to have insufficient evidence to support further action. In the other two disciplinary charges were brought and penalties imposed.

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The Department's existing guidance to staff on sexual harassment requires managers to take action where posters or photographs are displayed which seem likely to give offence.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average percentage of pay in profit-related pay schemes in each year; and what is their distribution.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information on actual payments of profit-related pay is not yet available.

  Employer Stock Ownership
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the distribution by(a) size and (b) sector of firms with employer stock ownership plans;

  (2) what is the number of employer stock ownership plans and employee share ownership trusts that have been set up in each of the last five years; how many employees are involved; and how much less corporation tax has been paid as a result.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue will not learn of the establishment of employee share ownership trusts of the kind defined in the Finance Act 1989 until claims for the tax relief provided by that legislation are received. Such claims may be made up to two years after the end of the period of account in which the relevant company contributions are made. None has yet been cleared.

  I regret that information is not available on the extent and character of other arrangements which are also commonly, though imprecisely, known as employee share ownership plans.

  As regards the operation of the 1,603 all-employee share schemes approved by the Inland Revenue up to 5 April 1989, however, some 2 million employees had been given shares or options over shares with an initial market value of some £5 billion by that date. Other information on these schemes is published in "Inland Revenue Statistics 1989".

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution the European Investment Bank made to underwriting the Channel tunnel project.

  Mr. Ryder
  The European Investment Bank approved a loan of £1 billion to the Channel tunnel project in 1987. The European Investment Bank has made no contribution

  Average amounts of investment income and earned income

  (£ per annum)

  Group of income tax payers

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Investment income

  Earned income

  Investment income

  Earned income

  Top 1 per cent.

  21,230

  69,340

  27,100

  75,700

  Top 5 per cent.

  8,570

  40,680

  10,830

  44,540

  Top 10 per cent.

  5,600

  32,300

  7,280

  35,250

  Top 20 per cent.

  3,720

  25,330

  4,860

  27,660

  Top 25 per cent.

  3,240

  23,390

  4,240

  25,540

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  660

  8,030

  840

  8,800

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  580

  6,580

  740

  7,200

  All taxpayers

  1,320

  12,190

  1,720

  13,310

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has for abolishing discriminatory provisions for purposes of taxation.
  592
  to underwriting the loan. Security for the loan will be provided by the syndicate of banks co-ordinating the financing of Eurotunnel in the form of:

  (a) Letters of credit from up to 20 first class commercial banks;

  (b) A pro-rata share with the syndicate banks in the charges on the project revenues and assets.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken to prevent the misappropriation of the premium bond prize winners fund.

  Mr. Ryder
  There is no scope for misappropriating money from the premium bond prize fund. Prize draws are carried out under the strictest security and are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Department for National Savings' own internal auditors. Winning numbers are selected wholly at random by ERNIE and this machine has been so designed that it cannot be programmed to generate any particular number. Tests to verify the randomness of the numbers selected are conducted by the Government Actuary after every prize draw. Prize draws and the verification of prizes against valid bonds are subject to strict testing, checking and security procedures. The bonds and stock office carries out checks to ensure that prizes are paid out only to the registered holders of winning bonds. Prizes are paid from the National Loans Fund, for which audited accounts are presented annually to Parliament. Numbers of all winning prizes are published in a monthly supplement to the London Gazette and copies are available for inspection at main post offices.

  Taxation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of 20 February,Official Report, columns 681–82, on investment income and earned income, if he will give the average sum per taxpayer reflected in the aggregate amounts for each taxpayer group.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates are given in the table. They are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. All estimates are subject to a large degree of uncertainty since some investment income on which tax is deducted at source is not reflected in the survey.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
  593
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product total taxation was in June 1979 and today.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information is not available on a monthly basis. Information for the years 1979 and 1988 (the latest available) was given in the reply to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 8 January 1990,Official Report, column 558.

  Gross National Product
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gross national product per head of population in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that this information is not available. There are no estimates of gross national product which by definition includes income from assets held abroad. There are, however, estimates of gross domestic product which exclude such income. They are produced annually by the Central Statistical Office and the latest figures for these countries were published in Economic Trends of November 1989.

  Income Tax (Wales)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of income tax collected in Wales in each of the five years up to 1988–89.

  Region

  Average new mortgage1

  Weekly payment2

  Increase

  9·8 per cent·interest rate

  14·5 per cent. interest rate

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Northern

  28,400

  40·14

  59·39

  19·25

  Yorks and Humberside

  29,600

  41·84

  61·90

  20·06

  East Midlands

  34,700

  51·26

  75·85

  24·59

  East Anglia

  44,600

  69·92

  103·45

  33·53

  Greater London

  60,900

  100·64

  148·90

  48·26

  South East

  53,200

  86·13

  127·43

  41·30

  South West

  43,700

  68·22

  100·94

  32·72

  West Midlands

  33,800

  49·56

  73·34

  23·78

  North West

  31,300

  44·85

  66·36

  21·51

  Wales

  30,200

  42·78

  63·30

  20·52

  Scotland

  26,500

  37·46

  55·42

  17·96

  Northern Ireland

  24,200

  34·21

  50·61

  16·40

  United Kingdom

  38,300

  58·05

  85·89

  27·84

  1 Third quarter 1989.

  2 Assuming endowment mortgage.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make provision for writing down against tax liabilities the increase in mortgage debts of individuals where incurred because of the rise in interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  I cannot comment on tax matters in advance of my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of local expenditure is raised(a) locally and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to table 21.4.13 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1021).
  594
  Mr. Lilley
  Information for the period requested is available from 1984–85 to 1987–88 and covers residents of Wales. The estimates are in terms of liabilities rather than tax collected and are shown in the table.

  Year

  £ billion

  1984–85

  1·38

  1985–86

  1·39

  1986–87

  1·49

  1987–88

  1·51

  VAT (Wales)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of value added tax collected in Wales in each of the five years up to 1988–89.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information on value added tax paid by businesses registered in Wales could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It would not reflect tax collected by businesses in Wales registered elsewhere in the United Kingdom and would include tax accounted for by businesses registered in Wales which carried on business elsewhere.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 12, what was the average increase in repayments per week on the average mortgage in each region between 1 June 1988 and today.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is as follows.

  Japanese Banks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Japanese banks have been granted a licence by the Bank of England to open a branch in London; and what reciprocal facilities have been granted to United Kingdom banks.

  Mr. Ryder
  The following Japanese banks have been authorised by the Bank of England to open branches in the United Kingdom:

  Bank of Tokyo Ltd

  Bank of Yokohama Ltd

  Chuo Trust and Banking Company Ltd

  Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank Ltd

  Daiwa Bank Ltd

  595

  Fuji Bank Ltd

  Hokkaido Takushoku Bank Ltd

  Industrial Bank of Japan Ltd

  Kyowa Bank Ltd

  Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan Ltd

  Mitsubishi Bank Ltd

  Mitsubishi Trust and Banking Corporation

  Mitsui Bank Ltd

  Mitsui Trust and Banking Company Ltd

  Nippon Credet Bank Ltd

  Saitama Bank Ltd

  Sanwa Bank Ltd

  Sumitomo Bank Ltd

  Sumitomo Trust and Banking Company Ltd

  Taiyo Kobe Bank Ltd

  Tokai Bank Ltd

  Toyo Trust and Banking Company Ltd

  Yasuda Trust and Banking Company Ltd

  In addition the Bank of England has authorised United Kingdom incorporated subsidiaries of a further eight Japanese banks.

  Five United Kingdom banks have branches in Japan. The Government are not aware of any United Kingdom bank currently seeking authorisation for banking activities in Japan.

  Civil Service (Working Patterns)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many reports have been produced since July 1987 on the possibility of changing working patterns in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Ryder
  A report on the potential for developing more flexible working patterns in the Civil Service was produced by the Cabinet Office in September 1987. A copy was placed in the House of Commons Library at the time.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the status of the working patterns reports of September 1987; if he will list the recommendations of that report that were accepted by the Government; and if he will provide a progress report on their implementation.

  Mr. Ryder
  The report on working patterns was an internal research report which looked at the potential for developing more flexible working patterns in the Civil Service. It was not prescriptive. Departments have been encouraged to make use of the ideas and suggestions contained in the report, where these will help to meet the needs of the work and their staff more efficiently and effectively. A number are now taking forward initiatives in these areas.

  National Loans Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which bodies have borrowed from the National Loans Fund over the last year.

  Mr. Lilley
  In the year to February 1990, the National Loans Fund has made most advances to the Public Works Loan Board. Loans have also been made to the following bodies:

  New Town Development Corporations

  Housing Corporations and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Regional Water Authorities (pre-privatisation)

  British Rail

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Crown Suppliers

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  596

  Land Authority for Wales

  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric

  Board Royal Mint

  Scottish Development Agency

  South of Scotland Electricity Board

  Welsh Development Agency

  Hotels and Guest Houses (Valuation)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to allowing valuation officers to assess hoteliers and guest house owners on supported profit figures.

  Mr. Lilley
  Valuation officers are required to determine the rateable value of hotels and guest houses having regard to the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. An estimate has to be made of the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, and profitability is one aspect that can be taken into account in appropriate cases.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average household gross income in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in 1989–90.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average household net income in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England in 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates for 1989–90 are not yet available.

  Banking Services
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the Government's response to the Jack committee report on banking services, law and practice.

  Mr. Ryder
  It was announced last week that a committee has been set up under the chairmanship of Sir George Blunden to oversee the preparation of a code of banking practice by the British Bankers Association (BBA), the Building Societies Association (BSA), and the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS). This was the central recommendation of the review committee's report. I warmly welcome this initiative by the banks and building societies and am particularly pleased by their confirmation that the consumer interests will be fully consulted. The Government's response to the remainder of the recommendations in the review committee's report will be published shortly.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing information available to him on the national insurance contributions or equivalents paid by people in(a) Germany, (b) Italy, (c) France, (d) the United States of America, (e) Holland and (f) the United Kingdom, together with the income bands where appropriate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details concerning national insurance contributions or their equivalents for member states of the European Community are contained in the Department of Social Security's publication, "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in

  597
  the European Communities," the 1989 issue of which is available in the Library. For the USA the 1990 contribution rate for employers is 7·65 per cent. each and the rate for the self-employed is 15·3 per cent. The maximum annual contribution for both employers and employees is $3,924,45 for 1990. For the self-employed it is $7,848·90.

SCOTLAND

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sales of council houses in Scotland by quarter up to and including the last quarter of 1989 since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information on sales to sitting tenants of public sector agencies in Scotland for the periods requested, other than 4th quarter 1989 for which figures are not yet available, is set out in the following table:

  Sales of dwellings to silting tenants of public authorities Scotland, January 1985 to September 1989

  Period

  Local authority

  New towns

  Scottish homes1

  1985

  1st quarter

  3,260

  397

  697

  2nd quarter

  2,785

  385

  398

  3rd quarter

  2,497

  346

  673

  4th quarter

  2,425

  379

  695

  1986

  1st quarter

  2,764

  271

  455

  2nd quarter

  2,090

  263

  478

  3rd quarter

  2,402

  467

  444

  4th quarter

  3,050

  614

  696

  1987

  1st quarter

  3,411

  375

  325

  2nd quarter

  2,421

  563

  600

  3rd quarter

  3,476

  506

  803

  4th quarter

  4,505

  697

  1,287

  1988

  1st quarter

  6,367

  485

  1,050

  2nd quarter

  4,305

  524

  1,300

  3rd quarter

  4,958

  680

  1,508

  4th quarter

  6,998

  883

  2,597

  1989

  1st quarter

  9,046

  456

  1,765

  2nd quarter

  6,389

  1,210

  476

  3rd quarter

  5,717

  1,375

  2,068

  1 Scottish Special Housing Association prior to 2nd quarter 1989.

  Leukaemia
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish the figures for the number of recorded cases of(a) leukaemia and (b) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Dunoon and the surrounding area for each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The registered number of cases in the postcode area (which includes Dunoon for the period from 1968 to 1987 (latest available year) are as follows:598

  Year

  Leukaemia

  Non-Hodgkin 's lymphoma

  1968

  3

  1

  1969

  1

  0

  1970

  0

  3

  1971

  0

  3

  1972

  3

  2

  1973

  0

  3

  1974

  0

  3

  1975

  1

  2

  1976

  3

  1

  1977

  3

  0

  1978

  1

  1

  1979

  0

  1

  1980

  2

  3

  1981

  1

  1

  1982

  2

  3

  1983

  1

  1

  1984

  0

  4

  1985

  2

  1

  1986

  0

  1

  1987

  1

  3

  Training Schemes
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the level of grant given towards the employment training scheme to each Scottish district council in 1988–89, 1989–90 and the projected figures for 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  In employment training a basic training grant at a rate of £18 per trainee week is paid to organisations which have a contract as a training manager for employment training. In addition supplementary grants are payable to training managers to cover additional costs associated with the provision of project or higher cost training and are related to individual needs. The amounts paid to individual training managers either as basic training grants or supplementary grants depend on the number of trainees they can attract and the needs of the individual trainees. Fifteen district councils:

  Angus

  Argyll and Bute

  Caithness Clydesdale

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  Dunfermline

  East Kilbride

  Hamilton

  Kirkcaldy

  Lochabar

  Midlothian

  Moray

  North East Fife

  Ross and Cromarty

  Wigtown

  are at present training managers, but it is not possible to estimate the amount of grant payments to each of these for the years in question.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the causes of high radon gas levels in Kincardine and Deeside district; if he will identify the areas particularly affected; and if he will summarise the assistance and advice available to householders.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Studies by the National Radiological Protection Board have indicated that the accumulation of
  599
  higher than normal concentrations of radon in buildings is influenced by the uranium content and permeability of the underlying rocks and soils, and also by some characteristics of the buildings. Some of these factors combine in the Dee valley to cause higher levels of this naturally occurring gas in a small percentage of houses: such levels have been discovered in the areas of Aboyne, Ballater, Banchory, Braemar and Torphins.

  The Scottish Office has arranged for the National Radiological Protection Board to provide information and a free radon measurement to any concerned householder in the Kincardine and Deeside district. In addition, grants continue to be available, through the present improvement grants system, for any remedial action which may be necessary.

  Steel
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates when, with steel as the principal topic, he has met delegations from steelworkers and other organisations in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  During the last six months, my right hon. and learned Friend met a delegation of Ravenscraig shop stewards on 30 November 1989, a delegation of Scottish Labour Members of Parliament on 7 December 1989, and representatives of Strathclyde regional council and the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 8 January 1990.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list with dates the meetings he has had, or any of his Ministers or senior officials have had, with the chief executive or other board members of British Steel since privatisation.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of British Steel on 26 October 1988. He met the chairman again, with his chief executive, on 26 October 1989.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he, any of his Ministers, or senior officials had discussions with British Steel about its current capital investment programme before that programme was finalised.

  Mr. Lang
  The capital investment programme of British Steel is a matter for the company.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has formulated an official policy on the issue of a single plate mill strategy in the steel industry.

  Mr. Lang
  The issue of a single plate mill strategy is a matter for British Steel. My right hon. and learned Friend has made clear his view that the company should give full and careful consideration to the case for investment in Scotland.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) of 28 February,Official Report, column 272, whether on 26 October 1989, or in the continuing contacts mentioned by him in Official Report, column 271, he raised with the chairman of British Steel its investment programme and future intentions towards Ravenscraig;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan of 28 February, Official Report, column
  600
  271, whether in his discussions with the chairman of British Steel on 26 October 1989 he raised the future of Dalziel works;

  (3) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan of 28 February, Official Report, column 271, whether on 26 October 1989 the chairman of British Steel informed him that a plate mill was stored at Lackenby;

  (4) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan of 28 February, Official Report, column 271, whether on 26 October 1989 he discussed with British Steel's chairman the issue of a single plate mill strategy;

  (5) where his meeting was held with the chairman of British Steel on 26 October 1989; and how long the meeting lasted.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend's meeting with the chairman of British Steel was held in his office in Whitehall; it lasted about an hour. The detailed matters discussed are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan of 28 February,Official Report, column 271, whether the continuing contact with British Steel since last October has been at ministerial or official level.

  Mr. Lang
  Both:

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan of 28 February,Official Report, column 271, what specific issues his Department has raised with British Steel in its continuing contact with that organisation.

  Mr. Lang
  The detailed matters raised by my right hon. and learned Friend's Department with British Steel are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what correspondence he has received from British Steel since his meeting with the chairman of British Steel on 26 October.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received two letters from the chairman of British Steel, the contents of which are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received information from British Steel about(a) its intention to impose a production pause on Ravenscraig over the Christmas and new year holiday period, and (b) the latest production pause to be imposed on Ravenscraig.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend's officials received information from British Steel on 22 November 1989 about the first production pause and on 20 February 1990 about the latest production pause.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many single pensioners are now eligible for payment of the poll tax who had(a) no liability for rates in 1987–88, (b) no liability for rates in 1988–89 and (c) liability for 20 per cent. rates in 1989–90.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: Information on the number of single pensioners in

  601
  Scotland who are now liable for the community charge but who had no liability for rates in 1987–88 or 1988–89 is not available. 'This is because a number of pensioners had no liability to pay domestic rates, not as a result of the housing benefit they received, but, for
  example, because they lived in another person's house and made no payment towards the rates of that property. These pensioners were not entitled to housing benefit and therefore they would not have been identified by the housing benefit management information system. Our latest estimate for 1989–90 is that about 150,000 single pensioners in Scotland are receiving the maximum community charge rebate of 80 per cent.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate(a) the number of bed and breakfast establishments in Scotland, (b) the number which operate commercially for less than 100 nights per annum, (c) the number which have six or fewer beds for commercial let and (d) the number which meet both the criteria set out in categories (b) and (c) above.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: In order to be eligible for the rating exemption announced by my right hon. and learned Friend last week, bed and breakfast establishments must operate for fewer than 100 nights per annum or have six or fewer beds for commercial let.

  The information requested is as follows and is taken from the register of the Scottish Tourist Board compiled for the purposes of taking an entry in the board's "Where to Stay" guides:

  Number

  (a) Number of establishments

  3,846

  (b) Number which operate commercially for less than three months1 per year

  68

  (c) Number which have six or fewer beds

  2,943

  (d) Number which meet criteria at both (b) and (c)

  45

  1 For the purposes of the board guides, establishments are described as open for a given number of months in the year. No information is available on the number of days of opening.

  Local Income Tax
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of preparing the answer of 27 February to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton),Official Report, columns 117–19.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: About £110.

  Police Accommodation
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he is making to the Scottish Police Federation following representations made to him concerning(a) the position of officers in provided accommodation and the introduction of a provided accommodation allowance and (b) updating of the force rent allowance; and when he expects to lay regulations governing the level of allowances.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman and general secretary of the Scottish Police
  602
  Federation on 8 February to hear their representations about the proposed arrangements to replace rent allowance with a new housing allowance.

  In response to the representations of the Scottish Police Federation my right hon. and learned Friend has decided to make provision in the forthcoming regulations for an allowance of £300 a year to officers who were living on 31 March 1989 in accommodation provided by the police authority; this allowance will continue for three years or until the officer leaves provided accommodation, whichever is sooner.

  The regulations will have the effect of permitting rent allowance reviews due in 1989 to proceed, but my right hon. and learned Friend is not persuaded that rent allowances should be updated in forces not due reviews in 1989.

  The regulations are expected to be laid this week.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has submitted to the European Community Commission any detailed proposals for allocating an additional 1 per cent. of milk quota in 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  My proposals were that quota should be allocated to producers who received awards from the Dairy Produce Quotas Tribunal which were scaled back and have not yet been fully implemented; to smaller producers; to producers in remote areas, principally the islands of Scotland and the Scilly Isles; and to new entrants. The Commission raised a number of points in connection with these proposals. With one exception, which concerns my proposal to lend quota to new entrants rather than grant it outright, all points of difficulty have now been satisfactorily resolved and I am awaiting formal Commission agreement. Regulations will then be laid before Parliament and the majority of the quota issued before the end of the current quota year.

  Fishing Boat Grants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received the applications for fishing boats grants Nos. (1) UK/0/114/89, (2) UK/0/122/ 89, (3) UK/0/117/89 and (4) UK/0/113/89; when he expects to submit them to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement about the delay in release of these grant payments.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:

  Project number

  Date application received

  Date of Commission announcement of successful grant awards

  Date claim received

  UK/0/114/89

  5 July 1988

  31 March 1989

  26 June 1989

  UK/0/122/89

  5 July 1988

  31 March 1989

  26 June 1989

  UK/0/117/89

  31 August 1988

  31 March 1989

  26 June 1989

  UK/0/113/89

  30 September 1988

  31 March 1989

  6 June 1989

  The submission of individual claims for payment of grants is not permitted by the European Commission. The member state must be in receipt of a certain number of

  603
  claims (usually 20 per cent. of the aid awarded in any one round) before they can be submitted to the Commission. We are now satisfied that an appropriate number of claims has been received to meet the Commission's requirements and payment can be expected shortly.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate a programme of active surveillance of Britain's cattle stock involving veterinary surgeons making visits to farms, markets and slaughterhouses to identify cattle suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy or the early symptoms of the disease.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is already a programme of active surveillance carried out by veterinarians in the Ministry's state veterinary service, official veterinarians employed by local authorities and those in private practice.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has as to the transmissibility of(a) bovine spongiform encephalopathy and (b) scrapie through the consumption of bone or bone meal from affected animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  Epidemiological evidence shows that the most likely cause of BSE was the feeding to cattle of compound rations containing meat and bone meal which included material derived from sheep infected with scrapie.

  Bovine animals

  Sheep

  Goats

  Swine

  Poultry

  Horses, asses, mules and hinnies

  1980

  Number ('000)

  370

  393

  1

  298

  10,928

  11

  Value (£'000)

  52,437

  11,700

  18

  16,713

  9,989

  48,996

  1981

  Number ('000)

  321

  172

  1

  606

  15,385

  9

  Value (£'000)

  55,884

  6,035

  58

  34,147

  13,312

  66,091

  1982

  Number ('000)

  287

  146

  1

  619

  13,296

  9

  Value (£'000)

  48,810

  5,276

  113

  41,164

  12,002

  71,563

  1983

  Number ('000)

  240

  93

  1

  571

  11,274

  Value (£'000)

  30,599

  3,374

  51

  35,777

  11,105

  106,368

  1984

  Number ('000)

  234

  101

  1

  346

  9,110

  9

  Value (£'000)

  29,158

  3,163

  46

  22,377

  10,225

  125,891

  1985

  Number ('000)

  173

  84

  1

  234

  9,617

  9

  Value (£'000)

  24,171

  2,427

  115

  17,430

  12,358

  205,330

  1986

  Number ('000)

  213

  195

  1

  134

  9,040

  9

  Value (£'000)

  29,591

  6,832

  52

  12,554

  11,789

  238,976

  1987

  Number ('000)

  387

  373

  1

  61

  10,235

  10

  Value (£'000)

  57,826

  13,890

  241

  8,618

  14,046

  231,041

  1988

  Number ('000)

  267

  509

  1

  59

  12,788

  7

  Value (£'000)

  44,438

  24,741

  66

  8,949

  15,301

  154,146

  604
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of incidents where bulls at artificial insemination centres have been found to have contracted bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including the age of the bull, the breed and the artificial insemination centre.

  Mr. Maclean
  BSE has been confirmed in five Friesian bulls at AI centres. Their ages in months were 48, 55, 64, 67 and 71. It is not the practice to identify the premises where cases occur.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many progeny per year are normally expected from bulls at artificial insemination centres.

  Mr. Maclean
  A bull approved for use in artificial insemination might be expected to sire an average of 200 progeny, but it may be considerably more for an exceptional animal.

  Live Animal Stock (Exports)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by year for the last 10 years, and by live animal stock(a) the number and (b) the value of stock exported by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  The number and value of live animal stock exported by the United Kingdom over the last 10 years are listed in the table.
  605

  Bovine animals

  Sheep

  Goats

  Swine

  Poultry

  Horses, asses, mules and hinnies

  1989

  Number ('000)

  330

  589

  1

  115

  13,599

  7

  Value (£'000)

  54,218

  28,033

  41

  16,212

  19,276

  140,431

  1 Less than half units shown.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Equine Meat Trade
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to restrict or ban the trade in horse, pony and donkey meat between the United Kingdom and other countries; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the impact of the European single market on the trade in horse meat after 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  We have no proposals to restrict or ban the trade in horse, pony and donkey meat between the United Kingdom and other countries. Any such action would be contrary to article 34 of the treaty of Rome and thus illegal. The Commission's proposals in respect of the single European market contain no items specifically relating to trade in horse meat but envisage that the trade will continue after 1992.

  The United Kingdom intends to press strongly in the EC negotiations on the welfare of live animals in transit for provisions which discourage the export of live horses and ponies from the United Kingdom for slaughter.

DEFENCE

  NATO (Out of Area)
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of the United Kingdom's armed forces in NATO's out-of-area capabilities.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of the United Kingdom's armed forces in NATO's out-of-area capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO has no out-of-area role. The United Kingdom's armed forces do, however, maintain an out-of-area capability, as described in successive Statements on the Defence Estimates.

  Community Charge
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from serving members of Her Majesty's forces about arrangements for paying the poll tax.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from serving members of Her Majesty's forces about arrangements for paying the poll tax.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from serving members of Her Majesty's forces about arrangements for paying the poll tax.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations about arrangements for the community charge.

  Service Women
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to allow women into the Royal Horse Guards and the Royal Life Guards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under the present deployment guidelines for women in the Army, women may be employed in peace and war in all posts except those where the primary role is direct combat. There are, therefore, no current plans for members of the WRAC to be employed in combat posts in the Household Cavalry, but other posts in these units may be open to them.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to encourage the wider employment of service women.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to encourage the wider employment of service women.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to encourage the wider employment of service women.

  Mr. Tom King
  We have over the last year announced plans to allow women to serve in surface ships of the Royal Navy; to increase the number of women in the Regular Army by up to 6,000 and to enable them to fill all posts other than those that would deploy to forward areas in war; to recruit women as pilots and navigators in the RAF; and to increase the number of women in ground trades in the RAF by 2,000. We are continuing to look for other areas of employment which may be opened up to women.

  Land Holdings
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of his Department's current land holding; and what plans he has to acquire further land.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of his Department's current land holding; and what plans he has to acquire further land.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of his Department's current land holding; and what plans he has to acquire further land.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).

  Northern Ireland
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the operations of those security forces in Northern Ireland responsible to him.

  Mr. Tom King
  The armed forces deployed in Northern Ireland in support of the RUC continue to make a substantial and essential contribution to the defeat of terrorism in the Province.

  Trident
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the cost of the Trident programme is still to be expended; and what is his estimate of the annual running cost of one Trident submarine.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the cost of the Trident programme is still to be expended; and what is his estimate of the annual running cost of one Trident submarine.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the cost of the Trident programme is still to be expended; and what is his estimate of the annual running cost of one Trident submarine.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the cost of the Trident programme is still to be expended; and what is his estimate of the annual running cost of one Trident submarine.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Of the total currently estimated cost, about £6,000 million has yet to be spent, although some £2,000 million of that is already contractually committed. It is too early to say with any precision the likely running costs of the Trident force. They are not, however, expected to be significantly different from those of Polaris.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made on the construction of the first two Vanguard-class Trident submarines.

  Mr. Neubert
  Construction of the first two Vanguard-class submarines at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. is well advanced.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House when announcing the revised Trident cost estimate on 31 January, the Trident programme continues to progress to time and budget towards its in-service date of the mid–1990s.

  United States Defence Secretary
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart; and what was discussed.
  608
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Tom King
  I last met Mr. Cheney during my visit to Washington at the end of January. We discussed a range of current defence issues.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to date of using the armed forces on civilian ambulance duties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Up to 31 January 1990 the Ministry of Defence has identified extra costs in the region of £3·5 million for recovery from the Department of Health, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Welsh Office.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of recent representations have been received from right hon. and hon. Members and others regarding compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  NATO Ministers
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his NATO counterparts; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met his colleagues from the eastern members of NATO (except Iceland) at the independent European programme group meeting at Gleneagles on 21 February. The last meeting of NATO Defence Ministers was the defence planning committee on 28–29 November 1989. Copies of the communiqués issued after both meetings have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his NATO colleagues; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will next meet his NATO colleagues at the defence nuclear planning group in early May when a range of defence issues will be discussed.

  Eastern Europe
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been instituted to assess the military implications of political changes in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.
  609
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We keep the implications of political changes in eastern Europe under constant review. These changes are welcome and we look to the CFE process for reductions in military capabilities to provide enhanced security at the lower levels of forces which NATO has long sought.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recent developments in eastern Europe have caused his Department to reconsider its military commitments to NATO.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the impact of recent events in eastern Europe on British defence commitments.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples).

  European Defence Ministers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the EUCLID meeting of European Defence Ministers on 20 and 21 February.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the EUCLID meeting of European Defence Ministers on 20 and 21 February.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the EUCLID meeting of European Defence Ministers on 20 and 21 February.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the EUCLID meeting of European Defence Ministers on 20 and 21 February.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Defence Ministers of the independent European programme group (IEPG) nations met at Gleneagles on 21 February. Among other matters, they discussed the EUCLID European research and technology programme and expressed satisfaction at the progress made on the outlined plan for the programme and endorsed some of the principles which will govern how the work will he undertaken. They also endorsed the aim of having a memorandum of understanding ready for signature this year, and looked to nations to implement the programme as soon as possible thereafter. They welcomed the valuable relationship developing between the EUCLID governmental organisations and the European defence industries group (EDIG), and stressed its importance for the success of EUCLID.

  A copy of the communiqué issued after the meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

  NATO Policy
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has commissioned any studies into the effects of a change of policy in NATO from flexible response to minimum deterrence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO has always sought to ensure deterrence while maintaining only the essential 610
  minimum levels of nuclear and conventional forces. NATO's flexible response strategy is consistent with that aim and remains the best means of deterring any potential aggression, and thus guaranteeing peace and security.

  Civil Community (Assistance)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department has given to the civil community in the United Kingdom over the past year.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department has given to the civil community in the United Kingdom over the past year.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department has given to the civil community in the United Kingdom over the past year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The services are constantly engaged in providing assistance to the civil community in one form or another. This ranges from comparatively routine projects, such as the attachment of volunteers to social service organisations, through frequent explosive ordnance disposal operations to assistance in cases of accident or natural disaster. Over the last year notable examples of assistance have been the provision of temporary accommodation to house victims of the floods in north Wales and the loan of generators and chain-saws to help provide temporary power and restore lines of communication following the storms last January.

  Equipment Expenditure
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of United Kingdom defence equipment expenditure is spent in the United Kingdom; and how many jobs are supported both directly and indirectly in British industry as a result of that expenditure.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, volume I, paragraph 401, and volume 2, table 6.8.

