Sitting of 7 March 1990

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

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

    STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Strathclyde Regional Council (to be presented under Section 7 of the Act): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 13 March and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    South Africa
    Mr. John Carlisle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent events in South Africa, he will consider lifting all existing sanctions.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We shall maintain our policy of encouragement and pressure on the South African Government to bring about an end to apartheid, giving a measured response to progress as it occurs.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is it Her Majesty's Government policy to offer British taxpayers' money to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, as recent reports stated? If that is the case, does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members would find that policy somewhat repugnant, particularly because the ANC is still in favour of the armed struggle and Nelson Mandela still rejects the lifting of sanctions, which would create the conditions whereby peaceful reform could take place?
    Mr. Hurd: I told the House last month that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is consulting hon. Members of different parties on whether it would be a good idea to set up a public body outside the Government, which could help and support groups or parties, whether in eastern Europe or southern Africa, as they move towards democracy. That is the state of affairs. Our whole emphasis in South Africa is on peaceful dialogue and helping to get that going.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Government might lift the greatest sanction of all, the non-recognition of Bophuthatswana's independence, in the light of a recent statement by its President welcoming the release of Nelson Mandela and saying that it maintained its independence not because of apartheid, but through its historic identity?
    Mr. Hurd: We are prepared to be reasonably unorthodox in these matters, but I do not believe that that particular step would help matters forward.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the Dublin summit, his European colleagues tried to keep Britain on board, and that the concept of an official visit to South Africa and of the carrot and stick policy was accepted by them? In the light of that, was it wise for the United Kingdom to break the resolution? As we are encouraging the Soviet Union to release its last political prisoners, should not we do the same in South Africa?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not flatter myself that I attended a summit. At Dublin we put forward the compromise proposal that if other partners were prepared to move once the state of emergency was lifted, we would postpone any action on our part. I am sad that that compromise did not find immediate favour. I hope that perhaps as a result of the Troika Mission, or in other ways, all members of the Community will register what many of them feel and have expressed—the need to give practical encouragement to President de Klerk to continue along the road on which he has started.
    Mr. Anderson: Will not the Foreign Secretary honestly admit that one of the crosses that he must bear is the perception among our allies and in Africa that the Prime Minister shares the view of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on this issue? With his troubles in Dublin fresh in his memory, will he try to persuade the Prime Minister to give a clear undertaking that we shall not break any more of our legal international obligations in respect of sanctions?
    Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have broken no legal obligations. We believe not only that we have taken the right action but that it would be stupid to do otherwise. We believe that it is wise to take a measured approach of not relaxing all sanctions, but taking limited steps to recognise and encourage what has been done. Others have recognised it in words, but we felt it wise to go further and give some recognition in substance. That is abundantly justified.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better not to move any further on sanctions or any other policy towards South Africa until he has had an opportunity of speaking to Mr. Nelson Mandela? Will he confirm that he will ask Mr. Mandela to this country for that purpose among others?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already invited Mr. Mandela to discuss the whole situation in South Africa with her. I hope, and am encouraged by some of the answers that he has been giving, that that may be possible.

    Romania
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made recently to the Government of Romania on the development of democracy in that country.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the Romanian Foreign Minister when he met him in Ottawa on 11 February that the British Government expect to see steady progress towards a pluralist democracy in Romania. Free and fair elections later in the year will be vital. I raised similar points when I visited Romania on 15 and 16 January.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that both Government and voluntary aid to Romania has been swiftly provided and that it is of great value? I pay tribute to the people of Newport, who have worked heroically to equip several lorries and dispatch them with medical aid. Is not the paramount need now to ensure that the elections in May are conducted fairly? In the unique situation in Romania where the apparatus of terror is still in place, is not it our right to intervene and use our influence in a thoroughly exceptional way to make sure that democracy is firmly rooted in that still unhappy land?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of sense about Romania, which he knows well. He pays tribute to the people of Newport. I join him in that and hope that it will not be misunderstood in any way. I hope that he will forgive me if I also pay tribute to the people of Bristol, because Bristol Mencap, under the leadership of Mrs Hannam, exposed the horrors of mental asylums there. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Government's work. We have sent about £6 million of emergency aid, but all the voluntary aid is needed. As I said in my principal answer, it is now essential to ensure that there are free and fair elections, with access to the media for the opposition parties.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his response, welcome as it is in a sense, betrays a fundamental contradiction in British foreign policy? We are giving praise to and pushing Romania towards full democracy, for which we have no constitutional responsibility, yet we deny it to Hong Kong, for which we have constitutional responsibility. Is it not better to pursue those interests for which we have responsibility? Full democracy in Hong Kong may ameliorate some of the difficulties that the Government face in terms of giving passports—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Romania.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I would get into trouble with you, Mr. Speaker, if I launched into an answer on Hong Kong. It seems a little paradoxical to blame my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who introduced democracy in Hong Kong for doing so.

    Latin America
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British support for the transition to democracy of Latin American countries.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We warmly welcome the free elections that have taken place in a number of Latin American countries, most recently in Nicaragua. We have made it clear through numerous statements, sometimes with our European partners, that we strongly support the return to democracy of Latin America.
    Mr. Arnold: Now that the second last dictatorship in Hispanic Latin America has returned to democracy with the defeat of Daniel Ortega and his Socialists by a woman leader, what are the prospects for the last such dictatorship in Latin America, which is supported by so many Labour Members, that is, that of Fidel Castro in Cuba?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that all parts of the House will join me in hoping that the people of Cuba will be given an early opportunity in free and fair elections to express their judgment of the way that their country has been run.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that there has been considerable hypocrisy on the part of the Administration of the United States and the British Government in denying aid or trade to Nicaragua for the past 10 years, supporting a military attack upon that country and then taking pride in the fact that the Government of the Sandinistas called elections and abided by the results? Does he not think that the real problem and issue facing the people of all Latin America is the appalling debt crisis, which can be solved not by debt for equity arrangements, but only by proper commodity prices and a write-off of the debt burden that falls upon the poorest people of that continent?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We applaud the manner in which President Ortega accepted the result of the elections. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the real problem that faces the people of Nicaragua. It seems to me that they have clearly rejected the Socialist management of their economy that led to a massive drop in living standards and hyper-inflation, which devastated the economy of their country.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has some Latin blood in him, is currently in the oriental republic of Uruguay? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no one more suitable to represent our Government in that country?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I shall not express a view about whether my hon. Friend is right about the Latin blood, or perhaps the Welsh blood, of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I am glad that he has already been to Nicaragua and, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government, he warmly congratulated Mrs. Chamorro on her victory and has already discussed with her the help that our Government can give to her Government.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister acknowledge the signal contribution of President Ortega and the Sandinistas in moving Nicaragua out of the Somoza dictatorship into a genuine democracy, with free elections, acknowledged as such by outside observers, and a peaceful transfer of power? Will the Government now resume substantial economic, bilateral aid to that country? Will they monitor

    859
    the progress of the new regime, to ensure that the unrivalled achievements of the Sandinistas in health and education is maintained?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said when I congratulated President Ortega on the manner in which he accepted the result of the elections. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in calling upon the remaining Socialist countries of Central America and the Caribbean, including Cuba, to hold free and fair elections. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the error of the ways of all the Socialist local authorities that gave so much support to the Sandinistas—perhaps they will now return that money to their ratepayers.

    Argentina
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I described the successful outcome of the talks in Madrid in a written reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 16 February.
    Both Governments reopened their embassies on 26 February and appointed charges d'affaires, pending the arrival of ambassadors.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased that both sides of the House recognise that we have restored diplomatic relations, but is he aware that many families lost loved ones in the fight for freedom and sovereignty? Will he assure the House and British people that sovereignty is not on the political agenda?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our position on sovereignty has not changed, nor will it, and I am glad to say that the Argentines appreciate that. The resumption of relations was made possible only because the Argentine Government agreed to talks about practical measures without prejudice to either side's position on sovereignty.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there any sign of certain Falkland islanders trying to sabotage the better relations?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am not aware of any such signs.

    Drugs
    Mr. Neale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international measures are in hand to destroy trade in illegal drugs.
    Mr. Hurd: Some 90 states, including us, have now signed the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. I recently went to the UN special session on drugs in New York, which adopted a political declaration and a global programme of action. We shall host a world ministerial summit in London in April to look at ways of reducing the demand for drugs and combating the cocaine threat. Within Europe, anti-drugs co-operation is steadily increasing.
    Mr. Neale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many millions of pounds in the international banking
    860
    system as a result of drug trafficking? Does he further accept that while it can be detected when it first enters the system, once it is in the system it becomes almost impossible to detect? At the forthcoming conference, will he discuss with colleagues from overseas ways in which more reciprocal arrangements can be made between international banks to help detect and confiscate the money?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right, and that is one of the purposes of the financial action task force that was set up at the Paris summit last year. As my hon. Friend knows, under our 1986 legislation we have strong powers for tracking and investigating laundered money. I agree that it is a matter not just of legal powers, but of co-operation and discussion with the banks, and certainly in this country that has, on the whole, been forthcoming.
    Ms. Abbott: Does the Secretary of State accept that commodity prices play a part in the drugs crisis? It is hard to persuade Colombian peasants to stop growing cocaine when the price of coffee has dropped through the floor.
    Mr. Hurd: I have heard the argument about that relationship and there may be something in it. It is important when discussing help to Colombia, which we have given promptly and effectively, that we, the Colombian Government and other Governments should take into account what we expect Colombian farmers to grow so that they can have a proper standard of living if they abandon cocaine.
    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the problems highlighted in the Blom-Cooper report, Turks and Caicos, which is an island group and a British colony, is still a staging post for drugs to the United States? Does he have any plans to allow the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and other American anti-drug agencies right of hot pursuit into Turks and Caicos waters?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly, we have tightened up there and in other dependent territories in the Caribbean, as my hon. Friend knows. I shall study the state of play on his suggestion.

    Israel
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had the opportunity to discuss with the Israeli Government the Amnesty report detailing their treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have frequently expressed concern to the Israeli Government about abuses of Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories. In particular, we have raised with Israel two of the cases investigated by Amnesty in its recent report.
    Mr. Watson: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the decision made last week by the Israeli authorities to reopen two of the further education colleges in the west bank after a closure of two years? Will he reaffirm the Government's stated position that they wish the other 15 further education colleges and all six universities to be reopened and to stay open? Does he agree that one way to bring pressure towards that end would be to give support to the EC decision to review scientific agreements with Israel?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should all press for the higher education institutions to be reopened. I had the opportunity to put that suggestion strongly to Minister Olmert, who was in this country this week. However, moving towards EC sanctions is not right at this stage. We welcome the steps that have been taken, and reinforce them by saying that the universities should be reopened, as the hon. Gentleman said.
    Sir Dennis Walters: Bearing in mind the fact that all member states of the European Community are co-signatories of the fourth Geneva convention and that the convention is being flouted daily by the Israeli occupying forces in the west bank, although the convention applies to the occupied territories, should not that violation be pursued more vigorously by Her Majesty's Government and the Community?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Israeli Government are well aware of the vigour with which Her Majesty's Government and other Governments in the Community pursue their protests on these matters. The responses—sometimes of complaint—from the Israeli Government seem to show that our protests carry some weight.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister agree that the actions taken by the Israelis on the west bank would be further heightened if the threat by Prime Minister Shamir to resettle Soviet Jews on the west bank were followed through? Does he think that Soviet Jews have the right to emigrate wherever they want, but that the countries to which they want to emigrate can decide whether to accept them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better if we and the Israelis dealt with anti-Semitism wherever it arises in the world instead of using it as an excuse for emigration?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can only repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said of the Soviet Jews, when addressing the Board of Deputies of British Jews:
    "it would be a very ironic and unjust reward for all our efforts, if their freedom were to be at the expense of the rights, the homes and the land of the people of the Occupied Territories."
    That was a clear statement of the right position.

    German Reunification
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to facilitate peaceful and non-threatening German reunification.
    Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the Federal Republic of Germany.
    Mr. Hurd: Our many discussions with members of the Federal German Government are proof of our close relations. I will be having further talks in Bonn next week with Herr Genscher and Chancellor Kohl. As I explained to the House on 22 February, it was agreed at Ottawa last month that Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States, France and the Soviet Union, and of the two German states, would meet to discuss the external aspects of German reunification.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that German reunification is as desirable as it is inevitable? Now that the Polish frontier issue is out of the way, will he use our membership of the four-plus-two mechanisms to ensure that the case is made positively for all-German membership of NATO as a contribution to the continuing stability of Europe? Finally, will he ensure that Britain plays a full and appropriate part in the rehabilitation of East German's economy and environment?
    Mr. Hurd: Now that the framework for discussing external aspects of German unification is coming into place, we can certainly give a confident welcome to the process of German unification, which we have always supported in principle. We are strongly in favour of a united Germany being in NATO and we support what Chancellor Kohl and Herr Genscher have said on that subject. It will inevitably be for the German Government and people to shoulder the main task of restructuring and modernising East Germany, but I hope that British firms and interests will see the opportunities, for example, in the joint ventures, which will undoubtedly exist.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend particularly welcome yesterday's decision by the Federal Republic to negotiate a treaty on the Polish borders? Does he agree that that most happily coincides with a major objective of British Government policy? Does he further agree that the events surrounding the two Germanies further underline the importance of our maintaining an ever closer relationship with the French?
    Mr. Hurd: We strongly welcome the outcome of the discussions in Bonn yesterday and the decision of the German Government to accept the need for a treaty with Poland about her frontiers. We have been urging that, as my hon. Friend says, for a long time.
    As I told the House on 22 February, I believe that, quite apart from any German considerations, it is important for both Britain and France to learn to work together more effectively, not just on these but on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that despite the irresponsible antics of Herr Kohl in recent weeks, compared with the more responsible attitude of Herr Genscher and the SPD, there is a problem with the German ethnic minorities in Silesia and other parts of former German territory now in Poland, and that it behoves any Polish Government to act in accordance with the Helsinki accords on human rights? What initiatives is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that those accords are strengthened, to defuse tensions in those possible future troublespots?
    Mr. Hurd: It is, of course, right that those who signed the Helsinki Final Act should respect the human rights obligations that they assumed. It is also correct that throughout many parts of central and eastern Europe there are problems about minorities dating back many centuries. Those are becoming more difficult to handle as countries emerge from the Communist freezer, if I may put it that way. That is one reason why I have suggested that as part of the CSCE machinery there might be a way of conciliating in such matters. It is for sovereign states, for individual countries, to decide how they respect those obligations. It is not a matter of shifting borders in an attempt to solve those problems. That is not the answer.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Opposition also welcome the statement yesterday by Chancellor Kohl on the Oder-Neisse border? We have also welcomed progress towards the unification of the two German states and the freedom that the German people now have to make that decision. We acknowledge the extremely difficult task of the Foreign Secretary in repairing the damage to British-German relations caused by the Prime Minister's crass insensitivity. Will he now ensure that the formal and permanent confirmation of Germany's borders with her neighbours is made an urgent and fundamental objective in the two-plus-four—not four-plus-two—talks which will take place in Europe and in other forums where these matters will be discussed?
    Mr. Hurd: I cannot see much point in what the hon. Gentleman says. I am against attempts to divide Foreign Ministers from Heads of Government in Bonn or elsewhere, and I do not think that such attempts are very likely to succeed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Poles are entitled to a treaty. That is what I have just told the House. The way forward on that is now clear. It is also right that the Poles are entitled to be present when that is discussed. It cannot be dealt with exclusively in the two-plus-four or four-plus-two talks.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Despite the Foreign Secretary's opposition in principle to separating or attempting to separate Foreign Secretaries from Governments, does he accept that many of us were very pleased when he gave overt support to Herr Genscher in the internal argument in the German Administration? Does he agree that those who fear a united Germany would, in practical terms, have their fears reduced if we pressed ahead with the unification of the European Community in which Germany would be one part and in which in due time national borders would become much less significant?
    Mr. Hurd: I am all in favour of pushing ahead with fresh impetus inside the European Community, first of all by completing the single market. Where I may differ from the hon. Gentleman and from some people in the Community is that I do not think of that exclusively in terms of institutions.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on securing international agreement that the external aspects of German unification are matters not just for the two Germanys but for other countries as well? Does he recall that only a few weeks ago the British Government were accused of being the only Government out of step on this issue? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that now everybody else is in step with us—except, apparently, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
    Mr. Hurd: It was thought by learned commentators that we were a bit out of step when six or eight weeks ago we emphasised that external matters connected with German unification affected Germany's allies and other European countries. We were criticised for stressing that, but now everybody is placing the same stress and emphasis on these matters.

    Nicaragua
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy following the outcome of the Nicaraguan elections; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The election, which was judged to be free and fair, gave the people of Nicaragua an opportunity to exercise their right to choose their own Government. We warmly welcome this development, which marks a further strengthening of democracy in the region, and look forward to working with the Government of President-elect Violetta Chamorro.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that figures in the Financial Times indicate that the cost of the American intervention in the election amounted to £2 per elector, which translated into British terms would represent a total of £86 million—even more than the £14 million that the Conservatives spent at the last election? Will he make representations to the American Government to ensure that they intervene similarly in the eastern Europe democracies so that at least there may be fair play throughout the free world? Will he also ensure that the British Government make a contribution higher than the know-how fund of £50 million rather than tie the eastern European democracies into the international debt system?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), still wears his Sandino badge with pride. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that of the $9 million allocated by Congress for the Nicaraguan elections the vast majority went to pay for observers and for the supreme electoral council. Only $1·8 million went to UNO.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am constantly being urged to speed up Question Time. I ask hon. Members to put one question. If they do that, we shall get through more questions.
    Mr. Norris: Will my hon. Friend accept from me a slightly less fulsome tribute to ex-President Ortega, whose election may have been free on the day but was most certainly not fair, given the widespread intimidation, the manipulation of state media, and the abuse of Government resources by the Sandinista regime, whose support from the eastern bloc far diminished anything from the United States? Will my hon. Friend therefore keep the transitional period under very careful review, because there is much evidence that several of the commandantes of the revolution are less than convinced of the desirability of a return to democracy?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I note what my hon. Friend has said —and, of course, he personally observed the election. I join him in hoping that there will be a peaceful and full transfer on the due date. It is interesting that the United Nations observers—indeed, all observers—commented on the massive abuse by the Sandinistas of state facilities, including, in particular, the premises of the television station and the army. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, they also received very substantial help from overseas.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister accept that, as one of the international observers, I can confirm the view of almost all the observers that the elections were conducted fairly, to the great credit of the Sandinista Government? President Ortega has not only gracefully accepted the result [Interruption.] I hope that Conservative Members will do the same at the next election here—[Interruption.] Ortega is co-operating in the orderly transfer of power, which is now jeopardised by the failure of the Contra terrorists to disband. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a lot of time.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister say what the Government are doing to help the Nicaraguan Government by pressing the Contras to lay down their arms immediately?
    Mr. Sainsbury: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we look for the early disbandment of the Contras and for their reintroduction into Nicaraguan society. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was himself an observer, that on the day, the election was free and fair, as all the observers have commented. Indeed, it was the presence of the international observers—that very strong presence, and only that—which reassured the people of Nicaragua that they could cast their votes in secrecy and without fear of retribution.

    British Military Equipment
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that British military equipment supplied to Jordan is not used by Iraq to its benefit; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Careful control is exercised over our export of defence equipment. Each proposed sale is subject to stringent licensing procedures, including an assessment of foreign policy and regional security implications.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that all weapons sold by Britain to Jordan will be used solely for that country's self-defence capability and that none of the weaponry will be used by a potential aggressor to the state of Israel?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that it was no secret that Jordan and Iraq were close allies during the Gulf war. Jordan is fully committed to a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel problem. We intend to continue our support for King Hussain and his regime as they are an important part of the peace process.
    Mr. Archer: In view of the joint training arrangements established by the air forces of Jordan and Iraq, what possible contribution can the supply of equipment make to peace in the middle east?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I know that a story in the Jerusalem Post said that joint Jordanian-Iraq training was taking place, but we believe that story to be exaggerated. It seems unlikely—we have had no such comment from anyone else —that it is threatening to Israel.
    Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has said that Jordan is committed to a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel
    866
    problem. Would that continue if the Israelis settled large numbers of Soviet Jews in the occupied territories? How would that affect the Government's policy on that issue?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have already quoted the Israeli Prime Minister's clear statement on this. Whether or not he was misinterpreted—I hope that he was—he aroused many anxieties in the middle east by appearing to endorse the process of the settlement of emigrés from Soviet Jewry in the occupied territories. In our view, it would be illegal for such settlements to take place.

    European Commission
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and what matters he hopes to discuss.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs next expects to meet the President of the Commission at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 April, at which a range of EC issues will be discussed.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will German reunification be on the agenda? Will the Secretary of State tell the President of the Commission that under article 23 of the West German basic law, reunification must be not absorption of East Germany into West Germany but on a basis of equality and partnership leading to a coming together of both Germanys on equal terms?
    Mr. Maude: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said already, the way in which the two Germanies unite is essentially an internal matter for them. We have stressed for some time that there are effects on others outside which the Germanys must take into account. As a result of the initiative that my right hon. Friend took, there is now a framework which will enable proper account to be taken of all these matters.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that an opportunity will be taken to discuss with the President of the Commission the outcome of the Nicaraguan elections, given that the supervision by the United Nations and the role of the Organisation of American States and of observers from both sides of the House—I was lucky enough to be one—suggest that a secret vote has led to an important development for democracy? Will my hon. Friend assure us that Europewide co-operation on further assistance for Nicaragua will be explored urgently?
    Mr. Maude: I am sure that that will be the case. It is just possible that the amount of interest that has been expressed today in the Nicaraguan elections will not spread quite so far across Europe as might be thought. However, it is a matter which will be discussed.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister discuss with the President of the European Commission the failure of the Minister's own visit to Hanoi to try to get acceptance from the Vietnamese of the voluntary return, let alone compulsory return, of Vietnamese boat people? As the hon. Gentleman failed absolutely in that endeavour, and as the problem continues to exist, would not it be a good idea to ask our partners to co-operate in seeking an

    867
    international solution? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that part of that solution is not to offer economic aid as part of a deal, which he tried to do, but to reopen European Community aid, United States aid and United Kingdom bilateral aid as the best way of establishing a secure economy in Vietnam so that the Vietnamese would no longer feel that they had to leave their country to better themselves?
    Mr. Maude: Again, it is just possible that Mr. Delors did not follow my travels to Vietnam with quite the flattering degree of attention that the right hon. Gentleman did. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I achieved some extremely useful results during my visit, including a fivefold increase in the number of Vietnamese boat people who will return to Vietnam under the United Nations voluntary scheme. That has been widely welcomed.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about seeking an international solution to the problem. He may not have noticed that there already is one. At the Geneva conference last June a comprehensive plan of action was agreed. As the right hon. Gentleman will know from having studied it carefully, it involves the mandatory repatriation to Vietnam of those who are not refugees. The entire international community now subscribes to the principle of mandatory repatriation. The Archbishop of York, having just visited Hong Kong, has expressed strong support for a resumption of mandatory repatriation. The only people who do not seem to have understood the position are the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

    Human Rights, Soviet Union
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Soviet authorities about human rights.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have a continual dialogue with the Soviet authorities about human rights. We raised both individual cases of concern and the wider need for institutionalised reform during the meeting of the Anglo-Soviet working group on human rights on 9 January. I followed this up when I visited the Soviet Union from 21 to 25 January.
    Mr. Marshall: Did my right hon. Friend make any representations to the Soviet authorities about the evil activities of Pamyat and the threatened pogrom of 5 May? Is he aware that 50,000 people with exit visas are awaiting flights to Israel? Will he make representations to the Russian authorities suggesting that they allow direct flights between Moscow and Tel Aviv?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I discussed the first issue with Soviet leaders and with representatives of the Jewish community in Moscow. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Soviet Government are in the process of prosecuting Pamyat under their law, which is rather similar to ours, dealing with the stirring up of racial hatred. We should watch that carefully, but we should welcome it as proof that the Soviet authorities are taking the matter seriously. Direct flights are a matter for the two Governments concerned.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister accept that there is real anxiety among thousands of Soviet Jews about renewed
    868
    pogroms and anti-Semitic harassment? Does he accept that a tribute should be paid to Mr. Gorbachev as thousands are now leaving freely to go to live in Israel? As Israel, unlike nearly all its neighbours, labours under the advantage of being a democracy and thus cannot direct its citizens, however new, on where they may or may not live, does the Minister accept that fewer than 0·5 per cent. have settled outside the green line, which nails the propaganda lie that there is a danger of mass settlement—[Interruption.] It is no laughing matter for those whose lives are in the process of being saved.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We certainly pay tribute to the much better regime which Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues have introduced. One of my hon. Friends recently went to Moscow, at the invitation of the Russians, to discuss the drafting of the law. These are all better steps which we welcome. On the latter point, although what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is true, the concern in the middle east about that arose after some rather unguarded remarks —to put it mildly—from Prime Minister Shamir. To talk as he did seemed liable to lead to exactly the outcome that has resulted, which is that everyone is exceedingly worried.