  Air-to-Surface Missile
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest plans to deploy a new tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest plans to deploy a new tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest plans to deploy a new tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has on the present military doctrine adopted in the Soviet general staff.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Recent statements by senior Soviet officials claim that since 1987, the Soviet Union's
  611
  military doctrine has been strictly defensive. It has been emphasised by the Soviet Chief of the General Staff that the main direction of his department's work is to make the armed forces unequivocally defensive. However, the internal debate in the USSR over the precise formulation of a new doctrine following the current and prospective force reductions in Europe continues.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has on the policy of the Soviet general staff towards the doctrine of defence sufficiency.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has on the policy of the Soviet general staff towards the doctrine of military sufficiency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 2 March,Official Report, column 382.

  Conventional Force Reductions
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has received any representations from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on the CFE talks.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has received any representations from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on the CFE talks.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has received any representations from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on the CFE talks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters, some of which have been inspired by CND, on many aspects of defence policy and arms control negotiations. However, I note that no recent representations have been received from CND on the most encouraging progress at the CFE talks towards a negotiated and verifiable agreement on conventional forces in Europe.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department will make to the implementation of any CFE agreement.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department will make to the implementation of any CFE agreement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department will be participating fully in the implementation, including verification, of a CFE agreement.

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the CFE talks in Vienna.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Very substantial progress has been made in the CFE talks. NATO and the Warsaw pact have reached agreement on ceilings for tanks, helicopters and United States and Soviet stationed manpower in the central region. In the course of the latest round of 612
  negotiations in Vienna, which finished on 22 February, progress was made towards resolving the remaining differences, and NATO tabled detailed proposals on verification.

  BAOR
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review he has undertaken of the future role of the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review he has undertaken of the future role of the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review he has undertaken of the future role of the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review he has undertaken of the future role of the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave today to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright).

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends changing the present balance between conventional and nuclear weapons in the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The balance between conventional and nuclear weapons in British forces Germany is kept under continuous review.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the programme of inspection of submarine nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the programme of inspection of submarine nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The programme of inspections to which the hon. Members refer is continuing.

  RAF Bentwaters
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he envisages for RAF Bentwaters.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he envisages for RAF Bentwaters.

  Mr. Heifer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he envisages for RAF Bentwaters.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he envisages for RAF Bentwaters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Bentwaters is a base for A–10 ground attack aircraft of the USAF. The F-16 aircraft of the USAF 527th "Aggressor" squadron were withdrawn fom the base recently. No decisions have been taken on any further changes to the role of the station.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the future of RAF Greenham Common.
  613
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the future of RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the future of RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the future of RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of letters from right hon. and hon. Members and members of the public have been received.

  Duty Tours
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum and average length of tour of duty for personnel serving on(a) surface and (b) submarine duty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The normal maximum length of continuous sea service for a rating is 30 months (plus or minus three months), with a current average for both the surface and submarine flotillas of 21 months. For officers, the current policy is that sea appointments should not exceed two years or, when in command, 21 months. The current average is about 19 months.

  Tilshead Flooding
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the flooding of land above and below the village of Tilshead in Wiltshire following the construction by the Army of causeways for military vehicles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the recent exceptional rainfall, a large quantity of water accumulated behind a causeway which crosses a valley north-east of Tilshead village. The defence land agent Durrington took immediate steps first to prevent and then to control the overflow of water down the valley by inserting culverts in the causeway. Subsequently the defence land agent and Army engineers took the precautionary step of strengthening the causeway in a complex overnight operation involving many individuals and organisations. Water has not been known to accumulate behind the causeway in the past and on this occasion its existence may well have prevented even worse flooding in Tilshead village.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the National Audit Office report into low flying; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the publication of the National Audit Office report, the accounting officer gave evidence on 21 February to the Public Accounts Committee. The Government now await the findings of the Committee.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what increase or decrease there has been in the frequency of low flying military training aircraft in the Tamar valley; and if he will make a statement.
  614
  Mr. Neubert
  Records are not held of low flying military training activity over specific locations such as the Tamar valley. However, the total amount of low flying in the United Kingdom has been fairly constant in recent years.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline his Department's waste disposal policy.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  When possible waste material is disposed of by sale. However, if the product requires specialised handling a contract is let to reputable companies for disposal at a licensed site.

  Defence Industries
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any proposals to assist in the conversion of defence industries to civil production.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any proposals to assist in the conversion of defence industries to civil production.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement into the progress of his Department's inquiry into its handling of papers relating to Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement into the progress of his Department's inquiry into its handling of papers relating to Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The internal departmental inquiry is under way. The outcome of the inquiry will be reported to the House.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed deployment of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed deployment of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed deployment of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East on 2 March,Official Report, column 382.

  Tornado
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to re-evaluate the role playable by the Tornado.
  615
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The roles of all combat aircraft are kept under constant review.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of recent findings on leukaemia risks arising from radiation exposure with regard to the protection of workers in defence establishments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) on 28 February 1990,Official Report, column 246.

  Volunteer Reserves
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made following the launch of his Department's campaign to recruit and retain members of the volunteer reserves.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current volunteer reserve forces campaign has as its prime aim improving retention in the reserve forces, although we would expect to see some measure of spin-off on recruitment. In addition to a widened public understanding of the importance of the volunteer reserves, there are encouraging signs that the campaign has made employers more aware of how the training offered in the volunteer reserves has relevance to civil employment and the benefits which they may gain thereby as a result of employee membership of the reserve forces. To date, more than 820 major employers, representing over half the United Kingdom work force, have pledged their support and we are confident that there has been a genuine reduction in the pressures which have acted against volunteer employees in the past.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to increase the role of the volunteer reserves.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to increase the role of the volunteer reserves.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The role of the volunteer reserves is kept under continuous review.

  Holy Loch (Cruise Missiles)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent information he has received from the United States Administration about their intentions concerning the possible location of sea-launched cruise missiles at Holy Loch.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No decision has yet been taken on the long-term use of the Holy Loch base. Any such decisions are a matter for discussion between the United Kingdom and United States Governments.

  German Unification
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the defence implications of the unification of Germany.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the defence implications of the unification of Germany.
  616
  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullins).

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings through competition and value for money his Department has achieved over the past year.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings through competition and value for money his Department has achieved over the past year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Department's commercial approach to defence procurement, including the greater emphasis on competition as part of the overall strategy of seeking value for money, has achieved substantial savings. It is, however, difficult to quantify those savings in the absence of information on the price that would have been achieved in other circumstances.

  West German Defence Minister
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the West German Defence Minister; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the West German Defence Minister; and what was discussed.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the West German Defence Minister; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met Dr. Stoltenberg at the meeting of the independent European programme group at Gleneagles on 21 February. They discussed a range of current defence issues.

  Overseas Military Assistance
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military assistance to overseas Governments his Department has provided over the past year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During 1988–89 some 550 service personnel were on loan or seconded to 33 countries and more than 5,000 overseas students attended military training courses in the United Kingdom. This was supplemented by short-term training or advisory visits to over 40 countries to meet specific requirements.

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

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on 1 March,Official Report, column 322.

  Chemical Defence Establishment
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual budget of the Chemical Defence Establishment.
  617
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual budget of the Chemical Defence Establishment.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley).

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider further measures to reduce and transfer the number of civil servants employed in the various buildings of his Department in London.

  Mr. Neubert
  The overall number of MOD civilian employees in London has fallen by more than 11,000 since 1979. We are examining a number of proposals to transfer further work from London and announcements about these will be made in due course.

  Royal Navy (New Ships)
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to order further ships for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Government will maintain the properly balanced maritime forces the Royal Navy needs to carry out its tasks. We have plans for sufficient orders to meet that commitment. For further information I refer my hon. Friend to the position that I described to the House in the Navy debate on 5 February,Official Report, columns 654–58.

  Property Holdings
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses are owned by his Department; and how many are empty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 November 1989, the number of married quarters in the United Kingdom was 76,068, of which 12,423 were vacant. As at 31 December 1989 1,790 civilian houses were owned, of which 223 were vacant.

  RAF Molesworth
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of RAF Molesworth.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of RAF Molesworth.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of RAF Molesworth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) on 11 January at columns 691–92.

  YTS
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many YTS members are currently serving in each of the three services.
  618
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1989 a total of 262 trainees were serving in the armed services YTS, two with the Royal Navy and 260 with the Royal Air Force.

  NATO Secretary General
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Secretary General of NATO; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met Dr. Woerner at the NATO defence planning committee ministerial meeting held on 28–29 November 1989. The communique issued after the meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the Secretary General of NATO; and what matters he intends to raise.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the Secretary General of NATO. Their next scheduled meeting is at the NATO nuclear planning group in early May when a range of defence issues will be discussed.

  Disabled Ex-Service Men
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has had about the level of payments for which his Department is responsible to ex-service men disabled during the course of their duties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A small number of letters have been received which refer to the level of pensions received by ex-service men who have disabilities attributable to their service.

  Challenger Tank
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress to date made by Vickers plc on the Challenger 2 prototype tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 28 November,Official Report, column 575, Vickers Defence Systems has satisfactorily passed the first milestone in the Challenger 2 Mk 2 demonstration phase.

  Armed Forces (Redundancies)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces he expects to be offered early redundancy in 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to make members of the armed forces redundant.

  >United States Forces
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effects on local communities he anticipates will result from the United States proposals regarding United States forces in Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The effect on local communities of changes in the deployment of United States forces in t he United Kingdom is difficult to predict with any confidence, and will certainly vary widely from place to place.

  NATO Maritime Defence
  Mr. lan Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Royal Navy plays in NATO's maritime defence.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Royal Navy plays in NATO's maritime defence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to paragraph 302 of volume I of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989.

  Troops (Berlin)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to reduce the number of British troops stationed in Berlin; what discussions he has had recently with representatives of the other countries(a) France, (b) the United States of America and (c) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, about possible troop reductions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British forces will continue to fulfil our responsibilities for the protection of Berlin in conjunction with those of other Allies and we have no plans at present to change the size of the Berlin garrison, which will remain in place for as long as it is needed. The future requirement for allied forces in Berlin is likely to be discussed in the talks which will begin shortly between the four powers and the two German states on external and security aspects of German unification.

  Horseshoe Barracks, Shoeburyness
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future of the Horseshoe barracks in Shoeburyness.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are currently considering the options for disposing of Horseshoe barracks and reproviding facilities for which there is a continuing operational requirement, against the background of further advice from our planning consultants. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend when this process is complete.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether agreement has been reached with the other participating Governments on the development of the European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).

  Lance Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Defence Ministers of the NATO countries about the stockpiling of follow-on to Lance missiles in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the stockpiling of follow-on to Lance missiles in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government fully support the Alliance's comprehensive concept of May 1989, in which it was agreed that a decision on the deployment of a replacement for the Lance missile system would not be taken until 1992.

  Arms Reduction Verification
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure a sufficient supply of personnel trained in arms reduction verification.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The joint arms control implementation group (JACIG) has recently been established, and will begin forming in July. It will be the United Kingdom's arms control verification organisation. The primary role of the JACIG will be to conduct CFE (conventional forces in Europe) and Stockholm document outgoing inspections. It will additionally provide escorts and interpreters for the incoming Stockholm document, INF (intermediate nuclear forces) and CFE inspections into the United Kingdom.

  Those personnel conducting the verification task will receive equipment recognition training, instruction in the treaty and its several protocols and, where appropriate, formal language training. Practice inspections will also be conducted to ensure that the JACIG staff reach and maintain the necessary national and allied inspection standards.

  Defence Savings
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has given any recent consideration to possible defence savings.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has given any recent consideration to possible defence savings.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has given any recent consideration to possible defence savings.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the right hon. Member and his hon. Friends to the answer given at column 596 on 6 February 1990 to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Baroness Park of Monmouth
Daphne Margaret Sybil Désirée Park, CMG, OBE, having been created Baroness Park of Monmouth, Broadway, in the County of Hereford and Worcester, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Faithfull and the Lord Barnett.

Rover Group
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the European Commission's report on the conditions of sale of the Rover Group.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I do not know when the European Commission will reach a decision on this matter but I hope that it will be within weeks rather than months.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the report of the Commission has been in the hands of the commissioner since January? Do the Government expect to receive and publish the report before 22nd March, the date of the by-election? If the Government have not received nor seen the report, why have they not made their own investigations and Statement? It is now public knowledge that the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote a letter to British Aerospace in which he stated that he could suggest three options to it and was prepared to accept whichever was least likely to be picked up by the European Commission. In other words——
Noble Lords: Speech! Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in other words, is it not right that there is a proven case, first, of bribery and, secondly, of the deceit of both the European Commission and the British Parliament?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, none of those suggestions is true. The noble Lord's question has an air of déját vu about it. I can do no more than invite him to await the European Commission's report.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has there been correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Commission about the matter since we last discussed it in this House? If so, will the Government please publish the correspondence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, not that I am aware.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can we have an assurance from the Minister that when the Government receive the Commission's judgment he will come to this House and make a full and frank Statement about it and that this time it should be the truth?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Statements made to this House and to the other place on this matter and on all others are always truthful. Therefore, the noble Lord's question does not arise.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how well the Rover Group has done under the new ownership?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, rather better than it did under the old ownership.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of his colleagues sitting behind him were unable to contain their mirth when he described his comments as being truthful? If that continues, the Government's credibility will go into decline. Is it not time that they stood up and admitted what has been taking place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that there was any mirth on this side of the House at the suggestion that we were not telling the truth.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the fact is that the truth has been told in respect of this matter as of all others.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, far from there being mirth on this side of the House, there was considerable resentment at the implication, made out of order by the noble Lord opposite, that a previous reply was untruthful?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that was the strong impression that I too received.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the Minister is claiming that the Government always state the truth, is it right that when the Statement on the sale of the Rover Group was first made the Secretary of State and the Government knew that there was to be included in that sale a bribe—we do not yet know the figure—of between £38 million and £68 million? Has he read the letter written by the Secretary of State to the Rover Group which states:
"On deferment of payment of the £150 million consideration, I can offer three possibilities, in ascending order of risk that the deferment will be picked up by the European Commission, in which case they might require repayment of the notional interest saved"?
Was that stated to the House? If not, is it not the case that the House and the Commission were deceived by the Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that this Government do not resort to bribery or deception as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question?
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, was that money which was included in the sale of Rover known to the Secretary of State and to the Government at the time the original Statement was made to this House? If it was not included in the Statement, was that not deceiving the House?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, given my earlier Answer, the noble Lord's question does not arise.

Low Alcohol and Alcohol-Free Beers: Prices
2.53 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the brewing industry to reduce the prices of low alcohol and alcohol-free beers, given that processes which prevent alcohol formation in brewing do not require significant amounts of new capital equipment.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, development of low alcohol and alcohol-free beers has involved the UK brewing industry in significant research, investment and marketing costs. The rapid expansion in the past three years of this market suggests UK consumers are responding positively to industry efforts and government encouragement.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that there is a difference between a fair profit and exploitation? The brewing industry has always justified the high price of those beers, which by definition carry no excise duty, by saying that they are expensive to produce. Will the Minister consult the January edition of Brewing Review, where, in describing the process, the brewers shoot their own fox? Does her department think that the time is now opportune to discuss with colleagues how some pressure may be put on the trade in order to bring down exorbitant prices?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the Brewing Review, I am told that that is not what the article really says. It says that one of the new techniques—partial fermentation—could avoid the need to go through the usual two-stage process of brewing beer and then removing the alcohol using expensive capital equipment. However, that technique needs further work. Using that technique, it is still difficult to guarantee a beer that tastes as
1048
beer should and that keeps a reasonable time. In the long run, however, that may be the way that those beers will develop. That should help to reduce prices.
With regard to the duty, brewers generally pay 19p a pint duty on those beers and then have to recover it later, which involves extra paperwork. In the long term, competition should bring down the price of those drinks. That has already happened with lager where vastly increased demand has reduced the original price lead over other beers.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, when my noble friend considers this point, will she bear in mind the very large number and great cost of alcohol-related crimes among youngsters? Therefore, anything that can be done to encourage them to drink low alcohol beer and thus reduce the amount of resultant crime can only be good.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I entirely agree. The Government have supported the honourable Member for Honiton's Bill, which, if adopted. should be very helpful in that way.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke of the effect on prices in the long term. Does she not agree that the long term is likely to be very long indeed in view of the way in which Her Majesty's Government watered down the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know about watering down. Today I am only here for the beer! There is no evidence that prices have discouraged consumption. This is still a small sector but it is the most rapidly expanding in the UK drinks market. Sales increased by 100 per cent. in 1988 and 60 per cent. in 1989 compared with previous years. That sector now represents about 2 per cent. of total UK sales compared with virtually no sales three years ago.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is there not an inconsistency in that for good social reasons the price of unleaded petrol is cheaper than that of leaded petrol and yet in the case of beer the price of non-alcoholic beer is dearer than the price of alcoholic beer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is comparing like with like. However, market forces are the most effective way of determining and restraining prices.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as distinct from Her Majesty's Government encouraging the brewing industry to reduce the price of low alcohol and alcohol-free beers, will they now make representations to the Brewers' Society to do so?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not here to defend the brewers. I am merely here to repeat facts.

Palestinian School and University Closures
2.57 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the closure of Palestinian schools and universities by the Israeli authorities, in disregard of the fourth Geneva Convention, they will suspend subsidies for cultural co-operation with Israel; and will urge other Community governments to do the same.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): No, my Lords.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the Government take note of two recent resolutions by the European Parliament both of which detail the ill-treatment of Palestinian schoolchildren by the Israeli authorities and recommend the kind of action which I suggest in the Question?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have certainly taken note of the European Parliament's resolutions. Our views on the occupied territories are well known and I do not believe that they need repetition this afternoon. We do not feel that the closure of the universities is in any way justified.
As regards cultural activities, we believe—and I think most people believe—that the British Council is a force for good and, therefore, should be allowed to continue.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it might help to reactivate the peace process in the Middle East if the universities and colleges on the West Bank were reopened? In view of the fact that about 18,000 students are being deprived of further education, will the noble Lord consider asking his right honourable friend if he will make representations to Mr. Shamir and the Israeli Government on that point because I am quite sure that the Israeli Government would wish to see some progress in the Middle East peace talks?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. The closure of the universities does nothing to assist the peace process; in fact, the reverse. We are slightly encouraged to learn of the decision of 25th February to re-open the community colleges, which is at least a step in the right direction.
As regards my right honourable friend, we have made representations on numerous occasions. The most recent was the Strasbourg declaration made by the European Council last December, which covers those points very fully.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, as all the schools were re-opened in July 1989 and as the further education colleges were opened in January of this year, would it not be helpful if those who have influence in the Arab world tried to stop the universities being used as centres of terrorism in order that Israel might re-open the universities as well, as it is eager to do?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am encouraged to hear that. We certainly deplore the continued closure of the universities, but we welcome the other steps taken to open the community colleges and the schools. We do not believe that the closure of the universities is justified by security concerns.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the 22 years during which Israel has been in charge of these territories, the educational provision in the Gaza Strip has increased by 150 per cent. and on the West Bank by 100 per cent., including the provision of five new universities? Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that Israel is only too anxious to re-open the schools and colleges? Will he not agree that the best thing the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, can do is to use his influence with his Arab friends to end their damaging rebellion which is centred on these colleges and universities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only element which prevents the re-opening of the universities is the Right-wing element in the Israeli Government? That government are perfectly right to resist the suggestion from other quarters that there is some other element in the matter. It is entirely within the hands of the Jewish authorities in that country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may well be the case; I do not know. I can only answer for this Government, not the Israeli Government. This Government do not feel that the closure is justified; our views on the occupied territories have been well stated on many occasions.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the suggestion that educational institutions are used for terrorism reflects strangely on the Israeli closure not only of universities but again of schools and kindergartens and on their arrest of people who organise education for children in private homes? Is he aware that that is simply an excuse for another damaging attack on the education and the national traditions of Palestinian children?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can do no more than repeat that in our view closure is not justified by security concerns.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's original comment about the British Council, will he tell the House whether, during the closure of the universities, the schools and the kindergartens, the British Council made any extra effort to provide facilities for those Palestinian children and young people who are now deprived?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot say that the British Council has been operating in the occupied territories. I can say that the EC aid effort in the Strasbourg declaration resolved substantially to increase aid to the occupied territories and declared that the education and health sectors would be given priority.

Sri Lanka: Human Rights
3.3 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of Sri Lanka concerning respect for human rights.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have made clear to the Sri Lanka Government our concerns about human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Our High Commissioner discussed the matter with President Premadasa on 28th February. We welcome the positive measures which the President has taken recently.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that helpful reply and congratulate our representative in Colombo on the stand he has taken on the question of human rights. However, has the Minister's attention been drawn to a recent article in the Financial Times headed:
"Sri Lanks takes its place in the annals of savagery"?
It describes how around 30,000 people were murdered in the past year, most of them within the past six months. That does not reflect an optimistic situation. In view of our special position as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, does the Minister not think that some further steps might be taken to improve the situation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will deplore what happened in Sri Lanka and what the noble Lord has just described. The Sir Lankan Government are in no doubt about British concern for human rights and for what has been happening. We must recognise that the government there have been seeking, not without success, to overcome a ruthless challenge to the survival of the democratic system. However, the measures taken to preserve democracy and the rule of law must not end up by undermining them.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among the many whose human rights are threatened in Sri Lanka is one Viraj Mendis who lived in this country for 14 years and who was deported back to Sri Lanka around 15 months ago? Is he further aware that, far from the situation which is sometimes presented in the press, this man's life has been threatened; he has been in considerable danger and discomfort since returning and is now endeavouring to secure entry into West Germany? Can the Minister assure the House that no obstacle will be placed in the way of his transfer, should it be possible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can assure the House that the fullest consideration was given to the case of Mr. Mendis when he was here. The case was subject to the most stringent review by the independent appellate authorities, the courts and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The view that Mr. Mendis was not a refugee was also shared by the London representative of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
1052
We understand that since his return to Sri Lanka in January last year Mr. Mendis has been living a normal life. If he wishes to go to West Germany, that would not be a matter for us.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the Minister said that as a result of a meeting with the British High Commissioner, the President and the Government of Sri Lanka were taking positive new measures to deal with the situation there. Will the noble Lord say what those measures are?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. I did not mean to imply that those measures were taken as a result of the meeting with our High Commissioner. Among the measures taken was the invitation to the International Committee of the Red Cross to monitor events and report its findings. Its team arrived in October last year. More recently, initiatives have been taken to repeal the regulation under emergency powers allowing the security forces to dispose of bodies without inquest or notification. There has been recognition of the need to disband vigilante groups and a deadline has been set for the surrender of unlicensed arms. Those are moves in the right direction.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the major aid donors to Sri Lanka—that is, Germany, Holland, Canada and Sweden—recently met and asked the Sri Lankan Government for some improvement in this situation, as otherwise it may affect aid contributions from those countries? Are the British Government part of those representations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our aid programme is intended to benefit the poorer sections of the Tamil and Sinhalese communities. We have not yet made any linkage between our aid programme and the human rights situation.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be adjourned at around 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and during the adjournment the six sets of the Representation of the People Regulations will be taken.
Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "embryo", "gamete" and associated expressions]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 7 and insert ("In this Act, except where otherwise stated—

(a) embryo means a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete, and

(b) references to an embryo include an egg in the process of fertilisation").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 63. These amendments derive from the debate in Committee on Clause 1 during which my noble friend Lady Elles proposed an amendment which sought to ensure that the period following the mixing of a sperm and egg until the appearance of a two-cell zygote, a period of some 30 hours, would also be covered by the Bill. In winding up that debate, I set out at some length the thinking behind the definition of an embryo in Clause 1(1) of the Bill and undertook to consider in the light of the debate and of the Committee's decision on Clause 11, whether the position in relation to control in the period before the two-cell zygote stage is reached was satisfactory.
At a later stage of the Committee, after a very full and absorbing discussion, the Committee reached by a substantial majority the view that research on human embryos up to 14 days should be allowed to continue under strict controls.
I think your Lordships will agree that the issues covered by the proposed government amendment are most difficult technical ones. As currently drafted, the Bill regulates activities involving embryos in vitro from the point at which fertilisation is complete, which is taken as being on the appearance of a two-cell zygote, the storage of gametes and the use of donated gametes. Following the Committee's decision on Clause 11, this means that the Bill regulates treatment and storage involving gametes and embryos, and research involving embryos. The Government's subsequent consideration of Clause 1 has led to the conclusion that, while the Bill does cover activities in the 30 hour period which are concerned with "bringing about the creation of an embryo", the position where the egg and sperm are mixed but it is not the intention to create an embryo is not free from doubt. The Government believe any such doubt should be removed.
It might be thought that it would be a relatively simple matter to amend the Bill to ensure that this period is fully covered. However, what is it that exists once the sperm has penetrated the egg but before the appearance of a two-cell zygote? After fertilisation has started strictly speaking you have neither gametes nor an embryo. The term "conceptus" was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Adrian. But this word is used by
1054
different people in different ways. For example, some people, like the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Adrian, would use it to describe an egg in the process of fertilisation but before that process is complete; others would use it to cover the period up to 14 days; still others would say it covered a longer period. Indeed, one medical dictionary I consulted gave the definition of "conceptus" as:
"The total products of conception, not just the embryo or fetus but everything derived from the fertilized egg, including the entire chorionic sac in the early stages of pregnancy and the placenta with fetal membranes in later stages".
That is taken from Churchill's Medical Dictionary 1989.
The Government have therefore concluded that the word "conceptus" is not precise enough to cover the period in question. It should be plain to all that comprehensive controls apply to an egg in the process of fertilisation just as for the period up to 14 days. For that reason we have decided to amend the Bill using those very words rather than introduce any new concepts on which there has been no opportunity for full consultation.
This amendment, as I have said, brings the first 30 hours or so under the controls introduced by the Bill. In Committee I raised the question of how one can tell, once the sperm has penetrated the egg, that this has occurred and that fertilisation is indeed taking place. From its outward appearance an egg in the early stages of fertilisation looks exactly as it did before the sperm entered it. You cannot tell by looking at it whether you have an unfertilised egg or an egg in the process of fertilisation. There are only two periods when this distinction can be made visually: the first is when the sperm is entering the egg and the second is during a short period commencing some 16 hours later when the two pronuclei are present as the final manifestation of the separate chromosome sets from egg and sperm before they merge.
It must be recognised, therefore, that securing proof, for example of an offence by a person who keeps or uses an egg in the process of fertilisation without a licence, will not always be easy. If an inspector visiting an unlicensed laboratory found a mixture of sperm and eggs he could reasonably assume that the process of fertilisation had been initiated or at least that it was likely to follow shortly. However, if an egg already in the process of fertilisation had been separated, by washing, from those sperm which had not penetrated it, he could not tell simply by looking whether or riot the process of fertilisation had commenced. In order to determine the true state of affairs he would either have to watch for the appearance of pronuclei, which he might see for about six hours from a time around 16 hours after the gametes had been mixed, or division into two cells at something like 30 hours after mixing. Alternatively, he would need to fix, stain and section the fertilising egg and examine the resulting specimen carefully.
These examples illustrate the difficulty of dealing with rapidly changing events in these very early stages of development. I can, however, assure the House that every effort will be put into policing the system properly; that those who will be involved in

1055
it will be experts in the techniques; and that they will have powers under Clauses 34 and 35 to collect and preserve evidence and to enter premises.
I have gone into this matter in some detail because I realise it is one in which your Lordships have taken a considerable interest. The Government's aim in introducing these amendments is to put beyond doubt the fact that the Bill, especially in relation to research, does cover activities involving the fertilised egg which occur between the mixing of sperm with eggs and the emergence of the embryo, at the two-cell zygote stage, from the two pronuclei. I therefore now invite the House to support the amendment and at later stages the subsequent amendments to the Bill which flow from it.
The remaining amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 3 and 63, are consequential and necessary to ensure appropriate adjustments. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I warmly thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for introducing this new amendment. It meets the question I raised in Committee and the great concerns of many noble Lords in regard to the 30-hour period between the mixing of the gametes and the two-cell zygote. It was clear that this period of time was not covered by the Bill as it then stood.
In regard to research, my noble and learned friend has made perfectly clear that it can start from when the gametes are mixed; so this particular definition does not affect that part of the Bill. However, concern arose as to the aspect of this form of genetic material. The 30 hours between the beginning of conception and the formation of an embryo would not have been covered when it came to keeping, storing and the other processes covered in the Bill.
I know that many noble Lords spoke on this subject and that it was an aspect supported by many noble Lords who are also scientists. I was grateful for that support during our debates in Committee. I support the amendment of my noble and learned friend and express my gratitude for the full explanation he has given of the implications for the Bill.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I briefly say that having opposed the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in Committee, I am now delighted with the outcome of the exchanges. It shows the wisdom of the intervention by the noble Baroness and also the noble and learned Lord's own wisdom in arriving at a compromise that I hope will satisfy the whole House.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, briefly, I, too, support the noble Baroness and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the amendment which he has brought forward. The amendment has gone a long way towards meeting some of the considerable difficulties we have had in accepting the Bill.
However, I have one or two minor reservations about the roundabout way in which this change is made. We are still told that we do not have an embryo until the two-cell zygote has formed; but we
1056
are not then told that references to an embryo include an egg in the process of fertilisation.
That seems like saying that fruit means apples, and it is also like an obscure EC Bill which says that fruit means apples but that the references to fruit include oranges. Why not simply admit that fruit means apples and oranges? There are three places where we are told that the definition contained in Clause 1(1)(b) does not apply. However, they do not seem to be of any great consequence. Surely it would have been more logical to have one definition of the word embryo and then to deal with these three points in some other way. It may be that the noble and learned Lord will be able to clarify this point for me. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment put forward by my noble and learned friend, who has conducted this debate and most difficult Bill with the utmost skill and sensitivity.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he was going to speak to Amendment No. 3 when speaking to the amendment now under discussion. I have a couple of queries to which the noble and learned Lord may wish to give his attention. I wonder how this amendment will affect the meaning of mother and father referred to on page 14 of the Bill, in Clauses 26 and 27. In Clause 26 there is reference to,
"A woman who has carried a child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs".
In Clause 27 there is reference to the meaning of father. It seems to me that in both these clauses the reference must be to eggs which have been fertilised. The word "eggs" cannot be used for such eggs as regards Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 63, which is also tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, is to insert the words:
"of an egg in the process of fertilisation".
Under this amendment references to eggs do not include those in the process of fertilisation. I feel that some rewriting may be necessary as regards each of these three instances.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, perhaps I may express my gratitude for the general welcome that this amendment and the others have had. As regards the apples and oranges point, what we have done is to enlarge the definition of apple—if I may use that analogy—to include a time before people might strictly say you had an apple but where the apple was in the process of becoming an apple. That is why the amendment has been tabled in this way.
Secondly, concerning the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, Amendment No. 3 is intended to make clear that once we are including eggs in the process of fertilisation with embryos, then that is the place for them; they should not be in more than one place. It would be possible to regard an egg in the process of fertilisation as an egg for the purpose of this Bill. Instead, we have put an egg in the process of fertilisation generally into the category of embryo.
For example, in Clause 26 we say:
"A woman who has carried a child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs".