    Hungary
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of his discussions following his recent visit to Hungary.
    Mr. Hurd: I visited Hungary from 27 February to I March and had talks with members of the Government and representatives of the opposition. I welcomed the steps which Hungary is taking to full democracy, including free elections on 25 March. I confirmed our support through the know-how fund. The prospects for full and effective use of the fund are good.
    Mr. Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for his very full answer and the extension of the know-how fund from Poland to Hungary, as well as 40 other projects. Does he agree, however, that the real test of merit for the Soviet Union is the timing of the withdrawal of its troops'' Having so recently visited the area, can he say why there is such a choke point at the border station of Csap, which also involves the withdrawal from Czechoslovakia? Will he, on behalf of the Conservative side of the House, wish the Hungarian people great success in the election and in overthrowing a Communist Government for the first time in 40 years?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is well informed and quite right. There has been a hiccup in discussions between the Hungarians and the Soviet Government, not on the principle of Soviet withdrawal of troops but on the timing. My hon. Friend may have put his finger on one of the reasons for that—the congestion on the railways which serve for evacuating Russian troops from Czechoslovakia and from Hungary. I join my hon. Friend in hoping that the elections on 25 March are a resounding success and that there is a high turnout.
    Mr. Winnick: It would be useful if Conservative Members were committed to free elections everywhere, as Opposition Members are. Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity arising from the question to praise the Soviet leadership not only for bringing about the rule of

    869
    law and parliamentary democracy, or the beginnings of it, in the Soviet Union but for pursuing a policy in eastern Europe whereby at long last the people in those countries will be able to elect the Governments that they want without any interference from the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly the Soviet Union is now allowing things to happen in eastern Europe which previously it suppressed, but the main tribute for that is due to the people of Hungary who have insisted on that and have been pioneering and making a success of it.

    Germany
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: I saw the Federal Chancellor on 6 February, Mr. Genscher with the Prime Minister on 15 February and repeatedly since, Defence Minister Dr. Stoltenberg on 22 February, and the German Democratic Republic Foreign Minister, Mr. Fischer, on 13 February. We discussed a number of subjects, including the external aspects of German unification.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done to establish a proper framework to discuss German unification, particularly the two-plus-four formula, but is he aware that there is widespread concern in Poland, which has sovereignty over the former German territories of Silesia and Pomerania, that it has been insufficiently consulted? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider making representations to European executive representatives next time to the effect that a two-plus-four-plus-one formula would be in order so as to accommodate Poland's worries?
    Mr. Hurd: I discussed that with the Polish Foreign Minister in Ottawa and the Polish Prime Minister discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself here in London. It is accepted, first, that the Poles should have a treaty defining their western border and, secondly and obviously, that when those arrangements are discussed the Poles will have to be there.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be in the interests of European security and East-West relations if a unified Germany were declared a demilitarised zone and the new Germany neither in NATO nor in the Warsaw pact? Would not that be helpful to both sides?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member should consult some of his friends in eastern Europe on that as it is a prospect which they are beginning specifically to repudiate. There is a growing consensus, which does not yet include the Soviet Union, that it would be sensible for the stability of Europe if a united Germany were in NATO.
    Mr. William Powell: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss the prospective currency reform of the Ostmark with the Governments of East and West Germany? Has my right hon. Friend read the reports that there are apparently 155 billion Ostmarks in savings which will need to be converted, and that there is an international
    870
    dimension to this because unless the matter is handled sensitively it may well result in a high level of inflation going out of Germany?
    Mr. Hurd: That has been touched on from time to time in discussions, but I would not claim to be an expert on it. Expert views on the point that my hon. Friend raises are varied, but I believe that the matter is being handled with caution by the relevant German authorities, bearing in mind the kind of worry that my hon. Friend has expressed.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Vietnam and Cambodia with the American Secretary of State.
    Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend and I discussed Cambodia and the Vietnamese boat people with Secretary Baker on 11 December. The question of the Vietnamese boat people was also discussed on 30 January, during my right hon. Friend's visit to Washington.
    Mr. Mullin: Did the Minister put it to the Americans that until they call off their war against Vietnam and end the aid, trade and diplomatic embargo against that country, and withdraw the vetoes in connection with the World Bank, the IMF and various other organisations, there will be no prospect of solving the boat people problem and the flow of refugees will continue indefinitely?
    Mr. Maude: We took the opportunity to explain to the American Secretary of State that Vietnam is a country undergoing a process of reform and is a different regime from what it was. We have also made it clear to the Vietnamese that we would not feel able to resume full bilaterial relations, including the resumption of economic aid to them, unless they felt able to fulfil their full international obligations, including especially their obligations to their own people.
    Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most helpful things that could now happen, following the discussions in Jakarta, would be for a United Nations mission to be allowed to go into Cambodia to verify that the Vietnamese have withdrawn and to deal with the question of Vietnamisation, which is constantly heard at every international meeting as a means of preventing further progress towards a settlement?
    Mr. Maude: It is regrettable that there was not a more favourable outcome to the talks in Jakarta. The sort of mission to which my hon. Friend refers could certainly be considered again, but I do not think that it would be sensible to look at the practicalities at this stage until the framework for a comprehensive settlement is fully in place.

    Central America
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to visit Central America; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Central America.
    Mr. Skinner: If he does, and if the Government give financial aid to Nicaragua, how much money will be

    871
    handed over? Will he ensure that any aid given to Nicaragua goes towards genuine demobilisation of the Contras? To use the Foreign Secretary's words, will he ensure that the money is used for tractors and not tanks?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) has already discussed those matters with President Violetta Chamorro. The sort of aid that we would be considering particularly would be technical co-operation covering matters such as English language teaching and scholarships, rather than the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the Minister try to convince Labour Members that they should abide by the advice on the placard carried by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) outside the American embassy the Sunday before the election and respect the result in Nicaragua?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to know that the result is being generally respected. As I have said, we hope that there will be a full and peaceful transfer of power in due course and that the result will be accepted by all elements of the previous Sandinista Government.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Somoza regime was overthrown because Mrs. Chamorro's husband was killed and that the Sandinistas were totally in association with her and others who were then fighting the dictatorship? Will he also bear in mind that in 1984—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should ask just one question.
    Mr. Heffer: There was a general election in 1984 which was won by the Sandinistas. They won that election fairly. Now, having lost the latest election, they have handed over power—[interruption.] It is about time that Her Majesty's Government decided to support democracy instead of arguing that it was a Marxist-Leninist Government when part of that Government were members of the Roman Catholic Church.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's verdict on the earlier election. I am happy to confirm, however, that all the observers have pronounced that the election which has just taken place and which resulted in a decisive rejection of the Socialist management of the Sandinistas, was indeed free and fair.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are making available to the democracies in eastern Europe.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The know-how fund which is already operating in Poland will shortly be extended to Hungary, and in due course to other eastern European countries which show a clear commitment to reform. We are also contributing to multilateral aid efforts, notably the stabilisation fund for Poland, the planned European bank for reconstruction and development and the Community's food and humanitarian help for Poland and Romania.
    Mr. Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that assistance is in addition to, and quite separate from, the United Kingdom's overseas aid budget? Will he say a little more about specific help for Poland, particularly in regard to the know-how fund?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm that the answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. We have given a range of help to Poland. There are now more than 40 projects operating. Some of the biggest have been the establishment of capital markets, a programme for privatisation, and assistance with the administration of local and municipal authorities and the establishment of civil law. Those are three examples among many.

    Vietnam
    Mr. David Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with what countries he has had discussions (a) resettlement of the boat people and (b) resurrecting the economy of Vietnam.
    Mr. Maude: I discussed the subject of Vietnamese boat people most recently with European Community and Association of South-East Asian Nations Ministers on 16 and 17 February and with the Vietnamese Government in Hanoi from 19 to 21 February. Arrangements to resettle over a three year period boat people who are refugees were agreed as part of the comprehensive plan of action adopted by the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees last June in Geneva.
    Mr. Young: Is not the real stumbling block to the economic regeneration of north Vietnam the American Government's refusal to allow economic regeneration to take place unless they can officially sanction the type of government which operates in Hanoi? In the name of humanity, can we ask the American Government to stop fighting the wars of the past and to help with the regeneration of that area, as that is the solution to the problem?
    Mr. Maude: As I have already said, we have pointed out that reform is taking place in Vietnam so there is no longer quite the same regime as there was. I know that in Vietnam there is a good deal of interest in the resumption of aid from the West, but, as I have made clear, before that can take place we shall want to be satisfied that Vietnam is fully accepting its obligations under international law and particularly the obligation to accept its own people back.

House of Fraser
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on House of Fraser. I have today published the report of the inspectors appointed under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc.
I should explain to the House that in this matter I have three main responsibilities as Secretary of State: first, to decide whether to publish the report. This I have now done, as soon as possible after I was informed by the prosecution authorities that they had withdrawn their objection to publication.
Secondly, I had to consider whether to apply to the court to disqualify any director under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. I have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to do so. Anyone who reads the report can decide for themselves what they think of the conduct of those involved.
Thirdly, I also have responsibility for decisions on whether to refer mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That responsibility was fully discharged by my predecessor. He had six months from July 1988 in which to consider the findings of the inspectors' report and to decide whether to refer the matter. He concluded in November 1988 that a reference to the M MC would not be appropriate. The House of Lords held that that was a proper decision. I cannot reopen the decision taken at that time. We have since taken steps in the Companies Act 1989 to make it a specific criminal offence for anyone knowingly or recklessly to mislead the competition authorities.
No other matters require action from me. I have passed the report to all those authorities concerned with enforcement and regulation so that they may consider whether to take action under their various powers.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: If a statement lasting for less than two minutes is an indication of the importance that the Secretary of State and his Department attach to an issue as major as this—for we are talking about fraud on a grand scale—we are astonished. Is it not extraordinary that the Department of Trade and Industry is to take no action, despite the conclusions of a 750-page report produced by the Department itself?
The first paragraph of chapter 2 states:
"The Fayeds dishonestly misrepresented their origins, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the Secretary of State, the OFT, the press, the HOF Board … and their own advisers."
Is it not extraordinary that no action is to be taken, although the evidence received by the inquiry was false —and known to be false—at the time it was provided, and although it is now known that, in the words of the report,
"it is likely that the Fayeds used … the Sultan of Brunei and the opportunities afforded to them by the possession of wide powers of attorney"?
Only constraints on the powers of the inspectors prevented them from discovering conclusive evidence on precisely that point.
Is the Secretary of State seriously telling us that no action is to be taken against any of the people who made those dishonest representations—against the Fayeds themselves, or against their supporting cast, the bankers
874
Kleinwort Benson and the solicitors involved? Apparently, no action is to be taken against anyone who was engaged in the perpetration of—again, I quote from the report—
"a massive fraud against the Government".
Now that we know that the deal was cleared by the then Secretary of State in only 10 days—although allegations that have now been found to be true were known to him, and had been made with considerable vigour—will the Secretary of State explain why the Government insisted on clearing the deal in such a remarkably short time? Why did they not investigate the allegations in more depth? Why did they not fulfil their responsibility to protect the public interest, and why did the Secretary of State's statement not acknowledge the final responsibility that his Department must carry for clearing a fraudulent takeover? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may find it reasonably amusing, but Opposition Members are interested in defending the public interest. Does not the proper protection of the public interest require action a little less casual than a few telephone calls and a statement? Does it not require an in-depth investigation?
What are the lessons for the future? First, does the Secretary of State accept any of the six lessons set out in chapter 25 of the report, including the need for closer supervision and tighter regulation? Will he insist that those lessons are acted on by the regulatory bodies, and present proposals to that effect? Above all, how can the right hon. Gentleman conclude—despite the clear direction in chapter 1 of the report, on page 12, that the directors who gave false information to the inspectors should be disqualified—that it would
"not be in the public interest"
to attempt to disqualify them?
Does not the report cry out for a proper monopolies and mergers policy that is not based simply on considerations of competition, but takes account of the wider public interest? It is clear, not merely from his failure to act but from the manner of his doing so, and from today's pathetic statement, that the Secretary of State has abandoned that public interest.
Mr. Ridley: In my statement I set out clearly the extent of my responsibilities in this matter. The House and the hon. Lady can judge for themselves the content of the report and what is revealed therein. The hon. Lady said that the allegations should be investigated, but I advise her that they have been investigated at great length and set out by the inspectors. It is for her to form her own judgment.
The hon. Lady referred to criminal prosecutions. They are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The hon. Lady now knows that, on the advice of the Directors of Public Prosecutions and of the Serious Fraud Office, he has now decided that no prosecution shall be taken.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the advisers to the various parties in the report. The report has been sent to the Law Society and to the Bank of England. They are the regulatory authorities for those bodies and it will be up to them to decide whether they wish to take any action.
The hon. Lady then asked whether the inspectors' recommendations had been taken note of in relation to various aspects of company law. Under the Companies Act 1989, which the House enacted just before Christmas, no fewer than four major changes, which I will spell out to

875
the hon. Lady if she would like to know what they were, were made dealing with the inspectors' four main recommendations to amend company law.
In two of the cases about which a recommendation to amend company law was made, my predecessor came to the conclusion that no amendment was necessary because the powers were already there. As I said, the main recommendation was that giving false evidence to the competition authorities should now become a specific criminal offence. Giving false evidence to inspectors is already a criminal offence—and has been for some time. Whether prosecutions arise under those two powers is for the prosecuting authorities, not for me.
It is not my intention to change the terms of reference of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. This matter would never have come before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the first place if issues of competition had been the sole guidelines, subject, of course, to the national interest considerations, which were to be considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the case of a possible reference.
Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is not the first Secretary of State to be involved in this matter, and that he can take no blame for this situation? However, will he tell the House a little more, first, about the position of the advisers? Is he satisfied that, as it stands, the law deals fully with the recommendation in the report about the conduct of advisers in these difficult circumstances?
Secondly, will he tell us a little more about disqualification and why he has concluded that it would be unwise to use his powers to disqualify in this case? How would the disqualification work in the case of this particular public company? Would it have a major effect on it? How would it work in this case if those criticised in the report were disqualified from being directors of a public company?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I confirm that the advisers concerned are subject to their own regulatory regimes—to the Law Society, the Bank of England or others in investment and banking matters. It is for those authorities to decide whether any action is necessary as a result of the publication of the report.
My right hon. Friend's second question was about disqualification. I shall give him a full answer. Under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, I may apply to the court for a disqualification order if I consider that it is expedient in the public interest for a disqualification order to be made. I have considered the matter carefully and have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to seek such an order in this case. Those who read the report can make their own assessment of the conduct of those involved. The provisions of that act are intended not as a punishment, but as a protection for the public. I can add nothing further to that.
Sir David Steel: Does the Secretary of State agree with the finding of the report in chapter 23 that it is in the public interest that the confusion which occurred in this case should not occur again? It appears that that is precisely what he will allow. Does not the report show that every fail-safe mechanism set up by Parliament to protect the public in free and fair commerce failed in this instance, disastrously trimmed as the mechanisms were in July 1984 by his predecessor, the
876
right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he continues to take no action he will be condoning a money-laundering charter which could be used in future by any Mafia godfather or international drug baron who cares to use it in the same way?
Mr. Ridley: I cannot go into the wider views which the right hon Gentleman mentioned at the end of his supplementary question. The purpose of company law and inspections of the sort that we are discussing is to protect the interests of shareholders. The shareholders of the original House of Fraser board were paid in full in cash. The only shareholders of House of Fraser Ltd. are now directors; there are no outside shareholders. In no respect are the interests of the public, to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention, not protected by the present arrangements.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for finally publishing the report? Does he accept that many of us regret that the decision was made that it could not be published earlier? After all, in more recent times the directors of National Westminster Bank and others have been prosecuted after the publication of a report. As the report is large and we have only recently seen it, could he direct the attention of hon. Members to any page in which there is criticism or culpability alleged of either the Director General of Fair Trading, whose advice Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry took, or, indeed, of Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry?
Mr. Ridley: Perhaps I am fortunate that I have been able to publish the report so relatively early in my stewardship of the Department. I have sympathy with my predecessors, who were constrained by the need to make sure that the prosecuting authorities were content. I received that clearance only last week. Nowhere in the report have I seen any criticism of the conduct of the Director General of Fair Trading, my predecessor or junior Ministers in the Department ever since the beginning of the affair.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: By lying and cheating, the Fayed brothers fooled the Office of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Department of Trade and Industry. Why are they to be allowed to remain in full possession of the assets that they have dishonestly acquired and in the process thumb their noses at the Government?
Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman should put that question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is responsible for prosecutions.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report has opened a can of worms which exposes the serious shortcomings of investor protection and the enforcement of company law? Why is it not serious fraud to lie about exactly who is taking over whom? With regard to directors ceasing to be directors, if the criticisms in the report do not amount to sufficient justification, surely that makes a mockery of company law which imposes those obligations on directors. Instead of the old adage and reliance on "My word is my bond", we probably need tougher city regulation, tighter legal enforcement of standards of disclosure and some

877
divestment. Rather than taking people off the board and allowing ownership to be retained, we should make it hurt where it really hurts, which is in the ownership of the company.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, is as astute at spotting a can of worms as anybody, and I shall rely on him coming to a decision on the report. He will forgive me if I remain neutral in my comments on what he has said [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I have already said that the DPP and the director of the Serious Fraud Office are responsible for deciding whether to take criminal prosecutions. They have concluded not to do so. I cannot go beyond my powers. There are some lessons for some authorities, particularly in the City, which I hope they will learn from studying the report. Many of them received it only this morning and we shall await whatever they decide to say or do in due course.
Mr. Michael Foot: The Secretary of State failed to reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). Can he tell us why the Attorney-General has not bothered to come to the House today for the statement? Is that not part of the casual way in which the Government treat the whole matter? Will the Attorney-General come along at some stage to answer the question put a few minutes ago?
Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman is skilled and experienced in this House, but perhaps he has not noticed that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is on the Treasury Bench. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is available to answer questions in this House at his appointed time. Any hon. Member who wishes can put questions to him either orally or in writing.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Although advisory organisations to the House of Fraser are subject to outside regulatory bodies, is it not in effect the case that my right hon. Friend is the regulatory body that controls the behaviour of company directors? Does he appreciate that many of us inside and probably far more outside the House are astonished that he will not take action to disbar those directors of House of Fraser who have been so seriously criticised in the report?
Mr. Ridley: I cannot add to what I have said about that matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have judged it not to be in the public interests for a variety of reasons after considering carefully all the available evidence.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that chapter 25 of the report reveals that non-corporate offerers are not required under the takeover panel code to provide information about their financial background? [Interruption.]t is what it says in the report. If the argument is about the takeover of Harrods, who is the greater villain: Muhammad Ali—[Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. An understandable mistake.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the greater villian Mr. Al-Fayed, who has clearly been economical with the truth about his background—indeed, something which many international business men have practised over the years —or Mr. "Tiny" Rowland, who was the subject of a report
878
in the late 1970s which led Treasury counsel to the Department of Trade and Industry to say that he should be prosecuted on four counts, including larceny under the Theft Act 1968, the exchange control legislation and the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968? Is is not true that Mr. Rowland repeatedly committed offences, yet today tries to convince the British people that he should have been given the right to control and buy Harrods? Clearly justice may not appear to have been done, but to some extent it may have been done.
Mr. Ridley: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on his slight slip of the tongue, but I do not think that anyone would believe that the events that we are talking about are particularly heavyweight. I agree with what he says about non-corporate purchasers—that is in the report.
It is for right hon. and hon. Members to form their own views on the account of events in the report. The report has performed an important function in giving the most information possible about what happened. What the hon. Gentleman has said shows that it is possible to form two judgments about the matter.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the investigation under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 was pursuant to a public general Act and that, therefore, if any person
"knowingly and wilfully makes … a statement false in a material particular"
even though not on oath, that person has committed perjury under section 5(c) of the Perjury Act 1911? That Act is still in force and was in force throughout the proceedings.
Mr. Ridley: I confirm that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that it is a criminal act to make false statements either to DTI inspectors or to any officer of the law.
Several Hon Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have an important debate to follow. I shall take three more questions from either side of the House, then we must move on.
Mr. Peter Shore: The House will understand the Secretary of State saying that the matter of prosecution for fraud is for his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. What the House does not understand, however, is what conceivable matters of public interest prevent the Secretary of State from exercising his own statutory obligations to decide whether the Al-Fayed brothers are fit and proper persons to be directors of that major company.
Mr. Ridley: I have already given an answer to that question, and I repeat that there are no outside shareholders of the House of Fraser company. If anyone wanted to appoint the persons concerned to his board, he would have available to him the contents of the report before deciding to do so. That report represents protection for shareholders in the future, but I repeat that there are no outside shareholders at present.
Mr. David Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a deep sense of frustration on the Conservative Benches that these crooks should be allowed to get away with it? Does he not realise that the Al-Fayeds control assets in a public company and that, from that position, they will be able to acquire other

879
assets in this country? Is he also aware that we do not feel that these people should be in this country any more? They have obviously perjured themselves about their backgrounds and they should be deported as undesirable aliens. We do not want them here; they are crooks.
Mr. Ridley: The question of prosecution is not one for me. I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's views about immigration policy and deportation. That is not for me but for the Home Secretary.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that he does the House no favours in his replies by falling back continually on the defence that this is a matter for the learned Attorney-General? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here to make a second statement so that both sides of the House may question him about the reasons for his decision.
The Secretary of State should appreciate that the decision on this matter will be viewed differently outside the House from the apparent way in which he views it. The right hon. Gentleman has had no support from his Back Benchers. Outside the House, people who are pursued for social security frauds with all the vigour of the law will see that, yet again, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor; or, in the words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), that this is the unacceptable face of capitalism.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must form his own view about those matters, but I would not advise him to use the word "fraud" outside the House, because that is a matter which should be decided by the prosecuting authorities. I cannot answer for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on publishing the report, the contents of which more than justify the almost obsessive campaign by a company chaired by one of our former colleagues. Is not my right hon. Friend's major problem today the fact that most of the doors to possible action on the content of the report were locked before he arrived at the Department, in particular the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? However, can he at least say that, as Harrods bank deals with the general public, it would be quite offensive to the public if the Bank of England continued to authorise that bank? A bank should be authorised on the basis of its directors being fit and proper persons. I fully appreciate that there is not much that the Secretary of State can do now because the
880
doors have already been locked, but will he at least ensure that Harrods bank no longer has the dignity of being authorised by the Bank of England?
Mr. Ridley: That is a matter for the Bank of England, which regulates bankers and has the power to decide whether the directors of any bank are fit and proper persons to control it. My hon. Friend should direct his question to the Bank of England.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: How is it that honest merchant bankers Kleinwort Benson could conspire with Herbert Smith and Co., a firm of solicitors of the highest integrity, and the Al-Fayed brothers, legendary seekers after the truth, to commit a massive fraud on the British Government when the person charged with sifting the evidence was none other than the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who is renowed for his judgment of character, financial acumen and genius for taking the right decisions? What political debts were being repaid when that episode in sleaze and slime took place?
Mr. Ridley: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous, full-hearted and jovial approach to these matters, but no question for me to answer arises from what he has said.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome the publication of the report at last, but may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to chapter 25, dealing with lessons to be learned, in which it says:
"the arrangements for deciding … a controversial bid put intolerable strain on the OFT and the DTI who found themselves obliged to perform a role for which they were not equipped"?
Who will guard the public against these crooks? Could not the whole affair have been torpedoed at the start by getting Kleinwort Benson to justify its claim that the Al-Fayeds had got the money when they had not?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend touches on a matter for which I should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who changed the criteria for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of mergers and acquisitions so that the prime consideration was one of competition rather than wider matters, which were the cause of the original reference of this matter to the MMC. That important and welcome change will make the job of the director general much easier and will not have got the House involved in such matters, which have nothing to do with competition.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order
Mr. Speaker: Later.

Bristol Council House (Disturbances)
4.3 pm
Mr. Robert Hayward: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the violence against the police and arrests at Bristol council house last night."
You, Mr. Speaker, and the whole House will be only too well aware that the events in Bristol last night were the worst example of a series of attacks on council houses that took place around the country, in Birmingham, Reading, Bristol and Exeter, all of which appear to have been co-ordinated by certain individuals who are involved in the anti-poll tax union. The matter is important and specific because five police were injured last night, one of them quite seriously by being knocked unconscious. Another was kicked and stamped on, and another, in Bristol, was electrocuted and treated for shock. There appears to be a group of people moving across the country, organising these demonstrations on behalf of the Left wing of the Labour movement.
In Bristol, these actions were co-ordinated by a former Labour councillor and were supported by two other members of the Labour group on the city council.
Surely this House needs to give urgent consideration to this matter, not only to protect the police force, which acted brilliantly in Bristol, but also to protect councillors and members of the public who have the right to attend meetings and object in a peaceful manner. The demonstrators in Bristol and in other parts of the country last night were not locals or pensioners; they were part of an organised mob. That is why I believe that we should urgently discuss this issue.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the violence against the police and arrests at Bristol council house last night."
Mr. Rupert Allason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said about this matter, but, as he knows, I have to decide whether to give it precedence over the business set down for today and tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
I shall now take a point of order of which I have been notified.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of this matter, but I realise that it is complex and that you may not yet have had the opportunity to take advice and to come to a conclusion on it.
Last night the Secretary of State for Energy placed in the Library of the House a departmental minute which claims to give him the authority to accept liabilities for costs incurred by Nuclear Electric, up to a limit of £2,500 million. Under the Electricity Act 1989, any such guarantee in excess of £1,000 million cannot be given unless an order is laid before the House, debated and agreed. That was promised by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in a statement in July last year.
Can you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that the back-door method employed by the Secretary of State does not validate any guarantee that he may try to give in excess of £1,000 million? Can you also confirm that, in view of the rules of the House and the objections that we lodged last night and which appear on today's Order Paper, the Secretary of State's proper course of action is to come clean, to lay an order, and come to the House to justify this new nuclear levy on taxpayers which he proposes on top of the nuclear levy that he has already imposed on electricity users?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me some notice of this matter, because I have been able to look into it briefly, although I have not had time to go into it fully, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the tabling of an objection to the departmental minute has the effect of requiring that objection to be considered by the Department. That procedure is fully described in page 215 of "Erskine May".
As to the need for an affirmative resolution, that is a legal matter calling for an interpretation of the law, but I understand that the departmental minute contains the proviso that it is subject to parliamentary approval of the provision of the necessary funds being obtained.
I shall inquire further into what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had before us a report of 750 pages containing details of the most squalid and disgraceful events that have happened in industry and commerce for many years——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member was not called on the statement, but he was not alone. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, it is very much a point of order for you. We often have an hour on statements, and yet on an issue of the greatest importance to the integrity of this country we are allowed only half an hour. Why can you not give us another half-hour?
Mr. Speaker: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the reason. I have the difficult task of balancing the obvious interests of Members in statements. Equally, I have to bear in mind the interests of hon. Members in important

883
debates that will follow. In the past, the hon. Gentleman has frequently complained that he has not been called in a debate.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: That is so.
Mr. Speaker: He confirms that. He should not now complain because he has not been called during a statement.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is currently engaged on an inquiry into investigations on City fraud and that two of my Conservative colleagues on that Committee were called, would it not have been appropriate for at least one of the Labour members of the Committee to have been called?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House must accept that, when a matter is raised on the Floor of the House it gives hon. Members who are not members of the Select Committee an opportunity to comment about it.
Mr. Rupert Allason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not raised a point of order before, and it is not in the least frivolous. I ask you to refer a very important matter to the Committee of Privileges because——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of order before, I shall give him some advice. If it is a matter of privilege, he must write to me in the usual way.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How does it come about that a statement on hill farming went on for one and a quarter hours, while on an issue of this kind we are closed down in about half an hour?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heffer: I have not finished.
Mr. Speaker: I can help the hon. Gentleman on this matter. I have to strike a balance every day on the pressure from hon. Members to speak in subsequent debates. The hon. Gentleman is another hon. Member who frequently complains that he is not called in debate. It is very selfish to expect to be called on a statement when that would have the effect of denying his colleagues the opportunity to speak in a debate. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Heffer: I have never complained about not being called. I have complained, and will continue to complain, that you, Mr. Speaker, do not listen to Members who raise points of order but intervene before they have finished. Is it not about time that you listened to hon. Members making points of order before you move in and stop them? [Interruption.] Conservative Members should understand that I am trying to protect their rights. If they do not understand that, they do not understand the first point about Parliament, which is that Back Benchers, as well as Front Benchers, have rights.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I are on the same side. We are both
884
attempting to protect the rights of Back Benchers—he in his way, and I in mine. I hope that the House will judge that, today, I have made the right decision.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This point of order comes from a Member who, to best of his recollection, has never complained about not having been called in debate. While appreciating fully the difficulties that you have explained, and accepting fully your right to make these choices, may I ask whether you agree that, in this case, the difficulty is not only the fact that, because of the pressure of other business, the time allocated is short, but also the fact that this is a massive report of extreme complexity? It contains some very damning conclusions in respect of the acquirers of the House of Fraser and of Harrods and comes on the back of the assertion by the Secretary of State that he did not wish to use any of his considerable powers of intervention in the matter. In addition, there has been no indication that a debate will be arranged, either at the request of the Opposition or by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Speaker: That is a valid point. It is another judgment that the Chair has to take into account. This is a very complicated matter. It stands to reason that hon. Members have not had an opportunity to read the report and, therefore, are not in a position fully to formulate their questions. I think that it was right to have a preliminary look at the report today, with a view to returning to it at a later stage. I have no knowledge of a debate, but the hon. Gentleman may certainly raise the matter with the Leader of the House tomorrow.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that in situations like this you have a very difficult job. Would it not be of some assistance to you if we were to look at the possibility of having a fixed time allocated for statements—whether half an hour or one hour? We should then know exactly where we were. You, Sir, have said that we may return to this matter, but there is no guarantee that we shall ever be able to do so. In the light of the pressure from Members who wanted to intervene in the course of this very important statement, it is quite clear that it would have been much better to have an extended time for questions on it than to spend the next six hours talking about something on which many of us think we should not spend so much time.
Mr. Speaker: That is the hon. Gentleman's personal judgment; it may not be shared by everyone.
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 24 January as reported at column 894 of the Official Report, I raised with you, Sir, on a point of order, the fact that the Isle of Wight Labour party had denounced the campaign against the community charge as having been inspired by the Militant Tendency. In view of the fact that the genie is now out of the bottle, with considerable disruption throughout the country, would it not have behoved the Leader of the Opposition to denounce the whole campaign much earlier?
Mr. Speaker: That does not concern order in the Chamber. I think we should move on.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why?
Mr. Speaker: Very well; I shall take a point from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is a very helpful former chairman of an important body.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important report of 750 pages—a £600 million cover-up. If we do not want the Chair to be involved in that cover-up, and if we are to spend six hours debating somebody picking up £50,000 from the Saudi Arabians, we should have more than half an hour to debate the report.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make accusations of that kind, he should do so in the debate later today.
Mr. Heffer: You said, Mr. Speaker, that I rose in relation to the statement. I never moved from my seat. I never made any move to ask a question. I think that you should withdraw your statement, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If I made a mistake, I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Gentleman.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 23 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Robert Adley.

Mr. John Bowis.

Mr. Charles Wardle.

Blasphemy (No. 2)
4.19 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the offence of blasphemy and certain other common law offences; and for connected purposes.
Disagreement about religion has a long and extremely dismal history. Michelangelo's religious art in the Sistine chapel, when he painted frescoes for one pope, was painted out after his death on the orders of another incumbent in that office. In the 15th century, Joan of Arc was burnt at Rouen. John Huss was burned as a heretic in Bohemia —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are not remaining in the Chamber, especially those who are now standing below the Gangway, should leave quietly.
Mr. Cryer: In the 16th century, much of Europe was consumed by Catholics and Protestants killing one another in the name of righteousness. Protestants killed other Protestants and both Protestants and Catholics killed more extreme dissenters such as Anabaptists.
Galileo was imprisoned in 1633 and forced to repent his view that the world was round. Spinoza, one of the great philosophers, was expelled from the Jewish congregation and condemned by both Catholics and Protestants. In 1697, the Blasphemy Act was passed and men and women suffered under it until the 1960s.
George Holyoake was imprisoned for six months at Cheltenham for blasphemy in the 1830s, for preferring concern for the economic well-being of humanity to duty to God. After serving his six months, Holyoake went on to found the London Secular Society and to campaign about the case of Thomas Pooley in 1857. Pooley, who was mentally disturbed, had written "Jesus Christ" and "T. Pooley" on a clergyman's gate. Mr. Justice Coleridge allowed the conviction on the ground that the words must be insulting in some way. Charles Bradlaugh was denied his seat in this place on several occasions because of his lack of religious views.
As recently as 1911, John W. Gott of Bradford was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for publishing satirical verses in his "Rib-Tickler" or "Questions for Parsons". Gott continued an increasingly bitter campaign to repeal the laws that were used to curb the public views of free thinkers.
In 1922, at the Old Bailey, Gott was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for blasphemy. Despite medical evidence that he was seriously ill, he was forced to serve the full sentence. He died shortly after his release in 1922. Another death on the scaffold of intolerance.
Gott's tradition was taken up in Bradford by a well-known orator, Joe Corina. As society became more tolerant, it was possible on a Sunday evening on Broadway in Bradford to hear the secularists speaking yards away from an advocate of the Catholic Truth Society. I knew and admired both speakers. That spirit of tolerance and exchange of ideas must be preserved, and my Bill will help to do that.
Following the recommendation of the Law Commission in 1966 that the statute of 1697 should be repealed, the Criminal Law Act 1967 implemented the recommendation. There remains, however, the common law criminal offence. That offence is one of strict liability,

887
in that it requires no evidence of intention to blaspheme. It provides only that the language should be shocking and insulting. Hence, evidence is not allowed about the defendant's belief and purpose, contrary to the general principles of our law. For example, a deeply religious person cannot bring evidence to the court of his religious conviction.
The Law Commission in 1985 recommended unanimously that the common law offence should be repealed. Two out of seven said that a new offence should be created. All seven agreed that the law of blasphemy should be repealed. Since that report, the Public Order Act 1986 created a new offence. Under section 5(1), a person will be guilty if he
"(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
So that dealt with the gap that a minority on the Law Commission suggested should be plugged and will surely cover any serious circumstance where disputes occur in the ordinary course of events.
My Bill follows precisely the draft Bill provided by the Law Commission in its 1985 report. It consists of three clauses. Clause 1 would abolish the offences in common law whose abolition was recommended in the report. Clause 1(a) would abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Clause 1(b) and (c) would abolish the offences of disturbing divine worship or devotions, and striking a person in a church or churchyard. The clause refers to distinct offences, since there is some doubt, on the authorities, as to whether they exist. The most recent reported case dates from the mid-18th century. Of course, the Public Order Act 1986 created a new offence to cover any gap that might arise.
Clause 2 would repeal references to the common law offence of blasphemous libel in the Criminal Libel Act
888
1819 and to blasphemous matters in section 3 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888, which confers privilege on newspaper reports of court proceedings, provided the matter is not blasphemous or indecent.
Clause 3 provides for the short title and extent of the Bill. No commencement date is specified, which means that, if and when the Bill was enacted, it would come into force on receiving Royal Assent.
I hope that the Bill is approved. It would end uncertainty and unfairness, and place all faiths on an equal basis. It would emphasise tolerance in society. I do not accept that any faith should impose its views on the rest of society. A faith can, and indeed does, persuade and urge followers not to see a film or read a book, but, for example, groups within the Muslim faith cannot impose censorship on the rest of the nation through the withdrawal of "Satanic Verses". People have a right to read a book, in paperback or hardback form, provided it has been produced within the law.
Our general tolerance is seriously scarred by the fact that Salman Rushdie cannot argue his views in a spirit of tolerance. Death threats to him are intolerable. The placing of all faiths on an equal basis would be a demonstration of our determination that the mutual exchange and discussion of various ideas should take place free from imposition and threats.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Cryer. Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Clive Soley, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Martin Flannery and Mr. Eric S. Heller.

BLASPHEMY (No. 2)
Mr. Bob Cryer accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the offence of blasphemy and certain other common law offences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Members' Interests
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on Members' interests. Before we enter on the motions, it might be helpful to the House if I describe the procedure that is to be followed.
The Leader of the House moves first the formal motion that the report of the Select Committee be now considered, in order to enable the hon. Member whose conduct is in question to address the House first. It has been our custom that, when the hon. Member has concluded his speech he withdraws from the Chamber, but on the most recent occasion the House decided that the hon. Members concerned could remain to hear the debate if they so wished. Therefore, I take it that that is the will of the House on this occasion.
Secondly, I remind the House that it is our custom that such speeches should be heard in silence and without interruption. Thereafter, when the formal motion has been disposed of, I propose to call the Leader of the House to move and to speak to the substantive motion in his name.
There will then follow a joint debate on that motion and on the amendments to it, and on motion 2 on the Order Paper and the amendment that I have selected to that, which is amendment (b). On the first motion I have selected all the amendments—amendments (a) to (d) inclusive.
At the conclusion of the debate, I will call the Members to move their amendments to the first motion formally so that the House may decide upon them. I shall then put the main question before moving on to amendment (b) to the second motion and then to that main question.
Ordered,
That the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (HC 135) be now considered.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
4.31 pm
Mr. John Browne: I rise to apologise most sincerely both to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.
Very considerable pressures have been brought upon me to discuss the Select Committee's report publicly before this debate. I have resisted that, because I felt that the correct place for me to speak was to this House, which I now do.
There was also an option open to me to make an earlier personal statement. I rejected that lest it seem like an attempt on my part to pre-empt the debate.
There has been considerable media coverage of this case. In coming to a judgment, I ask the House to put out of its mind that media coverage, much of it sensationalised and, in the light of the Select Committee's findings, simply untrue.
I now recognise that, some seven to eight years ago, I failed to register properly all my interests. Since first being elected to Parliament some 11 years ago, I have tried always to comply with the rules of the House as I understood them and properly to declare my interests.
Whenever I have spoken in debates I have also sought to declare relevant interests. I have, on occasions, refrained from voting, as on the Barclays Bank Bill in 1984, when I felt that there was potential conflict with the financial interests that I had.
I ask the House to consider the Select Committee's report against that background.
890
I cannot honestly say to the House that I am happy with the investigation procedure but, subject to that, I turn to the two complaints that the Select Committee upheld and upon which it recommended further action.
First, there is the matter of the Saudi Arabian monetary agency. Some eight years ago my company, Falcon, in which I had declared an interest as a director, had a contract with the Saudi agency. That contract did not involve parliamentary lobbying of any kind. I did not declare that contract, because the work did not involve Parliament in any way whatever.
As the House will know, there is no general obligation to disclose the names of clients. Having already declared an interest in my Falcon company, it did not occur to me that rule 13(7) applied to sums received in the commercial business of my company.
Since this matter arose, I have discovered that I am not alone in that interpretation. Furthermore, the Committee seems to have accepted this uncertainty in recommending that rule 13(7) now be clarified.
Having stated how I interpreted the rules, I naturally accept entirely the Committee's interpretation, and I apologise for failing to disclose that interest.
The Committee has also determined that I should have declared the client relationship with the Saudi agency because of the question that I asked of the Prime Minister in 1982. As the House will know, I could not possibly have known that I would be called to ask the question, because it was only a supplementary question. Furthermore, the Committee accepts that I was not asked to put that question. It has also accepted that the question made no difference to my fee. I am grateful for those acceptances.
The reason why I asked the question, the answer to which was, of course, predictable, was that I wanted, as most other hon. Members would want, to encourage inward investment into the United Kingdom.
Again, I accept the judgment of the Committee and I apologise sincerely for the omission.
The second matter concerns Selco East and Mr. Charles Chidiac. Again, these events related back approximately eight years. I must tell the House that I have never had any kind of contractual or financial relationship with Mr. Charles Chidiac. That fact was confirmed by Mr. Chidiac himself. Then, as now—and in common, I imagine, with hon. Members on both sides of the House—I sought to back British companies which were facing intense foreign competition. I had no financial interest in so doing and therefore did not consider that I had an interest to declare.
My company, Falcon, did have a consultancy agreement with Selco East, London. Under that agreement, my company, in which I had declared my directorship, was paid £200 a month for some nine months. It was for general financial advice work and banking introductions. It did not involve any parliamentary lobbying. The contract had nothing to do with my actions on behalf of British companies.
Without the relationship between Mr. Charles Chidiac and Selco East, London, there would have been no requirement to declare the consultancy agreement. However, looking at it now, I understand why the Committee found that the relationship between Mr. Charles Chidiac and the owners of Selco East, London was so close that the consultancy agreement with my company should have been declared.
I therefore accept the Committee's judgment concerning that and, again, I apologise.

891
I wish to emphasise that my failure to disclose those interests was to a misunderstanding of the rules, which no-one can fairly say are wholly clear. Indeed, a motion is now before the House inviting the Select Committee to study and report further on the definition of outside interests.
I had no financial reason for failing to declare those interests and I have never intentionally misled the House.
I say to the House that I am truly sorry for my mistakes, for the misery that I have caused to my family and for the embarrassment that I have brought to the House and to my constituency.
4.38 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That this House

(i) agrees with the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (HC 135); and

(ii) endorses the findings of the Committee in respect of the specific allegations against the honourable Member for Winchester and accordingly suspends him from the service of this House for a period of 20 sitting days and suspends his salary as a Member for that period.

The House will have listened, as I have, to the substantial statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), to his explanation and to his personal and repeated apologies with considerable personal sadness and with a deep sense of the seriousness of this occasion.
It now falls to me to undertake the painful burden of launching this difficult and important debate. The fact that the motions stand in my name alone indicates the unusual nature of the occasion. These are matters for consideration by the House as a whole, for this is pre-eminently not an occasion that any of us would wish to approach in a partisan spirit. It is an occasion for the House as a whole to search—as it has always tried to do, on those fortunately infrequent occasions in the past when we have been obliged to consider such matters—for reasoned conclusions and to consider what action, if any, to take in respect of alleged misconduct by one of our number. It is an occasion on which the House has to try to act in a similar non-partisan way. I certainly appear today not in any sense as a member of the Administration but as Leader of the House of Commons.
In formulating the motions that I have laid before the House I have endeavoured, after wide consultations on all sides, to identify and to express the conclusions that I judge will best represent the opinion of the House as a whole.
As Leader of the House I have tried to ensure, as best I may, that just as the subject of debate is not one which will divide the House on party lines, so the motions that I move may also attract the widest support, and it is in that spirit that I have approached my task.
The debate today is of importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. That goes without saying—and his statement a moment ago emphasises just how important—but the debate is also important for the maintenance of the standards that we all strive to uphold in the House. I hope that we may be able to use this melancholy occasion positively to help in the necessarily intermittent process of defining more clearly how those
892
standards apply in specific circumstances, and how the House should set about upholding them when they are called into question.
It is to that continuing task that my second substantive motion is directed. In that motion I suggest that the House may well wish to invite the Select Committee on Members' Interests to give further consideration to questions of procedure as well as of substance, which were touched upon in its report.
The report of the Select Committee is at the heart of today's proceedings. On behalf of the House I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee under the skilful arid sensitive chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson-Smith).
The absolute irrelevance of any kind of partisan approach to today's debate is reinforced by the way )n which in all its findings, the Select Committee was able o reach unanimous conclusions, and that is a most important point. Both in its conclusions about the allegations concerning the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, and in its observations on the operations of the Register of Members' Interests, and on other more general topics, the Committee was in complete agreement. That fact must surely give added weight to its conclusions.
On that basis, the first substantive motion in my name today invites the House to endorse the conclusion reached by the Select Committee about the alleged misconduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. Let me remind the House briefly of those allegations. The Committee grouped the complaints made against my hon. Friend under five headings. It records its findings on 10 separate counts. Of those 10, it finds no substance in five, it finds some substance in three but recommends that no action should be taken by the House, and in respect of two complaints against my hon. Friend the Committee found that he was at fault and recommended that the House consider action.
First, in paragraph 65 of the report, the Committee refers to my hon. Friend's failure to declare his interest in payment from an agency of a foreign Government—Saudi Arabia—of a little more than $88,000. The Committee found, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, that he should have declared both the client relationship and the foreign payment.
Secondly, in paragraph 101, the Committee deals with my hon. Friend's failure to register his interest in a Lebanese company, while lobbying Ministers and officials on its and its clients' behalf, although a payment of £1,600 out of a proposed retainer of £2,600 a year was made to him. The Committee found it to be beyond reasonable doubt that my hon. Friend had a client relationship which influenced his parliamentary actions and conduct as a Member, and which should have been declared and registered.
It would be quite wrong and unfair to my hon. Friend if, by focusing on those two charges, we gave the impression that the Committee had upheld all the allegations made against him. It did not. However, the Committee's positive findings are, in its chosen language, serious matters, and we cannot belittle their importance.