1057
That refers to sperm and does not include an egg at all. In that respect eggs do not include those in the process of fertilisation because they would be included in the word "embryo" in this passage. In the light of the question I was asked, as far as I can see there is no problem with that definition. We are trying to make these three categories mutually exclusive for the purposes of the rest of the Bill.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will allow me to ask him again if it is not the case—
Noble Lords: Order! Report stage!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from first ("embryo") to ("keeping") in line 12 and insert ("applies only to bringing about the creation of an embryo outside the human body; and in this Act—

(a) references to embryos the creation of which was brought about in vitro include those whose creation was brought about partly in the human body and partly in vitro, and

(b) references to embryos taken from a woman do not include embryos whose creation was brought about in vitro.

(2A) This Act, so far as it governs the keeping or use of an embryo, applies only to").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would ensure that where the Bill governs bringing about the creation of an embryo, if the fertilisation process begins outside the body, the embryo is treated as brought about in vitro. This would ensure that if a fertilising egg or subsequent embryo were then incubated in a woman and afterwards removed by lavage, for example, the embryo would be treated as if it had been brought about in vitro and so the consents required by Schedule 3 would be those for an embryo created in vitro, not for one taken by lavage. The amendment also makes it clear that, where the Bill refers to embryos taken from a woman, that does not include embryos whose creation was brought about in vitro.
This amendment is intended to deal with the possibility (and it is only a possibility so far) that a fertilising egg might be placed in a woman, be allowed to remain there for a time and then be removed. We want to classify that type of embryo, and this amendment does that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("but references below in this Act to gametes or eggs do not include eggs in the process of fertilisation").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Other terms]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
"Page 2, line 5, leave out ("cryopreservation") and insert ("keeping while preserved, whether preserved by cryopreservation or in any other way").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to
1058
Amendment No. 5. These amendments take up the point raised by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who sought to extend the definition of keeping embryos or gametes in Clause 2(2) to cover any other method of preservation. While so far as can be seen at present no methods other than cryo-preservation are used to store gametes and embryos, it seems right that the Bill should foresee a situation where new techniques other than freezing may be developed and to provide for that possibility.
The Government are happy to accept in principle the changes which my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk has suggested and I hope that the House will agree with these amendments. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for this amendment. It meets what I require.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I am glad that the amendment meets precisely his concern.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("preserved") and insert ("kept").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Prohibitions in connection with embryos]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("other species of")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 73 and 82. These four amendments amend references in Clauses 3(2) and 4(1)(c) and paragraphs 1(1)(f) and 3(4) of Schedule 2 to the Bill to mixing human sperm and an egg from an animal and prohibiting placing a human embryo in an animal. The effect of all four amendments is to remove the reference to another species of animal which is in the Bill as drafted.
This was the subject of concern expressed by a number of noble Lords and in particular by my noble friend Lady Elles. This is a drafting improvement which rightly emphasises the particular importance to be attached to the use which may be made of human genetic material to meet the objections which have been raised to referring to humans as a species of animal. While for all I know that may have some degree of biological support, the Government accept that as drafted Clauses 3(2) and 4(1)(c) may be open to misinterpretation. This amendment makes it clear that for this purpose human embryos and gametes are not to be regarded as being on the same footing as animal gametes and embryos. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for having listened so carefully to my objection during the Committee stage that humans were being put on a par with animals.

1059
I hope he will feel that we have been restored to our rightful place in the hierarchy of nature. At the same time I am concerned about Clause 4(1)(c) which will still enable a scientist in pursuance of a licence to mix gametes with the live gametes of an animal. We must look at this point seriously because many people will find it totally unacceptable. However, that point does not arise under the amendment before us. I again take this opportunity to say that I am grateful for the definition given by my noble and learned friend.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The other point that she makes is a separate one which we may have an opportunity to consider later
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits Lord Jakobovits moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("() bringing about the creation of an embryo other than in the course of providing treatment services,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also address myself to Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80. They have a common theme, although we shall of course vote on them separately.
This is the first time that I have been privileged to move an amendment in this House. Perhaps I may be allowed therefore to start on a brief personal note. Some 35 years ago I presented to the University of London my doctoral thesis on a comparative historical study of medical ethics. Since then I have pursued the subject extensively in books and in lectures given in five continents. During those years I have looked for an opportunity to turn theory into practice by helping to shape, as well as studying, lecturing and writing on, medical ethics. This is my chance. The privilege is enhanced by my most distinguished co-sponsors of the amendment, the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of London and of Southwark and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. We probably represent between us a wider spectrum of inter-denominational agreement than has ever previously sponsored a specific amendment. I believe that this broad consensus reflects public opinion in the country at large; I hope that it will likewise be manifested in your Lordships' vote.
I do not subscribe to the slippery slope argument and to the fear that if the law allows two weeks, in practice or in due course experiments will be done beyond the two week limit. Also I do not accept that full human status necessarily starts at conception though I have a profound respect for that view. Nor do I want to see an absolute ban on all embryo experiments. Nevertheless I am profoundly disturbed, as I believe are many inside and outside the House, by the Bill as it stands and the lack of almost any legislative controls on how the embryo is to be produced and then treated up to the first two weeks of its life.
When last we debated this issue in Committee I found myself unable to vote either way. In a highly
1060
polarised Division we were given what seemed to me a Hobson's choice of either all or nothing—either no experiments at all, not even on embryos that could never live beyond a few more days, or else virtually indiscriminate licence within the first two weeks after conception to carry out any experiments whatever the circumstances of the embryo's creation, whatever the capacity of the embryo to become a perfectly normal human being and however urgent or flimsy the purpose of the experiment. This surely cannot be right. I therefore want to suggest a new approach designed to narrow, if not eliminate, the gap between the two sides.
These are my principal concerns. It is surely repugnant to generate human life solely for the purpose of destroying it; in other words, to produce embryos only to destroy them by experiments. However diverse our views on the exact moment when the embryo begins to enjoy full human status, no one can deny that so long as it has a potential for human life its status is no longer that of a mere egg or mere sperm. An embryo which can develop into a human being must surely be entitled to supreme respect and protection. At the same time one must recognise that those who support certain experiments are equally concerned to promote human life by eliminating the afflictions of infertility and of grave genetic defects which often lead to premature death. Are these two concerns really incompatible? I believe that they can easily be reconciled in a simple and yet effective formula.
If we are to allow in vitro fertilisation to go ahead as before there will inevitably be embryos which will not continue developing. These are the so-called spares. In IVF operations there are usually more fertilised eggs than can later be used. Some eggs withdrawn from the mother may not be successfully fertilised, and even with the fertilised eggs some may not be successfully reimplanted in the mother's womb. Yet to insert more than three and risk a high multiple pregnancy could endanger both the mother and her progeny. Therefore there are always likely to be some fertilised eggs which cannot safely be reinserted into the mother. These are bound to die within a few days. I see no reason why strictly defined essential tests should not be carried out on these spares while at the same time respecting the religious and moral susceptibilities of all citizens. Clearly these experiments should themselves be undertaken only for the most urgent medical reasons.
The proposed amendments seek first to ensure that no human embryo should ever be generated solely for the purpose of research. The potential of human life must never be used simply as a means in this way. Secondly, they seek to restrict research to such embryos as had to be produced to bring about a live birth. There is then no reason why an excess embryo should not be used in that way once it becomes impossible for it to develop into a live baby. Thirdly, the research to be done on these so-called spare embryos should be strictly limited to vital therapeutic purposes; namely, the relief of infertility and the prevention of the transmission of grave genetic abnormalities.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 concern the provisions in Schedule 2 listing the kind of research

1061
which will be allowed. Such a list should ensure that human embryos are only used for the most urgent purposes. These amendments would not only exclude eugenic or frivolous motives—such as the preference for boys, for blue-eyed children, or, as has already been suggested, for smaller humans who would reduce the payload of spaceships—but they would also exclude the development of contraceptives from the list of sanctioned experiments.
I am not dealing here with the morality of contraception; I am simply making the point that this is not a sufficiently urgent consideration to justify the use of human embryos. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, reminded us during the course of the previous debate, the majority of the public apparently agrees with that view. A Gallup poll conducted last December revealed that 57 per cent. of those expressing an opinion said that they would not support embryo research for the purpose of developing new methods of contraception, with only 32 per cent. in favour. It would be both ironic and morally offensive to destroy the most basic substance of life for research to prevent the generation of life.
I now return to Amendments Nos. 7 and 78. Those amendments would require that no licence could sanction the creation of an embryo other than in the course of providing treatment services. Admittedly, a few research programmes may have to be curtailed or modified, but I understand that the bulk of the existing and anticipated vital tests could be continued unhindered. Thus Professor Robert Winston told me that he,
"could live with the proposed amendments".
Instead of further dividing the country on an issue of enormous public interest and sensitivity, this approach could to a large extent prevent the tensions of polarisation being further aggravated. Few subjects discussed in your Lordships' House could he of greater gravity or could have more far-reaching consequence than what we are to resolve in this debate. For countless germinating human lives we are to determine quite literally:
"To be, or not to be: that is the question".
That is the question upon which we have to vote.
I am confident that conscience and consensus will be widely identical by both cultivating supreme respect for human life and, at the same time, by giving due weight to relieving the agony of infertile couples and also the devastation of grave hereditary abnormalities. Those paramount objectives need not be in conflict. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. I also wish to endorse the arguments he put forward. Unlike the noble Lord, I voted against the provisions for research while the Bill was in Committee. I did so for precisely the reasons which prevented him from voting at all; narnely, that the provisions were far too extensive. Therefore, I was told that the right thing to do at that stage was to vote against them.
1062
Nevertheless, I very much welcome this amendment which permits research under much more limited conditions such as he spelt out.
In addressing your Lordships I accept the fact that the House has decided to permit research. However, the question is: upon what terms is it to take place? If we ask that question I believe that we must ask yet again: what is it that we are researching on? I shall not go into long arguments about processes, stages, and so on. I believe that there is a simple answer to that question which matches much of what the noble Lord just said.
However, before I develop that argument perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Warnock Committee actually burked this issue. It said:
"Although the questions of when life of personhood begin appear to be questions of fact susceptible of straightforward answers, we hold that the answers to such questions in fact are complex amalgams of factual and moral judgments. Instead of trying to answer these questions directly we have therefore gone straight to the question of how is it right to treat the human embryo".
I believe that we cannot leave the matter there. We cannot adopt a purely pragmatic view towards the question of the use that is made of embryos. The idea has been circulated by some people that respect and dignity are given to something by social claims, by social practice, by the attitude of society, and so on. I believe that to be an extremely dangerous line. If you follow it, you will find yourself justifying some of the most inhuman acts in human history. Because a particular society felt it was right to justify the treatment of a particular group or a particular nation in a particular way, did that thereby confer upon that group or nation a less worthy status in the eyes of mankind? It is indeed a very dangerous argument.
I believe that there is an answer to that question, leaving aside, as I said, all the issues regarding processes, stages, and so on. The fact of the matter is that at fertilisation genetically there comes into being a member of the human species and not of any other species. I am not worried, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was when an amendment was recently put forward on the subject, about being called a member of a species. I am a member of a species; namely, Homo sapiens—the human species. We cannot deny the fact that when fertilisation has taken place a member of the human species comes into being, admittedly with great potential, stages to go through, and so on.
As I see it, given that fact, we must ask: what is the right use to make of the embryo? It is not simply a piece of material or a kind of substance which we can use at our will without thought; it has a particular character. I believe therefore that the use which is made of embryos, and in a sense their creation, is to be judged by what we think is a fitting and proper use for beings of the human species. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord. I believe that it is proper and right to use embryos for the purpose of relieving infertility and for the purpose of trying to cope with genetically transmitted diseases. Those are functions which seem to me to be wholly consonant with the fact that at fertilisation a member of the human species actually comes into being. If I may say so, it is a slight variation on the noble Lord's argument, but they complement each other.

1063
What is at stake today is the question, given what an embryo is: are the uses to which we are now going to put it consonant with its being a member of the human species? For that reason I support the amendment and I ask noble Lords to do likewise.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment and take a text which seems to me to be apposite and immediate. The Warnock Committee accorded a special status to the early human conceptus, as they described it, implying that its use for non-therapeutic research required "strong moral justification". I shall address myself to that strong moral justification which lies behind the comments that have already been made and the various claims that have been asserted.
I believe that it is impossible to find a moral judgment which is perfect and immaculate. In most cases—in fact in all human cases where we have to make a choice—the choice is a comparative one. The virtues that attach to properly conducted research are preferable to the proposition that to interfere with this process, even at an initial stage, is wrong.
Noble Lords will perhaps allow me to take the matter at a so-called simple level. One of the most marvellous parables is that of the Prodigal Son. I suppose that most people would regard it as comparatively simple, and it involves the conduct of an ever-loving God. But embedded within that parable are the very problems which now confront us in this debate. I have considerable sympathy for the elder brother. He had a perfectly reasonable case, it seems to me. I have an even greater sympathy for the fatted calf. Whereas if he had been a chicken he could have made a contribution, as a fatted calf he was committed, finally and utterly, and he had no say in the matter.
It seems to me that there is no issue which is so clear cut as to make any decision simple and directed towards the proposition that some things are wrong and other things are right and that, if one has the eye of faith or comparative intelligence, one can find the difference. I remember on one occasion a long time ago asking the redoubtable Dean Inge whether there was anything that he believed to be utterly wrong. He said, "Yes, mocking the insane". That was a curious reply but one which was satisfactory to my own thinking.
I therefore approach the question feeling that it would be better to conduct research, even where the effectiveness of that research might involve many mistakes, than to continue with a prohibition which rests upon the proposition that research on the embryo, the element that now goes by various descriptive names, is prohibited for those who follow the moral path which they believe to be right.
For some 65 years I have been engaged in social work, however imperfectly I conducted it. I have been more than ever convinced of the almost intolerable suffering which, by intelligent scientific and medical means, could in some cases be obliterated and in most cases be alleviated. I approached this matter not on the basis of some academic proposition about the ultimate value of a
1064
piece of fetal jelly at a certain stage. We have used words like "life" and so forth. Perhaps in passing I may remind myself that the concept of destroying fetal jelly or, shall we say, destroying this particular stage of development, seems to me peculiar in the light of the Christian concept of eternal life. I see no reason to suppose that we have the capacity to destroy. We have very little capacity so to do. The easy use of words like "destruction" seems to me to be inapposite and misleading.
Therefore I make a very simple proposition. I am entirely of the opinion that frivolous interference with the processes of "genetation" and so forth are wrong and should be repudiated by all who have a moral conscience. However I make a plea that, in this imperfect world where it is impossible finally and utterly to practise righteousness, compassion is preferable to accuracy of scientific development and even to the prospects that lie ahead for those who are prepared to make investigations into this field.
That is a simple proposition, one which derives ultimately from an experience that life is much richer than thought and that in one sense compassion compounds and puts the crown upon knowledge. Without it, whatever may be our expertise, we are not fully entitled to think of ourselves as the human beings of which the first creative stages are to be found in the subject of your Lordships' debate this afternoon. I make that plea. I believe that it is genuine and I earnestly hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I fully appreciate the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and his three supporters have proposed the amendment tabled in their names, I was deeply moved by the sincerity with which their case for the amendment was presented. I recognise that their proposals and arguments are likely at first sight to be attractice and persuasive to many of your Lordships. It sounds superficially attractive to agree that research should be conducted only on those embryos which have been created by fertilising the eggs of an individual woman with, let us assume, her husband's sperm but which prove to be surplus to requirements when the time comes to insert some three of them into her uterus in the hope that one, or at the most two, will implant and develop.
I realise that even those of your Lordships who have been persuaded of the untold future benefits to human health and wellbeing which research in this field will make available to suffering mankind may nevertheless feel instinctively opposed to the idea of creating a conceptus or embryo by such a process of fertilisation solely for the purpose of undertaking research without having the objective of using it to benefit an individual patient.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, has quoted Professor Robert Winston's view that, for his own research, he believed he could live with this amendment. I am not sure that that is right. Knowing the details of Professor Winston's research, I believe that it depends entirely on how one proposes to interpret the wording of the amendment,
"in the course of providing treatment services".
Professor Winston has given me permission to say that he sees serious and significant problems for

1065
other equally important medical research, of which there are three examples. The first is crucial research into the mechanism of fertilisation itself; the second is equally crucial research on chromosomal abnormalities which cause monstrous malformations or miscarriage. This research could only be investigated by deliberately fertilising normal eggs from normal donors with no intention of providing a treatment service. Thirdly, the so-called polar body biopsy—that is, removal of chromosomal material from the egg before fertilisation—may eventually prove to be an effective way of avoiding embryo biopsy. However, this could never be justified ethically unless prior validation had been made by deliberately fertilising such biopsied eggs not in the course of providing treatment. These are reasons why Professor Winston would, I am given permission to say, not feel that this amendment was in the interests of mankind as a whole.
To adopt the stance of promoting and accepting the amendment is, I agree, a wholly reasonable and understandable initial emotional response. But it is one which I beg to suggest cannot be justified on closer examination, in my view, whether on moral, theological or scientific grounds. Indeed, if this proposed amendment were to become law, it would, in my opinion, effectively prevent much work now acknowledged by all scientists working in the field to be essential in order to improve the efficacy of in vitro fertilisation and implantation of the conceptus—work concerned with studying the reasons why chromosomal abnormalities may devolop and, above all, some of the current research on pre-implantation diagnosis designed to prevent the birth of children with potentially fatal or severely crippling inherited disease.
Much of that research could not possibly be carried out on spare embryos, which are in any event in short supply and are likely to become even more scarce when every IVF centre has a freezing service so that spares can be stored for a couple's future use. Much of this vital research can only be carried out on donated eggs or oocytes freely given by donor women and fertilised in vitro for research purposes. If that procedure were to be banned, about three-quarters of the exciting and potentially beneficial research programmes which I and others discussed on Second Reading and in Committee on this Bill would no longer be possible, thus frustrating the hopes and lively expectations engendered in the hearts and minds of those many patients and their families in whom serious inherited disease, caused by a gene now localised and characterised, is known to be present.
I could offer your Lordships innumerable examples of the ways in which this amendment, if it became law, would effectively terminate many existing programmes of research which have been approved after the most careful and critical scrutiny by the Interim Licensing Authority. The amendment would also make it illegal to follow through some of that research on pre-implantation diagnosis of inherited disease which is now on the verge of developing methods of disease prevention which were undreamed of only a few short years ago. But perhaps one or two simple examples may suffice.
1066
First, it is of course clear that without the painstaking preparatory work of Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe in the laboratory on the actual technique of in vitro fertilisation, followed by careful examination of the development and viability of the embryo, the ultimate step of inserting it into the mother's uterus could never have been undertaken and Louise Brown and thousands like her throughout the world would never have been born. Even now similar laboratory studies are essential to advance current methods. They simply could not be performed on the small numbers of spare embryos likely to be available. Such research is needed in order to study the metabolism, or chemical behaviour, of the dividing embryo in its early stages and the development of its chomosomes as well as the production of the so-called implantation hormone, which promotes implantation in the uterus. All this work, which is now proceeding apace, will steadily improve the efficacy of in vitro fertilisation. This field, like many others in medical science, is one in which it is a truism to say that today's discovery in basic laboratory science is tomorrow's practical development in patient care.
Secondly, let me turn again to the example I have mentioned before of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and explain why in my view the opinion expressed by the noble Lord, the Chief Rabbi about the prevention of genetic disease and the ways of achieving that would not be possible if his amendment were to be passed. I could equally have chosen many other devastating inherited disorders to support my case, such as cystic fibrosis. A carrier female of the X-linked recessive gene responsible for the progressive and ultimately fatal form of muscular dystrophy, having seen the tragic effects of this crippling disease in one or more of her male relatives, knows that if she has a son he will have a 50:50 chance of developing the disease and that a daughter would have a 50:50 chance of being a carrier.
Many such women have already undergone amniocentesis or chorionic cell biopsy on becoming pregnant and have had one or more abortions of male infants rather than face the prospect of having a dystrophic son. However, as I said in Committee, they now see the exciting prospect of donating eggs or oocytes, of having them fertilised in vitro by their husband's sperm, of allowing the embryo to develop to the blastocyst stage at five or six days and then of having a single cell removed by biopsy from the outer layer from which the placenta and membranes will form. From research that has already been carried out we now know that this procedure is wholly feasible without detriment to the subsequent development of the embryo. However, the next crucial step of extracting the DNA from that single biopsied cell in order to determine whether or not the dystrophic gene is present is the one upon which the carriers pin all their hopes as, once that major leap forward is achieved, as it certainly will be within the next two years, an embryo carrying the gene will be allowed to degenerate naturally while those in which it is not present can be implanted, thus allowing the carrier woman to bear only unaffected sons and non-carrier daughters.
However, the scientific techniques needed to achieve this and comparable major advances in other

1067
diseases as well, bringing into reality the prospect of preventing the birth of children with many potentially fatal conditions, are difficult and complex. Much patient and meticulous laboratory work remains to be done before the unaffected embryos can be implanted with total confidence that this will be successful. Carrier women fully understand this position and are now willingly donating eggs for fertilisation in order to validate the method. They recognise that some time must yet pass, and much laboratory research must still be done, before implantation of the disease free conceptus will be possible. Such crucial and life saving advances could not be achieved if research were to be restricted to spare embryos obtained from women who were not carrying harmful genes but undergoing IVF for other reasons. I believe that to carry out research on fertilised eggs derived from such women without the intention of inserting them into their uteri would not be in the spirit of the amendment as proposed. Those are the principal reasons why I must urge your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Finally, it is with some trepidation that I turn to a number of the moral and perhaps even theological issues raised by the amendment. It may be thought remarkable that a doctor should have the temerity to do so in opposition to the case argued so sincerely by the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi, two right reverend Prelates and a notable Roman Catholic layman. I hope I may temporarily purloin a phrase so often used by many noble and learned Lords. With the greatest possible respect, I find it difficult to see the logic underlying the amendment. If the future statutory licensing authority is to be allowed to grant licences for research as well as for treatment and storage of embryos up to 14 days, as your Lordships agreed by a very large majority in Committee that it should, that can only be because the majority recognised a strong moral justification for such research in view of the irrefutable scientific evidence indicating that it will contribute to the more effective alleviation of infertility and to a progressive decrease in the number of children being born in the future with severe handicap or with the prospect of suffering from progressive and ultimately fatal disease.
As that eminent moral theologian the Reverend Gordon Dunstan has pointed out, once it has been accepted that such purposes and potential benefits are of sufficient moral worth to justify using the early human embryo for research, no moral distinction seems sustainable between those that become spare in the course of treatment of an individual woman and those that are generated specifically for the purpose of a research project which will have the clear objective of ultimately making such treatment more effective for many women in the future so that they may see that their children produced through IVF will be normal. Surely what may be justified for the spare embryo must equally be justified for the others.
One major objective of the Bill now before your Lordships' House is to establish a statutory licensing authority, as I have said. We surely cannot frustrate
1068
the objectives which will allow that authority, and indeed will compel it, to have the duty of granting licences for research only after the most earnest and searching scrutiny of the proposals put before it, and with a series of very proper and clearly defined safeguards which are specified in the Bill.
If enshrined in formal legislation the amendment that we are now considering would be infinitely more restrictive. It would be more damaging to developments in the treatment of the infertile and those at risk from genetic disease than I believe its proponents would wish. Above all it would frustrate the well-founded prospects of many who believed, when in Committee your Lordships voted overwhelmingly in favour of research, that they could begin to see that light of long-awaited hope brightening at the end of the tunnel of despair which they have inhabited for so long. I do not believe that we should or indeed could let them down. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, although I speak from this Dispatch Box I speak for myself and do not seek to speak on behalf of those behind me.
It was a crucially important decision that we took on 8th February, by 230 votes to 80, to proceed with research. It would be quite wrong at this stage to undermine, as I believe we should be undermining, the hopeful prospects for such research which led us to decide to cast our votes as we did.
In our debate on 8th February we faced up to three issues. We placed great importance on the value of human health and happiness in two particular fields. Those concerned research to tackle the massive problems of infertility which affect about 10 per cent. of couples and to reduce the number of handicapped babies who are born. So far as I know, none of those who argued the case presented by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, felt that there was something wrong or immoral about the research and medical intervention which led to the birth by in vitro fertilisation of Louise Brown. That was accepted by all of us as a great moment.
Secondly, we were all concerned that it was vital that there should be a statutory licensing authority. We believed that that authority should be endowed with powers to regulate and to take decisions to ensure that nothing is done in breach of the principles set out in the Bill. Most of us accepted the views presented by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the powers and the composition of the licensing authority. We should do nothing which would undermine those powers of judgment in terms set out in the Bill. Nor should we do anything to undermine the research which I mentioned in my first point.
Surely the most fundamental reason for taking that decision concerned the issue of when life begins. None of us can forget the powerful moral arguments of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York who, sadly, is not able to be with us today. We rejected the concept that from the moment of conception the single cells, most of which will never develop into a child in embryo, should be seen as a

1069
human life to be given the same protection as a human being. We concluded that the moment when an embryo should be given the special protection of childhood does not come until after separation and the emergence of the primitive streak when scientists can determine which human tissues, even though minute and invisible to the naked eye, are likely to develop into a fetus and eventually a child.
I submit that having taken that fundamental decision there is no logic and no moral justification in saying that we shall take the best of all worlds and use only spare embryos and none other. I doubt whether some of those who were much impressed—as anyone would be—by the powerful argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, would have wanted to proceed if they had known that the research work would be impaired. That is the fundamental issue.
If we are dealing with an issue of human life or with a moral problem, then, rather than attempting to find a middle way, I believe that we ought to reject the amendment. The line of reasoning which puts a protective premium on scarcity cannot be recognised as a moral argument. If the ethically acceptable ends of alleviating infertility and avoiding handicap are to be promoted, the sooner research is enabled to achieve a successful outcome the better.
I have also heard that research in institutions across the land would be seriously damaged if the amendment were to be carried. Therefore I hope that, in the spirit in which we took our decision on 8th February, we shall not accept the amendment at present before your Lordships' House.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, it is with regret that I find myself at issue with the right reverend Prelate, my bishop, and my noble friend the Chief Rabbi. Perhaps I may begin with the Book of Job which ends with a voice from out of the whirlwind counselling Job not to try to comprehend the incomprehensible, whose status is affirmed in the Athanasian Creed.
Something that I find incomprehensible about the cosmos in which I live is the strange way in which a myriad potentialities are extinguished on the way to a single actuality. That is good Artistotelianism. An oak tree grows for perhaps 500 years. During those 500 years only one acorn can survive to replace it. My noble friend Lord Zuckerman has traced very descriptively the way in which the multiple millions of oogonia gradually disappear in the course of a woman's fertility cycle until after puberty only some 500 of them turn into ovarian follicles. Most of those are never fertilised and many more are lost in the process of descent into the uterus and in the other accidents that can occur. Therefore I confess myself to be up against one of the incomprehensible mysteries of this life.
What right have we to interfere in those probabilistic processes? Just as my noble friend the Chief Rabbi at one time delivered a lecture on medical ethics, I once delivered a lecture to the Defence College on the ethics of probabilistic processes. I do not know whether I advanced the
1070
subject. However, both of us struggled with a very difficult subject.
Perhaps I may turn from the ethics and morality of what we are discussing to its purely legal aspect. I believe that the Bill as it stands will make good law. I believe that the Bill as proposed for amendment will not make good law. As it stands it will receive the co-operation of the medical profession; as amended it will be a temptation to cheat. How can one tell in the case of a consenting woman whether a research worker gave her a dose of luteinising hormone in order to enable her to become pregnant or in order to use the resulting ova for research? It is an invitation to duplicity and the corruption of the medical research workers who want to do the work. They ought to be safeguarded against corruption.
I believe that that is the determining factor. I could argue with the right reverend Prelate or my noble friend until kingdom come about the morality of stochastic processes without getting any further. But I believe that the Bill as amended will be bad law.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords I voted for research on 8th February, but I should like to raise one question which seems to me to be an important outstanding issue. I have great respect and admiration for the sincerity of the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Ennals, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. However, this is a deep and difficult issue as are so many in the Bill.
If we reject the amendment, how do we regulate the supply of embryos for research? Is it not repugnant? It must be repugnant to all of us that there should be any kind of commercialism or business in the supply of embryos purely for research. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, shakes his head. I do not believe that he would want to have a business or people paid for that. He agrees with my point. However, the matter does not appear to have been tackled in the Bill. I wonder whether, before accepting or rejecting the amendment, we should—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Viscount was kind enough to notice that I shook my head. Surely the Bill already prohibits any profiteering in that sense.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, that is correct, but the Bill does not appear to tackle the problem of how to regulate the supply of embryos to be created solely for research. Would it not perhaps be a good way of proceeding to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether he will give further consideration as to how that matter might be dealt with and as to how, if at all, it is proposed that the regulation of the supply of embryos purely for research should be dealt with? Is it to be left to the licensing authority or is Parliament to play a part in legislating to deal with that problem? It appears an urgent issue. At the extreme, it would be repugnant to have any kind of industry or business arising from the supply of embryos.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, sitting next to him, I feel almost churlish in being unable to accept the gracious invitation issued by my noble friend Lord Jakobovits to join in the consensus. I do not believe that the subject is capable of consensus, and I feel obliged to oppose his amendment.
The starting point for the debate must surely be that the Bill as amended in Committee gives its full approval in principle to research upon the human embryo up to 14 days from the moment of fertilisation. Of course, it must be research for approved purposes. And it must be appropriately controlled and supervised research. However, this is no time to go back on the arguments which so large a majority found compelling in Committee and to reopen the issue of whether it is a moral imperative to treat the embryo from the moment of fertilisation as having the status and attributes of a human person.
Despite that premise as the starting point of the argument, the effect of the amendment, if carried, will be to create a new and grave criminal offence. That point has not yet been observed in the course of the debate. Its effect will operate by way of Clause 36(1)(b) of the Bill which provides:
"A person who … does anything which, by virtue of section 3(3) of this Act, cannot be authorised by a licence,
is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both".
The amendment proposed to Clause 3(3) would make the creation of an embryo specifically for the purpose of research something which, by virtue of that subsection, could not be authorised by a licence. Accordingly, if the amendment is carried into law, any research scientist who creates an embryo specifically for the purpose of furthering his work of research will be guilty of a criminal offence punishable on indictment by a maximum term of 10 years' imprisonment.
I believe that I understand the philosophy which underlies the amendment. The technique of in vitro fertilisation requires, as I understand it, for the purpose of endeavouring to fertilise an infertile lady, the production of a greater number of embryos than will ever have any chance of implantation; hence the spare embryos. It is said to be acceptable that approved research should be carried out on those spare embryos because, when they came into existence, they had the theoretical possibility of implantation and eventually of growing into human persons. On the other hand, if embryos are created specifically for no other purpose than to be the subject of research, they enjoy no theoretical possibility of ever growing into human persons.
Even if I were a moral philospher, which I am not, I should regard that distinction as somewhat esoteric and recondite. However, the question is not the validity of the philosophical concept, but whether it provides an appropriate foundation for the creation of a serious new criminal offence. My understanding is that the proper function of the criminal law is to sustain the fabric of society and the values of society. We need the criminal law to protect our persons, our property and our essential freedoms. We need the criminal law to protect the environment and to
1072
ensure the appropriate working of the innumerable social institutions on which the well-being of society depends. The kind of behaviour against which criminal sanctions are and should be directed is behaviour which attacks, threatens or undermines our essential social values.
Over the greater part of the field of criminal law, social and moral values go hand in hand, but they are not universally coincident. In our complex society today there are many criminal offences, most of which are relatively minor, which attract little or no moral obloquy. There used to be on the statute book many criminal offences which got there originally under the canon law purely because the criminal behaviour was originally regarded as morally abhorrent. However, the whole tendency of modern legislation has been to remove altogether from the criminal calendar those offences which, although they may still be regarded as offensive to the law of God, are not seen as in any way anti-social; it is essentially at anti-social behaviour that our criminal law is and should be directed.
Two admirable examples in recent times which immediately spring to mind are the decriminalisation, if I may use that word, of attempted suicide and of homosexual activity between consenting adult males in private. Many still regard those activities as morally abhorrent, but they are no longer criminal because they are not anti-social activities. What will the man in the street who is not a moral philosopher say when he hears that a scientist, engaged on valuable and approved research, who finds himself frustrated by the lack of a spare embryo, has created an embryo for the purpose of his research? Will he say that that is a heinous, anti-social activity? Will he say that a place should be found in our over-crowded prisons for that wicked scientist to serve out his sentence? I suggest that he will say that the creation of such a criminal offence is quite incongruous and that the creation of incongruous offences does nothing but bring the criminal law into disrepute.
The moral scrupulosity which distinguishes between the propriety of research upon a spare embryo and the iniquity of research upon a specifically created embryo may be an admirable subject for debate in the senior common room, but it has no place at all in the dock at the Old Bailey.
4.30 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I of course appreciate the decision that noble Lords took on Clause 11 on 8th February, when we voted 80 to 234 to allow experimentation on human embryos. I am not, so to speak, kicking against that decision in any way, but the reason I support the amendment tabled in my name, which was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, is that I believe that it is a method of limiting some of the things that I dislike happening.
I am in no way unconscious that we live in a pluralistic society. I am not trying to force narrow ideas on the nation or on your Lordships' House. I believe—some of your Lordships also believe—that human life starts at fertilisation. The right reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who is

1073
unfortunately not here today, explained the matter otherwise. The most famous embryo that came into this world was the Christ child. I believe that when Christ was conceived in the Virgin Mary's womb that took place on day one. It did not have to wait until D plus 14—to use military terms—for that to be the beginning of Christ. I stand by that belief. I believe that human fertilisation starts on day one.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Walton to whom I have talked in the corridors. I am in no way a doctor. I am an ordinary Member of your Lordships' House. In Committee at col. 959 of Hansard of 8th February he talked about the way in which by means of embryo biopsy and amniocentesis researchers can discover whether an embryo has something wrong with it. The idea is that if an embryo is discovered to have one of the genetic diseases, which have been mentioned so often, at the eight or 16-cell stage, one would not implant that embryo. However, my noble friend has not at any stage said that a cure could be found through that method. I see him shaking his head. I am not a doctor, but no cure has been found by embryo biopsy or amniocentesis.
It is wonderful to know whether an embryo is diseased, in which case one would not implant it. We want to discover how to cure those diseases. I believe my noble friend would agree that all the people who have those genetic diseases will be cured, only when a person with the disease can be experimented upon. I have a "gammy right eye" in Yorkshire terms because I have glaucoma. That appeared only five years ago. It was inherited from my noble father. That would never have been cured on 21st July 1915 when I was born. It can be cured only as a result of experimenting on people who have similar problems.
I beseech your Lordships to appreciate—I believe that my noble friend Lord Walton agrees with me—that we are trying to cure those diseases by research on people who have them. We will not cure them by experimenting on embryos.
Professor Robert Winston, who kindly took me around his laboratory at Hammersmith, has agreed that he could operate under the terms of the amendment. I commend it to your Lordships because it will cut down the number of embryos that will be created. I dislike—I repeat it again—the idea of creating embryos in order to experiment on them. That is the negation of the Hippocratic oath which the House should uphold. We should not experiment on one human being to cure other human beings. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I rise once again on this extremely difficult matter to put forward what I believe possibly to be—I hope that I shall be forgiven if I confess it—a simpler point of view than some of those that have been put forward in the course of the debate. I came into the Chamber this afternoon to hear what the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi would say, but I also came with certain views which I have expressed in the past.
I start by saying something which I learnt when I was Lord President of the Council responsible for
1074
scientific research. One cannot tell whether research will be successful. If one knew that it would be successful that would be because one knew the answer in advance and therefore the research would become unnecessary. That is something one must always bear in mind when discussing research in any form. It is something which my noble friend the Duke is rather apt to overlook.
I believe that the second point I wish to make is beyond dispute. All the activities which are under discussion in the Bill are at the moment absolutely legal; that is to say, no offence is committed by any of the activities which are under discussion. We now face a number of problems. The first way of approaching the matter is to do nothing at all, in which case the activities will remain absolutely legal, without any restriction except those imposed by a purely voluntary form of discipline. I believe that that point is beyond dispute.
We discussed this matter fully in Committee. There was of course the road of total prohibition or substantial prohibition. That point was forcefully and sincerely argued. We turned our back on that proposal by an overwhelming majority. We also considered doing nothing. The Government were universally supported in turning their back on that second possibility. We decided that there must be some restraint or discipline, backed by criminal sanctions, imposed by some form of measure more or less along the lines of that which is now proposed.
The road down which we decided to go—again I repeat by an overwhelming majority—was a strict and restrictive form of licensing. We are now faced with a problem, which has been raised by the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi, as to whether we should take out of the licensing system a particular form of activity and put it back into the total prohibition system. That is the question that we shall have to consider. It is the only question that we have to consider. When I heard him speaking—previous doubts notwithstanding—I found myself totally on the side of my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich when he said in effect that the amendment is totally unenforceable. Alternatively, if it turns out not to be unenforceable, I should have found myself of the same opinion as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who expressed a personal opinion from the Front Bench opposite.
I come to that conclusion for this reason. I do not know how one could enforce such a provision effectively. If one could enforce it effectively, I am quite sure that it would not be the wish of this House, if the amendment were passed, to impose a penalty of 10 years' imprisonment on a scientist who conscientiously did what was prohibited. I come therefore to the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was right: if it is enforceable it would be to turn our back on the decision at which we arrived in Committee. I believe that that is the only possible answer to the question.
With respect to those who have said perfectly sincerely that they accept the decision of noble Lords at Committee but that they remain of the same opinion that they held before on the absolute moral question, I accept the sincerity of their view that

1075
what is proposed is a half-way course. That is not necessarily a wise course to take. It appears from what the noble Duke has said, and from what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said, that they are fundamentally of the same opinion as they always were. I take very strongly the view that it would be utterly wrong to prohibit such matters and, in an unverifiable field—and let us face the fact that the field is largely unverifiable, whatever one's view about it may be—to impose criminal sanctions on those who act responsibly and in accordance with their conscience and within the terms of a licensing system as restrictive as this. That is the view that I find myself holding.
Having said that, the conclusion inevitably is that although the amendment is well meant, it is not a right way to behave. The right way forward is to leave it to the licensing authority to control such matters in a responsible way. That is the right way because even those of us who are qualified, which I am not, do not know exactly the turns that research will take. That must depend upon a very careful analysis of fact. The crude bludgeon of a 10 years' maximum sentence of imprisonment is I believe not the way forward. To take it, I believe, would be to go back on the decision that we took at Committee stage.
I come to that conclusion after hearing the speeches, and without having made up my mind quite what was involved in all the issues that were being discussed. I should like to say, since I believe that we all have a duty to say it, that I do not start from an agnostic position religiously. I believe exactly what the noble Duke has said about the incarnation of the founder of my religion and his. I believe, whatever anyone else may think, that we have the same religion although I am excluded from his altars. I believe exactly what he believes to the extent that God can do it any way he likes. I frankly do not know what road he took to create the incarnation of the founder of my religion and that of the noble Duke, or what moment he took to do it. I do not believe that anyone else does either.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I totally agree that we have the same religion and the quicker we get together the better.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we are at one about that anyway.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, the Bill has compelled many lay Members of your Lordships' House to make considerable intellectual efforts to understand points of view with which they disagree. I have done my best to understand the point of view that underlies the amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi. I read several times the essay that he wrote on the status of the embryo in Jewish tradition in a book of essays edited by the Reverend Professor Gordon Dunstan, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already referred. I should like to state two difficulties that I have with the position
1076
stated by the noble and reverend Lord the Chief Rabbi.
Perhaps I may quote some sentences from his essay.
"There is no moral objection in principle to genetic engineering or manipulation provided such deliberate interference with the building blocks of life serves exclusively well tested therapeutic purposes to eliminate physical or mental defects caused by hereditary or genetic disorders. The elimination of any abnormality or defect to ensure the health of the children to be born is morally no different from any other medical or surgical intervention to overcome nature's disabilities. But this licence does not cover acts of intervention in nature lacking therapeutic justification".
My first difficulty is to understand the distinction between treatment and research. We were told by a number of doctors and scientists during Second Reading and during the debate on Clause 11 that therapy which had not been validated by research or was not continuously backed by research was an immoral procedure to practise upon patients. I simply cannot understand how we can have the one without the other.
The other difficulty is this. In the tradition represented by the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi, personality does not arise until birth. It is on that ground that the noble and reverend Lord permits research upon a certain category of embryo. On his premises, to deny that to specially created embryos is to treat them as having a personality not attributed to embryos used for treatment. I find it extremely difficult to follow that argument.
I also find extremely difficult the fact that moralists can spend a lifetime in applying ethics to medicine, as has the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and the Reverend Professor Gordon Dunstan, who was one of the main shapers of modern medical ethics, and that they can come to the opposite conclusion. In plain terms he says that, on moral grounds, he cannot make the distinction made by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits.
I now wish to turn to Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70 to which no one has yet paid attention. They deal with contraception. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, explained that his amendment dealing with contraception, also tabled in the names of the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Southwark, is put forward on the ground that contraception is not sufficiently urgent to justify its pursuit in the course of embryo research. I find that a difficult argument to sustain.
Contraception is of the utmost importance to the whole population which, for the past 100 years, has taken control of its own fertility. It has done so income group by income group as it has reached the point at which unrestricted childbearing can be seen to be lowering an achieved standard of living. We are a society in which the aim of the vast majority of parents is a small family of consciously conceived children—
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but if we wander all over the place and go to another amendment we shall never get anywhere. Can we have some common sense from ordinary people rather than lectures from

1077
professors who, after all, have spoken for a long time and have not advanced the case for the amendment at all?
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I understood that in introduction the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, said that he was speaking to Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70 and I am most concerned that they should not be neglected in the discussion. I am sorry, it was Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80. If the noble Baroness will permit me, I shall continue with my lecture, but it will be exceedingly brief.
Contraceptives were first developed when the vulcanisation of rubber was discovered with the synthesising of quinine. Those available from the mid-1880s to the early 1960s were, to put it bluntly, messy, unreliable in certain ways and a denial of any spontaneity in lovemaking. At the Lambeth conference in 1958 the Church of England, two of whose bishops have put their names to the amendment, welcomed a document entitled The Family in Contemporary Society. It stated, first, that the Church's belief was in two categories of coitus; relational coitus and procreational coitus. It also stated in the document that contraceptives were a requirement upon the Christian conscience as the essential basis of relational coitus.
We now have a situation in which, for a variety of reasons, many sectors of the population are returning to the contraceptives used from the 1880s to the end of the 1950s. I believe that any research which produces methods of contraception which are reliable and which enable civilised sexual relations to be established between husbands and wives—between whom the vast majority of acts of sexual intercourse occur, despite what we read—is a great good to be welcomed. It would be a social tragedy if the possibility of new types of contraception were prevented. They would inhibit fertilisation and on that ground cause little in the way of theological difficulties. I hope that noble Lords will reject the amendments.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wish to intervene at this stage because the House is getting a little out of order without meaning to. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, referred to Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. However, those grouped together, and subject to any vote, are Amendments Nos. 7 and 78. Therefore, perhaps your Lordships will deal with only those amendments and discussion on later amendments can take place when they come before the House.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall vote for the amendment for exactly the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I shall do so because it will tend to reduce the number of fetuses allowed to die under experimentation and will entirely dispose of the extra obnoxious category of those generated solely for the purpose of being extinguished.
If, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the penalty for infringing the provisions of the Bill as amended will be excessive, by all means
1078
let us consider reducing the penalty in respect of infractions of the clause.
I shall vote for anything which reduces the number of early embryos destroyed for the following very simple reason. I believe that as a layman in a sea of science you have to seize hold of the things which seem to you most comprehensible and obvious. To me it is this fact that, from the time of conception to the time of death, the genetic makeup of a human individual is unchanged. It is at the moment of conception what it will be at 14 days, at birth, at maturity and at death. To me that is a sufficient definition of human individuality. That seems to me something which can be easily understood and when understood, is hard to vote against.
I believe that the House will bear in mind, and I am sure that most noble Lords have read, the Gunning Report, which is a most useful combination of simple charts drawn up for the Government by Dr. Gunning of what the laws of other democracies say about this. I shall not try to convey that because it is complicated and there is a lot of small print. However, many countries which have already legislated on in vitro fertilisation and embryo research have adopted precisely what we have called the Chief Rabbi/Bishop of London position; that is, only research on spare embryos. Some of those countries which have not yet legislated are facing Bills which contain that provision.
5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I should like to say a few words as one of those whose name is attached to this amendment but from a slightly different position. I am not what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, described as an absolutist. If your Lordships look at the voting lists in Committee, I voted on the other side. Therefore, your Lordships may wonder why I am speaking for this amendment at all. The reason is that I believe that some of the arguments which needed to be heard and which are clearly emerging in this debate did not emerge earlier and I believe that they are very important.
I should like to rehearse one or two of them and to draw together some of the points made already by your Lordships from varying points of view. It is extremely painful—and I mean this very personally—to stand here and seem in any way to be opposing research. I found that a very difficult decision in Committee and I still find it a very difficult decision. However, I wish to make the obvious but necessary point that I do not believe that any Member of this House would take the view that all kinds of research are justified in any circumstances. Therefore, we all draw lines. The question is, on what basis do we draw lines? That is the reason why, for example, the Germans have voted against research. They have bitter experience of lines not being drawn in the right places. We allow and use a great deal of animal research because we feel that it would not be appropriate to use human beings. Therefore, I do not believe that we can altogether escape the question of the moral status of the conceptus.

1079
Of course, we get into difficulties here. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York made a very powerful speech arguing that the moral status of the conceptus is different to that of the embryo at a later stage, and so on. He argued very strongly in favour of the progressive view. What needs to be said is that in the end you have to say, even of the conceptus, that it is a human conceptus. It is not some other kind of conceptus. On that we surely all agree, and that immediately introduces a distinction which has some moral significance.
I must part company very reluctantly with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, with whom I do not wish to part company more than I can help. However, he says that there is no moral distinction between those embryos or conceptuses which are spare and those specifically generated for research. To my mind the difficulty is that there is a moral distinction to be made which concerns the intention for which those embryos or conceptuses were created. That is a very fine distinction and I am aware that that has to be balanced against the whole question of the moral worth of the research being carried out. However, that fact must be faced and wrestled with. I do not believe that we should let ourselves off the hook too easily by saying that it does not really matter or that it is insignificant or that it is of no account in the first 14 days. That cannot be true and many noble Lords have made that point very clearly.
On the question of the research which will not be done, all I plead is that one has heard that kind of argument many times before. Sometimes there is a necessary slowness in approaching and developing new ways of doing things about which all of us are very uncertain in terms of the moral significance and in other ways. I believe that many of us still feel unconvinced as yet that the kind of research being done and which needs to be done could not in large measure still be done with the spare conceptuses and embryos which are available.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the legal question. I listened with particular attention to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. I take the point—and I think that it will make it very difficult for me to vote easily on this amendment—that the legal difficulties of making this an offence in law are considerable. However, I wonder why the problem is so considerable on this and yet not considered considerable when the line is drawn at 14 days. That must be fairly difficult. I would be interested if anybody could help me on that problem. I put my name to this amendment because I believe passionately that if we could come together more closely on this and recognise the enormous force of the difficulties which many people feel about this, that would help a great deal.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I should like to make two quick points. First, to take up a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, about the role of the law, I believe that he will agree with me that one of the great roles of the law is to protect the weak. I can think of no part of our human brotherhood which is weaker and in
1080
more danger than the unborn child from fertilisation to birth.
My other point is that I see the moral position quite clearly. Perhaps I may put it in rather stark terms. It would certainly be unthinkable in this country to grow a person through birth to adult life solely for the purpose of carrying out research on him. The principle is surely the same and the difference is one of degree when one is dealing with an embryo.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am reluctant to begin speaking unless your Lordships feel that we have spoken for long enough on this subject, since the rules are that no noble Lord is supposed to speak after the Minister other than the Mover of the amendment. However, I get the impression that it is thought that the time has come for me to summarise the position.
First, as I understand it, Amendments Nos. 7 and 78 are directed to one question. Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 are directed to a different question. There is no reason why the same answer should be returned to both. While I well understand the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi mentioning them together, as regards voting, a vote on Amendment No. 7 does not in any way preclude one from voting in a different way on Amendment No. 79.
Perhaps I may put it in this way. When we considered these matters in Committee we were considering whether any class of embryo should be researched upon for any purpose. The amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk at that stage was to the effect that no class of embryo should be subjected to research for any purpose whatever. When I came to make my observations in that debate I sought to point out that, if it were agreed to, that had the effect of cutting out the position which the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi has taken today.
The question now is whether a specific class of embryo should be subject to research. The noble Lord the Chief Rabbi by this amendment is seeking to achieve that the only class of embryo to which research should be capable of being applied is that class of embryo which is created for the purpose of providing treatment to a particular person. Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 are directed to a different question, namely, to what purpose any class of embryo that is properly the subject of research may be directed.
Those amendments seek to cut out from the purposes to which research may be devoted contraception and the development of processes of contraception. Therefore, while I perfectly understand the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi mentioning them together, when we vote on Amendment No. 7 we shall be voting only on the question of to what class of embryo research should be permitted to be directed. As I said, the amendment seeks to prohibit research on any class of embryo except an embryo created as part of the provision of treatment for a particular person.
I shall not attempt to repeat the general arguments for and against embryo research which your Lordships considered on the principle of embryo research during Committee stage. It seems to me

1081
that the amendments of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi, as explained by him, accept the decision of the House on that matter but seek to move the debate on and define more closely what the proposers see as the proper framework within which embryo research should be conducted; in other words, define the class of embryos on which research should be permitted.
Decision on these amendments is therefore a matter for individual conscience in your Lordships' House. The Government propose that these matters should be subject to a free vote. I intend to confine my remarks to examining very briefly the practical effects of the amendment, setting out what I believe to be the thinking behind it and summarising briefly in my own words the arguments for and against it. Again, I of course cannot do justice to all the arguments presented, which your Lordships have heard.
At present, in the absence of statutory controls, embryos used in research come from two sources. First, there are those embryos which were created for the purpose of making a particular woman pregnant. A woman undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment is generally given several injections of superovulatory drugs over a period of time. The result is that when ovulation occurs the number of mature eggs which can be collected from her is increased. These eggs are fertilised and there are usually more embryos created than are needed for the particular treatment. Embryologists choose those eggs which they judge most likely to lead to a successful pregnancy and the rest are either stored for possible future treatment or used for research. These are often referred to as "spare" embryos, and perhaps I can use that phraseology for simplicity.
Secondly, referring to the present position, there are those embryos which are produced by fertilising eggs which have been donated. Some women agree to donate eggs when they are undergoing other surgical procedures such as sterilisation; in such cases it is usual for the volunteer to be given superovulatory drugs to increase the number of mature eggs available. It is worth recording that the injection of superovulatory drugs and the associated taking of drug specimens to monitor the effect, like any other injection, are unpleasant processes for the patient.
A ban on creating embryos specifically for research would clearly reduce the number of embryos available for research, but to what extent would it inhibit research projects? The balance between the use of "spare" embryos and embryos specifically created for research varies at present from centre to centre, but I understand that of those embryos used for research, the majority have been obtained in the course of providing treatment services. However, the balance between sources of supply may change in the future. As IVF techniques improve it is probable that the number of "spare" embryos will decrease. I understand that there is already one treatment centre where the policy is to obtain eggs for IVF without the use of superovulatory drugs. In such cases it is likely that only one mature egg will be obtained during each cycle.
1082
There is also the possibility that techniques will be developed which enable eggs to be preserved by freezing and this could also lead to fewer "spare" embryos being available for freezing. If this were to happen clinicians would be likely to take the view that it would be unethical to use these eggs to create embryos for research at least until a pregnancy had been achieved for the woman in question. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that the effect of these amendments in restricting the quantity of research would be greater in the long term than in the immediate future.
It is also possible that these amendments could have an effect on the quality of research. Some people might argue that a growing shortage of embryos available for research purposes could lead to only the very best research projects having access to spare embryos and that this might have the effect of raising both the scientific quality of research proposals generally and of the research projects actually undertaken. On the other hand, others might take the view that many worthwhile projects might never get under way or that, if they did, they might have to be abandoned because of insufficient numbers of embryos. Furthermore, the fact that those embryos being used for research would in many cases be embryos which, because they showed signs suggesting they might be defective, had been judged unsuitable for replacing in a woman, might make it more difficult to secure scientifically reliable results.
There is one category of research that cannot be carried out at all on the "spare" embryos produced in the course of fertility treatments but only on donated eggs that are then fertilised in vitro. This research may be concerned with the care and treatment of eggs before fertilisation. For example, to develop techniques of storing unfertilised eggs by freezing them it is necessary to fertilise them after thawing and check whether the resulting embryos develop normally.
It would clearly be unethical and undesirable in the early days of such techniques to place such eggs in a woman after using them for in vitro fertilisation since it would not be known whether the freezing and unfreezing of the eggs had made them in some way defective. That may be an important area of research because it might be beneficial to have a way of storing eggs without having to fertilise them first. This would overcome the ethical objections which some people have to the storage of embryos as opposed to the storage of unfertilised eggs. The area of research may also be concerned with the process of fertilisation itself, which can be of importance in infertility or in the genesis of some chromosomal disorders. In deciding the amendment before your Lordships it is important to be clear that to adopt it would entail ruling out this particular area of research.
I turn now to the basis for the amendments and the arguments for and against them. The debates so far on embryo research in your Lordships' House have covered two main perspectives. The first is the nature of the embryo in its early stages after fertilisation and whether this is compatible with research on it. Your Lordships reached a conclusion

1083
on that at Committee stage after a long and careful debate. The second perspective is the nature of the research which should be permitted. The proposals on the particular types of research to be allowed are set out in the second schedule to the Bill and were largely accepted at Committee stage. I note, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, has tabled Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 designed to remove one type of research so far shown as permitted in that schedule.
However, in the amendment before the House the noble Lord has introduced a third perspective—that of the woman who is providing the eggs for research. That was also referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Eggs cannot lawfully be taken without the explicit and fully informed consent of the woman. The amendment raises the issue whether, even if such consent is forthcoming, the law should nonetheless impose limitations on the effectiveness of that consent and specify certain circumstances where eggs may not lawfully be taken from a woman and used to produce embryos for research.
The arguments for the amendments have been eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and his supporters. The key point, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, seems to be one of purpose. It is legitimate for a woman to provide eggs for the creation of embryos for treatment of infertility. It is not easy to regulate the number of embryos with absolute accuracy; and for the "spare" embryos the choice is between allowing them to deteriorate and perish in a purposeless way or to use them for research. In the choice between allowing them to perish and allowing their use for research, the House has decided that the latter should prevail. But it is argued that this does not justify the deliberate creation of embryos for use only for research and that in such a situation there is a moral objection to the creation of embryos solely for research. It might also be argued that on practical grounds there are risks of pressure being brought to bear, however indirectly or subconsciously, on women who are to undergo sterilisation to consent to egg donation.
I should perhaps say in answer to my noble friend Lord Caldecote that my noble friend Lady Hooper will be moving Amendments Nos. 12 and 64 to deal with the question of regulating the supply in the sense of permitting payments. Perhaps the fuller answer to my noble friend's question is that supply will be regulated primarily by the consent of a woman to donate eggs for this purpose to be fertilised and then used for the purpose of research. That is probably the more important answer to the question. We are seeking completely to outlaw any form of commercial activity in this area. Any payments allowed will have to be approved by direction. For example, we have in mind expenses that might be incurred by a woman for the purpose of attending to donate eggs or to have a blood test in the course of that work.
The arguments against the amendments have been put with equal lucidity and force. A key question is how far the law should go—as my noble and learned
1084
friend Lord Bridge of Harwich said, it is ultimately a matter for the criminal law and criminal sanctions—in intervening if a woman wishes to ensure that her eggs are used for purposes which she believes may benefit others.
A woman who has had children but who now wishes to be sterilised may feel that she wishes to help, through research, other women to achieve fertility and enjoy the blessings of a family or to help to conquer genetic disorders which can blight a child's life and that of his family. She may see this as an altruistic action—perhaps akin to blood donation for transfusion purposes. It is argued by the opponents of the amendment that the law should not step in to prevent this voluntary act—particularly perhaps criminal law—in a way which would severely limit the ability of science to carry out much needed research.
In regard to waste, it can be argued that, just as it is undesirable to waste spare embryos—which is one of the reasons why this amendment has been put forward—that are not needed for treatment services although created in the course of that provision, so it is unreasonable that the eggs of a woman who wishes to be sterilised should remain without purpose in her body when she is willing, and indeed possibly anxious, that they should be used for research to the subsequent benefit of mankind, as she sees it.
I have tried to set out the arguments which seem to me to be among those most relevant. As in earlier debates on research issues I do not see any middle course between the two sets of arguments, largely because they start from different premises and assumptions about the nature of life, the validity of research in these areas and the extent to which the wishes of individuals should be regulated by law, particularly perhaps criminal law.
The amendments have led us again into the same issues considered previously but, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, the arguments are perhaps more fully exposed when they are tested in this rather special case than they were on the more general issue before us in Committee. In the end, as I have already said, they must be matters for each of your Lordships' individual consciences. It is on that basis that I leave to your Lordships the decision on the matter without any line from the Government.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, in exercising the right of reply I want to express above all in a few words my profound appreciation at having had the privilege of participating in what was to me a most enriching experience, culminating in the magnificent presentation of the arguments by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
I refer to two points made in the argumentation against the amendment. They fall into two categories. There were those whose arguments I could not follow and others who argued with perfect justification for their argument but I still could not endorse it. I give an example. It was argued that nature is profligate and that out of a million potentialities only one reality emerges; therefore,

1085
why should we care in dealing with the millions of sperm by giving them special protection? I cannot see the force of that argument. One might as well say that since nature can be destructive in natural disasters and destroy human life by the million, therefore we should be allowed to do the same. The argument lacks both reason and logic.
There was another argument that I likewise found difficult to follow. Several noble Lords—notably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—referred to the criminal law being invoked. They drew dreaded pictures of scientists, research workers and doctors sitting in laboratories and opening themselves up to prosecution, after which they might sit for 10 years in prison. What happens, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, if on the 15th day after conception experiments are carried out? Will it also be said that, because it happens to be day 15, the severity of the law can no longer take effect? That argument seems to lack the essential logic that because a line is drawn somewhere we should exclude them all. We do not and the Bill as it stands does not exclude them all.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about an argument that I found exceedingly weighty. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke of his temerity in venturing into theological territory. I shall not have the temerity to enter into scientific or medical territory where the noble Lord, I know, is one of the great and celebrated masters. We are proud to have him in our midst.
I shall say one thing which I consider relevant. The noble Lord's argument was that any number of vital and essential experiments might not be carried out if the amendment were adopted. I say that there are any number of experiments that cannot be carried out today because of a moral revulsion that sets certain limits on experiments that we can and cannot carry out, notably experiments on humans though such experiments could help to make enormous advances and possibly bring to an end any amount of human suffering and misery.
Nevertheless, not only can we not perform experiments on innocent humans but even in respect of those humans on whom we perform operations their consent is needed before we can carry out any medical action which may lead to the saving of their lives. So it is perfectly true that there will be a limit which will exclude certain experimentation. We may have to wait. Instead of having today or tomorrow all the answers we may have to wait another five or 10 years, after having waited several thousand years, for the conquest of frightful diseases that afflict us, including childlessness.
Therefore, all I would have pleaded if I wanted to press this matter to a vote would be the argument that there are experiments that will not be possible. The argument itself cannot override certain moral considerations which we regard as absolute. I am sure that we would be setting the tone for the nation in wishing to preserve such considerations by stressing the infinite reverence that we have for human life.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 214.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Longford, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Luke, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Milverton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mishcon, L

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Chichester, Bp.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Northbourne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Perth, E.

Derwent, L.

Phillips, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour L.

Elles, B.

Reading, M.

Falkland, V.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Fitt, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Gladwyn, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Grantchester, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Grimond, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Haddington, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Somers, L.

Hemphill, L.

Southwark, 13p.

Holderness, L.

Stallard, L.

Hooper, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hylton, L.

Strange, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Swansea, L.

Jakobovits, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Joseph, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Kennet, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winterbottom, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brain, L.

Addington, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Airedale, L.

Brimelow, L.

Aldington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterfield, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caithness, E.

Alport, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Annan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Arran, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Aylestone, L.

Carnock, L.

Bancroft, L.

Carter, L.

Barnett, L.

Chorley, L.

Beloff, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Birk, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Blake, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blyth, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Boardman, L.

Crook, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Cross, V.

Borthwick, L.

Cullen of Asbourne, L.

Bottomley, L.

Dainton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

David, B.

1087

Davidson, V.

Manton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Denington, B.

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mills, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dunrossil, V.

Moran, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris, L.

Erroll, E.

Mottistone, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mountevans, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mulley, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Munster, E.

Fisher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Northfield, L.

Fortescue, E.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gainford, L.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L.

Orkney, E.

Galpern, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gibson, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Parry, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Glenamara, L.

Peston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goold, L.

Porritt, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Quinton, L.

Grey, E.

Raglan, L.

Griffiths, L.

Reay, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rodney, L.

Halsbury, E.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hankey, L.

Romney, E.

Hanworth, V.

Roskill, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayter, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hives, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Serota, B.

Hood, V.

Shackleton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Slim, V.

Hughes, L.

Somerset, D.

Hunt, L.

Soper, L.

Hunter of Newington. L.

Stedman, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stockton, E.

Jeger, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swann, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kagan, L.

Templeman, L.

Kearton, L.

Terrington, L.

Killearn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Knollys, V.

Tryon, L.

Knutsford, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lawrence, L.

Ullswater, V.

Leatherland, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Vernon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Walpole, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Warnock, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Westbury, L.

Long, V.

Whaddon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

McGregor of Durris, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Willis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Wynford, L.

Manchester, D.

Young, B.

Mancroft, L.