893
The second part of my motion invites the House to decide what action, if any, should be taken to signal our view about the seriousness of that misconduct. I shall have more to say about that crucial question in the last part of my speech.
I will try to make clear my own view of the role of the House today. Judicial metaphors may be misleading. We are certainly not here to try my hon. Friend. We are not a court of law. A better analogy, in my view, is that of a disciplinary committee of one of the professions, although like all analogies it does not correspond at all points. One feature that our procedure has in common with professional and other disciplinary bodies is that it has provoked complaint and criticism from the person who has been the subject of proceedings—as it has today from my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If we are not a court of law, could we at least be clear whether the Lord President thinks that the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has done anything legally wrong? I ask that question against the background of being had up by the Select Committee in 1967 with no capacity for legal defence in matters which subsequently turned out to be very different from how they looked at the time.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not respond too frequently to interventions of that kind. It is hard enough to deal with one case at a time.
As I was about to say, certain criticisms can legitimately be made of the proceedings and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has touched upon them.
Mr. Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House saying that the actions of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) were unlawful?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to that is self-evident from the report of the Select Committee. Whether or not there is any legal offence involved, my hon. Friend has not been charged with a legal offence. He has committed errors which in the opinion of the Committee deserve to be regarded as serious and to be subject to action by the House. The matter stands within its own framework. Complaints are understandable.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House be fair? He was asked a simple question by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the question of legality. Will he make it clear that the Committee did not find illegality? Therefore, he should answer my hon. Friend comprehensively. We did not so find. Can the right hon. and and learned Gentleman not say that from the Dispatch Box?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, the Committee was not concerned with legality or illegality. It was concerned with investigating what had taken place and upholding the standards that the House seeks to set for itself and its Members. As I said a moment ago, this is not a court of law and we are concerned not with questions of legality but with the way in which we uphold the standards expected of hon. Members and of the House.
I was going on to say that the complaints made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester are understandable. It is not to be expected in cases of this kind that the
894
procedures should closely follow those of courts of law. Of course, we should strive to achieve the principles of natural justice. It is clear from the patient way in which the Select Committee did its work that it endeavoured to do just that.
As an example, I draw attention to paragraph 20 of the report in which the Committee takes care to arrange for the exchange and cross-exchange of evidence.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If we are not a court of law but a disciplinary committee, and the Leader of the House has spoken of the concept of natural justice, will my right hon. and learned Friend advise the House whether that concept of natural justice—one in which charges are laid, witnesses are allowed to be called, representation is available and nobody is ju dex in sua re, or lays charges or proposes sentences before the accused has been heard—has been upheld in this case?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend will have an opportunity to make his points later. If the House will allow me to proceed, I am doing my best to make concessions in the direction offered by my hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence rose——
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No doubt my other hon. and learned Friend will do the same if I gave way, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not do so.
The position is very similar to that which emerged when the report of an earlier Select Committee was considered by the House in 1977, following the so-called Poulson affair. At least two distinguished legal members of that Committee expressed anxiety then about the procedures being followed—I refer to the former hon. and learned Members for Hendon, South and for Montgomery, now Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Hooson.
Lord Thomas said:
"I felt that the Select Committee was a judicial body that seemed wholly alien to my professional experience and nurturing. But the House was concerned with the standards it is entitled to expect from its Members. Decisions on the standards of conduct of hon. Members can never be handed over to an outside body. Therefore, the Select Committee, with all its apparent imperfections as a judicial body, was necessary and inevitable in this case."—[Official Report, 26 July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 395–96.]
We have already heard those words echoed in today's debate, and no doubt they will be echoed again.
It is for that very reason that the second motion in my name specifically invites the Select Committee to give further consideration to procedures which might be followed in future cases of this kind. It is also right for us to recall wider issues raised by the Select Committee's report concerning the operation of the system for registering Members' interests. There are a number of points of substance, as well as of procedure, that the House might think it appropriate for the Select Committee to be asked to review further in the light of today's debate. Those, too, are addressed in the second substantive motion in my name, as indeed they are in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Against that background, I think that, in relation to the specific accusations made against my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, the House will wish to proceed on the basis of the conclusions recorded by the Select Committee. I do not consider it any part of our function today to review those findings in detail. The Select Committee, which was established by the House of

895
Commons in 1975 for the express purpose of reviewing breaches of the rules that we had established on the disclosure of Members' interests, has carried out that task in accordance with its terms of reference. It would therefore be otiose, and discourteous to the Committee, if we sought to repeat on the Floor of the House, in a condensed and distorted form, the Committee's careful deliberations over many months. The House is required to decide what action should be taken in the light of the Committee's findings.
To return to the central feature of the matter, we in the House have a duty to uphold our own standards. No one outside the House can or will do that for us—we must do it ourselves, and we must do it without fear or favour. Of course we must take account of opinion outside the House, but we must not allow ourselves to be overborne or carried away by wild or irresponsible criticism from any quarter. We must perform our task rigorously, paying due attention to the facts of the case as investigated by the Select Committee and reported to us.
We must not, for example, be swayed by some feeling that we are all, as it were, members of the same club and owe some kind of primary allegiance to each other. Of course we must seek to act justly when dealing with our colleagues in such matters, but as we form our judgment in this case I suggest that we should also be mindful of the advice offered to the House, again in 1977, by Lord Strauss —better known to us in the House as George Strauss, former right hon. Member for Vauxhall and Chairman of the Select Committee which reported on the earlier case. He said:
"This is a national affair and the national aspect of it is that there must remain in the mind of the whole public a high esteem for this body, because it is the emblem of democracy in this country".—[Official Report, 26 July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 364.]
We can all say, "Hear, hear," to that. The strength and authority of the House of Commons rests upon the respect of the people. If that respect is endangered, much greater damage may follow. That is the fundamental background against which we must remind ourselves why we are so deeply concerned by the topic of today's debate.
Anyone who in the last couple of weeks has read again, as I have, the reports of debates in the House in 1974 and 1975 when the House first resolved that there should be a compulsory Register of Members' interests and a Select Committee to oversee it, will certainly have been struck by two points. First, there was widespread agreement that it was not wrong in principle for hon. Members to have outside interests. Coming to the House as we do from a wide variety of backgrounds, we bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to our duties, whether on the Back or the Front Benches, and that is important.
As one hon. Member said in 1974,
"God forbid that we ever get 635 full-time Members of this House. It would be a political monastery…This place benefits greatly from people with outside financial interests." —[Official Report, 22 May 1974; Vol. 874, c. 432.]
[Interruption.] The House may be surprised to learn that that was the view of our former colleague, Willie Hamilton, then hon. Member for Fife, Central. I appreciate that that view is not universally shared, as is clear from the sedentary interventions, but it remains my own view. I believe that it is important for the House not to become a House without windows, always looking in on itself and cut off from the experiences of the real world. That is the view which underlay and still underlies the
896
establishment and operation of the Register of Members' Interests, but there is a powerful and crucial corollary to that essentially libertarian belief.
Again, the 1974 and 1975 debates reveal a broad and deep consensus that we must be acutely concerned not only with the substance of improper conduct and the risk of undue influence being brought to bear on an hon. Member, but with the mere appearance of that. Hon. Members must not only act honourably—we must he seen to act honourably. We must be—and be seen to be—above suspicion. That means that, both individually and collectively, we all need to pay careful and continuous attention to the definitions and procedures which have been established by the House to guide us in the handling and disclosure of outside interests.
Where those definitions or procedures appear to need further refinement or clarification—as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester suggested earlier and, indeed, as the Select Committee itself acknowledges—we should certainly pursue the matter. We should always bear in mind, however, that a full and perfect system—one which offers precision in advance of every case—simply cannot be designed; that is impossible.
It was widely recognised in the debates of 15 years ago that there was, and would always remain, an element of subjective judgment for each individual Member. Against the background of our unique position in the House—responsible as we are for maintaining our own standards, but each of us accountable to the electorate in all that we do—it is inescapable and entirely right that there must be that scope for individual judgment of what is or is not appropriate for disclosure.
So it is that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, as he has told the House, has exercised his judgment and discretion in each of the relationships and transactions examined by the Select Committee. It is in relation to two aspects of that conduct that, as I have explained, the Committee has expressed a clearly critical view. Paragraph 103 of the report recommends the House to
"decide an early date what action it proposes to take in the light of the serious nature of those of our findings which uphold the complaints against Mr. Browne."
Today my hon. Friend has accepted the findings of error recorded by the Committee, and has apologised for those errors.
The first substantive motion standing in my name invites the House, after crucial—even understandably reluctant—consideration, to endorse the Committee's judgment. For my part, I have reached that conclusion, with personal regret but without any doubt, for the following reasons. I will try to put them simply.
Membership of the House of Commons is a great privilege, as we all acknowledge, and a privilege which carries with it great responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to ensure that any personal, financial or other interest is so managed and so disclosed that it is never in conflict, or perceived to be in conflict, with the fundamental obligations and responsibilities of a Member of this House It is in my opinion clear, as it was to the Select Committee, that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester did not succeed in fulfilling that obligation.
Some may think that my hon. Friend deliberately hid his interests. Others, more charitably, having heard his speech, may think that it was no more than a misjudgment, if not an oversight. Either way, in my view, it must be the

897
case that my hon. Friend's acts and omissions did not measure up to his responsibilities. Today he has acknowledged that judgment and apologised in that respect.
Finally, I come to consider what is probably the most difficult question—that of penalty or reproach. Should the House proceed to impose a penalty upon my hon. Friend or require him in some way to be reprimanded or rebuked? If so, in what form or at what level should that be set? Some hon. Members, I know, believe—and will, I dare say, argue today—that talk of penalty is, in such circumstances, inappropriate. I do not share that view; nor do I believe that it accords with precedent.
That said, the range of options is very wide. Many of them are before the House, if not in my original motion, then in the amendments tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the last couple of days. At one end of the scale, there is the possibility of simply taking note of the report. That barest of all options is not represented on today's Order Paper. At the other end of the scale is the possibility of expulsion. There is, I think I am right in saying, no precedent for that in recent times. Nor is it proposed by any hon. Member today.
If I may express a personal view on that, I can understand why. The House has increasingly, and in my judgment rightly, taken the view that the composition of the House, in personal as well as political terms, is not a matter for the House itself, but for the electorate. A Member's election to, and continued membership of, this House is a matter between him and his constituents.
The point was put with characteristic clarity in the 1977 debate by Lord Broxbourne, as he now is, better known in this House as my right hon. and learned Friend Sir Derek Walker-Smith:
"Members…sit here by reason of the will and suffrage of their constituents. The House must be careful about pre-empting their choice or usurping their function. The sovereignty of Parliament is, indeed, a great principle, but it must not be exercised at the expense of the sovereignty of the people."—[Official Report, 26 July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 418–9.]
Some would put suspension in the same class—as a penalty upon a Member's constituents as much as upon the Member himself, and so, up to a point, it is. However, it does not by any means debar the hon. Member from acting for his constituents outside the Chamber.
The suspension that I have proposed in my substantive motion would mean that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester would be debarred from the Chamber, but not from the precincts of the House. By definition, suspension is limited in duration. It is also reasonably well precedented. As many as 21 hon. Members have been suspended for periods of up to 20 days in the past 43 years. Most recently——
Mr. Dalyell: On what basis is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suddenly making the judgment that the hon. Member for Winchester is to be allowed inside the precincts of the House? When I am suspended, for reasons that are known, I am not allowed inside the precincts. What is the difference? Is saying bad things about the Prime Minister so much worse?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not studied the matter as closely as the hon. Gentleman in respect of his own situation. The advice that I have received is that the terms
898
of this motion should not involve suspension beyond the circumstances that I have described. It may have been different in other cases.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to the point made by my admirable colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when I was suspended—rather misguidedly—the House was deprived of my presence anywhere within the precincts.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will address the point that I have made. I am speaking on the basis of the advice that I have received. We shall listen to what is said as the debate proceeds.
More recently, on 20 April 1988, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was suspended for 20 days. With that in mind, the options that are, in this respect, before the House range from, first, endorsement of the report of the Select Committee, without any penalty or reproach. An amendment to that effect stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
Next in line comes the proposal of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester should be formally reprimanded by Mr. Speaker himself. Then comes my own proposal —a suspension for the normal maximum period of 20 days —the equivalent of a month.
Beyond that, the House will have seen that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and others, are proposing a period of suspension of as much as three months. Further than that, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and others are calling upon my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to resign.
Many hon. Members will no doubt wish to listen to the whole debate before coming to a conclusion on this central question. No doubt they will wish, as indeed I shall, to take account of the points made in the personal statement of my hon. friend the Member for Winchester at the opening of this debate. He explained to the House the background of personal circumstances against which he acted, and he asked us to have in mind the way in which he described the specific errors of omission or commission on his part which the Select Committee has reviewed. The House will no doubt wish to do so.
I apologise for detaining the House for a little time. I hope that, at least to some extent, I have been able to suggest the way in which the House will wish to approach its task. It is to that end that I commend my motion, alongside the several amendments selected for consideration. It is now for the House to judge.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Chairman of the Select Committee, it may be for the convenience of the House if I draw attention to page 399 of "Erskine May", which states:
"A Member suspended from the service of the House on a motion not made pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 is not excluded from the precincts of the House unless the order for his suspension expressly provides therefor."
5.6 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: On behalf of my colleagues who served on the Select Committee, I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for tabling his motion, which invites the House to

899
agree with the Committee's report and endorse its findings. I am pleased to be able to acknowledge the apology of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and his acceptance of the report's findings. I am grateful to him for that.
It is not a pleasant duty to inquire into the personal affairs of a parliamentary colleague. None of the Committee enjoyed that task. I thank my colleagues who served on the Committee for their care, diligence and dedication in what turned out to be a long and protracted inquiry. Our deliberations were exhaustive but worth while because I have no doubt that the time that we took over those deliberations enabled us to produce a unanimous report.
All hon. Members are aware that such matters are House of Commons matters. They are not party matters. The Committee rightly examined the complaints in a non-partisan manner. In investigating such complaints, the Committee must work within clearly defined rules. Our opinions of those rules do not matter—we must work within them. I am referring to our consideration of the rules governing the declaration of Members' interests. I believe that they are common-sense rules—they were not drawn up by lawyers and are not to be interpreted by lawyers. They were drawn up by a Select Committee, appointed by the House for that special purpose, in the Session 1974–75. The Committee therefore has a clear duty placed upon it by Standing Order No. 128 to consider impartially complaints that are referred to it.
The procedure followed by the Committee was laid down by the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the 1974–75 Session and approved by the House in 1975. In respect of complaints, the Committee's terms of reference are narrow. We can consider specific complaints relating to registration and declaration of interests and no other matter. In short, we cannot go on any fishing expedition. Nor should we consider matters relating more generally to a Member's conduct. In that way, our task is substantially different from that of the Select Committee on the Conduct of Members set up after the Poulson affair. Therefore, our sole concern is whether the rules of the House have been disregarded or disobeyed within a narrow area.
The Committee adhered closely to those terms of reference in the inquiry. We hope that we made that clear to those who studied the report, in paragraph 8. I hope that the House understands why I do not wish to comment on the specific complaints or findings of the Committee and agrees that it would be inappropriate to revive now, on the Floor of the House, all the detailed discussions or to refer to all the notes of written evidence and, indeed, the oral evidence given during the debate.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the question put a few minutes ago by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir. N. Fairbairn), on the need to meet the obligations of natural justice to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Winchester received a fair and impartial hearing from the Select Committee?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is the view of my Committee that we discharged our duty as the hon. Gentleman described. But I wish to make it clear that the House will judge whether we acquitted ourselves according
900
to the standards of the House. That is why I do not wish to go into the reasons why we came to our conclusions and what we did. Many hon. Members have studied the matter closely and read the report, and it is they who will pronounce at the end of the day.
The House has the report, and I do not want to add to or subtract from it. The words in the report were carefully chosen after lengthy consideration. I pay tribute to the Clerk to the Committee for his patience and skill in drafting as well as his careful and methodical compilation of the evidence, which is voluminous.
As I said, I do not wish to add anything further to the report. Therefore, I hope that the House will not mind if I say no more about the matter but pass on to points that I hope will be useful when the House comes to consider not only how it should react to the report but what we should do in future.
The House may wonder why we did not make any specific recommendations in the light of our findings. We thought about it for some time. However, this is the first occasion since the procedure was established in 1975 when the Committee has had to make an adverse report on an hon. Member. Indeed, the complaints procedure as a whole has been little used. The register was set up amid some controversy. The House has never reviewed the register or outlined the importance that it places on compliance with the rules of registration. Therefore, the Committee had no yardstick by which to judge the appropriate penalty or, indeed, whether a penalty was appropriate.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Do I understand that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) had declined to register any interests, the Committee could have found that he was not at fault?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It would all depend on the nature of the complaint made to us.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Come on.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is not a question of "come on". I shall come on in my own way. If my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the case of a distinguished Member of the House who did not declare an interest, no complaint was lodged against him. The Committee considered the fact that the right hon. Member did not register. We reported it to the House twice and the House decided to take no further action. That is why I do not propose to go further and answer a hypothetical question.
After some discussion, we felt that we had little option but to leave the matter of a penalty to the decision of the House. Perhaps I may add some general reflections, as I have been Chairman of the Committee since 1979 and a member of it since 1975.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Supposing that 20 or 50 Members of the House decided that, as from the next occasion, they would not register, what would happen then?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: That is another hypothetical question. I think that the hon. Gentleman can guess what would happen.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that if someone brought a complaint against any of the 50 on the basis that they had an interest that was not declared or registered, the

901
Committee would have to consider the matter and, indeed, commence an inquiry on exactly the same basis? Failure to register does not somehow absolve one of responsibility.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I dealt with that question to a large extent in response to the previous intervention. As the hon. Gentleman, who was so useful to us on the Committee, will know, if 20 hon. Members do not register, we cannot take specific action to investigate unless we have a specific complaint alleging that there were interests to declare. In the case of the right hon. Member to whom I referred, no one alleged that he did not register an interest. Everyone knew that he did not have any interests to register. What we were cross about was that he did not even register a nil return. I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is satisfied with that answer. If not, we can come back to the matter later.
I would not be Chairman and my colleagues would not be members of the Committee if we did not believe strongly in the principles on which the Register is based. Many hon. Members will agree that, when Members of the House speak, vote, write to Ministers or do anything related to their job as Member of Parliament, their conduct should be transparent. The Registration of a Member's interests is not a gross invasion of privacy or a challenge to a Member's honour. If the Member obtains financial benefit that relates in any way to his activity as a Member of Parliament, he owes it to his colleagues, the public, the Minister or the Departments involved to disclose his interests. His interests may not influence him in the least. Perhaps 99 per cent. of the time they do not. But it is both good sense and, I submit, good manners to make them known. The Register is there to help Members to do that and it supplements the long-standing tradition of the House that Members should declare any relevant interests when speaking in a debate.
The suspicion of unavowed motives can be extremely damaging to the House. It is damaging to the reputation of the House and of its Members. Therefore, omissions from the Register should be treated with seriousness. The Register in its present form has served the House well. However, Members' outside interests have continued to increase. I make no complaint about any hon. Member having an outside interest, but there is a suspicion in some quarters that Members of Parliament use their position as a basis on which to build business interests and that those interests are sometimes partly concealed by fairly bland entries in the Register. I believe that that has been much exaggerated and that the connections of many hon. Members with particular companies are often misrepresented and completely misunderstood. Nevertheless, if the Register is to serve the House effectively in the future, perhaps the time has come to examine its scope afresh.
The Select Committee would warmly welcome that opportunity. Subject to consultation with the Committee, I believe that the terms set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's motion would give us such an opportunity. The motion invites the Select Committee to study and report further on questions raised by our report. The study should relate to definitions of outside interests and their enforcement as well as to the procedures for raising complaints and their investigation, together with other
902
questions that might arise. With the terms of this motion well in our mind, it would be right first to consider its implication in the context of lobbying.
Last year we embarked on an investigation into lobbying to fulfil our obligations to the House, which asked us to keep that practice under review. That investigation was halted pending the completion of our inquiry into the allegations against my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. We think, therefore, that it would be sensible to resume that work immediately, which should not take too long to complete.
That, together with the views and advice expressed by the House in today's debate and by hon. Members who undoubtedly will not have the fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but who may care to get in touch with us, should enable the Committee to give more mature consideration to the wider views raised in my right hon. and learned Friend's second motion. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that that plan of action makes sense and that the Committee will be acting within the spirit and meaning of his motion. I especially hope that the House will give its support.
5.21 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I agree with the Leader of the House that this can only be an unhappy occasion for Members of Parliament. It is certainly not an occasion in which I take any pleasure. I hope that everyone will agree with that. In many respects, I can understand better than most the misery that the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) must be feeling now.
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), and his colleagues for performing effectively, fairly and objectively what could only have been a difficult task. Anyone who has looked at the Select Committee report must conclude that the Committee carried out its difficult duties meticulously. I can understand why the hon. Member for Winchester said that he found some of the procedures difficult. That could only be the case, as they referred to matters which occurred seven or eight years ago. Nevertheless, the Committee had a duty to the House, which it carried out fairly and well.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I entirely agree that, so far as it was possible, the Committee carried out its duties meticulously and impartially. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it set itself a high burden of proof to discharge —that of proof beyond reasonable doubt? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that burden is safely discharged when the accused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) is, could not cross-examine the witnesses who were producing evidence against him, nor produce witnesses in his own favour, nor secure by discovering documents or other papers which belonged to him but were not in his possession and which were vital to prove his case?
Dr. Cunningham: With respect, I was coming to those points. If the hon. Gentleman had waited before making a long intervention, he would have heard what I have to say.
I am expressing my view. I am in no sense expressing the view of the shadow Cabinet or the parliamentary Labour party, as this is, rightly, a matter for individual Members on a free vote. There is no question of the hon. Member for Winchester being before a court. So far as I

903
can tell—I have looked carefully at the matter, as hon. Members would expect—the hon. Member has not acted unlawfully. The House is not conducting itself as though it were a court and the hon. Gentleman charged with a criminal offence. We should be clear about that.
As for the opportunities that the hon. Gentleman had to respond to evidence, I understand from reading the report that he had the opportunity to comment on what witnesses had said. In so far as these imperfect procedures can work satisfactorily, it seems that they did.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairnrose ——
Mr. Lawrence rose——
Dr. Cunningham: I do not want this to turn into an arcane legal battle between a range of Queen's counsel on either side of the House, so I shall not give way.
Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is scared to give way.
Dr. Cunningham: I am not scared of anything. This is not a court of law. We are not talking about legal procedures. We are dealing with this problem on the basis of a Select Committee report on motions before the House.
The Committee came to a unanimous decision that the hon. Member for Winchester, for whatever reasons—I am perfectly prepared to accept that his judgment about his obligations was wrong—twice breached the rules on the disclosure of interests and that the matter was serious. In paragraph 103 of its report the Committee asks the House to take action on this serious matter. That is perfectly proper. It was not for the Committee to recommend what action should be taken. That is for the House to decide. As I support the way in which the matter has been conducted so far, I believe that we should address ourselves to how the House could take action.
We could simply take note of the report and take the matter no further. In the past the House has acted similarly. We could have tabled a motion requiring you, Mr. Speaker, to reprimand the hon. Member for Winchester and taken no further action. We could support a motion with or without amendment tabled by the Leader of the House for a period of exclusion from the Chamber. I understand that, as we are discussing the matter on a motion and not under Standing Order No. 43, the Leader of the House has placed the correct interpretation on the motion's effect—that even if the motion is carried, with or without amendment, the hon. Gentleman will be excluded from our proceedings in the Chamber, but not from the precincts of the House.
Alternatively, we could have discussed and voted on a motion to expel the hon. Member from the House altogether. I do not hesitate to say that I am pleased that no such motion has even appeared on the Order Paper. I would not have voted for it. Such a penalty would not have been commensurate with the nature of the problem. Moreover, such a judgment is for the electors of the constituency of Winchester, not for Members of this House. In some senses, whatever decision the House may reach, the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity of an appeal—if that is the appropriate word—to his constituents to use their judgment about what has transpired.
Regrettably, the House is asked from time to time to vote to exclude a Member for a period. If a Member cheeks the Chair or does not accept the authority of the
904
Chair, a motion is moved and we vote to exclude that Member for a limited period. If Members abuse the Mace, as they do from time to time—we have had one from each principal party recently—either they apologise immediately and the matter is dropped or they, too, are the subject of a motion to exclude them from the House.
I hope that everyone will agree that the rules on the disclosure of interests are minimal. I have declared my interests as a Member sponsored by a trade union, as I have been for my 20 years in the House, and latterly as a result of being engaged to give scientific and other advice in the commercial sector. The rules are a minimal requirement of the House and are perhaps ready for review. The obligations on us are not onerous. Since the Select Committee reported unanimously that the hon. Member for Winchester is in clear breach of those rules and that it is a serious matter, it would render the whole business of the Register of Members' Interests inoperable, if not a laughing stock outside, if the House simply took note of the report and left the matter there.
The right course of action—I emphasise that I a m speaking personally—would be to support a motion to exclude the hon. Member for Winchester from the House for a period. The House may well decide not to take any action—we shall see—but our constituents, and others, would not understand if the House so decided when a Select Committee had considered the matter, listened to the evidence and reported unanimously that the matter was serious. The public would not think that that was the right thing to do. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), that there is concern about the conduct of hon. Members.
As on other occasions, this is one of those issues where the standards and requirements in local government are already well in advance of the requirements placed upon hon. Members. I believe that the third motion on the Order Paper, which calls upon the Select Committee to review such matters, should be supported. I shall certainly vote for it. The House—or, to be fair to the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative and Labour parties—are in a kind of historical time warp on such matters. The belief is that, in financial terms, private enterprise backs one side and the trade unions, by and large, back the other—and usually, but not always, that backing is repeated in political terms.
We should look at the way in which we finance the democratic process, because the way in which it operates is out of tune with the reality of life in other western democracies. Perhaps that wider remit is not for the Select Committee, but any action taken by the House should be based on the broadest context of what is or is not acceptable in terms of the external financial arrangements of hon. Members and political parties. We should consider whether state aid should be given for political parties—I support that without hesitation—and whether we should have better facilities and support for hon. Members and their staff. Those matters are germane to the debate.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Earlier the hon. Gentleman said that he supported the third motion, but I believe that he means the second, which was originally the third.
Dr. Cunningham: I apologise for that slip of the tongue. I meant that I supported the motion in the name of the Leader of the House calling for the matter to be referred to the Select Committee.
I am pleased that the House is conducting this difficult debate in a serious manner and, I hope, even in a mood of some magnanimity. There is nothing worse than a sanctimonious mob on such occasions.
It must have taken considerable courage and fortitude on the part of the hon. Member for Winchester to apologise unequivocally and fully, and I pay tribute to him for that. He has accepted the report of the Committee and, no doubt, will accept the decision of the House.
5.34 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) and me, which has been selected for inclusion in the debate.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and congratulate him on the non-partisan way in which he approached this subject. I hope that that will be echoed by others who take part in the debate.
Although I support the motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House in respect of agreeing with the Select Committee on Members' Interests' report, and its endorsement of the Committee's findings, I cannot agree with the suspension of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). He has been pilloried unmercifully and unjustifiably in the national press, but he has not been treated so by his local press, which knows him better. He and his family have been through a living hell since long before the inquiry began. I submit that he has suffered enough. Although I accept that this is a matter for the House to decide, I do not believe that hon. Members should feel obliged to rub salt into the wounds. As has already been mentioned, this is a House of Commons occasion, much more so than a party political one, but it is also an occasion that we should not relish.
I also agree wholeheartedly with the second motion tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend, particularly regarding further study of the procedures that the Select Committee uses to investigate complaints such as this. The Select Committee considered complaints from a journalist who, for a number of years, has had a financial interest in investigating my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. He said to the Committee:
"I've got cracking on Mr. Browne for years."
The hon. Member for Copeland has already said that the procedures are imperfect. Under those procedures, the Select Committee was unable to let my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester present his case as fully as he would have liked, call witnesses to give evidence on his behalf, or cross-examine the complainant or his other witnesses. It was a rather weird form of trial, but the Committee was not, of course, a court of law. My hon. Friend has not broken the law of the land; he has broken the rules of the House of Commons.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Although the House may not be a court of law, does the hon. Gentleman agree that an hon. Member's reputation could be ruined as a result of the decision of the Select
906
Committee? If an accusation is laid against anyone, it is only natural justice for him to be entitled to invite witnesses on his behalf and also to cross-examine.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Colvin: The response to that welcome intervention demonstrates that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are supported by most hon. Members present.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Under the present procedures, it is possible for an hon. Member in such a situation to call witnesses—we have never denied that. We were working within the rules. Evidence was presented from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)—in writing, it is true—and he was also able to comment, in writing upon the evidence supplied by the complainant. The same privilege was given to the complainant.
Mr. Colvin: The House will also welcome that intervention, and I think that it will accept that, when we seek to find justice, an analogy should be drawn with courts of law. I hope that the House will agree that the Select Committee should undertake a study of its procedures, and perhaps it will draw on the analogy of courts of law to see whether procedures can be improved so that hon. Members who appear before it as a result of complaints have a fairer opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He says that witnesses could not be called. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) conceded to the House today that he was in error and made mistakes. Why should he want to bring witnesses when he concedes that he was in error?
Mr. Colvin: I am referring to the general procedures, not the specific case. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has already admitted that he broke the Rules of the House. I am saying that those rules are accepted by all to be imprecise. The letter from the Registrar that accompanies the form that we are regularly invited to complete sets out the Register's fundamental purpose. It states:
"the purpose of this register is to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member of Parliament may receive which might be thought to affect his conduct as a Member of Parliament or influence his actions, speeches, or vote in Parliament."
That description is capable of widely different interpretations, and it is not surprising that, in those cases where a complaint against my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester was upheld in the Committee, it was as a result of oversight or failure on his part to understand what the rules are all about.
Mr. Dalyell: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will he give the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) an opportunity to clarify what some of us understood him to say in his opening statement, to the effect that he was less than happy with some of the procedures? If the hon. Member for Winchester was unhappy, should he not specify why he was unhappy and what he was unhappy about? Should he not be given that opportunity?
Mr. Colvin: That would prejudge the study that the Select Committee is about to undertake. From the reaction