Zuckerman, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
Clause 4 [Prohibitions in connection with gametes]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("another species of") and insert ("any").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("; or
(d) extract from the ovary of a woman an oocyte in order to replace it elsewhere to achieve fertilisation in vivo,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to be brief in proposing this amendment. It is essentially similar in its objective to the amendment jointly proposed in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and myself. Its objective is simply to bring the technique known as GIFT—gamete intra-fallopian transfer—within the ambit of the Bill.
At present the technique does not require a licence from the Interim Licensing Authority. More than 60 centres in the United Kingdom offer this method of treatment. The technique is quite simple. It is used in those women who are infertile largely in consequence of the fact that there is a plug of mucus in the cervix of the uterus or womb which prevents the sperm from fertilising the ova which they produce quite normally. The method therefore simply involves obtaining ova or oocytes from the woman and inserting them with the husband's sperm directly into the fallopian tube. That is why it is called gamete intra-fallopian transfer.
The problem is that the number of centres offering this technique is increasing steadily. The evidence is that some such centres do not have the necessary expertise and skill to prevent the wholly unacceptable number of multiple pregnancies which may result from the technique. There is a temptation to insert a large number of sperms and ova into the fallopian tube in the hope of achieving success. Sometimes the technique is far more successful than the individuals operating it would wish and therefore the risk of multiple pregnancies is unacceptably high. It is a wish of the Interim Licensing Authority, and, I understand, the wish of most of those individuals working in this field that the Government should regulate this activity in the same way as in vitro fertilisation.
I appreciate the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in Committee when she gave the Government's reasons for excluding GIFT from the provisions of the Bill. I simply wish the House to recognise the strong feeling in the medical and scientific world and in the Interim Licensing Authority that the Government should reconsider their view on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Walton, two questions. Is an oocyte exactly the same thing as an egg; and if so, why should he not say so? If it is inserted in the womb, as I suppose it is, should it not be in viva rather than in vivo?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I support the noble Lord's amendment as indeed I supported my own amendment at an earlier stage of the proceedings. I told the Committee then, and I repeat it now, that the Civil Service establishment is against it because it means a greater workload. That is the only reason for not agreeing to the incorporation of the amendment into the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, recognises in the Civil Service a detachment from its own interests. That is very heartening.
When we debated this matter in Committee there was strong support for adding this treatment to the list of those to be licensed by the new authority. I am aware too, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that the Interim Licensing Authority is concerned about the treatment and has itself taken steps to collect information about it. I appreciate these concerns which arise because the use of super-ovulatory drugs can increase the risk of multiple pregnancies and, some would argue, the technique is sufficiently close to the other techniques to be licensed that it should be brought within the fold.
While I appreciate these concerns, as was indicated in the earlier debate by my noble friend Lady Hooper, we think that licensing this technique, except where it involves donated gametes when it does clearly fall within the scope of the licensing arrangements, would be to take a first step which could logically lead to a much larger degree of statutory regulation of medical treatment than was envisaged either in the Warnock Report or the White Paper. Such regulation is something which, quite rightly, is only contemplated in extreme circumstances as it is surely wrong that the law should interfere, except where absolutely necessary, with matters of clinical judgment of doctors in relation to individual patients.
Bringing this treatment within the scope of the licensing provisions in the Bill because of concerns about possible multiple pregnancies would mean that licensing the use of super-ovulatory drugs themselves in pregnancy would be a good step. That is indeed quite a slope to get on to. I shall not refer to arguments which have been used in other connections. However, if one is contemplating licensing medical treatments by law, among others with potentially greater risk to the patient, it would be difficult to defend leaving these unregulated.
On a slightly more technical level, I am advised that the amendment as proposed does not achieve strict control because it refers to the licensing of the technique where the intention is to achieve fertilisation in vivo. A defence to the charge of carrying out some unlicensed activity in relation to the eggs taken for that purpose would be that there
1090
had been a change of mind about the intention to carry out the treatment. As your Lordships know, intention can be a very difficult concept, although the law has to grapple with it in many areas.
I understand that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is considering the issue and that it expects to reach a collective view on whether this treatment should be regulated at a meeting of its council on 23rd March. While so far the Government have decided not to license this treatment—and that is the way the Bill stands—and could not commit themselves to change that view, they will clearly need to take into account the outcome of such a weighty deliberation before reaching a final view on the subject matter to be covered by the amendment. To make any change would mean extending the principles underlying the Bill—that treatments should involve either the keeping of an embryo outside a woman's body or donated gametes. Those are the principles upon which we are seeking to erect the licensing structure at present. If we were to include this treatment, we would be going outside those principles. If the Bill is to be a logical one—and I hope that it will be—we shall need to think of some other principle to determine its scope.
We certainly have a very open mind on the question and we are willing to take account of the balance of professional advice, bearing in mind that if we want to alter the structure of the Bill we must try to look for some containing structure to replace what we have at present. Therefore, if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw the amendment, I would certainly undertake to ensure that the matter is considered further in the light of the decision that the Royal College may take. However, I cannot commit myself necessarily to being ruled by that decision, but we shall certainly be influenced by it.
Having regard to the timetable, it is likely that this issue will be raised for further discussion in another place. Your Lordships may well have a chance to consider the matter in the light of that discussion. We certainly want to do what is right in this connection, but the matter is not without difficulty. I hope therefore that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is absolutely right; it is a very difficult problem. Behind the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, there is a strong medical and scientific argument. The very fact that the Royal College is considering the matter at such an appropriate time will give the Government and Members of your Lordships' House an opportunity to study its advice. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel it is appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in the light of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I shall be happy to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Reports to Secretary of State]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("() Every report made under this section shall include full information in respect of the activities of the Authority and of any of its committees in the areas covered by section 8(a) and section 9(1) of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee and also during today's debate noble Lords confirmed their wish that embryo research should be allowed up to 14 days. In the arguments put forward both in Committee and today, the activities of the licensing authority were stressed as being of vital importance.
I hope that noble Lords will support what is proposed. It is of the greatest importance that we should know what is happening once this decision has been taken. We should know what sort of activities the authority will allow.
It may be said that that aspect is taken care of, but the first part of Clause 7(1) reads:
"The Authority shall send the Secretary of State—
(a) a report on its activities during the first twelve months of its existence".
It is vital that we should know more than that. We do not know what the report may cover. Yet if I look for the two items which I had hoped would be included in the report I find in Clause 8(a):
"The Authority shall—
Keep under review information about embryos and any subsequent development of embryos and about the provision of treatment services and activities governed by this Act, and advise the Secretary of State, if he asks it to do so".
In other words, as it stands, there is nothing about that being an essential part of the report. Only the Secretary of State, if he asks the authority to advise him, will be able to find out about such matters. However, even then we may not know because the information may not be mentioned in the report. I ask that that detailed activity of the authority should be a part of the report. I go even further and ask that the same consideration be exercised in relation to Clause 9(1), which reads:
"The Authority shall maintain one or more committees to discharge the Authority's functions relating to the grant, variation, suspension and revocation of licences".
I feel that that aspect is at least as important as anything else contained in the report. To leave it in the air, as it were, and merely say that the report should be made every 12 months is really not good enough. I beg the Government and your Lordships to consider whether it would be right to insist upon this provision under the Bill and not leave it to the Secretary of State alone, or to the authority, to tell us what is happening, not only now but also in the future. I beg to move.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Earl. Clearly the more information that is made available in the annual reports of the authority for the public more educated public opinion will become on an area of very great importance both medically and morally. I therefore hope that your Lordships' House will strongly support the amendment.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I too should like to say that I am very sympathetic towards the amendment
1092
moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. My noble friend on the Front Bench was kind enough to accept in Committee an amendment which I moved calling for annual reports by the statutory licensing authority rather than reports at two-year intervals after the first year. I moved that amendment for the precise reason that I think it is most important that Parliament and the general public should be kept closely informed about the whole matter. I do not know what the technicalities are; but in principle I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Earl has said.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I take precisely the same view. I took that view when we dealt with annual reports and I was delighted that the Government accepted that amendment. The more information that is made available to those who naturally have a sense of concern and wish to be informed the better. I warmly welcome the amendment proposed by the noble Earl.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I take the sense of the remarks of all who have spoken and their wish that the authority's report should be as informative as possible. The obligation under the Bill is that the authority,
"shall send the Secretary of State a report on its activities during the first twelve months of its existence, and in respect of each succeeding period of twelve months, a report on its activities during the period".
The report is to be sent as soon as possible and is to be laid before each House of Parliament. The scope of the report is the activities of the authority. that is to say all its activities. Short of narrating again in such an amendment what all these activities are, I am not sure that anything is added.
The amendment picks out Clauses 8(a) and 9(1) dealing with "activities" but not all the activities of the authority. The intention behind the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, about advising the Secretary of State under Clasue 8(a) is to seek something more than a mere report. It may be that advice is required about some subject such as advice to the Secretary of State about a way forward or action to be taken. The authority is required to report on its activities. That includes all its activities. To add the requirement that,
"full information in respect of the activities"
should be given is to detract from the force of the whole. Surely we want full information to be laid before Parliament on all the activities of the authority. That is essentially what the present Clause 7 secures.
It is also important to notice that the authority's annual reports are to be laid before Parliament. If Parliament perceived any deficiency in the scope or detail of the annual report, I am perfectly certain that Parliament would make that plain.
I appreciate entirely the principle of the amendment and what is sought to be achieved by it. However, if it were incorporated in the Bill it might have a slightly opposite effect to that intended. It might rather concentrate the report on two matters—important matters, I grant—under Clauses

1093
8(a) and 9(1). Probably what we all wish—this seems in accordance with what noble Lords have said—is a full report. This is an important area. The size of votes and the concern with which noble Lords have dealt with the subject will convince the authority, if it needs convincing that this is an important matter and that Parliament will take great interest in anything that the report has to say. Anything that the authority cares to write will not gather dust but will be studied with great interest. I am sure that that will encourage it to report fully and in an informative manner to your Lordships.
I hope that the noble Earl will feel that the purpose of his amendment is achieved without it being incorporated in the Bill. When appointed, the authority will have before it an account of these proceedings.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am afraid that I am disappointed in the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In a sense however I am not surprised. I beg him to realise the support which I have received from all sides of the House. He has argued that my amendment might detract from the provisions. It cannot be said to do that. It states that the report "shall include"; it does not say that it shall only deal with those matters. Therefore, surely, it is necessary and right that items of such importance should be covered and that we should know that they will be covered.
The noble and learned Lord has said, "Oh, well, if there are deficiencies, the House will soon find out in the report". That might be difficult if the House does not know what the report is all about. How can I say that there is a deficiency if I do not know? Somebody can say to me, "Do you realise that the report does not cover this point?" But that is not the way in which these matters should work. I beg the noble and learned Lord to think again. The amendment is of such importance that perhaps he himself, having heard the support that I have received, will consider the matter again at Third Reading. Perhaps he will see whether he could bring forward some words—if he will not take mine—which will give effect to what I propose. I should be extremely grateful.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I made plain that I have fully considered all that has been said. I very much doubt whether singling out particular parts of the activities of the authority would be conducive to greater detail in its report. If I were to amplify the obligation, it would be to emphasise that we wish to hear about all the authority's activities. That is the force of the clause now. I am perfectly willing to consider the matter further in the light of the amendment of the noble Earl and of the support for it. I recognised that in my first address on the subject to your Lordships when I sought to explain that the purpose was achieved. I shall consider the matter further if the noble Earl is content to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. On the assumption to be drawn
1094
from the remarks he made, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [General conditions]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 37, after ("maintained") insert ("in such form as the Authority may specify in directions").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 20 and 26. Amendment No. 11 has been brought forward by the Government in response to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Caldecote in the last day of our Committee proceedings. During the debate on his amendment, I promised that the Government would look at this point and I am glad to say that we have been able to take it on board. This amendment provides that the new authority may specify the form in which it will require records to be kept by licence holders as one of the general conditions specified in Clause 13 which will apply to their licences. The Government see advantage in giving the new authority this power as it may simplify the administration of the licensing system if the authority can receive information from licence holders and require licence holders to keep information in a form which it considers appropriate.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that this amendment meets the spirit of the point he was raising without removing from the authority the discretion to decide what information it wanted recorded as his earlier amendment would have done. As I explained in the earlier debate, we believe that that could have been unduly bureaucratic and cumbersome for the authority.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 is the same. It is to extend the range of information which may be specified in directions to cover matters other than those covered by Clauses 13(2) and 14(1) which the authority considers appropriate. The amendments extend the powers of the authority in these matters to give it a wide discretion to specify information so that it is not confined to the lists of specific points currently to be found in these provisions. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these amendments will be helpful to the authority in giving it flexibility in this important matter.
Amendment No. 26 would place a duty on the authority, in the case of treatment licences, to give directions requiring information to be recorded about the aspects of treatment services set out in Clause 13(2), paragraphs (a) to (e). This ensures that the authority will require licence holders to supply that information. As I said, I hope that it will be agreed that these amendments are helpful. I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister said, I moved an amendment in Committee to subsection (2) of Clause 13, at line 3 of page 6, to require the authority to record information

1095
covered in paragraphs (a) to (e) in such a form as the authority may specify. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed to look at that matter. I am most grateful for that. It seems to me that Amendment No. 26 achieves more or less precisely what I had in mind in the amendment that I moved. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she can confirm that that is the case and that the information under Clause 13(2) (a) to (e) is required to be included in a report by the authority, just as I suggested in my amendment. I am most grateful for the notice that has been taken of that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can confirm that point to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
("(dd) that no payment in money or money's worth shall be made or received in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos unless the payment is authorised by directions").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 64 and 65. Amendments Nos. 12 and 64 have already been referred to during our long discussion on a previous amendment. However, like many of your Lordships, I am concerned that a trade in the sale of embryos or gametes should not be allowed to develop. To that end, Amendment No. 12 would make it a condition of all licences that,
"no payment in money or money's worth shall be made or received in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos unless the payment is authorised by directions".
This amendment would replace subsection (7) of Clause 13, which would be deleted by Amendment No. 19. That subsection makes it a condition of treatment licences that no payment for gametes for the purpose of treatment services could be made unless that payment was authorised by directions.
It may, however, be desirable to allow payments to cover particular expenses so that the donor does not incur any cost. This amendment therefore would give the authority power to give the directions permitted by Clause 22 allowing payment in specified circumstances. The Government think it right that there should be some sanction attached to the new provision. Amendment No. 64 therefore provides that,
"Where a breach of the condition … occurs with the knowledge of the person who holds the licence, that person is guilty of an offence".
Amendment No. 65 provides that the penalty connected with this offence shall be a term of imprisonment,
"not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale or both".
At present a fine on level 5 amounts to £2,000. Again, I hope your Lordships will feel that these amendments improve the Bill.
I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am in complete sympathy with the objectives of the
1096
Minister, but bearing in mind that this provision creates indirectly a criminal offence I am a little troubled by the wording. I am not entirely satisfied that it is right to attach the word "payment" to the words "money's worth". The amendment begins by stating:
"no payment in money or money's worth shall be made or received".
That may seem a wide provision. However, the amendment finishes by stating:
"unless the payment is authorised by directions".
I venture to suggest, although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may correct me, that the words that are really needed here are "no consideration". The problem could arise in an acute form in the kind of scenario which I have reason to believe is troubling the Interim Licensing Authority at the moment where a lady is told that there will be no charge for private accommodation or private treatment if she agrees to donate eggs. I am not satisfied that that is a case of paying "money's worth". It is a case of waiving a payment for an advantage. I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor shaking his head in a manner which conveys doubt. I do not disagree with him but I feel that where a criminal offence may be created crystal clarity in the wording is desirable. However, I am not suggesting that the amendment should not be accepted, but merely that it should be considered before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this point. I can confirm that we shall look at the argument that he has put forward in this respect and come back to it, if necessary, at a subsequent stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Conditions of licences for treatment]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("and").
Page 6, line 15, at end insert ("and
(f) such other matters as the Authority may specify in directions.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
("(4A) A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment, and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 27. I regard these amendments as extremely important. They have been introduced following careful consideration of the debate on an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, which would have confined the treatments licensed by the Bill to married couples.
The House will recall that that amendment which was regarded by the Government as a matter of conscience and therefore was the subject of a completely free vote, was defeated on a free vote.
This amendment also deals with a matter raised by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk in debate on Clause 2 in Committee namely, where a clinician was considering offering treatment to a married woman, a single woman in a long-standing relationship or a single woman. The second amendment to Clause 24 would require that the code of practice which the authority will be required to produce should give guidance on how those providing treatment services should take into account the welfare of the child and of other children that the women patients may have. We wish to go further than simply providing that the code should deal with these matters. By this first amendment we are making an overriding provision that will apply to all treatment services provided under this legislation.
It may be helpful if I begin by setting out the size of the group that may be involved. At present only a very small number of relevant treatments are made available outside marriage. The best and most recent estimate that can be made is that fewer than 100 out of some 3,500 patients who received the AID treatment in 1989 were single women, and some of those will have had permanent partners. The figure does not distinguish between those two sets of women. I do not, however, suggest that the small size of the issue suggests that it is of no great importance. It is because the Government appreciate the significance of this matter in a broad and general sense that they have, after considerable thought, proposed these amendments.
I think everyone would agree that it is important that children are born into a stable and loving environment and that the family is a concept whose health is fundamental to the health of society in general. A fundamantal principle to our law about children, including the legislation which this House considered in such detail last Session and which became the Children Act 1989, is that the welfare of children is of paramount consideration. I think that it is, for these general reasons, entirely right that the Bill should be amended to add that concept. It could be argued that the concept of the welfare of the child is very broad and indeed all-embracing. That I think is inevitable given the very wide range of factors which need to be taken into account when considering the future lives of children who may be born as a result of techniques to be licensed under the Bill. My attention has been drawn to a New Zealand case where Mr. Justice Hardie Boyce dealt with this concept in Walker v. Harrison which was noted in the 1981 New Zealand Recent Law, volume 257. I think his remarks, which were cited by the Law Commission in a recent working paper on family law, indicate very well the wide range of circumstances and meanings which the concept of welfare involves.
He said:
"'Welfare' is an all-encompassing word. It includes material welfare, both in the sense of an adequacy of resources to provide a pleasant home and a comfortable standard of living and in the sense of an adequacy of care to ensure that good health and due personal pride are maintained. However, while material considerations have their place, they are secondary matters. More important are the stability and the security, the loving and understanding care and guidance, the warm and compassionate relationships, that are essential for the full development of the child's own character, personality and talents".
The amendment will place on clinicians in statutory form a responsibility which I believe most, if not all, of them already perform. I accept that that is an important responsibility and it may in particular cases be far from easy to discharge.
Among the factors which clinicians should take into account will be the material circumstances in which the child is likely to be brought up and also the stability and love which he or she is likely to enjoy. Such stability is clearly linked to the marital position of the woman and in particular whether a husband or long-term partner can play a full part in providing the child with a permanent family setting in the fullest sense of that term, including financial provision.
The House does not need to be reminded of the plight of childless people and the very strong and deeply felt emotions which those in that position experience. We may on the one hand pay the tribute which is due to the importance of ensuring that children are born into the family environment by specifically excluding from treatment women who are not married or have no stable partner to be involved in the decision about treatment and in counselling beforehand, but I wonder what will happen if we do that. Surely there is a risk that such women, driven by the very strong desire for a child, may turn elsewhere for treatment. I am advised that it is a relatively easy matter for AID to be carried out in clinically unsupervised conditions. It may be that the result of the amendment would be to encourage those few single women who are infertile to seek unsuitable donors if we were to introduce such a restriction. Any children who may be born as a result of uncontrolled treatment are at risk of serious disease, including HIV infection.
On the other hand, if the law recognises that in a very small number of cases single women will come forward for treatment, it may be better to encourage them to seek clinical advice. With the child and welfare amendments we have just discussed there is a likelihood that through counselling and discussion with those responsible for licensed treatment they may be dissuaded from having children once they have fully considered the implications of the environment into which their child would be born or its future welfare.
Because human and family circumstances can vary so widely there are advantages as well as problems in not trying to draw sharp dividing lines. The second amendment will help the clinician in exercising his responsibility by requiring the authority to include welfare of children in the code of practice to be drawn up under Clause 24. The addition of this matter as a specific part of the authority's code of practice, which will have to be approved by the Secretary of State, gives added weight to the importance which the Government attach to the welfare of children in this context. I am sure that everyone concerned with these matters will place great importance on that code, and this is one of the most important matters with which it will need to deal. Equally, in monitoring the licensing arrangements the authority will, I am sure, pay particular attention to the operation of this aspect of those duties.
I regard these as very important amendments, I hope that your Lordships will agree that in seeking to add them to the licensing arrangements and to the content of the code of practice to be drawn up by the new authority we are recognising an important principle and consideration which it is appropriate to acknowledge. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for the amendments. They go a very long way towards redressing the balance of the conflicting interests of the woman who wants to have a child and those of the resulting child, which are not necessarily compatible.
In its consideration of the welfare of a child who may be born as a result of the treatments and in the guidance given in the code, perhaps the authority could be asked to bear in mind the following point. Where a married couple have a child and one of the parents dies or is killed, it is usual for the other parent to bring up the child. However, when a single woman who has a child dies or is killed there is no one left to bring up a child, who may very well be taken into care.
Would it be desirable to specify that donor services should be provided to women or couples only upon the production of evidence that a guardian has been appointed who will undertake the care of the child in the event of the untimely demise of the woman or the couple? Many couples do that in any case. I did and my children have done so. It is not unusual. That would go a long way towards taking care of the welfare of the children in the event of any misfortune overtaking the parents.
I had thought to mention the point on the Motion that this Bill do now pass but it seemed more appropriate to do so now.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor one question. I am not quite clear and should like some guidance as to who is to make the decision. Is it to be the clinicians to whom the mother goes? Is it to be made jointly by social workers and medical staff? Is it to be left to the licensing authority? How is the decision to be made?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I propose to speak again later, but with your Lordships' leave perhaps I may answer the points that have been raised. I believe that the point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, would be an appropriate matter to be taken into consideration in relation to the welfare of the child. The precise circumstances may vary from case to case. That is why we have used a very broad term which encompasses all of those matters. It would be a question to be asked in relation to particular circumstances such as the noble Lady has mentioned.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, we are concerned here with laying down the framework. The precise manner in which the decision should be taken would be for consideration in relation to the code of practice. Obviously counselling is essential for the person receiving treatment. Their own views would also be important. We regard this as a vitally
1100
important matter and the range of advice which is appropriate should be available. The ultimate decision whether or not to give the treatment in accordance with the conditions laid down by the authority will be made by the clinician. That does not mean that he would be left alone to consider the issues in a particular case. It might be too important a decision for a clinician to take unaided. I believe that under the present arrangement such matters are taken into consideration. However, I believe that the precise detail as to the way in which that would be done is best left to be dealt with in the code.
That is one reason why we want to make a specific provision that the matter should be dealt with in the code. That would indicate to those providing treatment what guidance should be given and how they should go about exercising that duty.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I simply wanted to say that I thoroughly welcome the amendment and am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for moving it. My only reservation is that it is drawn in very broad terms and might be open to different interpretations in different parts of the country. For that reason I hope that the House will look at other amendments which seek to tackle the same problem and to minimise it so that we obtain the best possible result.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I welcome the principle of the amendment as strongly as I opposed the principle of the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, at Committee stage. This is a happy extension of a principle which has now been part of English law for more than half a century. It is greatly to be welcomed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I too may say a few words. I greatly welcome the initiative taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It adds great strength to the code of practice. The more I think about the code of practice, the more I recognise how important it will be. As I listened to the noble and learned Lord speaking on the question of who would take the decision, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I realised what a burden and what a difficult decision would be placed upon whoever must take that decision. We are all concerned with the welfare of the child, but perhaps some more thought is needed about what goes into the code of practice in order that it may provide additional guidance. I do not see how that decision could be taken simply on the basis of the four words in the amendment.
I also welcome the amendment because it lays great stress on the importance of counselling. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to counselling. One of the greatest tasks when the Bill is passed into law will be to ensure that there are effective counselling measures.
I very much hope that, when we come to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, the noble Lords will feel that this amendment meets the concerns that I know are in their minds.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the response from all sides of the House to this and the other amendment to which I spoke. I certainly attach a great deal of importance to them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the precise detail requires to be worked out. That is why I think it right to state the principle as an overriding principle to be given effect in the code of practice and to provide that the code of practice should deal with it. When we come to consider the code of practice, we shall expect the authority to consult widely. I am sure that the extremely important practical questions posed by the noble Lord will then be taken into account. However the matter is dealt with, it must be taken into account before treatment services are provided.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
("(4A) Treatment services shall only be provided for a woman together with a man.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 46.
Amendment No. 16 will restrict treatment services to men and women coming together for treatment. It will prevent a single woman coming for treatment without a man. Amendment No. 17 is a relatively minor consequential amendment which will not be moved if noble Lords do not accept Amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 46 ensures that the man who comes for treatment together with a woman will be designated the father of any child resulting. A child born to an unmarried woman following licensed treatment will therefore have a father.
The House may recall that I put forward an amendment in Committee to outlaw donation of gametes. That proposal seemed unlikely to find favour with noble Lords and was not pressed. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, then put forward a more moderate amendment to limit treatment services to married couples, which was defeated by 61 votes to 60. Surely the House must now accept that children created by government-regulated treatment should at least have a father and a mother.
Secondly, the creation of a child is an important responsibility. The amendments will ensure that both men and women—particularly men—take the responsibility seriously.
Thirdly, there are many reasons why people end up as single parents. All such people deserve support and help. However, single parenthood is not the ideal and should not be endorsed through government-regulated treatments. The Government are currently trying to make fathers responsible for maintenance payments. Is it not contradictory in this Bill to allow the creation of fatherless children? Who will then pay the maintenance?
Fourthly, we believe that the amendments will override the provision in Clause 27 under which a husband may disown a child if he can prove that he did not consent to treatment. The amendments require that men and women must present together for treatment.
Perhaps some noble Lords might worry that the amendments discriminate against single women. It is true that the amendments will prevent a single woman without a partner from receiving treatment. Is it not entirely reasonable for the Government to restrict treatment of that type to men and women presenting together to ensure that the child has both a mother and a father? Again, noble Lords might feel that the amendments discriminate against women who want to receive treatment without their husband or partner knowing. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, explained that in order to cope with the situation of Asian women who wanted to receive treatment without the knowledge of their husbands, her committee did not endorse prior written consent for treatment. The amendments would directly affect such women. It is sad that women within a certain section of society are not able to be honest with their husbands, but surely it would be wrong to frame a law for all to meet the needs of one small section of society. Is it not more important to ensure overall that men and women appear together for treatment? I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, acknowledged that the amendment comes up against the point of principle that we discussed in Committee; namely, that treatment should be available to all who can benefit from it subject only to proper counselling and clinical advice prior to treatment. Both those aspects have been emphasised in the two amendments which have been moved and accepted this afternoon.
In Committee my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lady Ewart-Biggs suggested that to discriminate against an unmarried woman would be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to the debate, he told the Committee that he had been advised that to restrict the treatment to married women would not be a breach of Article 12.
The noble and learned Lord made no specific reference to Article 8 of the convention. That article provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life. It is designed to protect private life. It is the view of some people who have advised us that the right of an unmarried woman who is not cohabiting with a man to receive treatment under the Bill, subject to counselling, is very much a part of her private life which is protected by Article 8. We would welcome the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to whether the amendment is compatible with Article 8.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in this debate and others there has been one rather alarming ambiguity. I refer to the reference to counselling. Counselling is sometimes given the adjective "proper". That begs many questions. So also does the use of the term "private life". It is said that Parliament should not interfere with people's private lives, but it is doing so all the time from morning to night. We are told, "Oh no, private life is private life and people can do what they like". We are told

1103
that counselling is desirable, but we are not told what kind of counselling. Is the counselling to be Christian counselling? Might it be Jewish counselling? Might it be Islamic counselling? Might it be atheistic counselling or might it be just counselling? There is a hideous range of ambiguity here. To take refuge in the term "counselling" is to take refuge in a cloud of ignorance.
I support the amendment, or whatever amendment the Government might think proper to bring forward at a later stage to replace it. To allow and encourage by state provision—it is at the taxpayer's expense ultimately—begetting of children into what are designed to be one-parent families does not make sense as regards serious sociological responsibility. Whether one is a Christian, a Moslem, a Jew or whatever, it does not make sense. The spirit behind the amendment is sound. It is not a specifically Christian matter. It is not a specifically Jewish matter. It is not a specifically Islamic matter. It is merely common sense from the point of view of society.
The Government, whom I support to the best of my ability—sometimes one is tested—have declared themselves, not once but many times, in favour of family life. There have been all sorts of questions and discussions in the House and elsewhere about the terrible state of homeless young people who have usually left their families because the mother has taken a new lover who has kicked out the son or daughter. That is one of the legacies of one-parent families.
We are discussing a situation where we might end up with more rather than fewer one-parent families, with less rather than more provision for children, other than state care, and so I beg the Government to give due weight to the sense of the amendment. Its terms may not be adequate. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could come back with better terminology. He has already done so once or twice today, for which we are grateful. This is a serious point, not merely from the Christian standpoint but from the common sense social standpoint. On that basis, I beg your Lordships to support the amendment and the Government to pay serious attention to what has been said.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, the amendment in whatever words it was put forward would be difficult to enforce. I oppose it because Amendment No. 15 moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already taken care of the true issue, which is the good of the child, which must be considered and taken into account. There is to be discussion and counselling is to be given to anyone who attends for treatment.
The effect of the amendment would mean that intrusive inquiry would have to be made into the relationship of the man and woman who presented together seeking treatment. In several cases of treatment by in vitro fertilisation the woman who wanted the child has attended with a "borrowed" man whom she has brought along for respectability's
1104
sake and who has no close relationship with her. I do not see how such a situation could be avoided without the most intrusive kind of inquiry, which we should be ill-advised to put into the Bill. I oppose the amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I do not see how the amendment could be enforced. If it were to be enforced it would, as she said, be done only by turning clinicians and workers in clinics into private inquiry agents.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, how will the clinic counsel without asking questions?
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, there is all the difference in the world in that and giving counselling in proper circumstances in a proper setting by people who are properly qualified to give it. The amendment makes no reference, as does the previous amendment, to proper counselling. It would inevitably drag questions of status into the issue and, if the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is correct in his interpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it would cause major difficulties. I am at a loss to understand what benefits the amendment would confer which are not much better provided by the amendment to which the House has just agreed.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like clarification from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I do not see why we are discussing the amendment when we have agreed to Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 15 deals with the situation. Surely we cannot have Amendment No. 15 and Amendment No. 16.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I intervene only to contradict the assumption that one-parent families always result in disaster. One should consider the number of widows who have brought up the most successful families. It is hard, but it is not impossible. To stipulate that there must be a father and that that in itself will produce a happy family home is ludicrous. The prospect of a woman who is deranged in some way being treated and having a disastrous family is taken care of by the previous amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I spoke at length in Committee when we debated the amendment moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, which would have limited the treatment to married couples. I am glad we have not returned to that point. I want to be brief. If the amendment were carried it would be unenforceable. A woman who is living on her own, who may or may not be a widow, or a woman who is living with another woman—let us consider all the possibilities—who wanted the treatment and wanted a child—the issues raised in the previous amendment having been considered—would not be put off by the fact that she had to bring with her a man with whom she was at that moment living. She might "rent" a man. She might bring in someone to show that that is the man with whom she is living.