907
of the House so far, I do not think that many hon. Members are entirely happy with the Select Committee procedures under the rules as they are currently drawn. That is what the Select Committee has to consider.
Hon. Members will know only too well that our duties as Members of Parliament and the triangular way of life that we lead, consisting of Parliament, the constituency and home—home always seems to come last—put heavy strains on our families and marriages. Some of us are lucky and some are not. The divorce rate among hon. Members is one of the highest.
My hon. Friend was one of the unlucky ones. His particularly acrimonious divorce and the determination of his ex-wife to destroy him were largely responsible for the journalistic inquiries and subsequent complaints, based largely on evidence produced mainly by the former Mrs. Browne. It is not our job to debate the matrimonial affairs of my hon. Friend. However, we must acknowledge that it was mainly his divorce that led to the complaints against him.
Probably the most damaging of my hon. Friend's errors of judgment was, following a bad press in connection with his divorce, to proceed with his private Member's Bill on privacy. I can well understand why he did that, but it was probably because of that Bill that the national press has been doubly hard on him during the past few months.
My hon. Friend's constituency is adjacent to mine, and for a while he was my Member of Parliament. I have seen him at work in and around Winchester, and I have read the many good things about him and his parliamentary and constituency work in my local press. No one works harder for those whom he represents. He certainly had difficulties with his constituency association following his divorce, when, understandably, people took sides. We can also divide his association today into the "workers" who are for him and the "talkers" who may be against him.
But then Winchester has a record of being tough on its Members of Parliament. Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles, now Rear-Admiral Sir Morgan Morgan-Giles, who will be remembered with great affection and respect in this place, also faced——
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Gunboat, gunboat.
Mr. Colvin: Did the hon. Gentleman shout, "Gunboat, gunboat," because that is what they used to shout?
Admiral Morgan-Giles also faced a special general meeting calling for his deselection—we Conservatives started it long before the Opposition thought of it. I forget what the issue was about; it was either the route of the M3 or the fact that his majority had slipped below 20,000, but he saw off his opponents by 2,000 votes to 120. I hope that my hon. Friend does so too, if he is forced into that position.
Whatever action we may, or may not, take tonight, it is the electors of Winchester who will have the final say. They sent my hon. Friend here and they will decide whether he returns at the next general election. From experience, I believe that he will return. At the general election in 1987, his majority may have fallen, largely due to demographic changes in the constituency, but his personal vote actually increased.
There are many people in Winchester who give my hon. Friend considerable support. The Dean of Winchester, who was for some time Mr. Speaker's chaplain, said some
908
good and supportive things about my hon. Friend on television just the other day. The lord lieutenant of Hampshire, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir James Scott, in whose home my hon. Friend has a small flat, backs him. His Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Edward Kellett-Bowman, said that he was the hardest-working and most helpful of his constituency Members of Parliament. I intend no untoward criticism of other hon. Members in his Euro-constituency. My hon. Friend now has a wife who is enormously loyal and supportive to him and his work as a Member of Parliament. She has been an absolute brick through these hellish months and is immensely popular in his constituency.
My hon. Friend has made errors of judgment—we all accept that, as he does. But then, who has not made such errors? He has broken our rules, but that is partly due to the loose way in which they are written. My hon. Friend has apologised generously to the House for his mistakes. The House is magnanimous and understanding enough to accept his apology, and I am sure that, when this sorry day is over, whatever the outcome, for the vast majority of us, the hon. Member for Winchester will remain our hon. Friend.
5.48 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: We are not debating the general conduct of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). When the speech of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) is read in Hansard, it will be seen to have been wholly irrelevant to the major questions that concern the House.
We are having one of those rare debates when the House discusses the obligations that Members of Parliament owe to their electors and each other, the question of openness in Parliament, how open we should be and how to deal with cases when there may be a conflict of interest between a Member's duties to his or her constituents and his or her pecuniary interests. This is a House of Commons matter, as has been said, and it affects us in all parties. We are all responsible for what we do, both as individuals and as Members.
I have tabled two amendments, and I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting them. The first recommends a reprimand rather than a suspension, and the second calls for legislation in place of the voluntary Register, because we are dealing with potentially corrupt practices. I am not speaking about the hon. Member for Winchester; I am talking about potentially corrupt practices.
I read the Select Committee report; it upheld some grave and serious complaints. The hon. Gentleman has done himself and his party and the House damage, but because of the very fact that we have all suffered, we have to be careful how we act in this case. The party of which he is a member must be very embarrassed by what has happened, and the party of which I am a member must be tempted to exploit it politically. The whole House is angry that the conduct of one Member might have damaged the public esteem in which all Members are held. It is not just that we are not a court of law, although we are not; it is also that we are not exactly an independent jury in the hon. Member's case.
The hon. Member for Winchester has not broken the law, because there is no law. That is what is wrong, and the people on trial today are the House, more so than the hon. Gentleman.

909
I do not favour suspension, for the reasons that have already been widely canvassed. Members are elected by and are answerable to their constituents. Candidates are answerable to their local parties. The sentence proposed is the wrong one. One, two or three months' suspension without pay is absolutely meaningless. I had not realised until it was explained that the hon. Gentleman will be able to use the facilities of the House, so what possible punishment can there be in that, if indeed punishment be meant? However, the suspension would deny the electors of Winchester a voice in the House that they might need, and we have no right to deny them that.
I have therefore looked at other remedies and settled on the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suffered—the penalty of a reprimand. The Leader of the House said that a reprimand was not as severe as a suspension. Any hon. Member who has seen a reprimand will know that it is more severe than a suspension. The hon. Gentleman in question would stand in his place and Mr. Speaker, wearing his three-cornered hat and seated, would deliver the reprimand, which would be recorded not only in Hansard but in the Journal of the House. I would regard it as a terrifying experience to be reprimanded by the Speaker for a breach of a resolution of the House. With television, the experience would be even more frightening.
So I recommend that the hon. Gentleman be reprimanded, not suspended, for an offence which he, in all fairness, admitted in his statement was an error of judgment.
Mr. Paul Channon: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the last occasion when a reprimand was administered. Many of us who saw that occasion thought that it was a repellent event that should never be repeated. Can the right hon. Gentleman recall it? If so, does he really consider such a reprimand an appropriate remedy?
Mr. Benn: I can only say that the House must act when its own resolutions have been defied. I voted against the suspension of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), giving the same reasons that I am giving now—and my party was more angry then than the Conservative party. I believe that a reprimand is a proper way to deal with a breach of rules. They are, after all, only rules— —
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was severely censured and reprimanded by the House for alleging that Members of Parliament were available for hire? Later, it was proved that Maudling, Cordle and Roberts had indeed been hired, but no one ever gave me a free pardon. That is one of the problems with reprimands or censures: one can be reprimanded and then proved right.
Mr. Benn: I give way to the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell).
Sir Peter Tapsell: May I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has just said? I thought that the last reprimand in the House was a nauseating occasion. The House should never go through those procedures again.
Mr. Benn: The House must make up its own mind. The Leader of the House said that my proposal was less severe than a suspension, but I do not take that view. I shall vote against the hon. Gentleman's suspension for any length of time, and I shall vote against the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who said that nothing should be done.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these interventions by Conservative Members confirm precisely what my right hon. Friend has been saying—that a reprimand is more serious and humiliating than suspension? So my right hon. Friend is surely on the right track.
Mr. Benn: I am trying to think of an appropriate response by the House to a breach of its rules which will not impose a financial penalty on the hon. Member for Winchester. After all, a month's suspension without pay sounds like a penalty imposed by a court of law, and it denies his constituents the right to be represented.
I am much more concerned with my second amendment. What obligations do Members owe the electors of this country? That is the real question. I have been trying to follow through the obligations that we assume. First, all of us before we are elected issue an election address. I have never yet met a Member who has put his business interests on his election address. The election address contains political pledges, and so on.
Next we come to the House and go to the Table. I have been struck by the strangeness of our arrival, with an election address that has helped to propel us here. We take the oath:
"I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."
We do not say that we will implement certain programmes or abide by the rules of the House; we just give a ritual oath of allegiance.
Once we are here, how do our constituents see what we do? They read Hansard or, if they can afford £10, they read the Register of Members' Interests, which is a business prospectus—all 98 pages of it. Any company that wants a contact with a Member of Parliament would do well to start by looking at the Register of Members' Interests to see who could be recruited to its board from among the new Members. That is a much more serious matter.
Then we must consider how to define interests. I, like every former Cabinet Minister, received a confidential minute from the Prime Minister:
"Cabinet: Procedure. Questions of Procedure for Ministers",
signed by the Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan on 23 April 1976:
"I circulate a memorandum on questions of procedure".
This is a little more formidable. Any hon. Member who has ever been a Minister might care to remind himself of what Ministers are expected to do. I regard it as outrageous that the document is not published. That is a limitation on some Members of Parliament that is not known to others.
Paragraph 67—I doubt whether it has changed much in 14 years—reads:
"It is a principle of public life that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties."
That should apply to all Members of Parliament.

911
"Such a conflict may arise if a Minister takes an active part in any undertaking which may have contractual or other relations with a Government Department".
That should apply to Members of Parliament, too.
"Ministers should be free to give full attention to their official duties, and they should not engage in other activities which might be thought to distract their attention from those duties."
Perhaps that principle should apply to Members of Parliament.
"Ministers must on assuming office resign any directorships which they may hold, whether in public or private companies and whether the directorship carries remuneration or is honorary."
That might or might not be applicable to the House as a whole.
This is a wholly different approach from the cosy investigation of a voluntary undertaking which was introduced years after it should have been.
I have already mentioned the issue of disclosure. No disclosure is made to the electors, who have a vested interest in the matter. I believe that when the polling card is sent by the electoral registration officer it should include a register of all the interests of all the candidates as well as of the Member of Parliament. If that is not done, there should be a requirement that the electoral address should include them. The average elector connected with any party does not go to the Register of Members' Interests to find out the interests of his candidate. People should be allowed to know, and that would be a provision.
In law there are no rules on interests. I am interested in these matters and I looked up the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. There are 11 pages of disqualifications to over 300 offices. Any Member who applies for, and receives, the Chiltern Hundreds is immediately disqualified. What is it about the Chiltern Hundreds that makes it a task incompatible with membership? It is the notion of an office of profit. I looked up some of the offices that lead to disqualification and found that some of them are absurd. They include membership of the Pilotage Commission and chairmanship of the British Library Board; and 43 amendments have just come out.
We should define offices, whether of profit under the Crown or anywhere else, that are incompatible with membership. I regard as quite incompatible with membership of the House the chairmanship of a company that has contractual relations with the Ministry of Defence or any other Government Department. That should be a disqualifying office and the House should look at that in terms of legislation. It might even remove some of the disqualifying offices in the House of Commons Disqualification Act.
There is no definition of a corrupt practice. "Corruption" has many meanings and is interpreted in many ways, but it is the use of improper influence to secure something. If a candidate in an election goes around putting 50p coins in pints of beer, in the way that candidates in the 19th century used to do with half-crowns, that is a corrupt practice. Such people are taken to court on an election petition and the court determines whether they have acquired a seat by a corrupt practice. That is all laid down in the Act. I have some of the old cases before me and they show that that is the proper way to deal with an issue that we have been dodging through a debate that has not got to the root of the matter.
912
These matters should be dealt with by the courts. As soon as the House passes a law it will not be for us to interpret that law; it will be for the courts.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Like, I suspect, some other hon. Members, I agree with the attractiveness Of what the right hon. Gentleman suggests—the idea of a compulsory or legal registration system. The majority of hon. Members do not receive unearned income, dividends or unearned income from wealthy wives. This matter bedevils British politics. Most hon. Members have to rely on their salary or on some other source of earned income. Under the Labour Government in 1975 a vote on linking the salary of hon. Members to the salary scale of assistance secretaries was defeated by a large majority. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the House had grasped the nettle of setting a realistic professional salary for Members there would not be orientation towards dubious outside interests?
Mr. Benn: To take an extreme case, it is arguable that a Member of Parliament should publish his income tax return. That is a clear answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I doubt whether that would be welcome, but if the House adopted such a rule it would settle all the arguments about private incomes. When my father was first elected in 1906 there was no parliamentary salary. He worked as a journalist in the City of London in the morning and went to the House in the afternoon. The House could be filled if people had to pay £1,000 a year to be a Member, especially as we now know the business interests that can be attracted by a Member of Parliament.
I should now like to deal with the register of lobbyists. The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, spoke about that. The whole business world that has grown up around influencing Members of Parliament is staggering. I throw away 95 per cent. by weight of my mail every day, all of which is paid for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it is a legitimate business expense to send annual reports to hon. Members.
The Palace of Westminster is crowded with lobbyists. Anyone who wants to know where they are has to look at The House Magazine.I looked it up and photocopied a couple of pages. The Freight Transport Association represents the total transport interests. There is also the name of its controller of legal and parliamentary affairs. We should not need to look at The House Magazine to find who is trying to win our support; there should be a register. I would go further and say that research assistants and perhaps members of the Lobby should be reasonably asked to declare their interests.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: They already do that.
Mr. Benn: In that case, I should like to add another category of temporary people attached to the House. I had a letter from an American student who asked me to take him on as a research assistant, which I did not do. I am sure that many hon. Members had such letters. He included with the letter his curriculum vitae and a reference which I shall read to the House. I shall not mention his name so that he will not be embarrassed. The letter was from Michael Lekson, deputy counsellor for political affairs in the American embassy, and he said what a wonderful man this guy was. He said that he had
"clearly gotten full benefit from his earlier internship at the House of Commons. We profited considerably from his

913
knowledge and insights about Commons' members, procedures, and folkways—most notably in delegating to him two priority projects.
The first was to select up-and-coming Conservative parliamentarians to submit to an Embassy committee choosing potential recipients of International Visitor grants. This process was a bureaucratic nightmare. Identifying the future leaders was only the start. He also determined who had been considered before by researching through chaotic files in this and other offices; got the essential personal and possible travel data from the potential nominees without committing the Embassy to offer a trip; and documented his nominations for consideration by a traditionally sceptical committee. Mr…did all this superbly—and, as a side-benefit, systematised our computerised records on parliamentarians. Eight of his nine nominations have been accepted and the ninth is under active consideration."
I have tried to introduce a note of humour. People send their interns here for very good reasons. I would like the American embassy to give us a list. We must legislate on this matter.
Mr. Robert Adley: The right hon. Gentleman has touched on a matter that will strike a chord in the hearts of many hon. Members. As it returns to the subject of lobbying, the Select Committee on Members' Interests would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members would submit as evidence documentation of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman implied that a large proportion of the costs that American research assistants incur are met by the British taxpayer.
Mr. Benn: I am not getting at researchers, because my son was a research assistant to a senator in Washington and came back and wrote a thesis on the White House staff. I am not complaining about researchers, but I am saying that we should know and we should legislate. Nothing has convinced me more of the need for legislation than hearing the cosy and courteous way in which we have spoken about the hon. Member for Winchester. We have dodged our own failure to take seriously the fact that a Member of Parliament is an attractive target for business people and that there is money to be made by Members of Parliament.
There is no enforcement. If the House is an enforcement body, it is the most curious one that I have come across. I fear that we will create a scapegoat and say that that is that. However, the problem will remain. I do not believe in "scapegoatism"; I believe in getting to the root of the matter. If we were to legislate, the matter would be resolved not by the Select Committee or the Leader of the House but by a court. I know that some hon. Members do not like to have courts looking into the conduct of Members of Parliament, but the decision to which I have referred was taken years ago. The House of Commons decided then not to try contested elections in the House itself, but to hand them over to the courts.
Up to a certain date—I do not remember when; it may have been 1700 or a bit later; in any case, the matter is referred to in "Erskine May"—if there was a petition against an election, the House voted. But it voted on party lines. So the matter was pushed out to the election court. I speak as somebody who has appeared before two election courts. Actually, one of them disqualified me. Two judges, having sat for a fortnight, said that nothing had changed since 1626, and, as a result, I was thrown out of the House.
914
A court to look at the proper relationship of Members of Parliament, with their financial interests, to the House and to their constituents is what we should be considering.
It is with some regret that I say that I fear that the Palace of Westminster is in danger of degenerating into a marketplace, where influence is traded for favours, where backhanders and patronage are rife, and where we turn a blind eye to these things. We have the ancient rituals—the office of profit under the Crown, the Chiltern Hundreds —but we ignore the real conflicts between financial and commercial interests and parliamentary duties. Parliamentary privilege has come to be a means of protecting Members from their constituents, whereas I have always taken the view that parliamentary privilege is intended to protect constituents and to enable Members to do their job.
There is a certain high-minded cover over our proceedings, designed to confuse and mislead people into believing that all is well. If we want to end the cynicism, let us realise that this debate, if interpreted in a certain way, could lead to greater cynicism. If that happens, we shall have damaged the institution itself. Perhaps it is time to turn the money-changers out of the temple. Today is the time to begin.
6.11 pm
Sir William Shelton: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I have some sympathy with what he said, because, like him, I am not entirely happy with the procedure that, as a member of the Select Committee, I underwent during the period of the Committee's examination of this matter. I think that, in all, that was nine months. The Committee's report is unanimous, and I agree entirely with its finding. In that respect, I have no quarrel at all. The fact that the report came out so well was due not only to the Committee's members but also to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). He was an excellent Chairman, who handled the Committee extraordinarily well.
But it was not a pleasant experience. As has already been mentioned, there was talk of stolen documents. In many cases, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) had no copies. As has been said, a divorced wife passed evidence to a journalist, and writs were issued against that journalist. Eight-year-old handwritten notes—perhaps forged, perhaps not—were put before us. Not surprisingly, in view of the time lag, there were conflicts of evidence. It really was a most unpleasant business.
Of course, in 1982, when all this happened, the climate of opinion in the House was very different from the climate of today. Indeed, at that time Mr. Enoch Powell refused to register at all. We have been judging my hon. Friend in respect of events in 1982 by standards of 1989. I do not say that that is improper. However, it is what we have been doing, and I am sure that the House would wish to keep that in mind.
My conclusion, about which I have thought a great deal, is that, within the rules of the House, justice was indeed done by the Committee. However, I question whether natural justice has been done to my hon. Friend. "Natural justice" is an expression that was used earlier today. I question whether the retribution bears any relation to the offence. Let me explain as quickly as I can

915
why I have the sense of unease that I have had for several months, and why I find myself being critical of rules of the House.
First, those rules are ambiguous; they are subject to various interpretations. Even we on the Committee had to have a discussion before we could agree exactly what they meant. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield talked about their friendliness and cosiness. It is fine to be friendly and cosy, provided the stakes are not so high, but when the stakes are as high as they are in this case—at stake is not only my hon. Friend's reputation but perhaps even his living, not only as a constituency representative but also in respect of business matters—one cannot be friendly and cosy.
I refer to this wretched business only for the purpose of illustrating the point I am making. Paragraph 3 of the introduction to the report refers to a resolution of the House which says that the Member
"shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have."—[Official Report, 22 May 1974, Vol. 874, c. 538.]
Let me apply that to the case of 3Cs—one of those in respect of which the case against my hon. Friend was upheld, although no action was recommended. I use this case merely to demonstrate why I think that, perhaps, the rules are too cosy and friendly.
Clearly my hon. Friend wanted to make money out of cable over a period. However, in March 1982 he wrote to the chairman of Thorn-EMI stating that he had considered setting up a company but had come to the conclusion that it would be best to work for the major corporation rather than start a new company. A copy of the letter appears on pages 117 and 118 of the report. He asked—rather naively—whether the company needed a consultant. In the following months, the company invited him to lunch and told him that it did not need a consultant.
A few days later—on 20 April—came the debate on cable. What was my hon. Friend to declare in that debate? Clearly he was not to declare that he had started a company—he had not. Clearly he was not to declare that he was seeking a consultancy with EMI—he had been turned down. What was he, therefore, to declare? The view that the Committee took was that he should have declared that he was going to start a company—indeed, he did start a company a few weeks later—or that he wished to make money out of the cable business, or something like that.
My hon. Friend, in his evidence, said that he had decided after the debate to start the company, because it had been such a good debate. I agree with the finding of the Committee because of its phrase "or might be expected", but I cannot release myself from the feeling that there is there a certain amount of ambiguity that could lead to misinterpretation.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being clear with the House, but perhaps he could be even clearer if he were to say that that was not the only matter on which the Committee deliberated. There was also another document, which referred to the fact that 3Cs had been set up "some 18 months ago". That was almost 18 months prior to the speech in the House of Commons. While it could not be proved that 3Cs had been set up, the Committee received other evidence—again evidence that has been published—showing that the idea of 3Cs certainly had existed some six months earlier.
Sir William Shelton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated this matter, if not for weeks, then for days, and if not for days, then certainly for hours. I understand entirely what he says, and he will remember the arguments that I put forward.
Let me return to the rules. The definition of "relevance" in page iv, paragraph 3, is left to the discretion of the Member concerned. The rule continues:
"The extent to which the details of the relevant interest are disclosed is also a matter for the Member."
If my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester read that, he might be forgiven for thinking that he had nothing relevant to declare, and therefore did not have to declare anything. Either the words in the rule mean something or they mean nothing, and clearly they do not mean anything. The issue of relevance appears to be left to the view of the Member, and clearly that is not the position. That is why I am led towards the possibility of introducing legislation of the sort that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was talking about.
I turn my attention to another rule which guided the members of the Committee. I refer to paragraph 5 at the top of page V, which states:
"The purpose of this Register is to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member of Parliament may receive which might be thought to affect his conduct".
Thought by whom? Clearly not by the Member himself —that would be nonsense. Clearly not the complainant, because of the 10 complaints which were made the Committee upheld three or four. Does the rule mean it is the view of the public? That, too, is clearly nonsense. It comes down—not necessarily wrongly, and perhaps rightly—to the members of the Select Committee and then to the House. That must be the interpretation of the phrase, but that is not apparent from the rule.
Mr. John McWilliam: I ask the hon. Gentleman to turn his mind to the red book on standards of conduct in local government, which presupposes that, if a councillor thinks that in any circumstances he may have any sort of interest, he must declare that interest. I think that it would be wrong of the hon. Gentleman to rely too heavily on the wording of the present rules.
Sir William Shelton: I prefer that ruling to the one that we have. It is far better to leave discretion to the individual Member. It would be much wider and much easier for a Member to understand. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) made a helpful intervention and I like what he suggests. I confess that I cannot easily see the way forward. Therefore, I welcome help from any Opposition Member.
Paragraph 6(6) deals with foreign payments. It states:
"Within this definition there is a more specific requirement to disclose in the register nine categories of pecuniary interest or other benefits."
Sub-paragraph (7) refers to
"any payments or any material benefits or advantages received from or on behalf of foreign Governments, organisations or persons."
That seems clear, but in fact it is not. A careful reading of the rules reveals that a Member does not have to make a declaration unless the payments, benefits or advantages influence the Member's conduct in Parliament, or are in some way connected with Parliament.
Foreign payments must be declared only if it may be thought that they influence a Member's actions or speeches. Consequently, my hon. Friend the Member for