1105
It would be deplorable to force a widow into that situation. If it is enforceable it cannot be good law unless we require evidence of the stable relationship that the woman has with the man who accompanies her when seeking that treatment.
As I stated on the previous amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I thought that he had found the right answer in Amendment No. 15. I still take that view. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, it is worth looking at Amendment No. 46. It states.
"where treatment services are provided for a woman and a man together, the man shall be treated as the father of any child carried by the woman as a result of the provision of those treatment services".
Therefore, it would not answer the provisions of the Bill if a strange man were produced for the purpose of the interview who then felt that he could fade out of the picture. As I understand it, he would have a legal obligation to act as a father.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, these amendments take us back to the territory covered by the amendments moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in Committee. The amendment is somewhat wide in intention, in that it would require a man and woman to present themselves for treatment and that counselling would be available to a man and woman.
The effect of the amendments would be to permit licensed treatment only to a couple comprising a man and a woman whether or not they were married and to exclude from treatment single women or other combinations of women. I have some considerable sympathy with the purpose of these amendments, which would be designed to ensure that a child who came into the world as a result of one of the treatments to be licensed under the Bill would be born into circumstances in which the child's development would be properly cared for.
It is certainly necessary for us to reflect very carefully before we do anything either in relation to legislation or in statements about government policy which detracts from the stability of the family, for the health of the family is largely at the heart of the continuing health of our society.
However, I explained earlier that one has to take account of other possibilities. We wish to achieve a result. One has to seek to achieve it against the background of the actual and real world and what people may do in that world. On the whole there is much to be said for seeking not to make a completely watertight rule that may bar all consideration of particular situations, but to allow people, whatever their situation, to come forward to have their situation and the consequences of what they wish to do considered. I believe that in the end that may better achieve the purpose of my noble friends Lord Ashbourne and Lord Lauderdale, an aim shared, I am sure, by other noble Lords.
The essential element is the proper welfare of the child. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale asked me what counselling there will be. I hope and believe that counselling will be provided that will take account of
1106
all the relevant circumstances of the person presenting for treatment and advise that person on all aspects of it. It is a matter for individual conscience, as was the amendment moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
However, I distinguish between Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 and Amendment No. 46. Amendment No. 46 provides in effect that.
"where treatment services are provided for a woman and a man together, the man shall be treated as the father of any child carried by the woman as a result of the provision of those treatment services".
That strikes me as something that might well be appropriate in given circumstances. It could not arise directly from the amendment which I have already proposed, but it might well be a good way of giving effect at least in some circumstances to what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The Government have no line on Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. We are neutral. I t is up to your Lordships to decide according to your individual conscience about that, seeking to take account of the circumstances that I have mentioned.
Amendment No. 46 is in a different category. I am very content to consider that further to see exactly under what conditions it might operate in order to provide a mechanism. At the moment there is no mechanism to cope with that situation. We have not so provided. Obviously such a provision could be construed in some quarters as seeking to promote relationships other than those in marriage. That is not something that we wish to promote. On the other hand, where such a relationship exists and treatment is to be provided, then it may well be that some responsibility should by law be attached to the male partner presenting together with the woman for treatment.
If my noble friend Lord Ashbourne is prepared to allow me to consider Amendment No. 46 further, I shall be very happy to do so when we come to that amendment. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are amendments upon which your Lordships must vote according to your conscience if my noble friend decides that he wishes to press the matter to a division.
I should have answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The precise effect of the Convention on Human Rights is, as he knows very well, a matter of opinion and judgment. I have stated what I was advised about Article 12. I have not received such definitive advice on Article 8. I regard it as extremely doubtful whether the scope of Article 8 extends to such questions. I rather think that the law of the state which was party to the convention would have some part in defining what is meant by the private and "family life of the person", in particular the latter phrase. I do not imagine for a moment that Article 8 allows people a completely free hand on the relationships into which they may be allowed by the law of the member state to enter. That is the best that I can offer at this juncture. I am not able to offer a concluded opinion of my own on that question tonight.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who took part in these

1107
discussions and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for winding up in such a masterly fashion and for the encouragement that he was able to offer me on Amendment No. 46.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, seemed to think that counselling was not covered. However, if he looks at Amendment No. 17 he will see that that concerns counselling and nothing else. There was a little doubt about the rent-a-man or rent-a-husband issue. The point of linking the amendment to Amendment No. 46 was to overcome that problem. I entirely accept the point that one does not wish the woman to grab any man and just appear. That will achieve nothing. Having said that, and in view of the encouragement that the noble and learned Lord was able to give me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 43, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Conditions of storage licences]:
7 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 20, after ("storage") insert ("and as to such other matters as the Authority may specify in directions").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) No information shall be removed from any records maintained in pursuance of such a licence before the expiry of such period as may be specified in directions for records of the class in question.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment adds to Clause 14, which deals with storage licences, a provision exactly equivalent to that in Clause 13(4) in relation to treatment licences. If I may look forward to the debate on the new clause on research licences which comes after Clause 14, parallel provision is also proposed for that group of licences.
The effect of the amendment is to prevent the removal of any information from the records kept about storage licences before the end of such period as the authority may specify in a direction. Its purpose is simple: it enables the authority to ensure that information is kept for such period as may be necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause: ("Conditions of research licence
.—(1) The following shall be conditions of every licence under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act.
(2) The records maintained in pursuance of the licence shall include such information as the Authority may specify in directions about such matters as the Authority may so specify.
(3) No information shall be removed from any records maintained in pursuance of the licence before the expiry of such period as may be specified in directions for records of the class in question.
(4) No embryo appropriated for the purposes of any project of research shall be kept or used otherwise than for the purposes of such a project.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 84. Amendment No. 22 would insert a new clause which specifies conditions which apply to licences for research in addition to those specified in Clause 12 which apply to all licences. It would give the authority the power to require particular information to be recorded and kept.
Subsection (3) specifies that no information can be removed from any such records before the expiry period for that information. The expiry period, which may be different for different types of information, is to be specified in directions given by the authority under Clause 22 and is to ensure that information is retained for as long as it may be needed. This subsection is equivalent to subsection (4) of Clause 13.
Subsection (4) specifies that it must be a condition of any research licence that no embryo which is appropriated for research may be used for any other purpose. The purpose of the condition is to ensure that an embryo used for research purposes is not used for treatment. This subsection replaces the second part of paragraph 3(6) of Schedule 2. Amendment No. 84 is consequential. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Grant of licence]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 35, leave out ("accompanied by the initial fee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment in Committee I referred to the lack of central funding as being discriminatory against those who are infertile. I argued that in our view it was wrong that the work should be carried out and paid for from fees which would almost certainly be passed on to patients. I said that much was rightly being done for fertile people. The many services available include pre-pregnancy counselling, ante-, intra- and post-partum care, neonatal paediatric services, conception, abortion and sterilisation, where necessary. Indeed, a whole range of services is provided for those who are fertile. On the other hand, provision within the Naional Health Service for those who are infertile is poor due to the underfunding of the service. I argued as strongly as I could that all that work, whether carried out in private or NHS clinics, should be paid for from the public purse.
I have subsequently been informed of the views of the Interim Licensing Authority about which your Lordships will wish to hear. It also believes that it would be impractical for the authority to have to deal with licence fees. It gives a number of reasons. At present there are only two IVF centres wholly funded by the National Health Service. They are at St. Mary's Hospital in Manchester and at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. In those and in many other centres treatment is offered on a tight budget to enable patients to receive treatment at no cost or very little cost. The licence fees charged to those centres would put considerable strain on the already overstretched budget and may result in the closure of some centres. Under current NHS rules centres are not permitted to pass on any costs to the patient. That additional cost to the setting up of a new unit would also deter any expansion in the provision of those services within the NHS.
However, within the private sector the cost will undoubtedly be passed on to the patients, thereby increasing the already high cost of treatment. Many couples receiving treatment in the private sector can ill afford to do so but consider it to be their only chance of having their own much-wanted family. Within the private sector a precarious financial framework exists whereby some centres provide a service for NHS patients by ploughing back the fees obtained from treating private patients. That structure would also be put at risk by the imposition of licence fees.
In Committee I calculated that it was likely that the cost would be about 100 for each of the patients who seek assisted conception treatment each year. I argued that that was a heavy burden for them to bear and that the cost should be borne by the public purse. At that time I asked the noble Baroness several questions. I asked what sums of money the clinics were expected to pay in regard to the licence; what sums of money the Government were expecting to pay to the licensing authorities; what was the proportion that would be paid by the Government; what proportion would they expect to be paid for by fees; and once the cost had worked its way down to the patients what figure would that be, and was my guess right.
I have thought over the matter subsequently and it may be that we do not have the proposed amendment exactly right. Perhaps there should be a different method of dealing with fees for NHS and university clinics as opposed to private clinics. Before I and those who support the amendment decide on the action to take, I hope that the noble Baroness will indicate the funding as she sees it. Furthermore, does she believe that it will be possible to have a regime which does not impose additional charges on health service clinics and leaves the private sector clinics free to set their own fees? I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has put the case so well that I shall not repeat it. However, I wish to add that money available in this area is open to abuse. In such an area we wish to close every door to every possible form of abuse. I support the amendment, although
1110
I too am not sure that we have the wording right. I hope that the Government will feel sympathetic towards it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I recall the occasion in Committee when the amendment was raised. We were not greatly enlightened by the noble Baroness's reply. I asked her what treatments in the National Health Service were subject to charging. We received a peculiar reply and I do not believe that she answered the question. She referred us to treatments outside the National Health Service which none of us believed to be relevant.
In view of the slightly different way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has moved this amendment, I ask whether the noble Baroness will consider that the fee in the private sector might be passed on to the patients but there should be no passing on of the fee to patients in the National Health Service. That seems to me in accordance with present practice. As I said in Committee I can think of no National Health Service treatment where charges are paid, and of course a fee would be a charge to the patient except for treatments outside hospital, which they usually are—for example, treatment to teeth and charges for spectacles. If the noble Baroness will consider making a distinction between the National Health Service and private patients in that way, I am sure that that will be very well received by the House.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I can add very little to those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. On the face of it, it strikes me that the present idea will be discriminatory against the infertile, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said. As we know, something like one in eight couples in this country at present are infertile.
Secondly, depending on what are the arrangements, I think it would also be discriminatory in another way; that is, against those couples who are not only infertile but also poor. It may be that richer couples seeking treatment—and if these costs are passed on to those seeking treatment then I think this will apply—may be able to bear the costs without unduly worrying their bank managers. That would not necessarily be the case for poorer couples seeking treatment. Without in any way wishing to appear unduly egalitarian, I have a feeling that that is hardly fair.
Perhaps I may also say that I was interested in what the noble Lord said in Committee. I was not able to be present then because I was in the People's Republic of China and I apologise for that. He said that he was rather worried about the possibility of a cosy relationship between the statutory licensing authority and those being licensed. I say to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that I have run up against a somewhat similar position in a part of the country with which he is well acquainted; that is, on the shores of Loch Cairnbawn, where my wife and I have what we call an enlarged shack. It is a croft which we have modernised. Over the past decade we have seen a tremendous increase in salmon farming, the licences for which are given by

1111
the Crown Commission. That body is also in receipt of the rents from those whom it licences. It has always struck me that that is not an ideal situation, although I do not wish to press that point unduly.
Another point which troubles me is that the Government have consistently and rightly paid tribute to the work of the Interim Licensing Authority. I believe that the authority has done marvellous work and it seems odd that if the Government insist on pursuing this course—and they may be right in doing so—they will be flying in the face of the one authority with real, valid, up to date experience in this field. In its third and fourth reports the licensing authority has expressed its disquiet about these proposals. I say that without knowing what the Government really have in mind. I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull have said about the fact that perhaps we do not have the wording right. Perhaps that is so but I wonder whether the Government have it right. Before I form a firm judgment, I should like to know what is really in the Government's mind.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I do not wish to add to any of the arguments save to press again a question which I put to the noble Baroness in Committee and which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has asked again this evening. I should like to know why the Government have decided, as regards the charging methods, to disregard the very forceful and cogent advice on the consequences and difficulties of charging from the only body—the Interim Licensing Authority—which has experience in that area. I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness will help me on that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I should start by reiterating what I said in Committee—that is, that there will be no question of National Health Service patients being charged for the licence fees. Indeed, there are no powers which would make that possible even if anybody wanted to do so.
I must go further and deny any intention in Clause 15 to penalise centres providing licensed treatments and undertaking research, if Parliament decides that that should be permitted. Indeed, since these centres are not being required to meet the full costs of the authority but only, in broad terms, about two-thirds of these costs, they are being treated more favourably than some other licensing systems where the aim is to achieve full recovery of licensing costs. I quoted that figure during the previous debate and I shall try to respond to other questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and others in my following remarks.
In areas which, to a greater or lesser degree, involve the protection or safety of the public, the principle of charging those who apply for licences is well established. While each case has of course its own variations, the range of examples I can cite in these areas shows how well established the principle is. Fees are charged for planning applications, for licences under the Medicines Act, for those wishing to carry out research involving scientific procedures
1112
carried out on animals, for licences for consumer credit, for certain licences issued by the Health and Safety Executive, for registration of private nursing homes by local authorities and under the Data Protection Act registration scheme.
These are only examples in the fields of the protection on safety of the public but the breadth of subjects covered and the number of government departments involved shows how widespread is the concept of recovering the costs of a licensing system from those who benefit from it. The Government see no reason to depart from this principle in the case of licences to be issued by the new authority as a result of this Bill.
It may be helpful if I comment on how the Government expect the new system to operate. In broad terms, as I have already indicated, we would expect fees to meet two-thirds of the costs of the new authority. The figures in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum indicate what the initial costs of the new authority are expected to be. Under Clause 15(6) of the Bill, the fee structure devised by the new authority will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and of the Treasury. As has been pointed out on other occasions, the Secretary of State is in turn responsible to Parliament.
Under Clause 15(7) the authority will have flexibility to charge different fees in different circumstances. Therefore, to answer the point that was raised, different fees can be charged for the National Health Service or indeed, for university centres. It would not be right for me to prejudge how the authority devises a fee structure. It may want to relate fees to the cost of work in processing particular types of application. Equally, it may decide to link fees to levels of the licensees' work so that it could charge less to small university-based units which provide treatment to a few patients, essentially in the interests of carrying out research on infertility services, and relatively more to centres with a large throughput of patients which charge market rates. It may be possible to combine elements from both options. The authority will clearly want to consider in depth the kind of scheme it should submit for the approval of Ministers and the Treasury.
Much has been made of the argument that centres will simply pass on the licensing costs to patients who will thereby be disadvantaged. It has even been suggested that that is discriminatory. However, under the National Health Service reform Bill, which will soon be before your Lordships, health authorities will have a duty to provide those services which are required to meet the needs of the local population. There is no reason why a health authority should not decide that this area of infertility treatment is one of those priorities. In any event, there is nothing unique about the passing on of licensing costs. Many of the licensing systems I mentioned in other examples are in the health field and mean that in the end the cost of licensing falls either on the National Health Service or, in the case of the private sector, on those who are paying for treatment or care.
That is what already happens with the cost of medicines licensing, which is the most apt analogy.

1113
The cost is reflected in the final cost of medicines which are paid for either by the National Health Service or the private patient. The alternative would be that the whole cost of licensing services, directly or indirectly for the infertile, should fall not on the Government—for the Government have no money of their own—but on the taxpayer. The Government do not believe it is wrong that part of the licensing costs should fall on the National Health Service and on those obtaining infertility services outside the National Health Service. Given the precedents that I cited in medicine control and elsewhere, it would have been an oddity had the Government decided to reject those precedents and put the whole cost on the taxpayer, as suggested by the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked for details of the real costs of treatment and how that works out in terms of individual patients. I do not think it would be productive for me to enter into detailed argument about estimated costs at this stage. Suffice to say that the estimates which appear in the financial and explanatory memorandum were drawn up after careful consideration of the relative costs which might be involved in licensing activity for specific types of licensed treatments. These estimates are inevitably tentative and in a new field such as this may need appreciable adjustment in practice. Equally, much will depend on how the new authority chooses to go about its work and how efficient it can make the operation of its work that is to be met from the fees. I venture to say that as a result of the changes that have already taken place in the Bill and the fact that the measure may be changed again in the course of its passage, then, as a result of those changes, the costs may be altered.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, may say that I have not answered his point. I believe that I did in saying that we do not intend licensing charges to be charged directly to patients but via the unit which obtains the licence. I realise that there is support for the amendment as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I trust however that the examples I gave and the precedents I quoted reassure your Lordships and that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her explanation, but I have to admit that I am still very puzzled. The Minister gave what appeared to be a very important assurance that there was no question of NHS patients being charged. That means that the institutions that are licensed to provide services and treatments and, indeed, research, would not be able to pass the cost on to NHS patients although possibly doing so in respect of private patients. I think I hinted that we should perhaps be looking for a different type of regime.
If the NHS patients are not charged, who actually does pay? Is it something that it is suggested could be paid for by the health authority? What would be the case with treatments in universities? How would that be paid? There are still these uncertainties and I bear in mind that the noble Baroness did not answer the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, who asked why the advice of the ILA had been rejected.
1114
This is a subject of very great interest: the amount of support shows that. I wonder if it is possible for there to be a meeting between those who, on different sides of the House, support this amendment and the Minister between now and Third Reading to inquire whether we can turn some of the assurances given into something clearer in the Bill. If the Minister could agree to that, putting us in a position to produce something which might be acceptable, I would be only too pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the most conclusive example—and it is perfectly clear—is that of the cost of medicines licensing which is paid for either by the National Health Service or the private sector.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, that is totally different. It is not comparable at all. There we are dealing with large multinational pharmaceutical companies who pay their licensing authority. They do not have a shortage of money. They do not need to pass the cost on to their patients in the same way that in this field it has to be passed on to patients.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was going on to say that nevertheless, in view of the support that has been shown and because, I hope, we are always a listening Government, prepared to be as co-operative as possible, I should be happy to meet and discuss the matter before Third Reading as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Directions as to particular matters]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert—
("(1A) In the case of every licence under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act, directions shall require information to be recorded about each of the matters referred to in section 13(2)(a) to (e) of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Code of practice]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 13, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) The guidance given by the code shall include guidance for those providing treatment services about We account to be taken of the welfare of children who may be born as a result of treatment services, and of other children who may be affected by such births.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is the second part of the amendment I spoke to with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this might be an appropriate moment to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned until half past eight. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1990
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if your Lordships agree, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to the other draft regulations on the Order Paper. They all make amendments to the relevant 1986 regulations, which together govern the registration of electors, absent voting and the conduct of parliamentary, European parliamentary and local government elections throughout the United Kingdom. The draft regulations before the House are supplemented by various rules and orders which are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The amendments made by these draft regulations fall into three distinct categories. First, they make the necessary arrangements for implementing the new provisions for overseas electors in Sections 1 to 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1989. Secondly, they introduce revised and simplified procedures for some aspects of domestic absent voting. Thirdly, they make a number of minor amendments which are either consequential or are designed to rectify errors or clarify provisions in the 1986 regulations.
I shall deal briefly with each of these areas in turn. For convenience I shall refer to the text of the draft regulations applying to England and Wales. The draft Scottish regulations make corresponding provision, as appropriate, for Scotland. The provisions in the draft regulations for Northern Ireland are also broadly the same, apart from one exception which I shall mention in due course.
Regulations 10 to 16 deal with the new arrangements for overseas electors. It may be of assistance if I remind your Lordships briefly of the main provisions of the 1989 Act in this respect. Sections 1 to 4 of that Act, which will come into force on 1st April, extend the right to vote for British citizens living abroad by increasing from five to 20 years the period during which they may apply to be registered to vote at United Kingdom parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. The Act also extends the right to vote to those who left the United Kingdom before they were old enough to be included on the register of electors. It simplifies the qualifications by abolishing the requirement for overseas electors to declare that they do not intend to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom and relaxes the attestation requirement for first-time applicants.
Regulation 10, therefore, removes any reference to a declaration of intent about future residence and brings young people, who were unable to register in the UK before leaving by virtue of their age, within the ambit of the regulations. Regulation 12 replaces the existing provisions requiring the consular attestation of overseas electors' initial declarations, with one requiring attestation by a holder of a British citizen's passport. The attestor must know the declarant but should not be a close relative. This simplification of the attestation requirement has been widely welcomed, though there are those who think it goes a little too far and others who hold that it does not go far enough. That suggests to me that we have pitched the new requirement just right. Regulation 15 ensures that electoral registration officers will send a reminder about registration to all overseas electors who appear to continue to be eligible, every June or July, in good time before the qualifying date of 10th October.
Taken together these regulations give effect to the extended overseas franchise provided by the 1989 Act and simplify the procedures for registering as an overseas elector.
I turn now to absent voting in Great Britain. I think your Lordships may be aware that the provisions for absent voting at a particular election contained in the Representation of the People Act 1985 were subject to considerable criticism following the 1987 general election. Complaints centred on the requirement for certain applications to be attested. Having consulted interested parties on the matter the Government undertook to drop the attestation requirement. Regulations 21 and 22 therefore abolish the requirement that applications for a postal or proxy vote for a particular parliamentary or local government election must be attested. There are only two exceptions to that. Attestation will still be required where a late application for an absent vote is made on medical grounds, where the relevant circumstances could not reasonably have been foreseen earlier; or where someone's employment, either as a constable or by the returning officer in connection with the election on the day of the poll, will prevent him from getting to his allotted polling station.
The remainder of the draft regulations cover a variety of comparatively minor matters. Some are technical changes consequential on the 1989 Act; others correct minor errors or omissions in the existing regulations.
The draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations make broadly corresponding changes to the law in Northern Ireland. The main difference is that applications or an absent vote for a particular election will still need to be attested. The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations make certain changes to the 1986 European regulations, which cover Scotland as well as England and Wales. These are either consequential on the main 1990 amendment regulations or make minor changes in order to bring the 1986 European regulations up to date. The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations perform the same function for Northern Ireland.
I should perhaps say a word about the commencement of the various provisions in these regulations. Those relating to overseas electors will come into force on 1st April, at the same time as the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act 1989. The forms by which overseas electors may apply for registration will also be available in April from posts abroad, ensuring that British citizens overseas have ample opportunity to make their declarations in good time before the qualifying date of 10th October. The changes in domestic absent voting procedures will come into force on 1st July.
These regulations are lengthy and rather technical. I have not dealt with them in detail but I will of course address any particular points your Lordships may wish to raise. The regulations have been the subject of widespread consultation covering most of the details with the major political parties, returning officers and electoral registration officers, and they have been carefully scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that your Lordships are grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation of these draft regulations and order, and for detailing the main points so clearly. The noble Viscount said that the orders had been the subject of wide consultation, including consultation with political parties. I should like to ask whether the parties agreed to the changes or whether there were queries.
At the outset I wish to deal with one very important matter which is common in the main RPA regulations for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I refer to the important change regarding the sale of registers. This provides that the registration officer shall supply, on payment, copies of any part or parts of the register to any person who satisfies the conditions set out in the regulations. The main condition is that the person shall have informed the registration officer by 1st November in any year as to the number of copies he requires of the register to be published by 15th February in the following year.
The present position is set out clearly in Regulation 54 of the 1986 regulations. That regulation provides these very important words:
"So long as there are sufficient copies available after meeting the needs of the election".
Those noble Lords who are conversant with the running of an election will recognise that there are registers which must be used for the needs of an election; namely, for the use of the returning officer, the presiding officer of the polling station and for the candidates connected with the running of the election. Many local authorities have held that the 1986 Regulations make the sale of registers discretionary in the light of the words to which I have referred.
The new regulations will make the sale mandatory so long as advance notice of the number of copies required is given, as I say, by 1st November. Why
1118
is this change made? In the Standing Committee of another place which considered these regulations, the Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd, said that the action taken by some of the local authorities was an inconvenience to industry. Has account been taken of the inconvenience, annoyance and objection of the electors when the sale of the registers—which was thought to be on a discretionary basis—was first introduced? The measure was so unpopular that in a Gallup poll 79 per cent. of the respondents disagreed with the sale of election registers.
We know that there has been intensive lobbying by advertising interests for this particular change. If approved, this regulation will provide that copies of the register must be available for sale to interests such as advertisers, direct-mail companies and similar bodies. Therefore, electors must look forward to a great increase in junk mail, and we are all aware of the amount of such mail that conies through our letter boxes at the moment.
Is not this provision a misuse of the purposes for which the register is compiled and of the basis on which the householder completes Form A? That is a very important question. In bringing forward this regulation, are not the Government disregarding personal privacy? For instance, this change will give information regarding women who live alone, because they can now be identified. The poll tax register is to be confidential. Why should there be this difference concerning the electoral register?
I know that the register for a particular electoral area has to be available for inspection in a public place, but that is totally different from the sale of a register for the purposes which I have mentioned, involving commercial and advertising interests. Most people will object to the annual register being so readily available for those purposes. Most people have a very strong objection to this provision. I also wonder how this measure fits in with the Data Protection Act 1984, under which information must be used only for the purpose for which it was obtained. This information was obtained solely to include a person on the electoral register.
If the Government insist that this measure must go through, should not electors be given the opportunity, when the householder completes Form A, to indicate that he does not wish the details to be supplied for advertising purposes? In other words, the sale of the register should be restricted to certain interests. I also ask the Minister, under what primary legislation is this important change to the three sets of regulations provision brought forward? I should like the Government to have second thoughts on this matter and withdraw this set of regulations in the light of what I am certain is the wholesale objection on the part of the great majority of electors.
It will be recalled that when the 1989 Bill was before the House I objected to certain provisions, particularly the extension for overseas electors to 20 years and particularly the situation of the young person who might leave the country at the very young age of 18 and who may know nothing about the constituency in which he will be allowed to vote. Yet I accept that the 1989 Bill has now become law and therefore I am not objecting to the fact that these measures are included.

1119
In particular I recognise the necessity for a copy of the birth certificate to be made available for overseas persons when they reach the age of 18. I also recognise that there will be a substantial increase in the number of overseas electors by virtue of the extension to 20 years. A Minister in another place said that there could be as many as 1.5 million additional eligible overseas electors. If that is so, then by simple arithmetic that works out at an average of 2,300 additional electors per constituency, which is a very important matter.
Nevertheless, I recognise that with this large number there has to be some change of the attestation of the declaration. Having said that, the noble Viscount indicated that there were differences of opinion. He said that there were some people who thought that this measure was going too far. It will be very interesting for me to know whether some political parties were among those who thought that.
I also know the requirements which an attesting person must record in the overseas elector's declaration, which are set out in paragraph 4 of the new Regulation 12. This regulation substitutes completely for Regulation 25 of the 1986 Regulations. Therefore there is nothing left of the old Regulation 25. There appears to be no requirement for the person attesting to attest that the declarant did reside at the address which he or she gives as being the last address in the United Kingdom at which he or she resided in the previous period of 20 years, nor in the case of a person who has reached the age of 18 does the attestant have to declare that he has seen the birth certificate.
The noble Viscount may say that as the applicant has to transmit the birth certificate with his declaration, that is sufficient. The importance of this matter is reflected in the number to which I referred; that is to say, there may be as many as 2,300 additional overseas electors coming on to a constituency register. As the noble Viscount said, Regulation 15 provides that a reminder be sent to overseas electors to make the new declaration for each register. That is a further task which will fall on the registration officers.
I understand that there will be the necessary recompense to the registration officers of the cost involved in carrying out this work. I recognise that this was a provision in the 1989 Act. However, I wonder whether consideration has been given to a similar facility being granted to those on the absent voters' list in a particular election to receive a reminder that if they still require an absent vote, they should make application.
The noble Viscount referred to the abolition of the need for absent vote applications for a particular election to be attested. I wish to know under what legislation that change is being introduced, because I believe it is generally agreed that no order can be introduced unless there is some primary legislation which permits it. It was certainly not in the 1989 Act. Can the Minister say whether there is some general enabling clause in the principal 1983 Act which enables the Secretary of State to introduce regulations of this kind? Is there primary legislation somewhere which covers this provision?
1120
The last point I wish to raise concerns Northern Ireland. There is one difference regarding the main new RPA regulations and those for local elections in Northern Ireland. An application for an indefinite postal or proxy vote must be attested to by the medical practitioner or Christian Science practitioner from whom the applicant is receiving treatment. That is totally different from the situation which applies in Great Britain. So far as I can see, it is a change from the provisions of the 1986 regulations. There may be a sensible reason for the change which has to do with the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland. I should like the Minister to give the reason for the Government's introduction of this change.
The noble Viscount may not be able to answer my next question. If that is so, I look forward to receiving a letter from him. It concerns the regulations for European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland. I have looked carefully at the provisions in Regulation 4 but I do not know what they mean. There are many references to changes but there is no indication of what they may mean. I leave that point to the noble Viscount. If he cannot deal with it tonight, perhaps he will write to me about it.
I have no other points of difference on the regulations. My main concern is over the sale of registers. I hope that the Government will take a second look at it because it is something to which the people of this country strongly object.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked some pertinent questions to which we all look forward to answers. I should like to reinforce his main point which concerned the sale of electoral registers. When I give my name voluntarily in order to supply information, I for one act on the assumption that my name will be used for the purpose for which it was given and not for some other purpose. If it is used for some other purpose, particularly if that purpose is a commercial one, I regard it as a breach of my privacy. Like the noble Lord, I thought that the purpose of the Data Protection Act 1984 was to protect individual citizens precisely from this invasion of their privacy and the exploitation of their name for purposes other than those for which it is given.
When this point was raised in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in effect that as it is a public document, which we all agree a register is, it is impossible to ensure that it does not fall into commercial hands. That is true. It is impossible to ensure that a public document does not fall into commercial hands. That is slightly different from ensuring that it does. That is what the present regulation has provided for. That being the case, I doubt, given the Government's propensity to put everything on a commercial basis, that we shall move them on this matter, despite the protests which I have received from the AMA listing no fewer than 22 authorities which have refused to supply the 1990 electoral register to commercial firms. Given that they are very unlikely to go along with any measures to protect the privacy of individuals on the lines which the noble Lord and I have suggested,

1121
what they might do, and what I believe it was suggested in another place they would consider, is to give people an opportunity to say that they do not wish their name to be sold in this fashion and to ensure that if it is used in this fashion it is in breach of the agreement with the commercial firm which bought the list.
It is those two questions among others to which I hope we shall have a satisfactory and clear answer during the course of the debate. It is monstrous that in putting down one's name on an electoral register, which it is a civic obligation to do, one should be exploited in this way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Underhill and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, particularly in relation to the sale of registers. I note the point about the ability of people who have left this country for 20 years to be able to vote in British elections. This is a case of representation without taxation. I have always been against it, and I continue to be against it, particularly when one bears in mind that these people who have forsaken their country are in a better position than people who have remained in their country. There is no obligation on people resident abroad to register to vote. They have the choice. They do not have to put their names on a register which will be saleable to all and sundry. But that is not the case with British citizens. British citizens resident in this country have an obligation, a legal obligation, to register. If they do not register they can be hauled before the magistrates' court and fined £25. It may be more now. The figure may have been updated. But certainly they can be fined for failing to fill in the registration form.
It goes even wider than that. They are under a duty not only to supply information about themselves; the householder does not merely have to say that he would be on the register. He has to give information about other people who are living in the household. Therefore he is giving to the authorities the names of people who may be pestered in the future by junk mail. It is quite intolerable that people who are under a statutory duty to give information about themselves and others living in their household should not be able to say to the authorities, "I perfectly understand that for the purposes of elections it is necessary to have my name on the electoral register. But it is for that purpose, and that purpose only". It is quite wrong that the Government should give permission for that information to be sold to other people for commercial purposes and perhaps for other purposes less worthy as well. The Government must take this point much more seriously than they have up to now.
My noble friend Lord Underhill referred to the Data Protection Act. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will have been advised on this. As I understand it, the electoral register is now merely a print-out of information held on computer. Pratically every electoral register is compiled by computer. The computer takes in data and prints information out. That print-out is the electoral register. I hope that we shall have an answer to that
1122
point or the Government may find themselves in breach of the law. And we would not want that, would we?
I do not wish to delay the House any further except to recommend to the noble Viscount and to the Government the legitimate and serious suggestion put forward by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for some means by which electors can prevent the information about themselves being sold on to a commercial organisation or any other organisation that does not have a legal right to it. In my view that suggestion ought to be taken seriously. Perhaps electors could have an asterisk placed against their names if they do not wish them to be sold on to commercial companies or others.
I hope that the noble Viscount will understand that there is a good deal of feeling about the matter. In this country we are getting rather fed up, frankly, as individuals—that is, it is to be hoped, private individuals—at having information about ourselves given to all and sundry by government departments which are supposed to use that information only for the purpose for which it is required.
8 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for the general welcome which has basically been given to the regulations. It would be useful if I started by addressing a few remarks to the sale of the register, which was a point mentioned by all speakers. The electoral registration officer has a duty to prepare and publish in each year a register of electors for the area in which he acts. To do so he relies upon the information provided by householders in the electoral registration form, Form A. He is obliged to make a copy of the electoral register available for inspection in each electoral area. That is to enable members of the public to check that their names are included and, if they so wish, to ensure that any names about which they have doubts are not included. It is a procedure fairly fundamental to the democratic process. The ERO must also provide free copies of the register to the local Member of Parliament, parliamentary candidates and local councillors. If there are any copies remaining, he is required to supply a part or the whole of the register to any person upon payment of a prescribed fee. Those provisions reflect the fact that the electoral register is a public document in wide circulation for electoral purposes.
The Government have considered the possibility of withdrawing the right of non-electoral users to buy copies of the register. A consultation paper issued by the Home Office in 1984–85 reviewed that whole area of the law, including proposals now implemented for the supply of the register in computer-compatible form. The outcome of that consultation indicated a fair measure of consensus among political parties on the continuing need for public availability of the register.
The local authority associations questioned whether it would be practical to restrict access to and use of the register to prevent it being used for

1123
commercial purposes. The various direct marketing and credit reference agencies which responded emphasised the benefits to the consumer of making electoral data available and the probable rise in the cost of credit if the right was withdrawn. The Consumers' Association and the Office of Fair Trading took the same line. In the light of that consultation, the Government's conclusion was that controls on the use of the register for commercial purposes were unlikely to be effective. Because the register is a public document and widely needed for electoral purposes, it would be difficult to prevent it from being used by other organisations. There is also the benefit to consumers to be considered. The Government therefore concluded that non-electoral users, who include researchers as well as commercial concerns, should continue to be able to obtain copies of the register and should pay the costs incurred for such a service.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked upon what the sale was based. I must point out that primary legislation requires the register to be available for public inspection and empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the provision and sale of copies.
The subject of junk mail was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I think that we should keep the problem in proportion. In the year from October 1988 to September 1989 the average British household received just five items of personally addressed direct mail advertising per month. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is smiling and I can understand the reason for his amusement. However, I should like to continue. There is a simple and effective remedy if people do not wish to receive such mail. They may write to the Mailing Preference Service, Freepost 22, London W1E 7EZ. It is a service funded by the direct mail organisations which will arrange for any names requested to be removed from mailing lists.
Noble Lords also asked me about the Data Protection Act—
Lord Underhill: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether it is proposed that a statement to that effect will in future appear on Form A?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the answer to that question is no. In designing a form it is necessary to strike a balance between essential guidance to complete the form properly and helpful information.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, would this not be helpful information? It is helpful for me not to receive piles of junk mail. Not being in an ordinary household—indeed, I think I must come from an extraordinary household—I receive five junk-mail letters a day. Why should it not be posible for people to mark on the electoral register the fact that they do not want to receive junk mail? The Mailing Preference Service could then act upon the information.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is up to the noble Lord to write to such people and ask them not to include his name on the register for junk mail. Obviously that option is open to any individual citizen.
In general, the Government feel that the less small print on Form A the better. A special note about junk mail could have the effect of deterring people from registering. That is precisely the opposite of what we all want. Further, such a note might give a misleading impression as to the purpose of the form, which is to obtain details of those eligible to vote. In the past we have received requests from local authorities wishing to attach or enclose additional information with Form A. We have always advised against that because it would tend to obscure the main purpose of the form. People who are concerned about receiving advertising mail will often contact the Home Office or their local council and thus they can receive information about the Mailing Preference Service.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount consider the point much more seriously? He has a prepared answer to this question and that I quite understand. However, we are shifting to a different position than has applied previously. Up until now it has not been very easy for these commercial organisations to get hold of electoral registers; it has been up to local authorities. But under these regulations we are giving them the right, provided they ask for them by 1st November, to have such registers supplied to them at a cost. Therefore the situation is much different. It calls for further information to be given to the electors who will be affected in the future to a greater extent than they have been in the past. They need some additional protection and this can be given to them—unless of course the regulations are dropped—in the way suggested by my noble friend.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it has to be a question of balance. The Government have decided that the balance should be between what is in the interest of the consumer and what is not. The noble Lord may feel that being on a list to receive junk mail is not in the interest of the consumer, but there are other concerns for credit reference agencies which from the advice I have would be in the interests of the consumer. The Consumers' Association and the Office of Fair Trading have gone along with that idea. Therefore one needs to create a balance and that is what the Government have sought to do.
Perhaps I may turn now to the Data Protection Act and the questions put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The Act concerns data which are held in the computer. The electoral register is a printed document and therefore when it is made available effectively it is not in a computer format but is a hard copy. If it is then sold to another organisation, it is up to that organisation to fulfil all the conditions required by the Data Protection Act. Perhaps I may deal—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Viscount. What is this "computer format"? I am not an expert on computers but my young son has a computer at home. He puts data in and part of the system is a printer which prints the data out. That is one whole machine, it is not a separate machine. The printer is part of the computer hardware which will not work with anything other than the computer. Therefore the data go into the computer and come out in a computerised form.
My guess is that although the machines that the local authorities have will be much bigger than that of my young son, the principle is the same. The data are put into the computer hardware at one end and they come out on another part of the computer hardware—namely, the printer—at the other end. What is the difference? They are in computer form.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that 1 can go much further along this line. The printed copy of the register is not data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. The information recorded for that purpose is displayed in the hard copy which is made available to the public. That is the information which may be collected and processed by a word processor or computerised machinery. What is stored is printed as the printed copy and therefore it is not data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will give way, I should be most grateful to him. This is very mysterious. Is he saying that information derived from the computer data is outside the Act because the form in which that information is presented is printed but not printed by a computer? Is he saying that information derived from computer records falls outside the Act if it is printed not by a computer but by some other means?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not feel that I can go any further. I am advised that the printed copy of the register is not data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I really feel that I ought to go on to other points.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will give way because this is most worrying. Perhaps I may put another position to him. Suppose a debt collecting agency puts into the computer at one end the names of all the people who are in debt. Having been printed by the computer printer, that comes out at the other end in the same form as an electoral register. Is the noble Viscount saying that it is not illegal to publish that information because it is not in the proper computer form? I find this most worrying. The noble Viscount's advice is his advice. I suppose that, like him, we shall have to take that advice, but I find it very worrying indeed.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I may help to clear the slightly muddy waters into which we have plunged. The law requires the register to be published. The register having been made public, it can no longer be treated as confidential under the Data Protection Act. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
At long last, perhaps I may deal with one or two of the other points that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, brought up. He referred to the duties of the attestor abroad. He alluded to Regulation No. 12, which says that the attestor should to the best of his knowledge and belief, apply certain tests as to whether the applicant is a British citizen; that he is who he says he is. He does that perhaps by examining his passport. The effective test is that the applicant is not resident in the UK on the date of he declaration. That is the important provision.
The noble Lord asked whether the attestor needed to verify the past address in the UK. That is not really his duty, it is for the ERO to be satisfied on that matter. Similarly, the noble Lord made reference to the birth certificate for those who had not registered before but who have now become of age to register. Again that is matter about which the ERO should be satisfied when he receives the application.
The noble Lord also asked whether, as reminders will be sent to overseas electors, absent voters would have a reminder sent to them as well. The absent voters are resident in the United Kingdom. As such they are probably only absent for one election or perhaps in some cases a series of elections. Form A is sent out on an annual basis and is a reminder for all voters in this country. It is sent to households during the period from July to September, which should give them plenty of notification that they may need to register as absent voters for an election.
The noble Lord also asked me under what powers the change of rules for attestation was drawn. He is correct that under the primary legislation—I am advised that it is under paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983—the Secretary of State has power to make and to alter regulations as these regulations of 1990 amend the previous 1986 regulations.
Lastly the noble Lord drew attention to the different requirements for attestation in Northern Ireland. The retention and tightening of certain attestation requirements in the Northern Ireland regulations reflect our concern over the reported growing level of abuse of postal voting in Northern Ireland. In his last published annual report, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland said that over the previous three years an increasing number of forged or false applications had been identified. In view of the chief electoral officer's concern, the Government have felt unable to extend to Northern Ireland the relaxation of the attestation requirements. Indeed, we have sought to tighten the existing requirements so far as is practicable.
The noble Lord also asked me in regard to the European election regulations what Regulation No. 4 meant. I presume that he was talking about the Northern Ireland regulation. Regulation No. 4 is

1127
a technical provision, as I think the noble Lord understands from his reading of it. It ensures that provisions in the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations which have been applied for the purposes of European parliamentary elections will be those provisions as amended by the 1990 amending regulations. I hope that that entirely clears up the question asked by the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1990
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1990
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the sixth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.30 p.m.]

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 24.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 22, at end insert—
("(1 A) The code shall require that where treatment services are provided for a woman and a man together (whether married to each other or not) involving the use of the gametes of some other person or the placing in the woman of an embryo the creation of which was brought about by the use of such gametes, the person responsible shall advise the woman and the man to tell any child carried by the woman as a result of the provision of those treatment services of its origins.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 is designed to minimise the number of children born as a result of donated embryos of gametes who grow up unaware of their origins. It would require people in charge of clinics to advise the woman and the man to tell any child carried by the woman as a result of the provision of those treatment services of its origin.
We are all aware of the problem of alerting children to the fact that there is something that they ought to know about their origins so that they can make inquiries under Clause 29 of the Bill. No one has yet come up with a satisfactory solution. As matters stand it is very much up to the parents. To a certain degree that is how it should be. However, some parents will put off telling their children and some may put it off for ever. Therefore it seems right that the authority should include in its code a requirement to remind parents of their responsibilities in that respect.
The amendment would only mitigate the problem but I believe that any mitigation is worthy of consideration by your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment. There are many difficulties, but I shall mention only one or two.
First, there is the requirement that,
"the person responsible shall advise the woman and the man to tell any child".
We have to decide who is the person responsible.

1129
In moving the amendment the noble Lord referred to the parents' responsibilities. The parents must decide for themselves whether they think that it is helpful for their child to know its origins, before the age of 18. There seems to me to be no reason why they should tell the child unless they wish to do so. I said at Committee stage that I do not believe that it is the responsibility of this legislative assembly to tell parents what they should do in relation to their own children. Some parents will be most anxious that their child should know early in life what happened and why and how it was that the child was born. Others may determine that that is not in the best interests of the child.
That is just the kind of issue about which parents would seek advice from counsellors. They would want advice about how to face up to that difficult problem. However, I do not believe that it is for this House, or Parliament in general, and the law to say to the parents what they should do in this recognisably difficult predicament.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, the noble Lord recognises that this is a difficult situation. However, the difficulty arises from what is now common knowledge. Within the psyche of everyone is a longing to understand one's origins: where did I come from, how am I here, who are my parents?
If a child observes that he has no apparent genetic link with the people who have brought him up he will begin to wonder about his parentage. Sooner or later one or other of the people who have brought him up—if there are two of them, as I hope there will be—will let slip some remark which will begin to drill a hole in his self-confidence. He will never be happy until the truth about his origins is ascertained. If those who are acting as parents have been honest with the child from the beginning and have said, "We are not your genetic parents", the difficulty will not arise. Therefore I believe that it is as well that the child should be told.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that argument through. If the child is told that the husband and wife who have brought him up are not his genetic parents he will then want to know who are his genetic parents. What happens then?
There is a great difference between adoption and this situation. In adoption one always tells the child that he is adopted. One is able to say to the child, "Your mother loved you so much; she knew that she could not give you the best in life and was generous enough to let somebody else bring you up. The people who brought you up are the people who loved you best because they chose you". That is a different situation because one knows the people involved and the matter can be followed through.
In this situation, if parents say, "We are not your genetic parents" the child's first reaction will be to ask "Who are my parents?" Then what do you say?
If the man who gives sperm thinks that he will be pursued as the father of a child he will not co-operate. However, one should consider the matter from the child's point of view, which is the most important. Where a child is brought up by a couple who act as
1130
his mother and father, even though the father is not the genetic father, that is the right way to deal with the matter. It is not the same as adoption.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I appreciate the good will and sentiments behind the amendment. However, regarding it simply as a legal provision, how is it to be enforced? It must be many years before the child is sophisticated enough to take in the kind of explanations which this advice requires.
How would one convict the adviser years after the event of being in breach of duty, either for not giving good enough or sufficiently explicit advice, or possibly no advice at all? He will not remember and the parents will not remember. I do not believe that it is a viable provision for a statute.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. The issue seems to me to be very simple. Either one tells the truth or one does not. In Committee I was very moved by the most pertinent point that got through to me after three long afternoons of discussion in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said in effect, "When I was at school I was brought up to tell the truth and my advice to the House is to tell the truth now". That is what my advice to the House is now.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked what one tells the child. One should tell the child the truth. In my opinion one cannot gainsay the truth; so when in doubt tell the truth. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I sympathise with the reasoning behind the amendments each of which may well raise an issue on which the code of practice should attempt to give some form of guidance. However, I should like to make a general point about the code of practice. The code will be drawn up by the new authority and will need to be approved by the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. With the exception of the important amendment dealing with the welfare of children which I have just moved, the code in its present form is not specific as to content. The matter should be decided in the light of detailed consideration by the authority charged with the responsibility for the licensing system. I am sure that that must be the right policy.
It is tempting for Parliament to lay down in more detail the subjects with which the code should deal as a way of indicating the concern which is felt about particular subjects. That is what we have done in the amendment which the Government have moved and to which I have just referred. However, it would be unfortunate if Clause 24 were to become simply a vehicle for specifying detailed provisions about the content of the code. The code will need to cover a wide range of subjects of varying degrees of sensitivity. To highlight detailed aspects, however important in themselves, inevitably creates the impression that matters not referred to in the Bill are less important.
Unless one has made a full study of the matter, it is difficult to say which are the important points. It

1131
is surely right that the code should be subject to detailed consideration by the authority. I should be surprised if the authority did not find that it had to consult interested organisations and experts on particular matters. For that reason, it would be a great pity if, in relation to some topics, we in this legislative assembly pre-judged what line the code should take.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull pointed out one problem. Other noble friends who spoke hold an opposite view. As one would expect, my noble friend Lord Ashbourne suggested that the answer was to tell the truth. No one would wish to misinform a child; on the other hand, the amendment raises an issue of considerable difficulty. The mere fact that a child has been born following on treatment is not necessarily a consequence of the treatment. It may well be that a woman continues to have normal relations with her husband at the same time as having such treatment. I do not profess to understand in any detail the mechanisms by which those things work. But it is certainly possible that, although conception followed treatment, it was not caused by the treatment. The idea that the truth about one's origins is plain for all to see is an over-simplification of the reality.
Having said that, it may well be important in some circumstances to tell the child. One of those circumstances may be where there is any question of a genetic problem. The medical assessment of a condition in the child may well require that the genetic characteristics or other medical characteristics of the genetic father, for example, should be studied. That might create a different situation from one without such circumstances. So the situation is quite difficult and delicate. It is not easy at this stage when, with all respect, we do not know as much about the matter as the people who are deeply involved in trying to deal with these treatments will know when they come to draft the code.
I therefore suggest to noble Lords that we have given a clear lead to those drafting the code that the welfare of any child to be born following the treatment should be taken into account before the treatment is given. It should then be left to the authority to draft a detailed code giving effect to that principle and trying to take account of all the other circumstances which may well arise.
However, I should like to assist noble Lords who have tabled the amendment by saying that I am content to undertake that we shall bring to the attention of the authority, once appointed—assuming that the Bill goes through—the various matters that have been raised in the amendments and that the Secretary of State will consider, in relation to his responsibility for approving the code, whether guidance should be given on the lines of the amendments. That approach will adequately take account of the concerns expressed by noble Lords in a way that is consistent with the statutory framework under which the code will ultimately be determined by the authority subject to the Secretary of State's consent.
1132
In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment. We have had a valuable debate upon it. Experienced views in different directions have been expressed showing that the point is not by any means a simple one, but will nevertheless be fully considered at the appropriate stage.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am also glad that he has given us an assurance that the matter will be discussed when the code is formulated. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 22, at end insert—
("(1B) The code shall require that
(a) the sperm of any one man: or
(b) the eggs of any one woman, should not be used in the course of providing treatment services for a number of women greater than that specified in the code.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when speaking to Amendment No. 28 perhaps I should have said that, although the amendments are grouped together, they deal with different subjects. I hope that the House will give me leave to speak to each separately.
Amendment No. 29 requires the authority to stipulate the number of women who could be treated with the sperm of any one man or eggs of any one woman. The amendment is similar to one that I moved in Committee when I proposed that the Secretary of State should have the power to lay down the maximum numbers. Although my amendment did not find favour with the Committee, the Minister said that it would be right for the authority to provide guidance on good practice and to monitor the situation. That is one thing that it should do. The amendment would somewhat restrict the fathering of children by AID, but it would reduce the likelihood of unwitting incest. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I suggest that exactly the same considerations apply to this amendment as applied to the previous one, more particularly perhaps to this amendment which does no attempt to specify the number but provides that this should be specified in the code. It may well be that different numbers should apply to different aspects of the amendment. However, I again give the assurance that the matters referred to in the amendment will certainly be brought to the attention of the authority when it is constituted under the Bill and that the Secretary of State will bear those matters in mind when considering whether to approve the code in terms of his statutory duty.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 13. line 22, at end insert—
("(1C) The code shall require that no man shall provide sperm and no woman shall provide eggs for use in the provision of treatment services unless he or she has attained the age of eighteen years or such greater age as the code may specify.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 requires the authority to set a lower age limit of at least 18 years for donors of sperm or eggs. That is a new subject, but I hope that there is general approval in the House of some kind of age limit. The age of 18 seems the lowest age at which someone can adequately assess what is involved in donation. It would be open for the code of practice to lay down a higher, not a lower, age.
There is no suggestion that clinics involved in infertility treatment are likely to seek donations from those under 18, but, if gametes were for any reason in short supply, they might be under some pressure to do so. I therefore feel strongly that we should build that limit into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord what principle lies behind the amendment. My understanding is that in England people may marry with their parents' permission at the age of 16 and with the permission of the summary court if the parents refuse. I understand that a summary court rarely refuses permission. For all I know, there may well be circumstances in which a married couple aged 16 or 17 might require treatment which involved what the amendment prohibits. I do not understand the principle that is embodied in the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has implied that Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 are not apt because they are too particular to be put into the code. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that what the noble and learned Lord said about earlier amendments applies also to this one. I should have thought that it might be advisable to have more general guidance in the code but the limit is a matter for the clinician under the code of practice. It would be unwise to spell out that limit if only for the reasons adduced by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. I commend that point of view to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I support the amendment on the basis that the House must decide whether the limit should be included in the Bill or in the code of practice. My opinion is that the matter is sufficiently important to be in the Bill rather than in the code of practice. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, strictly speaking of course the amendment requires that the limit be in the code, but I do not take that point more than just as a matter of semantics. It is a statutory provision regulating the code. What I said earlier applies also to this amendment. I can well understand that it might be in somewhat exceptional
1134
circumstances only that one would think it right to resort to infertility treatment as early as this even if people were married at 16. The Bill is intended to apply more generally than to that aspect of the matter.
It is fair to say again that whether an age limit be laid down, and if so what it should be, is a matter which would have to be considered in relation to the code. For example, a different age limit might be appropriate if the couple seeking treatment were married than if they were not. Circumstances can vary. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, who supported the amendment, that this is a matter which would be appropriately dealt with in the code. I give an undertaking similar to the one I gave earlier about the matter being brought to the attention of the licensing authority when considering the code and also that the Secretary of State will have it in mind when considering whether to give approval to the code under the statutory duties that the Bill provides.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the words used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that the matter will be brought to the attention of the licensing authority. It will be brought to the attention of the licensing authority in the same sense as the issue had been raised, not in the sense that the House had taken a view on it, because other issues may come up on further amendments which might be appropriate for guidance in the code. I should not like to think that because someone who disagrees with a point has not spoken some seal of approval has been given with regard to drawing the matter to the attention of the authority.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I did not intend that. In all these undertakings I intended that that consideration would be brought to the attention of the licensing authority, leaving it to decide what it should do. I would not wish to give the impression that the House as a whole had approved any line on this matter except that this was a matter for the licensing authority to consider and determine and for the Secretary of State to have in mind when deciding whether he should grant approval. That is all that I mean. These subject matters will be drawn to the attention of the licensing authority as subject matters which have been considered, without in any way telling it what to do. It must be the licensing authority's responsibility to decide whether something along those lines is appropriate, and if it thinks that something along those lines is appropriate what the detail of what it lays down should be. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, understood that in relation to my earlier undertakings, as I hope that all of your Lordships have.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I fully understood that point. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken, but I am extremely disappointed by their views because I feel that serious moral problems are involved in this subject.

1135
A schoolboy of 16 or 17 should not be expected to make such a decision or be involved. I feel strongly that 18 should be the minimum age for donors. However, having said that, it is getting on in the evening. Attendance in the House is small and I do not believe that it would be right for me to divide the House. With respect, that is my sole reason for not dividing the House, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Meaning of "mother"]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("A woman who") and insert ("The woman who is carrying or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 35. Amendment No. 31 provides that, subject to a subsequent adoption, a woman who is carrying or has carried a child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or sperm and eggs, and no other woman, is to be treated as the mother of the child.
Amendment No. 35 provides that Clause 27, which deals with the meaning of father, applies in the case of a child who is being or has been carried by a woman as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination.
The amendments make it clear that a woman is to be treated as the mother of a child not only following the child's birth but also during the period when she is carrying the child, and if a man is to be treated as the father of a child he is to be so treated not only following the child's birth but also during the period when the woman is carrying the child. The amendments are necessary because in some statutes references to a child living at the time of the death of any person include a child en ventre sa mere at that time. Examples are Section 55(2) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 and Section 25 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Similar provisions may appear in deeds.
If Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, it will have an effect on Amendment No. 32 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I had therefore better speak now. I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the desirability of the amendment. I am concerned with a different point, but if my amendment were accepted it would have the effect of deleting the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. At a later stage I should like to see a further amendment which would embody the amendment that he has moved and what I would have moved in Amendment No. 32 which is on a different point.
Your Lordships will see that Clause 26 states:
"A woman who has carried a child".
1136
It will now read
"The woman who is carrying or has carried a child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs, and no other woman, is to be treated as the mother of the child".
My point is that it requires the placing in that woman either of an embryo or of sperm and eggs together. Therefore it does not apply in the case of a woman who has been artificially inseminated when only the sperm are placed in her.
Noble Lords may think from Clause 1(2) that the Bill has nothing to do with conceptions as the result of artificial insemination. I agree with that. However, if we then read Clause 27(1) which relates to the meaning of "father", the Bill refers to a woman who has become pregnant as a result of artificial insemination.
Perhaps I have put forward the provision the wrong way round. Perhaps the right way would be to delete the reference to artificial insemination in Clause 27. However, without having read Amendment No. 31 of the noble and learned Lord, the way that I chose to put it forward was to make a deletion at page 14, line 7, so that the subsection would simply read,
"A woman who has carried"
and that should read, "who is carrying or has carried a child" leaving out everything else—
"and no other woman, is to be treated as the mother of the child".
The definition would then apply to a woman who has been artificially inseminated or to a woman who has been inseminated by her husband in the ordinary way. It would indeed apply to any woman who was pregnant and, if I may say so, even to the Virgin Mary. Something along these lines to make Clauses 26 and 27 consistent is desirable.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a point that is separate from the one with which my amendment deals, as he has recognised. Clause 26(1) as at present drafted provides that the woman who has carried the child is to be treated as the child's mother. But the application of the clause is limited to cases where she carried the child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs. The amendment would remove that limitation, as the noble Lord has explained. In cases where a woman is inseminated artificially or naturally, it is clear who the mother is because her own egg is used. She is both the carrying and the genetic mother. There is no need to make provision in the clause for what is indisputably the case. That is a reasonably basic rule of statutory drafting. Indeed, by raising the question as to why it is necessary to make statutory provision, it might cast doubt on what had previously seemed obvious.
The only reason for this provision is to deal with the case where the lady is carrying the child as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs. The reference to artificial insemination is needed in Clause 27 because in such cases, if the husband is not the donor, the common law will not treat him as the father. However, where artificial insemination by donor is given to the woman she is

1137
the genetic parent and the mother at common law. Therefore Clause 26 does not need to cover artificial insemination by donor.
The noble Lord may say in a sense that it does no harm to state in the law what is already the law. On the other hand, it makes it more pointed when one is making a provision which is required to point out the circumstances in which it is required. That is the reason that we have done it in this way.
I am happy to consider further what the noble Lord has said. However, that remains my view for the present. As the noble Lord has said, it does not affect directly Amendment No. 31. He may consider what he is to do with Amendment No. 32 when I call it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32:
Page 14, line 7, leave out from ("(1)") to second ("and") in line 8 and insert—
("The woman who carried a child,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that he would not be able to call the amendment. I simply take the opportunity of thanking him for what he has just said. I would have been out of order to comment on it but I am grateful to him for undertaking to consider my remarks.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 14, line 12, at end insert:
("() Where a woman is to be treated as the mother of a child by virtue of subsection (1) of this section the entry in the Register of Births concerning the birth of such child as required by law shall if the mother so requires indicate that the birth is by donation.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 47 which has been grouped with this amendment. They are two halves of the same amendment. These are purely probing amendments. They follow the recommendations of the Warnock Report in Chapter 4, paragraph 25 and Chapter 6, paragraph 8; namely, that in the case of a child born of sperm donation, the father should have the option of having the fact recorded in the register and in the case of a child born by egg donation the mother should have the option to have the fact recorded in the register. I wonder why the Government did not accept the suggestions of the Warnock Committee on that matter. That would at least give the parents the option of telling the whole truth for the sake of posterity. I shall be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's reply and whether he believes that the Government might give the idea further consideration.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have only very brief observations to make on these two amendments. First, I feel that both the father and the mother may regret having made a decision quite
1138
early on and may wish to change it, by which time it would be too late. That is a very brief but practical observation. I believe that it is fatal to the amendment. The father or mother might be distraught that he or she had caused a mark to be made on the birth certificate of their child.
Perhaps I may introduce my second point from what I have just said. I feel that it is against the welfare of children to have marks put on their birth certificate. I find it totally unacceptable. As I said at the last stage of the Bill, it does not comply with the kindly laws on legitimacy which do not put "B" for bastard on the birth certificate of a child. I see no circumstances in which "D" for "by donation" should be put on the birth certificate of a child by analogy. For both those reasons the amendment is unacceptable to me and I hope unacceptable to the House.
At this stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has introduced into the Bill the most welcome concept that the welfare of the child should be of paramount importance. I believe that giving the parents that option may militate against the welfare of the child. For that additional reason I oppose it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. There is no reason why the short birth certificate should not be used if the parents wish, as is the case in adoption. In cases such as this the choice should be left with the parents and not made by us.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support the objection to the amendment on two grounds. Although the amendment gives an option to the mother or the father to register an entry in the birth register, it does not overcome the objection that it would be unfair and unjust to the child that for the rest of his life he must carry the label that he is a child by donation.
Secondly, the entry in the birth register would be permanent. If later the mother changes her mind and believes that it is not in the interest of the child that the entry should remain on the birth register, she would not be in a position to remove the entry.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 would enable a mother who is not the genetic mother of a child to require that an indication is included in the register of births that the birth is by donation. Amendment No. 47 would similarly enable a father who is not the genetic father of a child to require that an indication would be included in the register of births that the birth is by donation.
As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, the Warnock Report suggested that for sperm, egg and embryo donation it should be possible for a social parent, in registering the birth, to add the words "by donation" after his or her name. There was, however, little support for this proposal in the response to the Warnock Report. Noble Lords will remember that