917
Winchester was not required to declare the fee which he received—I must say that it deeply impressed me by its size —unless it involved his conduct, actions or speeches. The fee was paid by a Saudi Arabian Government agency for my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to write a report on the United States freeze on Arabian assets.
What did my hon. Friend do? He put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister about how Her Majesty's Government would respond to any extra-territorial freeze on assets in British banks. It is clear that he asked a question that related to the report and his fee. Therefore, the Committee rightly found that he was in breach of the rules. I add, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Committee was unable to obtain a copy of the report consequently. It was not aware of what the report stated and what it was about, other than what came to it by hearsay. That worried me.
I have been speaking about the ambiguity, lack of clarity and unclear interpretation of the rules. There was an enormous difficulty facing the Committee in its effort to function properly to find the truth when confronted with a complex mass of papers. The Committee was not a court of law, and it is not a court of law now. However, my Committee colleagues and I felt that we were sitting in judgment on a colleague. No one was unearthed. We had no power to send for witnesses.
I shall refer briefly to the Chidiac case, where the finding went against my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester; in other words, the Committee upheld the complaint. My hon. Friend owned a small company called Falcon, which had a contract with a London company called Selco East. He did not register that separately as it had nothing to do with his parliamentary activities. If my hon. Friend has a company, he does not have to register a client of the company unless his parliamentary activity is affected. However, my hon. Friend lobbied on behalf of a Mr. Charles Chidiac of the Lebanon in an effort, he says, to obtain orders for United Kingdom companies. Mr. Charles Chidiac was the brother of the chairman of Selco East Company. That is the joker. The Committee came to the conclusion that the brother and Mr. Charles Chidiac were so close—Mr. Charles Chidiac was working closely with Selco East of London—that my hon. Friend should have registered the interest. I agree.
The Committee received a letter from Mr. Charles Chidiac from Hawaii which exonerated my hon. Friend in every way. We, the Committee, did not accept that letter. We chose to disbelieve it. We thought that Mr. Chidiac was trying to help my hon. Friend, which he probably was. However, we were unable to question Mr. Chidiac. We were unable to bring him as a witness to the United Kingdom. First, we had no money to pay his fare. Secondly, we had no way of obliging him to come. We suggested that he might wish to come but he did not wish to do so. Mr. Chidiac, as I have said, wrote a letter exonerating my hon. Friend and we were unable to question him. As I have said also, I think that the Committee took the right decision. I signed its findings. This was a difficulty in my mind, however, and I was unhappy.
Mr. Lawrence: If the Committee was unable to question the contents of the letter and all it had was suspicion, did not the burden of proof require it to decide the issue in favour of the accused?
Sir William Shelton: I am trying not to go too deeply into the contents of the report. If my hon. and learned Friend reads the report, he will find that there was some circumstantial evidence which overweighed the letter from Mr. Chidiac. I think that the Committee came to a correct decision. There was a difficulty, however, that was apparent to me.
Mr. Dalyell: I ask the hon. Gentleman a factual question: did the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), let alone a lawyer acting on his behalf, have the opportunity at any stage to test the circumstantial evidence? Did he have an opportunity to question those who were accusing him?
Sir William Shelton: No. There was no cross-examination except by members of the Select Committee themselves. Of course, my hon. Friend received all the papers and was able, at any time he wished, to put forward his view in writing. Indeed, had he asked to be seen again, I am sure that he would have been. I think I am right in saying that he did not ask.
The inquiry was not conducted as a court of law. It was conducted on a friendly basis, with the one major problem that the stakes were so very high. It was not only my hon. Friend's existence in the House, in Winchester or in his business that was at stake; there was also the fact that there might well have been a libel case standing against his complainant. So it was a complicated and unpleasant matter.
I cannot believe that my hon. Friend had anything to gain from not registering or declaring those interests for which we found him at fault. I see no way that he could have profited. Indeed, he might have profited more in one or two cases by declaring the interests. I can only believe that he either genuinely misunderstood the rules or did not care, because he did not think it important, given that the time involved was 1982 when views were very much more lax. Therefore, I believe the retribution is far greater than the offence.
What do I think we should do? I support the second motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. We must consider the rules. They must be clear and concise, with no ambiguity. They should be like a short highway code so that every hon. Member knows exactly what he is supposed to do, and knows that if he does not follow the rules he will be at fault. If we had concise rules, instead of taking nine months to consider the case, it would take only nine days. If the rules were concise, there would be a clear yes or no.
I should like also consideration to be given to a statute of limitations. To have something dredged up after eight years is absurd. I suggest a statute of limitations of one, three or perhaps five years, but certainly less than eight years.
That does not solve the quasi-judicial nature of a Select Committee hearing without the safeguards of a judicial court. If the rules are being broken, they must be examined by the House. An alternative would be to transfer the matter to court, but that would be a very big step and I would not even think of it. If we clarify the rules, the way forward will be easier and simpler.
6.32 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I do not think that anyone can deny that a debate like this has human implications, especially for the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). No doubt many hon. Members, like me, have re-read the debate on 26 July 1977 when the House dealt with a Select Committee report on the conduct of Members. I was taken by a phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I will quote the full paragraph from the speech of my right hon. Friend the member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), then Leader of the House:
"I believe that we can act wisely and intelligently without any sort of vindictiveness in this matter. I believe that we have done this on many such previous occasions. But the House of Commons has occasionally in the past operated a liberal form of lynch law. It can act as a mob, and of all mobs the most objectionable is a sanctimonious mob."—[Official Report, 26 July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 349.]
That is important. I sat through the debate, which was much more complicated. It involved two hon. Members on opposite sides of the House. The previous Friday another hon. Member had resigned.
The hon. Member for Winchester made a personal statement today. I do not boast about it, but I know what it is like to have to make a personal statement to the House. I accept the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman made his statement. If he had made it a day or so after the publication of the Select Committee report, I believe that there would have been pressure never to debate the report. In my judgment, there would have been no need for a debate.
I do not wish to detain the House more than a few minutes. Members of Parliament are expected to set an example in all facets of their lives. Many claim that it is unfair, but we are nevertheless told from time to time, whether in respect of salaries or of conduct, that we have to be seen to set an example.
My right hon. friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that there was no law on corruption. We have not set a good example. The 1976 report of the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life, chaired by Lord Salmon, has never been debated in the House. It is to the shame of both Labour and Conservative Governments that they never found time for a debate. In the early 1980s, I asked the then Home Secretary what the Government were doing to set an example which would lead to an improvement in the standard of conduct. He answered the question by saying simply that we should set an example by all that we did; it was incumbent on Members of Parliament to set an example.
I defy any hon. Member to say that throughout his whole political life, when he has been canvassing in his own constituency or anywhere else, he has never experienced someone saying, when he has intimated his business at the door, "Clear off. You are all the same. There is no difference between the two sides. You are all in it for what you can get." I defend the House and hon. Members. It has been easier to defend our conduct since 1975 because of the Register of Members' Interests. I can say to people who put that point to me, "Yes, there are some who appear to be in it for what they can get, but by the rules of the House they have to put in the register for whom they are working." That is a defence for those who want to say that we are not all in the same boat. In giving
920
the public perception, I sensed that I struck a chord in the memory of hon. Members. The defence provided by the Register of Members' Interests is important.
I do not want to go into the details of the Select Committee report. That would waste a lot of time. One presumes that the report has been read by every hon. Member.
I do not think that the sanction of a 20-day suspension is sufficient. There is a need for a sanction of suspension which must by definition be limited. I was unaware of the difference between the two types of suspension until the Leader of the House spoke. A suspension of 20 days is the normal maximum, but there are two types of maximum suspension. In one case the hon. Member has to remain outside the precincts; in the other, the hon. Member has the free run of the place except that he cannot come into the Chamber, speak or ask oral questions.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman will find that there is a third category. In the two normal categories, the hon. Member is suspended but is still paid. In the third category the hon. Member is suspended and is not paid. So there are three different categories.
Mr. Rooker: I accept that expansion of what I said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield thinks that there should never be suspension but that there should be a sanction. It has been clearly indicated by some hon. Members that, to put it colloquially, bawling out by the Speaker is not on. The only other sanction available is to suspend a Member's salary. There must be a sanction of some kind. I do not know whether that is a terrible proposition, but it is not on the Order Paper today.
The hon. Member for Winchester told the Select Committee and stated in correspondence on more than one occasion that he was called more than twice the average for other hon. Members. He boasted that he was an active member and was called more than twice the average by Mr. Speaker. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is suspended for 20 days or for three months there will be no difficulty; he will still be ahead of all of us in the running average that he has kept.
That is not an argument for suspension. My point is that either we take the Register seriously or we do not. People outside will consider that 20 days is no more than a nod and a wink or, as it has been described in print, a slap on the wrist. It will suggest that we do not take the defence of the Register seriously. That is why three months is a more suitable sanction for the problems that have been identified and accepted by the hon. Member for Winchester. Therefore, at the appropriate moment I intend to move that amendment.
6.40 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) I drew attention to an important anomaly. A number of years ago a Select Committee of the House was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Thomas, to revise the Standing Orders of the House. That Select Committee recommended to the House that when a Member was suspended from the service of the House, his salary should stop for the period of that suspension. That was not only a fair and logical correlation between the two, but got rid of what

921
was seen outside the House as quite scandalous. When somebody was named by Mr. Speaker and then ordered by the House to be suspended from the service of the House, he merely did less work for the same money.
I was surprised when, in the name of the then Leader of the House, the recommendations of that Select Committee were put to the House for approval, that one was omitted and the Whips were unofficially put on against it. Therefore, we still have the position where normality is that when an hon. Member is suspended from the service of the House that hon. Member is suspended from duties, but the financial benefits of being a Member of the House —his salary—are not suspended.
Therefore, I hope that the motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House betokens an amendment to be put before the House so that not just in this case but in all cases where a Member's offence is considered sufficiently serious for that Member to be suspended from the service of the House, there should automatically be a suspension of salary as well. That should be the norm, not something exceptional.
It is right that in this case my right hon. and learned Friend's motion should embrace the two, but it would be equally right on occasions when an hon. Member has defied Mr. Speaker to such an extent that Mr. Speaker has to name that Member, not just for the first time but for the second and third time. The Standing Orders provide for each of those.
I hope that, if the House passes the motion, my right hon. and learned Friend will get the message that it does not want this to be a unique correlation of suspension from the service of the House with suspension from entitlement to salary, and that he will introduce an amendment to the appropriate Standing Order, so that when a Member is named, and the House has voted to suspend that Member from the service of the House, that will be the normal procedure.
There is a strong case for tightening up the rules. My impression is that comparatively few hon. Members have read them, but those who have would agree that they are quite tight already, including on the point of expectation. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) wish to intervene?
Mr. George Howarth: No.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But there are many cases where the rules laid down by resolution of the House are broken almost every day. Those rules clearly lay down that none of the services of the House may be used for the commercial purposes of any hon. Member. How often do we receive letters through the internal mail from a parliamentary colleague asking us to come to a meeting or a lunch, or whatever it may be, which has nothing to do with parliamentary duties, but everything to do with that parliamentary colleague's consultancies?
If the rules are read, it can be seen that they state clearly that, if any hon. Member writes to another asking him to some event on the premises, he must declare in that letter that he has a relevant interest. It is not sufficient just to have it in the Register of Members' Interests. That rule is also regularly broken. Most of us know that to be the case. Therefore, the House has a considerable policing job to do.
922
I mention those matters because they have not yet been raised today and today is the appropriate occasion to do so.
6.46 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am the youngest Member of the House so far to be called and one of the most recently elected. My colleagues and I thought that one member of our party should make a contribution, although none of us is following any party line. I bear no ill will towards the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), having only ever had courteous, albeit limited, dealings with him. For myself, I accept entirely the apology that he made to the House.
The job of the House, as the Leader of the House correctly said, is to be a disciplinary committee. The Select Committee's job was to be the agency of inquiry. We are left to decide whether to act on a recommendation that action shall be taken, but with no idea of what the Select Committee thought that action should be. We should not duck that responsibility.
Many hon. Members have made it clear how imperfect the procedure is. As a lawyer, I think that many of the views expressed about the need to improve procedure should be taken on board. My colleagues and I therefore support the second motion in the name of the Leader of the House. We believe that an inquiry into ways in which we can improve the working of the Select Committee is urgent and should be started forthwith.
I have sympathy with the amendment spoken to by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). What is declared needs to be much more clearly defined and much more comprehensively required. My only reservation is whether the appropriate first step is to legislate. The right hon. Gentleman proposed draft legislation. This would be a difficult matter about which to legislate at the best of times. It is better that, in the first place—and without prejudice to the view that we may need to legislate later —we should tighten the rules of the House. In other words, first we should have firmer rules governing our procedures and then, if they do not work, we may need to take further steps.
My hon. Friends and I—and particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who was a Member of the Committee—accept the report, agree with its conclusions and endorse what it says in all its detail. So the only question for us today is what action we should take.
There is only one precedent, to which other hon. Members have referred. The House debated the actions of three hon. Members in 1977. Precedent is not helpful, except that it gives us the response of the House to that breach of the rules, as it was found to have been, so we have a point of comparison.
The hon. Member for Winchester made a mistake, to put it at its most favourable, but a question remains unanswered, and I make the point having found myself in the same position. If the hon. Member was unsure about what he should have declared, he always had the option of asking the Registrar for guidance. On one occasion I did that. I do not understand why any hon. Member who is in doubt because the rules are not clear, could not go to the Registrar and ask, "Can you help me about whether something should be included?" Had he taken advice and

923
followed it, I do not think that the House would be in a position to rebuke him. So far as I know, he did not do that. That was an error or judgment and his fault.
Mr. Bob Cryer: In fairness, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) claimed to the Committee that he had obtained advice from the Registrar, but the advice that he claimed to have been given was disputed by the Registrar in question.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. The Committee should know, if advice was given, what that advice was, because the only officer policing the Register is the Registrar, and it must be to him that we look in the first instance for guidance.
There appear to be five courses of action before us—no action, expulsion, reprimand, suspension or a call to resign. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the first. I have in recent days sought the views of various people, not all constituents of mine and not all supporters of the Opposition parties in the House. Without exception, they have said that firm action must be taken.
It would be appropriate, therefore, to reject the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) suggesting that there should he no action. I also accept that we should not proceed with expulsion There are clear constitutional reasons why the House does not have any justification to expel a person sent here by that Member's electorate.
Mr. Colvin: When reading the Official Report of the hon. Gentleman's speech tomorrow, the public might get the impression that I was recommending taking no action. That is not the case. I am saying that no punishment should be determined today. I was arguing that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) had been punished enough, but I support motions Nos. 1 and 2, with the exception of suspension. That is all that I would omit.
Mr. Hughes: Acceptance of the hon. Gentleman's amendment would mean the House taking no action at the end of the debate, a course which does not accord with the public view. Nor would it be appropriate.
We are left with the options of reprimand, suspension or a call to resign—and if suspension, whether it should be for 20 days or three months. I, too, was taken by surprise by the varieties of suspension. I had presumed that suspension meant no participation in any of the activities, as a Member of Parliament, in the House of Commons. Suspension which means only that one cannot come into the Chamber is clearly a lesser penalty than many of us had presumed would be the case.
As for a call to resign, it is a widely held view that the hon. Gentleman should have resigned. That is a matter for him and his conscience and he has chosen not to do so. The electorate of Winchester must judge in time, if he is a candidate at the next election and if he has not resigned beforehand, whether they think his decision not to resign was appropriate.
There remain two options—reprimand or suspension. Reprimand has the air of a headmaster summoning a naughty pupil for a public rebuke in an archaic way. I am not sure whether that would be seen by the public as anything other than that sort of old formality. It means, in practice, that one public action and nothing more.
924
Although it may be regarded by some—I do not question their right to view it in this way—as a more serious punishment than suspension, I do not think that the public would see it like that. They would regard suspension as more severe.
If, then, it is to be suspension, we must consider how long it should be. Given the seriousness of the complaints upheld by the Committee and its conclusion in paragraph 103 of the report that three months would be the appropriate penalty, anything less would be seen as tokenism—the more so given how limited in effect a suspension would be.
The argument that any suspension deprives the electorate of their Member of Parliament has been dealt with well. We must all take responsibility for our actions. If those actions have the result of suspension, it means that for a period the electorate do not have their Member's full service.
My next remark will be controversial and I make it as fairly as I can. I believe that the motion might have been for three months were it not for some party self-interest. We all have party self-interest, and I do not dissociate my party's self-interest from that of any others. Winchester is a Tory-held seat in which the Labour party has come a poor third.
Mr. Ashton: What has that to do with it?
Mr. Hughes: It has a relevance to the proposal of the Leader of the House. The more severe the recommended period of suspension, the more severe the harm it would be perceived as doing to anyone acting in the Tory interest in Winchester. It would have been of no advantage to the Labour party interest there, either. I am not in a position to say that that was the reason, or was influential upon the reason, which led the Leader of the House to propose the motion, but there must be a suspicion that it might have been, and I believe that it might be true.
My next comment follows closely the points made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and others. We are the most important elected body in the land, but the requirements of standards here are at present far less than those of elected councils. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that our conduct should be transparent. If in doubt, we should ask. We are at present far too slack.
There is also a difference between those who come here with business interests and those who acquire such interests once they are here. The Select Committee Chairman observed the growth of outside interests in recent years, particularly those which people acquire once they arrive here. Of course, the House could not and should not be one without windows, as the Leader of the House rightly said, but there is all the difference in the world between people who come here with a business background and those who acquire one subsequently.
How do we reconcile those activities with our jobs as Members of Parliament? It seems to me that there is no question but that all our outside interests and the money that we get from them should be registered in every particular. Unless we do that, and unless the public know exactly what other influences there are or may be upon their Member of Parliament, then outside interests will be regarded as corrupting but people will not know to what

925
extent they could corrupt. Human nature being what it is, we cannot stop people having outside interests. Therefore, we have to ensure that they are declared.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose— —
Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way—I have nearly finished.
We must be tougher and firmer and we must be much more open. We are sent here to represent the people—not private interests, private companies, trade unions or anyone else. The reputation of Parliament suffers, and Parliament and parliamentarians are unpopular and discredited, because people generally believe that we conceal much of what we do whereas we should reveal it. I hope that the lesson learnt today will not just be that of taking firm action in this case, but that we shall be much tougher on ourselves and on Parliament in the future.
7.1 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: I have listened with the greatest interest to the whole of this debate, and I am grateful to be able to make what I hope will be a brief contribution.
I have little to say about the first motion tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. The Select Committee on Members' Interests has obviously done a thorough job within the limitations of its structure. I think that we must recognise that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has recognised and emphasised that, and it is therefore a matter that can be considered under the second motion tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) bitterly attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), saying that his speech had no relevance whatever to the first motion. As on so many occasions, the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. My hon. Friend was talking about the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), of his personal knowledge of him, and of the views of those people acquainted with him. He was entitled to do that and, what is more, the House, in making its judgment, is entitled to take into account the general activities of an hon. Member and the contribution he has made to the House and to our national life.
I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Chesterfield back in his place. His attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, saying that his speech was irrelevant, shows a complete lack of understanding of the circumstances of the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester.
I think that each of us should form our own judgment about the motion. Having listened carefully, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has suffered from a vast amount of publicity about the whole of this episode. The Select Committee has reported in clear terms and that has been widely publicised. My hon. Friend's constituents know about every episode in detail and it is for his constituents to make up their minds whether they wish him to continue to be their representative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has apologised to the House for what he now recognises as his
926
mistakes. My conclusion is that the House should accept that apology. In my experience, the House has always been magnanimous to Ministers or hon. Members who recognise their errors and come to the House to apologise. In this instance I believe that that is the right step to take.
I am not trying to rebuke my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, but I think that he has tried to produce a solution which would meet disparate views in the House. This is a personal matter for each of us to decide and I think that it has been settled because the apology has been made; the whole House knows it and my hon. Friend's constituents know it.
The second motion causes me some apprehension, and I say so quite frankly to my right hon. and learned Friend. Two views have been expressed today about how these issues should be dealt with in the House. Personally I think that they should also affect the other place, but that has not been mentioned. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, there are two approaches: first, that we should rely on the integrity of each hon. Member; secondly—the other extreme put forward by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—that the whole issue must be laid down in detailed law.
I could not disagree more. Consider the matter from the practical point of view. If one wanted to take action against an hon. Member in such circumstances, the possibility of doing so by using the legal system is minimised and not maximised. We know that from the many other cases that are in the public eye today, some of which have been mentioned this afternoon. I strongly reject the idea that Members' interests should be embodied in a new law which would be enforced in the courts.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was quite frank. He said that the burden would pass from us and we would have nothing more to do with it. We could wash our hands of it because it would all be settled by the judges. Again, I could not disagree more.
Therefore, I return to my original point: we must depend on the integrity of hon. Members. We must depend on each other. In my view, looking back over the years, that has always been the basis of relationships among hon. Members and Ministers.
Mr. Benn: I have listened intently to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he turn his attention to one point that I made—whether the issue is decided by voluntary or legislative action? Does he think that there are any commercial interests which are incompatible with membership of the House, and, if so, what should the House do about them? The right hon. Gentleman was the father of the phrase "the unacceptable face of capitalism". I hope that he will not forget that that may have a special application to those people who are elected to serve the public good.
Mr. Heath: The phrase "the unacceptable face of capitalism" has had far more effect in the past 20 years than anything that could have been done by legislation, and that still remains the case.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield asked about interests that are incompatible with our duties to the House. Once again, he takes an extreme view. He said that we should be full-time members of the House of Commons and should have no other interests so that we could look after our constituents. That is not the tradition of the House, it never has been, and it never will be if we are to

927
be effective. Opposition Members should recognise that if we were that we would cut ourselves off from the outside world.
Why did the first majority Labour Government in 1945 find it so difficult to deal with many outside interests? Because they had cut themselves off from the rest of the world. That policy would result in people of ability and experience not wanting to become Members of Parliament because they would say that they would not be allowed to continue with their other activities. The House would lose that experience.
When I first came to the House, it contained some very distinguished chairmen of top companies. There was no need for them to be on a register; everyone knew that the chairman of Lucas was the chairman of Lucas. When we saw his name on the tickertape, we would say, "We must get back into the Chamber and hear what he has to say." The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is trying to exclude more and more people like that.
There is another side to it. At that time trade union leaders were allowed to become Members of Parliament; it was only shortly afterwards that the TUC general council laid down a rule preventing them from doing so. When they were Members of Parliament, of course they spoke, and we all knew that they were expected to speak from the point of view of their unions as well as that of their constituents. No one questioned that; it was automatically accepted. We also knew that they were financed, but there was nothing wrong with that, because we all knew about it. If such Members were speaking on a specifically trade union matter, we felt that we were being treated like children if they said, "I must declare my interest: I am the general secretary of such and such a union." We relied on the integrity of the Member, and it worked.
It causes me some apprehension that the requirements in the amendments tabled to the second motion would impose considerable pressures on those examining such matters. The crucial question is, "What interests has a Member that affect his conduct in the House of Commons?"
Mr. Martin Flannery: Money.
Mr. Heath: One of the amendments calls for the declaration of all shareholdings and changed circumstances. That has nothing to do with the conduct of a Member in the House of Commons. When we have an agriculture debate, will every Member be expected to stand up and say, "I must declare that I have 2,048 acres, half of which is used for sheep and half for cows"? Not for a moment. We know that, and the integrity of the Member has made it clear that he is engaged in farming activities.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield says that the constituents never know. He must have very strange constituents. I have seen few election manifestos in which the candidate does not specify his profession, his business and how he spends his time, and the local people have every right to ask the candidate, at an electoral meeting, what he does in his daily life and what he intends to give up. There is no difficulty about that; it does not require the detailed information called for in the amendments.
The right hon. Gentleman even called for the publication of income tax returns. How does that affect a Member's conduct in the House of Commons? Of course
928
he will want to pay less tax, but everyone accepts that. There is no need to publish income tax returns to let people know that a chap wants to pay less tax.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The right hon. Gentleman is making out a case for the job of Member of Parliament not to be full time. Does he recall that, not so long ago, hon. Members trooped through the Lobbies to approve the linking of their salary with a certain Civil Service grade? That grade related to full-time workers. Surely, if a Member of Parliament is doing his job properly in the House, it should be a full-time job.
Mr. Heath: If a Member wants to make his occupation full time, he is entirely entitled to do so; nothing will stop him. On the other hand, nothing should stop him from having other interests outside the House if he finds that compatible with his constituency work. The House has existed for centuries on the basis that the two are compatible. What is more, most constituents welcome the fact that their Member of Parliament has outside interests as well as looking after his constituency.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Surely it all depends on how we define "interests". All of us have many outside interests. What we object to is the use of interests furthered by, or involved in, membership of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is interested in music—no problem. He has a knowledge and understanding of business—again, no problem. Anything else is a different matter.
Mr. Heath: With great respect, I differ from the hon. Gentleman. When I conduct an orchestra in Jerusalem, I am liable to be accused of influencing my speeches on foreign policy. I must confess that my Arab friends get very worried about it.
As for the question of what affects Members' conduct in the House, if there is a conflict of interests we expect them to speak out. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that a councillor is expected to declare any interest in the subject of a debate, or the existence of a conflict of interests. Absolutely: we are expected to do the same. That, however, does not involve declaring shareholdings, publishing income tax returns and taking all the other actions required by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
I have said enough to demonstrate my apprehension about the consequences of an examination in which many people—out of sheer desire to know about the affairs of others—will press for the details to be made available, simply because they relate to Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) acknowledges frankly that that is his view, but it is not the view of most hon. Members. It has not been their view in the past, and I do not think that it should be in the future. We should rely largely on the integrity of our Members.
By all means let us keep the Register going, and let hon. Members insert the main items, but more and more detail is being asked for. I am a member of the review board of Arthur Andersen, worldwide accountants. We have 2,200 partners, and our fees from our clients amount to $3·2 billion. How am I to return to the Registrar of Members' Interests the names of all the firms involved in the decisions that I make? Could we not be a bit more realistic? I will gladly declare my interest whenever I make a speech about accountancy—which I never do.