1139
we consulted on the Warnock Report. As a result the Government published a White Paper which is the main basis of policy upon which the Bill has proceeded.
It can be argued, as has been the case, that parents should be able to choose whether they wish to register themselves as parents by virtue of donation. However, the interests of the parents who wish to register themselves in this way need to be balanced against the interests of the child born as a result of donation. The decision to tell such a child the true circumstances of its birth is for the child's parents to make and, if they wish, that information can be kept within the privacy of the family. However, marking the entry in the register of births would make the circumstances of the child's birth known to anyone who purchased a birth certificate or examined the register. This would not be in the interests of the child's right to privacy. Furthermore, as I argued in the debate on these matters in Committee marking the entry in the register of births would be labelling the child.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out that the entry must be made shortly after the child's birth. Once the date for entry has passed the option would no longer be open. If it were exercised it would be impossible to change. Therefore, the option must be exercised within a short time after the birth in a way that is irrevocable.
If, while a woman is having AID treatment, a couple carries on having normal sexual relations, it may not be certain that any resulting child is definitely the child of the donor. In view of this uncertainty, it would not be right for the social father to be able to have the entry in the register of births marked "by donation".
Where a couple are married there is a common-law presumption that the husband is the father of the child and his name is entered on the birth certificate. As I have mentioned it is estimated that on about one in 20 birth certificates the registered father is not in fact the genetic father of the child. Where the husband is aware that he is not the genetic father of the child but nevertheless goes ahead and registers himself as the child's father, the law does not allow him to qualify the statement that he is the father of the child on the birth certificate. In the interests of the child born as a result of a donation, it is right that the common law presumption should operate.
It is because I believe that the interests of the child are paramount in these circumstances that I doubt whether it is wise to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. As your Lordships know, the information will be retained by the licensing authorities although it will be available only within very closely guarded circumstances. This method of notification will be open to all the world. For the reasons which I have suggested I doubt whether that is wise. I do not advise your Lordships to accept this amendment. As I said, the principal reason that the Warnock recommendation was not accepted was that it was not widely supported on consultation.
9.15 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord said and to the contributions of various other noble Lords. I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that the amendment was designed to give the parents the choice. However, I appreciate the reasons the amendment is not acceptable and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Meaning of "father']:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("subject to subsection (6) or (7) below").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 34 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 40 and 45. Amendment No. 34 omits the words,
"subject to subsections (6) or (7)",
because, as I shall explain when I come to Amendments Nos. 40 and 45, neither of those subsections nor their replacement, subsection (3A), apply to subsection (1), with the result that the words may be misleading. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 remodel subsection (2) and make clear that it does not apply to cases where the husband is the donor. In such a case he is the father at common law and his inclusion is otiose and therefore could lead to confusion.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 45 have two purposes and effects. First, they replace subsections (6) and (7) with a new subsection (3A). For clarity's sake, adoption is distinguished from the other rules about paternity which the provision preserves. Secondly, the amendment makes clear that the new subsection (3A) applies only to subsection (2). The House may recall that I explained the purposes of subsections (6) and (7) in Committee when dealing with an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. As I then explained, there are already rules at common law and in statute which would provide a satisfactory answer as to who is the father of a child born following sperm donation.
For example, in England and Wales a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the legitimate child of her husband, and in Scotland in the same circumstances there is a presumption of paternity. In both jurisdictions, once a child has been adopted he is in law the child of the adopters. The purpose of subsections (6) and (7) and the replacement subsection (3A) is to give priority to those rules over that in subsection (2) which provides that the husband of a woman who produces a child by sperm donation is to be the father. Hence, there is no need for subsections (6) and (7) or the replacement to apply to any part of the clause other than subsection (2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 14, line 14, after ("child") insert ("who is being or has been").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
Page 14, line 16, after ("If") insert ("(a)").
Page 14, line 17, after ("marriage") insert ("and
(b) the creation of the embryo carried by her was not brought about with the sperm of the other party to the marriage, then, subject to subsections (3A) and (4) below,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, line 20, at end insert—
("(2A) If it is shown that he did not so consent, or if the woman at that time was not a party to a marriage, the genetic father shall be treated as the father of the child provided both he and the mother express their agreement to this.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Clause 27 we move on from the meaning of the word "mother" to the meaning of "father". Subsection (2) states:
"If at the time of the placing in her of the embryo … the woman was a party to a marriage, the other party to the marriage shall be treated as the father of the child unless it is shown that he did not consent to the placing in her of the embryo".
That is fine as far as it goes, but I want to ask the noble and learned Lord what the position would be if there was no subsisting marriage or if the husband did not consent to the placing in the mother of the embryo. It seems to me that in those circumstances the child will have no father; the child will literally be filius nullius, which I think is the Latin tag. I do not think that situation is right. Every child needs a father.
When I considered this point I wondered who the father should be if there were no subsisting marriage. It seemed to me that the only person who could or should legally be the father of the child is the genetic father. I then considered that in some circumstances either the genetic father or the mother may not want the identity of the genetic father to be known. It may be a lorry driver in Aberdeen or anyone else who has volunteered to donate semen.
I propose therefore—and hope it might have some support—that under these circumstances the genetic father should be the legal father provided that both he and the actual mother agree to that course. That is what is proposed in my amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, subsection (2) of Clause 27 provides that where a child is born as a result of donation, the husband is to be treated as the father of the child unless it is shown that he did not consent. Because a sperm donor is not treated as the father by virtue of subsection (4)(a), the result
1142
of the husband showing that he did not consent is that the child would in law, as the noble Lord said, be fatherless. I prefer to say it in English. The same would be true if the woman treated was not party to a marriage.
This amendment would have the effect that the genetic father would in law be the fat her provided that both he and the mother agree. It is not acceptable as it stands for technical reasons. In particular it is not clear when "at that time" is. What is more, I have great difficulty in understanding the circumstances for which the amendment, as drafted, is meant to provide.
As Clause 27 stands, if a sperm donor provides sperm other than through the statutory scheme, he will be the father of the child unless the woman concerned is married and her husband has fatherhood conferred upon him by Clause 27(2). If it is not through the scheme the genetic father will be the father anyway, unless it is the husband by virtue of Clause 27(2). Accordingly, this amendment could only be relevant where the donation is made under the statutory scheme. In those circumstances the donor and donee are unknown to each other.
What is more, it is to my mind impossible to think of circumstances where, even if they did discover each other's identity, either of them would consent to the donor being treated as the father. From the donor's point of view all he would achieve would be to burden himself with the liability to maintain the child. Because he would not be married to the mother, he, like any unmarried father, would not share in the other parental rights and duties. As to the mother, having gone to the lengths of using an anonymous system, why should she want to confer paternity on the donor?
It is, I suppose, just possible to imagine a donor and donee accidentally meeting, somehow recognising each other and then wanting to confer parental status on the man. However, that is an unlikely scenario and I doubt whether it is wise to provide for it.
I should, however, say that there is a possibility that under Amendment No. 46, which I have agreed to consider, it might be that if the donor and the woman are acquainted with one another—I was about to say by some mischance, but perhaps that is not the right phrase—by some particular circumstances the machinery of Amendment No. 46, if we ultimately decide to incorporate that amendment into the Bill, would apply to the situation. Therefore, if the man and the woman went for treatment together, the man being the donor Amendment No. 46 would make him the father.
Therefore in circumstances where that might be feasible, the principle of this amendment could be thought of as applying, but in a general case because of the anonymity of the donor, as the noble Lord recognised, it would not be possible. The whole reason for this difficulty is that anonymity which the scheme requires to be placed on donors, for reasons to which the noble Lord has already alluded. If we could get rid of that in some way it would simplify the whole matter. However, that is a

1143
fundamental fact which we have to face in constructing the scheme. Accordingly, I hope the noble Lord will feel that it is not wise to press this amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I certainly wish to study what the noble and learned Lord said and I am grateful for the way in which he has, as always, considered the matter. Perhaps I may refer to my use of the Latin tag. I began by expressing it in English and I thought that a Latin phrase might be familiar to the noble and learned Lord.
My main concern in tabling this amendment was the case of a couple who are not married—a couple who are cohabiting—who decide to have a child by one of the means set out in Clause 27(2). If the couple are cohabiting in a long, stable relationship and a child is born, then, as the clause is presently drafted, the father is not recognised as the father of the child. It is only if,
"the woman was a party to a marriage [that] the other party to the marriage shall be treated as the father of the child".
It would be part of my amendment that, where the couple are unmarried when the child is born, the genetic father—that is, the cohabitee of the lady—would be the father to the child. Those are circumstances which I believe we can all visualise arising a lot more often than the other case and which would be embraced by my amendment where the donor of semen is the father. Therefore, for that purpose I feel that the amendment has some value. However, in view of what the noble and learned Lord said, I have no hesitation in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) Subsection (2) above does not apply—

(a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, to any child who, by virtue of the rules of common law, is treated as the legitimate child of the parties to a marriage,

(b) in relation to Scotland, to any child who, by virtue of any enactment or other rule of law, is treated as the child of the parties to a marriage, or

(c) to any child to the extent that the child is treated by virtue of adoption as not being the child of any person other than the adopter or adopters.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("1") and insert ("5").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 and 66. These amendments are intended to improve the drafting. Amendment No. 41 substitutes the proper reference to the relevant paragraph of Schedule 3. Amendment No. 51 inserts a reference to Clause 26 or 27 which is not in the Bill at
1144
the moment. Amendment No. 66 omits the word "other" which on further consideration has been shown to be unnecessary. It is designed to make clear that the person responsible for supervising the activities at the time of commencement can then be treated as if he were the person responsible under the terms of a licence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 14, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("do") in line 32 and insert—
("(5) The references in subsection (2) above to the parties to a marriage at the time there referred to—
(a) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 44. Subsection (5)(a) is intended to make it clear that subsection (2), which provides for the mother's husband to be treated as the father of a child born as a result of donation, only applies where they are married at the relevant time, namely, the time of the treatment. Without such a provision, it might be thought that provided they had been married at some time, the man would be the father even if the marriage had ended before the treatment was given.
However, as at present drafted, subsection (5)(a) applies to the whole clause. As such it might be taken to apply to subsections (6) and (7) which preserve the general rules about fatherhood so that when they provide a father it is not necessary to resort to the special rules under subsection (2). If subsection (5)(a) did apply to subsections (6) and (7), one result would be that a child who was able to rely on the common law presumption that he is the legitimate child of his mother's husband at the time of his birth, or, in Scotland, that man's child, would not be able to rely on that presumption if their marriage had subsequently ended. That would be a pointless nonsense and the redraft avoids the clause being construed in that way. I hope it would not be construed in that way in any event, but we have endeavoured to make it clear. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 33, after ("time,") insert ("or parties to a marriage who were legally separated at that time,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I hope I made clear just now, Clause 27(2) states that,
"the other party to the marriage shall be treated as the father of the child"
if at the time the woman was a party to a marriage. In subsection (5)(a) of that clause we are told that that only applies if it was a subsisting marriage. The provision does not apply if they were parties to a marriage which had been dissolved or annulled. The point I wish to make is that in the case where a marriage is still subsisting, but the parties have been separated for a greater or lesser period of time, the husband will still be regarded as the father of the

1145
child though for some reason or another the husband and wife may not have seen one another for 20 or 30 years. They may have decided not to marry for whatever reason.
It seems that if a couple have gone to the extent of being legally separated, then the husband should not be treated as the legal father of the child whose mother he has not seen for many years. That is the import of my amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment raises a very interesting point. As drafted, by virtue of Clause 27(2), where a married woman gives birth to a child as a result of donation, her husband will be treated as the father unless it is shown that he did not consent. Where the wife and husband have been judicially separated, it seems highly likely that the husband will be able to prove rather easily that he did not consent. But I do see that it is questionable whether a judicially separated husband, or those coming after him, should have the burden of proving that he had not consented in order to avoid parenthood which carried with it responsibility for maintaining the child, together with rights of succession.
As drafted, Clause 27 only distinguishes between the married and the unmarried. I should like to take time to consider whether a third category (the judicially separated) needs to be introduced, and if so, how the clauses would need to be amended. In thanking the noble Lord for drawing attention to this point, which, as I say, we had intended to cover in a more general way, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to withdraw the amendment to give me a chance to consider further what if anything we should do about it. We would probably want to deal with that in another place if indeed it has to be dealt with.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 14, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("include") in line 35.
Page 14, line 41, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 44 with Amendment No. 42 and to Amendment No. 45 with Amendment No. 34. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I should like to put these together en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 14, line 47, at end insert—
("(8) Subject to the preceding provisions of this section, where treatment services are provided for a woman and a man together, the man shall be treated as the father of any child carried by the woman as a result of the provision of those treatment services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. However, for the benefit of noble Lords who were not in the Chamber then, I shall just say that the amendment seeks to ensure that a man who comes together for treatment with a woman will be designated "father" of any resulting child. This means that a child born to an unmarried woman following licensed treatment will have a father. Noble Lords with their usual mental agility will quickly appreciate that this will mean fewer fatherless children and fatherless families. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made it clear on a previous occasion that the Government are 100 per cent. behind the institution of the family, which they regard as the fundamental unit of society, a concept with which I entirely agree. This amendment would help to bolster and build up the family. In view of the promising noises which the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to make earlier, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should just like to repeat what have been described as promising noises by saying that I have undertaken to consider this amendment and to see whether the principle of it can be incorporated. I believe that we may be able to do that. If my noble friend is prepared to withdraw the amendment without my giving any further commitment than that, I shall certainly consider it further to see whether at a later stage in the Bill we can bring forward something on these lines.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I accept that undertaking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Effect of sections 26 and 27]:
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 48 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 which are consequential. With one exception the nearest I have been to fulfilling my ambition of making my mark on the laws of England was being understudy for Strephon in a performance of "Iolanthe". Fortunately, Strephon had good health through every performance and my talents were not called on. In the absence of my fairy queen I do not think that I shall improve on my record with this amendment.
The amendments would apply right across the board the definition of "father" and "mother" and exceptions would no longer be made for the succession to any dignity or title of honour. They would therefore end a slightly invidious inconsistency in the Bill. In effect we are saying that the arrangements we are making are extremely good so long as they do not apply to us, even if they involve legalising a fiction on public records, as is

1147
the case with birth certificates. We could also be accused of saying that it is more important for the wrong person not to succeed to a title than for someone to know about the nature of his antecedents. Although I value any title, especially a seat in this House, extremely highly, I think that the need for some of those antecedents is probably more important.
There is a practical point involved in this area; namely, what the procedure will be when someone inherits a title. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can enlighten us upon the matter. I think that before anyone applies for a writ of summons that person would have to apply to the authority for clearance or he may have to make a declaration on the basis of the information available. It would be a terrible shock for someone who applied for a writ of summons to receive no clearance from the authority and for his younger brother, with whom he may not have a very good relationship, to take his seat in the House of Lords while he remains plain Mister. If we could avoid that situation, it would be worth doing so. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I shall be ruled out of order in this connection, but it seems to me that it may be relevant at this stage to mention my amendment, Amendment No. 59, which is not in fact grouped with this one. I think that it would save time at a later stage. Amendment No. 59 would enable those whose duty it may be to ascertain that a particular person would be the right person to inherit under Clause 28(3) to have access to the minimum information necessary to enable them to carry out their duty. It may be that Clause 30 covers the situation and that what is proposed is therefore unnecessary. However, it is important that the necessary information is available to those who need to know and if Clause 28(3) is to be capable of being implemented.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, this is a strange but vitally important point. Moreover, this is the appropriate forum in which it should be considered as it concerns many of your Lordships' families. It appears that every claimant to a peerage will have to be vetted in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. But further matters also arise.
There have been occasions in the past when a claimant who was well known in society to have arrived in the world by what one might nowadays call old-fashioned, low-tech adultery claimed his seat in the House of Lords and was welcomed. For example, there was the great Lord Melbourne. However, it now appears under this Bill that a claimant who came into the world by modern hi-tech adultery, euphemistically called AID, would be refused a seat in the House of Lords. If we are to support what my noble and learned friend was reminding us was the general rule of law—that the child of a married woman is considered to be her husband's—I think that we should support it in this case. In 1990 we cannot seriously say that there is one law for Lords and another for commoners.
1148
Moreover, what would be the procedure in the case which my noble and learned friend posited in response to Amendment No. 33? What would happen if there was some doubt as to whether the child had been born by a donation which it is agreed was given but the father and mother had had normal intercourse at about the same time so that no one could tell whose son he was? The records could not give this information because they would only record the donation and not its success. The father could not give the information because presumably he would be dead and very likely the mother would also be dead. We shall be in an awful pickle unless the amendment is carried.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the rule which has hitherto been followed is that the genetic line is the important line in relation to succession dealt with by subsection (3). As my noble friend has pointed out, in cases where the title is in question and what the noble Lord has referred to as old-fashioned low-tech methods, a degree of investigation has had to be gone through in a number of situations. My noble friend refers to it as "being in quite a pickle". These cases raised a good deal of difficulty and the legal profession found them of some interest. They were also of some length. Therefore the policy has been to operate in the same way as under the earlier statutory provision.
The procedure for claiming a title in relation to this matter has yet to be finalised but it seems likely that claimants will make declarations which will deal with it on the basis of their knowledge. Where there is a dispute the procedure will be as at present. As my noble friend has pointed out and as I pointed out on a number of occasions, the mere fact that treatment has been resorted to does not at all prove that the results are from the treatment. It may well be that the birth has followed the treatment without having been caused by it. Obviously there is room for further investigation. Also the development of modern techniques for matching genetic characteristics helps to make that easier than it was in the old days when the House's investigations relied on perhaps less scientifically based tests and evidence.
That is the position and the reason why we have this provision in the Bill. I do not intend to change it unless it is shown that there is a strong feeling in that direction. This is the way that the law has stood and I suggest that it ought to continue to do so. That is my answer to the matter raised by Amendment No. 48.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, for having spoken on the amendment. We are in a slight tangle on the subject which will be quite difficult to unravel. I have no doubt that that can be done. The only lesson that comes out of this to me is that AID is an intrusion on family life which will produce these tangles. I do not think that your Lordships'

1149
House would wish me to go further down that road tonight; therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 15, line 4, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 7.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 49 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 52. These are purely drafting amendments. The closing words of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 28 are perhaps not, on consideration, as clear as they might be. There may be circumstances in which an instrument or document has to be construed other than,
"in its application to the child and that or any other person".
For example, suppose we need to ask who are the ancestors of the son of a Clause 27(2) child. The relationships in such a case may be those between, say, a child of the Clause 27(2) child and a grandchild of the Clause 27(2) child. The words,
"in its application to the child and that or any other person",
are unnecessary and potentially confusing. This amendment omits them and restates the provision in a neater and, I believe, more concise and clear way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 15, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that this subsection shall apply only in relation to deeds or other instruments or documents executed after the commencement of this Act by a person, other than a person who is by virtue of section 26 or 27 of this Act to be treated as the mother or father of the child, and in the case of a deed or other instrument made in the exercise of a special power of appointment shall apply only where the deed or other instrument creating the power is executed after such commencement.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, this amendment, which replaces the second half of Amendment No. 141 that was considered in Committee, is designed to cover the cases where either someone other than the parent of a donor child has made a will and died so that he cannot alter his will, or he has made a trust which he cannot break or alter without great trouble and expense. For instance, a person may have made a trust benefiting grandchildren, some as yet unborn. At the time he made the trust he did not know that the law was to be altered to enable donor grandchildren to benefit under that trust which he made before the legislation came into force.
Your Lordships will note that in this amendment we have not extended the proposed exemption to wills or trusts made by the parents of a donor child because the parents have the option of not having a donor child if they do not wish that child to benefit under a trust that has already been made. Without some safeguard such as we propose, there would seem to be an element of retrospectivity in the Bill. Noble Lords will consider whether they think this does or does not constitute retrospective legislation. The proposed amendment would remove that element of retrospectivity. I beg to move.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, this amendment is intended purely as a transitional provision of limited effect. It applies only to deeds which were executed prior to the legislation coming into force, because of course in relation to all deeds which are executed after the legislation comes into force the executor of the deed is presumed to know the law and he is presumed to know the consequences of the legislation. The purpose of the amendment is simply to avoid the position whereby unknown and possibly unintended beneficiaries are imposed upon testators and trusters. This is a result which Parliament has in the past sought very carefully to avoid. I shall give four simple examples.
In the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, where rights of succession were granted to adopted children they were treated as the children of the adopter but not for the purposes of any deed executed prior to that Act. As regards illegitimate children, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 provided effectively that a child of an individual should for the purposes of any deed include illegitimates. However, again that applied only to deeds executed after the Act came into force.
Correspondingly, in England and Wales, under the Family Law Reform Act 1969 there was a presumption in dispositions which were executed after the Act came into force that a child included an illegitimate child, but only in relation to deeds executed after the Act came into force. Similarly, the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which is applicable to England and Wales, as I understand it provided effectively that, as regards inter vivos and testamentary deeds, post-Act illegitimates were to be treated as children of their mother and father, whether or not the latter were married. But of course again that only applied to deeds executed after the coming into force of the Act.
I made a tentative suggestion along those lines in Committee. I cast a small fly over my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He did not like that very much. I hope I am doing him justice if I paraphrase the three reasons which he gave for not accepting the principle of this amendment. He said, first of all, that donor children were being given a new status. Secondly, he said that the same rights that children born of natural conception enjoy should be given to donor children. Why, one might ask, should the same rights as those enjoyed by natural children now be given by Parliament to donor children when they were not given to legitimated children in the past?
As I understand it, the third ground put forward by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was that there would be discrimination if a family had a donor child and a natural child and the natural child were to inherit, say from its grandfather or its uncle, to the exclusion of the donor child. Again, that is a result achieved by the 1976 Act in relation to legitimated children. One might ask why donor children of one party to marriage should be thought to merit more favourable treatment than legitimated children of both parties to the marriage.
I can understand my noble and learned friend's anxiety that children should not be discriminated against. However, on the other side of the coin, one

1151
must surely consider the wishes and interests of the testators and the trustors. Why should they have imposed upon them beneficiaries of whom they might never have conceived and, had they conceived, whom they might not have wished to benefit?
In my submission there is no justification for Parliament in this case departing from its prior practice of eschewing the imposition on existing deeds of legislation which has the effect of altering or possibly altering the beneficiaries who might take thereunder.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the point was raised in relation to Scotland during the Committee stage, as my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said. Presumably it is intended that deeds, instruments and so on executed before the clauses come into force will be construed without regard to the legal parentage conferred by the Bill unless those deeds were executed by the legal parent or parents themselves.
As I made clear during the debate in Committee, the Government's intention is that children born as a result of these techniques should generally have the same rights in succession law as any other children. The sole general exception is titles of honour and other dignitaries which follow the blood line, which we discussed a while ago.
I also pointed out that previous legislation has recognised the distinction between children born as the result of donation and children whose parents are not married to each other or who have been adopted. The disadvantages of the status of illegitimacy as regards the law of succession was removed by the Family Law Reform Act 1987 and the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. It was then thought right that the new law should not apply to existing wills or instruments in case the intention of the testator was no longer recognised. No such qualification was made in Section 27 of the 1987 Act as regards the status of children born as a result of AID. Therefore, while the examples that my noble and learned friend cited are on one side of the argument, there are already examples in the 1987 Act on the other side.
The reason for the distinction is reasonably simple. Although the 1985 and 1987 Acts removed the disadvantages of illegitimacy, nothing in those provisions treated a child whose parents were not married to each other as the child of any marriage. That contrasts with the present Bill and with Section 27 of the 1987 Act under which a donation child is treated as the legitimate child of the marriage for all purposes.
The intention of both this Bill and the 1987 Act was to give donation children the same succession rights as genetic children. The main reason why I find it difficult to accept the amendment is that it discriminates against donation children. If the amendment were agreed to it would mean that a child born as a result of gamete or embryo donation would never be entitled to inherit from certain wills. For example, if a man made a will before the commencement of these clauses and provided
1152
benefits for all his grandchildren, we might be faced with a situation in which one child was entitled to benefit but his AID cousin was not.
My noble and learned friend asked why that should be. The main reason is that, whereas adoption and legitimation were matters with which the testator or grantor of the deed might be presumed to be familiar, this is a different situation. It is a technique, in effect, for producing a child who is very closely connected with the person in question.
The amendment assumes that the person who executed the deeds or instruments would have wished to exclude children born as a result of donation. How do we know that? Let us assume that there is nothing in the deed to indicate that. If there is something in the deed to indicate that, it might be different. However, if there is nothing in the deed to say, why should a testator be presumed to have more regard for a child born otherwise than by donation than for a child born by donation? The child might be just as wanted, indeed even more so. Why should we therefore presume that the testator did not want or contemplate that child as a grandchild when he did not make any stipulations about the manner in which the child should be born? I therefore consider it most unlikely that the majority of people who try to arrive at the original intention of the testator or trustor who granted the deed would wish to exclude from benefit a grandchild, for example, who has been treated in law as a child of the person who executed the deeds, merely because he was born by donation.
There is another objection to the amendment, applicable specifically to AID children in England and Wales. By virtue of Clause 42(4) the status of such children born after Section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 came into force but before this Bill has effect will continue to be determined by the old Section 27. As I said, no provision equivalent to the present amendment appeared in the 1987 Act. If the amendment were agreed to, an AID child born before the act comes into force might benefit from certain wills whereas his younger brother, born after the Act comes into force, would not. Again, that appears to be discriminatory and unacceptable. There may be room for some further rules in that connection. For example, if a deed made specific provision for the class of children in question, that might well be allowed to prevail, but I do not see why a general destination to children should be thought to exclude AID children.
For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment at present. Perhaps the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will want to consider the matter. I am certainly willing to consider it further.
10 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I cannot accept that a donor child should be retrospectively foisted on to a testator or a trustor any more than a legitimated child should be. I do not see why a testator should be presumed to have wished to include a donor child merely because he has not expressed a wish to

1153
exclude him. Even now, many people have never heard of donor children and do not know what they are.
However, I was encouraged when the noble and learned Lord said that he would consider the matter. I shall therefore withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to return to it at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 51 and 52:
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section 26 or 27 of this Act").
1154
Page 15, line 11, leave out from the beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
("(2A) Where subsection (1) or (2) above has effect, references to any relationship between two people in any enactment, deed or other instrument or document (whenever passed or made) are to be read accordingly.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 51 with Amendment No. 41 and to Amendment No. 52 with Amendment No. 49. With your Lordships' leave I shall move the amendments en bloc. I should say that if Amendment No. 52 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 53 on account of pre-emption.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 15, line 15, leave out ("This section does not affect") and insert ("In relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, nothing in the provisions of section 26(1) or 27(2) and (3), read with this section, affects—
(a) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to take also Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. In Committee, in response to amendments proposed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and others, I undertook on behalf of the Government to bring forward amendments to ensure that the Bill does not affect succession to property etc. intended to devolve along with a Peerage or other dignity or title of honour. This amendment fulfils that undertaking. It introduces a new sub-paragraph (b) to Clause 28(3) in respect of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and a new subsection (4) for Scotland which make the policy clear.
Let me turn at once to a matter which some noble Lords may consider is missing from the amendment. That relates to succession to coats of arms in England and Wales. I have been advised that there is legal authority to the effect that a coat of arms is a dignity. Hence, coats of arms are already covered by subsection (3) of Clause 28, so that nothing in the Bill affects succession to them and no further amendment is needed to achieve that aim in relation to England and Wales. The retained references to coats of arms in the Scottish part of the amendment ensures consistency with other Scottish statutory provisions. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving the amendment which I believe meets the concerns that we expressed in Committee. I must confess to some surprise that regarding England the courts should have held that a coat of arms is a dignity. I should be interested to know when and what were the judgments wherein the courts took that view.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I intervene before my noble and learned friend replies. During the whole of the evening's proceedings I have felt that silence was golden and I have stuck to my seat reluctantly. I feel it is now necessary to intervene. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for tabling the amendment relating to Scotland, which is fulsome and concise. As he did not think fit to include coats of arms in Clause 28(3) I was hoping for a full explanation.
It may be necessary for me to explain the difference between the two countries. The law of arms in England and Scotland is not the same. In England the terms "dignity" and "title" do not cover a coat of arms. Sir Edward Coke, the great 17th century lawyer, wrote in his Commentary upon Littleton of 1628:
"Gentry and armes is of the nature of the gavelkind; for they descend to all the sonnes, every son being a gentleman alike. Which gentry and armes do not descend to all the brethren alone, but to all their posterity".
1156
In Scotland the arms descend to the heir who is a single person. In England a right to new arms can be acquired by grant of the Sovereign, by Act of Parliament or by grant of the Kings of Arms, the senior heralds, to whom the Crown delegates the power to grant arms. Once granted, those arms pass to all descendants in the male line.
The control of arms in England comes under the High Court of Chivalry, which last sat in 1954 and before that had not sat since the 18th century. Therefore, when in 1823 Dr. William Cruise produced his Treatise on the Origin or Nature of Dignities, he covered all but the last case, and nowhere in his 322 pages does he say that the coat of arms is in England a dignity.
I come now to a very different subject. I refer to an adopted child who does not have a right to arms of his adoptive parent. It can only be by a royal licence. I ask noble Lords whether a variation of the arms can be granted to the adopted child. If coats of arms are not mentioned, an AID child will be in a better position than an adopted child. I hope that my noble friend will agree to include the words "coat of arms" in a future amendment on Third Reading, or expressly define dignity as including coats of arms for the purpose of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear, although I was moving Amendment No. 55, that I was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
The authority on which I rely is a case called Manchester Corporation v. The Manchester Palace of Varieties Limited in 1955 Probate, at page 133, in which Lord Goddard made the statement that in his opinion the right to bear arms is a dignity and not property. That is the only decision that has been drawn to my attention.
I followed as closely as I could the argument of my noble friend Lord Teviot. I do not think that he has produced comparable authority to the opposite effect. If the Manchester case is right, then it would obviously be unwise to make a special provision here because it would cast doubt on the meaning of the phrase "in other statutory provisions" with regard to England and Wales. That is the situation. If I were to put it in here, and I am right in the law, then earlier statutes which do not refer to coats of arms but refer to dignities—for example, the Adoption Act 1976, the Legitimacy Act 1976 and the Family Law Reform Act 1987—might all be put into a certain amount of doubt.
The question is not free from difficulty but that is the view that I have taken of it. I am answering the question of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and attempting to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I hope that I may have had more success with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, than with my noble friend Lord Teviot in the acceptance of my position.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, with the leave of the House and the noble and learned Lord, perhaps I may say that there was indeed a case that came up under my cousin as Earl Marshal which had lapsed

1157
for 200 years, and he appointed the Lord Chief Justice to be his surrogate. I have taken precautions to appoint the Lord Chief Justice to be my surrogate should the need arise. This subject was going to be abolished by some amendments to laws in 1890. It was overlooked because no one knew anything about it. If it comes up again, it is all covered. I promise that justice will be done.
It is a matter verging on a bit of a joke but it is of some consequence to our country. It is slightly different now in England as opposed to Scotland. However, the matter is covered and it is important that it should be dealt with properly. I have heralds looking on from the galleries at this very moment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 15, line 16, leave out ("render") and insert ("renders").
Page 15, line 17, at end insert ("or
(b) the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any dignity or title of honour.
(4) In relation to Scotland—
(a) those provisions do not apply to any title, coat of arms, honour or dignity transmissible on the death of the holder thereof or affect the succession thereto or the devolution thereof, and
(b) where the terms of any deed provide that any property or interest in property shall devolve along with a title, coat of arms, honour or dignity, nothing in those provisions shall prevent that property or interest from so devolving.
(5) Schedule (Status: amendments of enactments) to this Act shall have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. With your Lordships' leave I move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.

  SCOTTISH LOWLAND AIRPORTS
  SCOTTISH LOWLAND AIRPORTS
  FRAIL ELDERLY PATIENTS CARE PROJECT: REPORT
  FRAIL ELDERLY PATIENTS CARE PROJECT: REPORT
  CROWN ESTATES PAVING COMMISSION: REPORT AND ACCOUNTS
  CROWN ESTATES PAVING COMMISSION: REPORT AND ACCOUNTS
  HOME DEFENCE PLANNING CO-ORDINATION
  HOME DEFENCE PLANNING CO-ORDINATION
  POVERTY: LANCASTER UNIVERSITY REPORT
  POVERTY: LANCASTER UNIVERSITY REPORT
  PRISONERS' PAY
  PRISONERS' PAY
  DESIGN: CONTROL BY PLANNING AUTHORITIES
  DESIGN: CONTROL BY PLANNING AUTHORITIES