929
I am invited to declare the Lloyd's syndicates to which I belong, because the hon. Member for Nottingham, North wants to know whether or not I am making a loss over Louthwaite. That does not affect my attitude in the House of Commons, however, because I never take part in any debate on Lloyd's or ask a question about it—for the same reason: I do not want any misunderstanding. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman in confidence, however, that the losses on Louthwaite are considerable. They are not going to drive me out of the House of Commons, though. In fact, they may well keep me in.
I beg my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, and whichever Select Committee deals with the matter, to be realistic, and, above all, to depend on the integrity of Members of the House of Commons.
7.17 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendment to which I have put my name, calling on the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) to resign in view of the findings of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. We tabled the amendment for a simple reason. The House is made up of people who have been elected by their constituents to represent them, and—as many others have said—they should be answerable to those constituents for their activities and interests, and for how they conduct those interests.
If the House takes it upon itself to expel hon. Members whom it did not elect—they were elected in a general election or by-election—it is, in effect, depriving them of the ability to represent their constituents in Parliament. The hon. Member for Winchester may have apologised, but he has admitted making a serious error in, for example, not declaring an income of $88,000—I imagine that amounts to more than £50,000—and a number of other interests. That is very serious.
The idea that a Member of Parliament is anything but full time may seem perfectly normal to many Conservative Members, but people outside do not see it the same way. They regard us as people who have been elected to the House on a substantial salary, which is far above the average industrial wage, far above the income of old-age pensioners and far above that of many people in ordinary middle-income jobs. Not unreasonably, they expect us to devote our energies to working to represent them, rather than creating income for ourselves through outside financial interests.
I support the principle of having a Register of Members' Interests. That is important. However, I do not think that the Register of Members' Interests goes anywhere like far enough. There is, for example, the question of for whom a particular company is working. If an hon. Member is a director of a public relations company, a statement to that effect is absolutely meaningless to me or to anybody else reading the Register. I want to know on behalf of what interests that public relations company is working. If an hon. Member is a director of a holding company, do we know what its subsidiaries are? Do we know what transactions are taking place? Do we know what influence that hon. Member can bring to bear on any decisions that are made?
930
We now come to the murkier area where an hon. Member might be a director or a substantial shareholder in a company that has direct dealings with central Government, such as the Ministry of Defence or any other Department. Frankly, that stinks to people outside the House. They ask, "Why can't we get a house to live in? We have insufficient pension to live on. We have all sorts of environmental problems in our constituency, but not only do Members of Parliament vote themselves a salary that to many of us is considerable, but they sanction substantial outside interests for themselves."
Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friends and I have considered this fact for several years now. Does my hon. Friend agree that many Conservative Members entered the House without any directorships whatever? Entry to the House is like opening an Aladdin's cave for them and that fact impels them to try to enter the House. Having become a Member, people make vast amounts of money that they would not have made if they had not managed to become a Member of the House.
Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent and apposite intervention. Having become a Member of Parliament by an elective process, through the ballot box, some hon. Members are saying, "I will take on this directorship, that advisership, this consultancy and that consultancy. I will act on your behalf in the House." There are many occasions when there is a potential conflict of interest and any number of occasions when those conflicts of interest become apparent.
I compare that with the attitude that is taken in statute towards local councillors. A local councillor, who is elected to represent a particular ward on a local authority, is absolutely prevented from voting on matters in which he or she might be deemed to have a direct interest. Council tenants, for example, are prevented from voting on rent increases or otherwise for council tenants in their wards. I regard that as iniquitous, but that is what happens. Likewise, if a councillor is deemed to have a particular pecuniary interest, he or she must declare it, take no part whatever in that debate, and withdraw from the chamber or committee concerned.
Furthermore, councillors are liable in law for any actions that they take as councillors. The Clay Cross councillors were debarred from holding public office under the Housing Act 1971. Councillors in Lambeth and Liverpool were debarred from holding public office and substantially surcharged following the rate capping of their local authorities, on the issue of whether they had overspent. Those councillors had not committed a crime. They had not made any money for themselves. They had simply acted in what they believed to be the best interests of the people they represented—and were punished severely as a result.
However, in this place, an hon. Member can have any number of shareholdings, directorships, outside consultancies, PR consultancies or anything else, and provided that they are declared, it is all okay. The debate is timely because it opens up that question.
Most employees work to a job description, which states that they are employed to work for a particular company. Someone who is employed as a salesman for a major company, such as GEC, would find that that company would not take kindly to one of its salaried salesmen also working privately as a salaried salesman for Siemens or for

931
any other competitor company. Company employees are not allowed to get involved in such things, any more than local councillors. Why should it be so very different for Members of Parliament? Why should hon. Members be allowed to stack up so many outside financial interests from which they personally can benefit a great deal?
I am also concerned about the amount of time that is taken up on those outside interests. I do not know about the social problems or the constituency case work loads of Conservative Members who have substantial directorships, but I do know that in the community that I represent, I deal with several thousand individual cases per year. It would not only be totally wrong, it would be impossible, to try to represent such a community if, at the same time, I had to attend 50 or 60 company meetings per year or various other meetings of boards of directors, or if I had to spend time in other places when I should be working for the people who elected me to this place.
Conservative Members may make light of the whole thing and say that it is a House of Commons matter. Frankly, when the House decides that something is a House of Commons matter, the House is not at its best; it is often at its very worst. This is not a House of Commons matter. It is a matter of public importance and public interest.
A great many people outside the House think, "There they go again—voting themselves a substantial rise, not turning up in the House, not voting and not taking part in the debates because they all have outside directorships." I have no outside directorships. I have no outside interests at all, yet because Conservative Members—and perhaps even some of my hon. Friends—have such interests, the whole House, and the names of the elective process and of democracy are smeared as a result. We have a responsibility, not just individually, but to the electoral and democratic process as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said—and quoted others who said the same—that if the House were composed of people with no other interests, it would be a boring place. He said that one of the problems of the 1945 Labour Government was that they did not have people of sufficient experience who could take an overview or a wider view of matters. If those who are elected to the House come from different backgrounds—from working for a company, working in the Health Service, working down a mine, being unemployed, being a housewife or a single parent or whatever—they have those reosurces, that knowledge and that experience on which to draw. Hon. Members do not need to hold a dozen directorships to have an idea how the financial system works. An hon. Member does not need to hold directorships in 25 companies to be able to travel abroad and to find out what other people are thinking. Such outside interests do not broaden one's interests—they narrow them. They narrow an hon. Member's range of options and opinions. They have the very opposite of the effect that some hon. Members claim.
The constituency of the hon. Member for Winchester deserves representation. Serious issues face that constituency, such as the construction of a motorway through Twyford Down. Those are the sort of issues on which we were sent here to represent our constituents. That is why we are in the House. None of us was elected because we have shareholdings or directorships with certain companies.
932
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) advanced an idea that particularly appealed to me —that the electorate should be told of all the directorships that are held by Members of Parliament. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) stood for election in Hampstead in 1979, I was impressed by the fact that he printed the list of directorships of the sitting Member for that constituency in his election address. We were told that that was foul play. All that my hon. Friend was doing was informing the people of Hampstead and Highgate about what their sitting Member of Parliament was doing. I thought that it was a perfectly reasonable and fair thing to do. In an election, the electorate should know who and what we are standing for and what we actually represent when we enter this place. All such interests should be registered.
The question of how the House should punish a particular hon. Member is important. I was not here when the last reprimand was delivered and have no idea of the importance or consequences of it. Presumably it would be televised and no doubt there would be great solemnity, which would be a distinct advantage.
There is also the question of suspension. The obvious point is, how can the House decide to deprive the people of Winchester of their right to be represented? The question of expulsion has also arisen, although that option is not included on the Order Paper. In an expulsion, the House is taking unto itself powers over and above those that it has been given by the people.
The Select Committee on Members' Interests spent a great deal of time going into this matter in the most incredible detail, and produced an excellent report. The hon. Member for Winchester delivered an apology to the House, but how much is an apology worth? He made a great deal of money that he did not declare. I do not know what his total income is. I do not think it unreasonable that the public should know the total income of all hon. Members from all sources, as Members, through directorships or through shareholdings. Then people could see in whose interests we are working and how we are spending our time in the House.
I should have thought that the only honourable course for the hon. Member for Winchester is to resign as a Member of the House. If he then wishes to seek nomination for subsequent re-election, that is a matter for the people of Winchester. There is no other course of action by which the people of Winchester can decide whether they wish the present Member to continue as their Member of Parliament or whether they wish to choose someone else. Anything less would damage the reputation of the House and of the democratic elective process.
I am pleased that the Leader of the House has at least accepted that the current Register of Members' Interests has shortcomings and, for that reason, has moved the second motion. I wish that the motion went further. I endorse the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, who lists a series of specific cases and offices that should debar one from being a Member of Parliament. It is ludicrous that one cannot be a Member of Parliament if one holds the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds or any other minor, almost non-existent archaic office of profit under the Crown, whereas one can make as much money as one likes as a chairman or captain of industry and spend little time on being a Member of

933
Parliament, save for using the facilities, lobbying facilities and privileges awarded to Members of the House. I support my right hon. Friend's amendment.
If we are serious about being elected to the House to represent our constituents and the people of Britain, what message do we give to those who cannot afford to pay the poll tax, those who sleep in cardboard boxes, those on endless housing waiting lists, and those struggling by on a state old-age pension of less than £2,500 a year when we condone someone for forgetting or omitting to record in the Register that he received more than £50,000 from one foreign Government for one contract? Being a public representative demands the highest possible standard of public probity. For that reason and because we must defend the principle of democracy, I believe that the only honourable course is for the hon. Member for Winchester to resign.
7.32 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It is a pity that we could not have called for the question to be put when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) completed his speech—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend can go now, as I shall not mention him again.
The media will be disappointed with the debate. The House has been broadly sympathetic to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and, therefore, the debate has been constructive, moderately keyed and in good humour, despite the efforts of Members such as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to raise the temperature and to substitute a load of cant and little of the milk of human kindness.
There is here a human tragedy. We still have to vote on whether to punish my hon. Friend, merely to endorse the findings of the Committee or to accept my hon. Friend's apology and do nothing further. I wish to address myself to that tragedy. The House should do something constructive about it.
I found the insight of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) interesting. He was a member of the Committee and he told us about the agony through which the Committee put itself. It drove him to the conclusion—he did not utter it, but he has told me that he would like me to tell the House of it—that he will vote against the suspension of my hon. Friend.
I am no particular friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, because our paths hardly ever cross. I do not know whether he is a good or a bad man. I do not know whether he is an honourable or a dishonourable man. I do not know whether he makes more errors of judgment than the rest of us or fewer. But the pursuit of him at one point certainly had the smell of scapegoat. From the media the smell wafted in of witch hunt. There has been more than a hint of hypocrisy during our discussion of these matters.
I do not agree with any of the motions. We are tending to allow ourselves to be carried along by what we think people are saying in response to media hype. I deplore the fact that we decided to spend an entire day debating the motion when we cannot have a day to debate Hong Kong,
934
or eastern and even western Europe, or a whole list of domestic matters, including those near the heart of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
Mr. Flannery: Does the hon. Gentleman remember when he was out on a famous court case and we did not see him here for a month? Does he remember that, because we do?
Mr. Lawrence: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is short-sighted. There has never been an occasion when I have been engaged in any criminal case when I have not been here at the conclusion of that day's business. I have often stayed here until one or two o'clock in the morning. As the hon. Gentleman does not walk around the areas where people work in this place he cannot be expected to have noticed that. There has been no day on which I have been here for less than five, six or seven hours. The hon. Gentleman could not talk more ridiculous rubbish.
To return to the matter which is really important—it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman were to concentrate his mind on what we are debating and not on his pet illnesses—as a result of media hype, the public have come to the conclusion that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester failed to declare certain interests, the Committee found that he had made money from that failure and that he obtained advantages for his clients. Both conclusions are wrong. The Select Committee on Members' Interests came to no such conclusion, as was clearly stated in the debate today. Nevertheless, that is the impression that so many constituents seemed to have formed.
I am anxious that we should not do anything in response to a wrong impression formed for reasons which I shall give. I cannot rid myself of the feeling shared by several hon. Members who have spoken that the intensity of the media vituperation against my hon. Friend has something to do with the fact that he introduced a Private Member's Bill last year to limit the freedom of the press to invade people's privacy—a Bill which the press bitterly opposed. I consider that a worrying matter for the future of Parliament.
To use this debate—personalised, as it is, to some extent—against my hon. Friend as an excuse for examining whether our rules on Members' interests are appropriate is, in my view, not called for. I am pleased that we are considering rather more the future procedure of the House and that more emphasis is being put on that than at first we thought. I do not like to think that we are using my hon. Friend's personal misfortune as a trigger for doing that. We should have done it anyway.
If we support the motion and return any verdict which is hurtful to my hon. Friend, we shall take an irreversible step towards the destruction of a parliamentary colleague. Such a step might be perfectly justifiable and in order if he had been convicted of armed robbery, rape, murder, large-scale fraud or child abuse in a court of law, but it would not be justifiable for the errors of judgment of which he has been found guilty.
Although the Committee on Members' Interests is not a court of law, outside this place it is perceived to be one. The dire consequences that will follow a decision adverse to my hon. Friend's interests will as assuredly follow as if this were a court of law. [Interruption.] We observe, do we

935
not, the milk of human kindness that flows from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)? I believe that he was a teacher of children.
Mr. Flannery: I was indeed.
Mr. Lawrence: We should be thankful that the hon. Gentleman spends most of his time in the House and can no longer pollute those particular waters.
I wish to dwell on the wrongs of the matter. I refer to the absolute unfairness of the trial to which my hon. Friend was subjected for nine months by the Committee —a trial is what it turned out to be and it is perceived as such by the public. I do not blame any of those hon. Members who serve on the Committee. They were doing what they thought to be their duty as decent, honourable Members of the House, but everything got terribly out of hand.
The truth is that my hon. Friend has broken no law of the land. He has broken no rule of Parliament that we feel so strongly about as to make it obligatory to honour it.
Mr. Dalyell: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that at the beginning of the debate I asked the Leader of the House whether in his view the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) had broken any law. Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Leader of the House was so coy in his reply? Was it not a simple enough question to answer?
Mr. Lawrence: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House answered the question in a most characteristic and endearing way. He said that since the Committee was not a court of law, the question was one which it never considered. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining my point. He is being uncharitable to my right hon. and learned Friend, who certainly answered the question, albeit not as directly as the hon. Gentleman wished.
Before we take any action which condemns or makes matters worse for my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester we should consider this plain fact. Had he simply failed to register any interests, he would never have been subjected to nine months' misery and he would not now be subject to a motion which could help to destroy him. He has been tried by no court of law, yet the Committee sought to try him. The Committee has never previously tried anybody. It had no experience of trying people and no proper procedure for doing so. It lacks the most fundamental elements of a court of fair trial. I was amazed when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said that it had breached no rules of natural justice. Whether intentionally or not, it was the worst type of kangaroo court, but the press have been noticeably silent about that.
What court of fair trial or natural justice allows judges who are politically apposed to the accused to sit in judgment? One of the judges in this case was the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am sure that he will not mind me mentioning that he has tabled an early-day motion praising the prosecutor, Mr. Leigh, the journalist.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to draw attention to these matters, will he point out to the House that the references to Mr. Leigh in my motion relate to The Observer newspaper controlled by Mr. "Tiny" Rowland and Mr. Leigh's valiant attempt
936
to change the nature of that newspaper so that it was not unreasonably influenced by an overbearing proprietor? My motion has nothing to do with this affair. Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman not present his case properly instead of trying to discredit members of the Committee?
Mr. Lawrence: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman would not sit in judgment in a court of law over my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester when the primary prosecutor was someone whom the hon. Gentleman found praiseworthy. That is a rule of natural justice, yet the hon. Gentleman sat in judgment. The hon. Members for Workington and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may be the most charming, gentlemanly and delightful colleagues in Parliament, but how many of my hon. Friends would like to be tried by them? How many of their hon. Friends would like to be tried by them?
Mr. Cryer rose——
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. To which hon. Member is the hon. and learned Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Lawrence: With either or both, how happy should I be. [Laughter.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Cryer.
Mr. Cryer: I know that all this is supposed to be terribly funny, but the Committee spent nine months meticulously and, I hope, fairly examining in detail the evidence presented under the rules which this House, not individual members of the Committee, had decided. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a party political point. Does he accept that the majority on the Committee are Conservatives? When he traduces members of the Committee as he has been doing, he criticises members of his own party.
Mr. Lawrence: My point is that no court of natural justice has judges who are biased for whatever reason. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for being biased against Conservatives. The strength of his feeling for Socialism is well known. No court of natural justice ever has judges who are so placed. I began by making nice comments about the hon. Member for Bradford, South, so he need not be——
Mr. Winnick rose——
Mr. Lawrence: I have not mentioned the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I might not say such nice things.
Mr. Winnick: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that no Committee in any circumstances should look into the conduct of an hon. Member, as the Committee has done? If that is not his view, does he conclude that the Committee should be composed only of the political supporters of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)? The logic of his remarks is that Labour Members are so biased as to be incapable of reaching a proper conclusion.
Mr. Lawrence: The House must be careful how it judges hon. Members, and it is not doing so in accordance with

937
the rules of natural justice. Having judged them, we must not conclude what punishment should be inflicted if it is clear that, had they been tried in a court of law, they would have been acquitted.
Natural justice does not rely on documents which have been provided selectively by accusers—a journalist who has got them from a former, not very happy, wife. When the accused asks for other documents which would throw a different light on the picture, it is not natural justice for the Committee to refrain either from calling for them or from taking them into account before making its judgments. That is a breach of natural justice. The Committee is not a court of law and does not have to follow the rules of natural justice, but it must not punish or convict a man. That is my point.
What court of fair trail or natural justice does not allow or invite the accused to be present to hear or question his accusers? What such court does not allow him to put his case before he is questioned?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: There are so many errors in my hon. and learned Friend's speech that I should need to make another speech to put them right, but I hope that hon. Members who served on the Committee will have the chance to rebut them, as I believe that they can do effectively. I must ask my hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind that there is no question of our punishing or convicting my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). We did no such thing and it is for the House to decide. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester had every chance to produce any documents he darned well wanted to. My hon. and learned Friend will spoil the debate if he goes on. I can speak with my hand on my heart when I say that the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), whose reputations he tried to traduce a moment ago, and who were honourable members of that Committee, were totally bipartisan. No sign of political passion crept into the Committee to prejudice the case against my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester.
Mr. Lawrence: Of course I accept what my hon. Friend has said. I was not talking about any prejudice; I was talking about having judges who are known to be biased to the accused. I stand on that and on my assertion that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester was not allowed to be present when accusations Were made against him, nor was he allowed to challenge his accusers.
Whether my hon. Friend was allowed to send in written documentation is neither here nor there. Parts of the report show that, if he had sent in such written documentation, he would not have been believed, because the Committee was not minded to believe all the written documents that he sent in. To say that my hon. Friend could have sent in written documentation is not equivalent to natural justice.
No court of trial or system of natural justice would have 13 judges, only three of whom attended all the sittings and heard all the evidence and only five of whom attended all but one of the sittings. A judge must hear all the evidence before coming to a conclusion. I am not criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) as he was not sitting as a court of law, but we are being invited to punish my hon. Friend the Member for
938
Winchester, based upon the Committee's report, in such a way that someone who has not been tried in a court of law or according to the principles of law should not be punished.
It is not consistent with a court of fair trial or with natural justice for my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to have been unable to call a witness—Mr. Chattington—who hopes to speak about a material incident. That witness wanted to be called, but he was not. Never mind why that happened: here was someone whom my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester wanted to assist his case.
What court of fair trial looks at a bundle of letters, eight years old, and comes to the conclusion—doubtless, rightly —that it looks suspiciously as though there was a contractual relationship between my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and Mr. Chidiac? The Committee then heard my hon. Friend say that there was no such contractual relationship, however it looked. Mr. Chidiac also told the Committee that there was no such relationship; yet the Committee came to the conclusion that the suspicion was more cogent than the oral evidence heard from someone of good character.
The burden of proof should never have been on my hon. Friend—he should not have had to prove anything. Before we convict or punish anyone, the burden of proof must be on the prosecution. If one has suspicious documents and oral evidence——
Mr. David Harris: He admitted it.
Mr. Lawrence: He has accepted the Committee's conclusion about not declaring his interest. He has not admitted any wrongdoing, and it would be wrong for my hon. Friend to draw that conclusion. That is no good in a court of law, but the Committee ended up as a court of law and now my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is on trial.
What court of law and fair trial bases its verdict on a law which says in rule 11:
"The purpose of this Register is to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member of Parliament may receive which might be thought to affect his conduct as a Member of Parliament or influence his actions, speeches or vote in Parliament"?
An hon. Member does not have to sign that register and the rules are so imprecise as to be invalid as an instrument of judgment. To say in 1989 that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester should have applied the interpretation of that rule to events some eight years ago is not natural justice. That is borne out by what my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham told us. He said that the Committee had great difficulty about that and yet did not always resolve the matter in favour of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester.
I do not mean any offence to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which never set out to be a court of law or pretended to follow the rules of natural justice, but in practice it turned out to be a kangaroo court. It was unprepared for the task of doing justice to a colleague and we ended up with the justice of well-meaning amateurs.
Without observing the rules of natural justice, observing few of the rules of evidence, and without inquiring into matters that needed to be inquired into, the Committee produced two important criticisms. The first concerned the Saudi connection and the other the Chidiac connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester

939
has agreed that he should have declared an interest, but the errors made must be seen in perspective before anyone —the media, people outside or people in this place—takes any step to harm or crucify my hon. Friend.
For example, the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester put to the Prime Minister on the freezing of assets was a supplementary one and he could not possibly have known in advance that he would be called to ask it. He did not have to declare an interest for a supplementary question under any rule and it could not possibly have resulted in any advantage to him or to his client as Government policy is not changed by asking a supplementary question of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of all people.
Certainly my hon. Friend was not asked to ask that question, nor was any money received for that question. The Committee has accepted that. My hon. Friend did register his company, Falcon, and, as the Committee says:
"there is, of course, no general obligation to register clients and in our view there is no obligation to register income from abroad unless it might be thought to influence parliamentary conduct".
My hon. Friend told the Committee that it did not influence his parliamentary conduct and there is no evidence to suggest that it did.
Therefore, my hon. Friend's failure to register, although open to criticism on the grounds of common sense or good sense, apart from anything else, cannot be said to be all that grave an offence. People outside this place, however, think that he has done some terrible, heinous wrong.
On the failure of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to register his interests in relation to Mr. Chidiac, it is best to refer to what is said in paragraph 99 of the Committee's report:
"In examining this complaint we were faced with a direct conflict of evidence and interpretation of that evidence. We regret that we have not been able entirely to get to the bottom of this matter. Although we might have been able to move closer to the whole truth if we had called additional witnesses…we have not been able to take oral evidence from Mr. Charles Chidiac …The complaint relates to events which took place some nine years ago: some of those persons we might have interviewed have died: some of the company records that might have shed an impartial light on certain of Mr. Browne's and Mr. Chidiac's actions have been destroyed or dispersed. It is tempting to leap to conclusions but we recognise that the information we have is incomplete and is likely to remain so. In the circumstances, we felt we should reach such conclusions as we could from the evidence available".
The conclusion it reached was a criticism and indictment of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. The statements in that paragraph demonstrate that a court of law, the decision of which would end in conviction and punishment, would not have reached the same conclusion as the Committee.
Those who understand the workings of Parliament will know that it is absurd to suppose that the non-disclosure of the name of a client would have had any effect on the answers given to questions, still less than the nondisclosure of a name would have had the slightest effect on Government policy or been of the slightest benefit to my hon. Friend. But we should be concerned about those who do not understand the working of Parliament and who might be forgiven for thinking that the failings of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester were significant and sinister. Our constituents often think that ordinary Members of Parliament have the executive power of
940
Ministers but there is no excuse for Members of Parliament to believe that, still less for them to encourage that belief.
There is a catalogue of manifest injustices which have been perpetrated against my hon. Friend. I could have listed more. He is a parliamentary colleague who has been no worse than short on judgment, perhaps long on stupidity. We all feel immensely embarrassed about these matters and want to give them the greatest possible airing. However, it would be a great injustice for us to use my hon. Friend as a scapegoat to exorcise that embarrassment about our own vulnerability as a House of Commons to the criticism that our rules on Members' interests are inadequate. It would be still less fair to punish him as set out in the first motion, which states that we should suspend him for however short a period.
It would be equally unjust for us to be influenced by my hon. Friend's matrimonial problems and behaviour. They are no concern of this House. We should not be influenced by the way in which my hon. Friend carries out his responsibilities as Member of Parliament for Winchester. The people of Winchester may love or loathe him, but his future as Conservative Member of Parliament for Winchester should be entirely a matter for them and for him, but not for us. For what my hon. Friend has, or has not done, he has suffered immensely, as have his wife and family for nine months.
In the motion, although it does not follow the rules of a court of law or the normal rules of justice, let alone natural justice, we are being asked to punish my hon. Friend and to take a step that will lead to his destruction in public life. I will have none of it. I shall vote against the motions in this debate on the Register of Members' Interests and I hope that I shall be followed into the Lobby by a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
8.3 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Member for Burton (M r. Lawrence), who filibustered for more than half an hour and made an excellent case showing why this place should be run not on lawyers' principles, but, as happens, with "Erskine May" as a guide on which Members should operate.
I am glad that the name of Mr. David Leigh has been mentioned in this debate. It seemed as though we had missed out the major point as to who points the finger at people who make mistakes or come to this place to try to make money out of it. Often that is the most difficult part. There is no point in having a tougher system if it cannot be policed. All my hon. Friends, with the best of intentions, say that everything should be made much tougher, but there is then the problem who does the policing.
I had a very unfortunate experience when I was severely censured by the House in 1974 simply for defending the House at the time of the Poulson debate. I said that the number of Members who indulged in that sort of thing could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Fleet street immediately said, "Name the guilty five". After I had written an article in Labour Weekly and said it on the Jimmy Young show, Sir Harmar Nicholls, the then hon. Member for Peterborough, who had a majority of three

941
after the February 1974 election, saw it as a marvellous opportunity to make some political capital and referred me to the Committee of Privileges.
I was hauled up in exactly the same way as the hon. Member for Winchester has been. We did not have a Select Committee on Members' Interests then, so I had to go before the Committee of Privileges. Everything that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has just said about taking evidence was absolutely true. One writes to the Committee, its members write back, and there is no cross-examination or proper Hansard. At the end, the Committee makes a pronouncement and the word goes out to grovel.
If hon. Members grovel and apologise, they will be let off with a caution and it will all be over in two or three weeks. I did not grovel because I knew that what I was saying was true. I put in a defiant defence, aided by a good friend, Arthur Davidson, the then hon. Member for Accrington, who was a libel lawyer. He helped me with my defence and put the cat among the pigeons because I said I could prove that there were Members of Parliament for hire. He put the Committee of Privileges into a hell of a dilemma because I had the information that I had collected.
One of the biggest scandals that went through the House happened in 1971 when a Bill that we all supported was brought in by a Conservative Government to let the Tote set up betting shops on high streets. The bookies had a fit because that would take hundreds of millions of pounds out of their takings. They fought the Bill tooth and nail and lobbied against it, and Committee Members, none of whom is in the House now, put down thousands of amendments. They were paid to filibuster and delay, and eventually they won.
The Tote never got to set up shops on high streets. The Bill never completed its Third Reading. It went through Committee but was quashed on Third Reading. It was a scandal, but it was never revealed to anybody. It was at a time, in the early 1970s, when Members of Parliament were badly paid. Free trips to Iceland were advertised on the Whip, declaring, "Take your wife and family for £10 and have a holiday while studying the effects of the Icelandic cold war."
Questions were tabled every day in Parliament about independent radio and which frequencies would be allocated to the new commercial radio stations. It was common knowledge around the House. There were stories going round that the banqueting rooms downstairs could be booked for public relations companies. They were paying £350 a time to book the banqueting rooms when Members of Parliament were getting about £80 a week.
When I was up before the Committee of Privileges trying to defend myself, I went to the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) because I wanted to see who booked those banqueting rooms, who paid for them and where the cash came from. I was told that I could not see them, even though I was trying to defend myself. Even today it is impossible to find out how much public relations companies pay to sponsor Members to book those rooms. There is a lot that still happens in this place which we do not know about but which we ought to know about.
942
The Register of Members' Interests came about because I wrote an article on the day that T. Dan Smith was sentenced, so it was no longer sub judice. It was like throwing petrol on fire. Every newspaper and television programme in the country hounded me. The people who were carrying on were all named, and all I had said was that they could be counted on one hand and in 99 per cent. of cases there was no problem. However, it was a mistake to say that.
At that time there was the famous incident of the coffee pot, when it was alleged that Tony Crosland, the then Secretary of State for Education, had received a silver Georgian coffee pot worth about £4,000 or £5,000. He was smart enough to have it valued at Sothebys where it was valued at £50. He was astute enough to do that, but the innuendos continued. Eventually, Ted Short was named as a friend of Mr. Poulson and Mr. T. Dan Smith. Mr. Short was Leader of the House at the time and he was angry.
We got into such a state with all these allegations that the Register of Members' Interests had to be set up because the average Member was in a Catch 22 situation. If they named names outside the House, they were done for libel, and if they did not name names they were done for contempt. An hon. Member could stand up in the House and say, "This is a breach of privilege, a contempt which libels us because it has been said that a handful of us are taking money." Therefore, we were caught both ways.
The innuendoes, stories and rumours continued. Private Eye printed stuff every week without naming names. It was clear that we had to have a Register of Members' Interests. I raised the matter in the parliamentary Labour party because Labour was then in office. I was accused between the February and October 1974 elections. I was pressurised to apologise and grovel by hon. Members on both sides of the House whose neighbours were earning cash in this way and who knew that the dirt would rub off on them. If the hon. Member for Little Twittering, North was accused, the hon. Member for Little Twittering, South also suffered. We were between two elections at the time, and I was severely pressurised to drop the matter and not to name names.
I agreed to drop the matter, provided that a register was set up. Eddie Milne also pressed hard for a register. He was sacked by his party and stood on his own in February 1974, winning by a majority of 66 which he could not hold in October 1974. Eddie Milne and I pressed hard in the parliamentary Labour party to have a register set up. One hot evening during the drought, at a packed meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, only one Member of Parliament spoke out strenuously against the register, and his name was John Stonehouse. He stormed out of the meeting, objecting that the idea was an unwarranted intrusion on privacy—and look what happened to him. He went to gaol for seven years after disappearing off the coast of Miami.
Perhaps there was an excuse in the early 1970s, because Members were badly paid then. We did not receive allowances for the cost of living in London, and many of us lived in scruffy bedsits at the back of Victoria station. We could not even afford a taxi home at night. We were very poor. That is no excuse, but the temptation was there. It no longer is. Members are well paid now, with good allowances. Members can afford proper flats, and to eat

943
properly in the Dining Room. No longer do we have to take every free lunch to save on expenses, and that is why we have to look again at the Committee of Privileges.
One or two hon. Members have talked about the star chamber effect, and that is what we are dealing with. The way in which the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the Privileges Committee operate is not right. One is asked whether one wants to give evidence verbally. Many of the Members who serve on these Committees are lawyers who can take the average hon. Member apart. We are always advised to write to the Committee, and letters are exchanged. The process drags on for months, and that is the whole intention—by then the issue has cooled off and eventually it can be kicked under the carpet. Every 10 or 20 years, however, we hold a debate such as this one. We cannot go on like this, but the problem is where to draw the line.
If we make Members register everything, must they register every free lunch? An hon. Member said earlier that we should investigate every complaint from members of the public. If the public knew that Members were having free lunches at the Savoy, as Members occasionally do, they would all complain, and rightly so. The Committee would sit non-stop. Should we draw the line at £5 or £50? If the latter, people would hand over £49·50.
We are not daft: there is no such thing as a free lunch —or free crumpet—for politicians. The public are not daft, and they know this. Free lunches are not handed out for nothing. I accept one in 20, and always because I have a specific interest. For instance, if the Football League invites me to its annual lunch, I go because I like football and I want to find out what is happening. The other 19 invitations go in the wastebin, although I usually reply politely to them.
We ought to know who is booking the banqueting rooms downstairs, and what they are paying for them. Is any hon. Member receiving a fee for hosting lunches in them? It is not just a matter of entering in the Register whether hon. Members are acting for public relations firms; we also need to know who the clients of these PR firms are.
The hon. Member for Winchester did wrong, but in my opinion he is a fool and an amateur. Nowadays the lobbying is done by professional lobbyists. Although they are supposed to register, and although they are inquired into, there should be a qualification for getting on the register. We should have an official, formal register of lobbyists who have been approved and who have deposited a substantial bond—perhaps £100,000—in, say, a Speaker's fund, which could be taken from them if they abused the rules of the House.
I am fed up with going to the bar for a pint of beer and not knowing who I am talking to. All sorts of strangers come up and talk to me. I do not know whether I am talking to the leader of Newcastle city council—I do not like to ask, because he thinks I should know—or to the political correspondent of The Independent, or to a lobbyist. There is a good case for saying that everyone should wear a badge. When we go to party conferences or a Government Department, we have to wear a badge identifying us as visitors and naming the organisations that send us there. It is time that visitors to the dining rooms and bars of this House wore badges identifying whom they represent and what they are doing in the building.
944
Lobbyists are often engaged by local councils and some of them are beyond reproach—for example, the lobby known as the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which gives us good briefings on subsidence and pit closures. That is an excellent organisation to which I do not object.
Then there are the surreptitious organisations, which are far more sophisticated now than they were in the early 1970s. I was telephoned by a film producer who wanted to make an advertisement showing the man who winds up Big Ben wearing a Timex watch. He asked me to arrange for this man to be filmed going downstairs and checking his watch before looking up at Big Ben.
Miss World used to tour this place. Stephen McAdden went around asking people to have lunch with her. That guaranteed Mecca pictures in the newspapers and publicity for the Miss World competition. I do not object to that, either, because the public knew about it.
We can never stop lobbying or money changing hands. It has gone on for hundreds of years, but the public, the local party, the voters and the media must know about it. If all these people know, we should not witness the sort of events that took place earlier this week in the Arthur Scargill case. Everything will be on the record, and if someone says he is in favour of something on television we should be able to know whether the organisation that he favours has contributed to his expenses—and that includes trade union officials. I—like all trade-union sponsored Members—always mention in my election address that I am sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen. If I did not, the NUR would ask me why I did not.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made one of the most pompous speeches that I have heard in many years, and said not a word about the British School of Motoring giving £300,000 to the Liberal party two or three years ago—that was revealed to no one. The Liberals moved amendments to related Bills and still said nothing about that money.
Mr. Simon Hughes: It is true that I and my colleagues have always accepted that parties should register where they get their money from. If there was such a rule, we would comply with it.
Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman has virtually admitted what I said; he has certainly not denied it.
After I was censured by the House, there was nothing that I could do. The affair was very embarrassing to my constituency party, coming as it did just before an election. It left a stain on my character for ever. Three years later Maudling, Roberts and Cordle were proved not to have declared interests and to have been available for hire. The House censured them, and Cordle quit. I never received a pardon and nobody ever said that my character was quite clean. I never bothered asking for a pardon.
It is not easy to draw a line and say that a pound above that line must be declared. Also, it is not easy to police the measures that my hon. Friends seek. It means that somebody has to point the finger, and all hon. Members are reluctant to do that. I did not point the finger. I said that the place was clean and offenders could be counted on the fingers of one hand. None of us wants the opprobrium of being called a grass or a fink. I was accused of that by some of the people who were involved.
How do we find out unless some journalist or "World in Action" make it their business to find out? We have moved on from Members being paid or being asked. What

945
did the Saudis get for their £88,000? Nobody has ever found out. We have moved on to a much more professional public relations lobbyist system, and it is in that context that we have to approach the problem. People must be made to pay a bond to register, and they must be prepared to be investigated and to be above suspicion. People must be told, "If you do anything inside this place that you do not reveal to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, we will take away your bond and your permission to come in here." If we do that, we will begin to clean it up.
8.22 pm
Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has spoken with commendable candour and realism about the whole question of lobbying. I hope to follow him, at least in the sense of being realistic in my assessment of the unhappy case that we are discussing.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House opened the debate with a quiet dignity that encapsulated the sombre judgment that we have to make on the unhappy situation with which the House, happily, is not that familiar. Make no mistake: this is a House of Commons judgment and we have to ring-fence it. One of the least happy aspects of the whole case has been the trial by tabloids of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) over past weeks and months. It has been done in a way that has made the Shropshire luminary Judge Jeffreys seem like a lilac social worker.
We have to accept a few salient points in this task of discriminating judgment. The first and most important is that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester at the start of the debate when he accepted the findings of the Select Committee that there had been non-declaration in the instances that had been identified and the implied strictures that there had been a dereliction of responsibility under the resolutions of the House, and expressed regret. I appreciated that gesture and judgment on the part of my hon. Friend. It has made the conduct of the debate infinitely easier in circumstances that are disagreeable to us all.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his Committee, because they had to carry out an immensely difficult task. I wholly endorse the confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden expressed in the members of his Committee. That is a relatively easy part of my speech, but I now enter much greater difficulty in trying to make the judgment that is implicit upon me, no less than on all other Members.
I come to the debate convinced that, whereas the resolution of the House mechanism might be tolerably effective for the gathering of information to compile the Register of Interests, it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory mechanism for conducting the investigation that has occupied the Committee over the past few months. I do not know whether we should use the analogy of a court, but to most of us it seems that, effectively, we are being asked to be a jury and pass a judgment in the light of its findings. Therefore, there is bound to be a legal analogy whether it is appropriate or not, and for the purposes of understanding our task, I think that it is appropriate.
946
I make that observation as if it is something that I have stumbled across in recent days, but practically every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate is conscious of the inadequacies of the procedures that were available to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden and his Committee in the discharge of their duty. That is also implicit in the second motion moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. It implies that the whole business needs further attention, to see whether we can improve upon our mechanisms and procedures.
To show my respect for the Committee I shall refer to paragraph 9 of its report. It says that the Select Committee did not
"provide any guidance as to the admissibility of evidence or the period of time over which complaints might be considered."
That was in the context of the most serious allegations relating to business activities in 1981 and 1982.
The House has heard speeches that have dwelt upon the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester in not having the facilities that he would have had to argue his case in a legal framework before a court. One could make that observation from any point on the political spectrum, because this is truly a House of Commons matter and a judgment about the difficulties in which we find ourselves. It is against that thoroughly unsatisfactory background that I have to make a judgment and none of the proceedings helps me. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has admitted that he did not declare his interests in the instances identified by the Committee. Therefore, there is no question of guilt or not, if I may use a rather heavily loaded word. The infringement—which is perhaps a better word—is admitted. It is not contested.
We have to judge the appropriate punishment for that degree of infringement, and here we would have been much advised if my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House could have given some insight about what he judged to have been the motive for the behaviour of my hon. Friend. Such an assessment from the Committee, if it had felt able to make it, would also have been useful, but I appreciate that its members did not feel that they were in a position to make these judgments. The judgment about motive is crucial before choosing any of the range of punishments presented to us on the Order Paper.
I do not understand the law through any formal education, but my sense of natural justice tells me that before we go for the heavier punishments there must be a clear and demonstrable proof of motive. There must be a demonstration that the assets registered were somehow or other handled in a more acceptable way than the assets and interests that were not registered. No attempt has been made to distinguish between the areas where my hon. Friend registered and those where he did not. One is perfectly entitled to assume that the same broad commercial and political judgment was exercised in both cases. That means that one comes back on any concept of natural justice to suppose that the matter was a consequence not of sinister or mendacious judgment, but of foolish and ill-judged behaviour.
That, I think, is not an over-generous judgment on my part. Indeed, any other judgment would prove to be unduly harsh and would not operate in any normal process of law. Therefore, I conclude this part of my few remarks by saying that, on due reflection, I shall vote for the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member

947
for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), which endorses and acknowledges what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said about his infringement of the House of Commons resolution governing the Register. Once one goes to a higher scale of judgment, one is judging motive, for which there is no adequate evidence.
The second motion, in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, captures the anxiety of the House that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory and need the further attention of hon. Members. Inevitably, and especially in the light of our own experience of this trial—if I may use that word—there will be a growing interest in using the normal legal processes and seeing whether what happens in local government could be a guide to our parliamentary actions.
Clearly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was not enamoured of that possibility. I quite understand that the difficulties of finding an effective legal formula are immensely formidable—they have been considered by the House on previous occasions—but unless we proceed along the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), it will always be there as the tempting softer option never adequately considered by the House. So I welcome what my right hon. Friend said.
I hope that the further consideration that the House gives these matters will take into account how tangibly and effectively we may try to bring them within the ambit of the law rather than rely upon the present processes, which we have seen at some discount tonight. However, we should travel cautiously. I opened my remarks by picking up the realism of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, and I shall conclude in the same vein: in this sphere it is very easy to aspire, but damnably difficult to deliver.
8.32 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I should like, first, to make it clear that the Committee entered into this task, instructed by the House, with meticulous care and scrupulousness. All members of the Committee resented the implication—indeed, the expression—by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that, somehow, because of our political views, we were prejudiced against the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I suspect that, in fact, because of political differences, we leaned over backwards to try to eradicate any shade of prejudice from the examination of the evidence that was presented, on which we were required to make a judgment for presentation to the House for its consideration.
I can say, without fear of contradiction by any member of the Committee, that the Committee meticulously, scrupulously and lengthily checked every assertion and cross-assertion made by those who gave evidence, including the hon. Member for Winchester, David Leigh, the complainant, and the other people who were brought into the ambit of the examination. The Committee had to spend a minimum of an extra 20 or 30 hours going over and over the ground, at the request of members, to make sure that it had not dealt unfairly with the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, any implication, or expression, that the Committee entered into the debate on a partisan or shoddy basis, in any shape or form, would be completely and utterly untrue.
948
Indeed, in my case at any rate, it would also be deeply and bitterly resented. I did not want to do the job. That is not what I became a member of the Committee to do; I became a member because, as everybody knows, I am interested in commercial lobbying organisations here. This task just happened to be given to the Committee by the House of Commons. It is very interesting that in this House there is always the rubric that we are all hon. Members, yet every word of the hon. and learned Member for Burton suggested that, in the conduct of our affairs, we were dishonourable Members. I resent that. The hon. Gentleman might at least have given the members of the Committee the same credit as he attempted to give the hon. Member for Winchester.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) suggested that we should have a framework of legislation and recourse to the courts. That would be a detailed framework, and it would shrug off from this House the obligation to examine any case in which a complaint had been made about a Member. I suggest that that would be a very much harsher regime, as this House tends to deal in a very kindly fashion with Members that it feels have transgressed in any way. It does so by going over the information in the most scrupulous way.
Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that some kind of apology is required from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who clearly made the point—the whole House heard it—that my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), because of political bias, were simply incapable of doing properly their job on Committee? In those circumstances, does not the hon. and learned Member for Burton consider it appropriate to make an apology?
Mr. Cryer: I am not interested in securing an apology from anybody; I simply want to set the record absolutely straight. I suspect the brutality of exchanges from some Members, particularly when they are based on a completely incorrect examination and understanding of the work that the Committee did. I just want to put the record absolutely straight lest anyone here tonight should think that there was any validity in some of the accusations— indeed, all of the accusations—of the hon. and learned Member for Burton.
Mr. Lawrence: I am not surprised that neither the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) nor the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was listening to my speech. I do not expect them to listen to me. I most certainly did not say that anybody, from whatever party, on the Committee was dishonourable. I said—and I am grateful for the opportunity to make the point again—that when one comes to consider who one's judges should be, one cannot expect, in a court of law, to have sitting in judgment somebody who may at some time in his life have manifested some bias against one, for whatever reason. That is precisely what natural justice means. If a judge has a difference of approach, whether political, legal, or of any other kind, the normal procedure is for that judge not to sit.
Mr. Cryer: If one were to work on the basis of the sort of sympathies that the hon. and learned Member for Burton was trying to assess—and on every occasion on which the Committee sat there was a large majority of

949
Conservative Members—it could just as easily be concluded that the Committee was prejudiced overwhelmingly in favour of the hon. Member for Winchester. As a matter of fact, I do not take that view. My view is that all the Committee's members, of whatever political persuasion, including the Liberal Member, tried as objectively as possible—as objectively as any member of the judiciary, and, bearing in mind the strangeness of some members of the judiciary, a good deal more so—to examine the matter impartially, in some cases leaning over backwards to make sure that the accusations that some felt would be forthcoming could not, in any legitimate way, be sustained.
Given that the Committee concluded that the omissions to register interests were serious in two instances and that in others the recommendation was that no action should be taken, I believe that 20 days' suspension, including the unprecedented withholding of salary, matches to some degree the seriousness of the omissions, but I would have made a longer suspension incumbent. If the House is to make a serious issue of the obligation of registration, it must be seen to do something.
I share the concern about the removal of constituents' representation in this place. Expulsion would not be part of my consideration and I would vote against it. As many have said, that is a matter for the constituents of the Member concerned and not for us. There are some disagreeable precedents where a Parliament has tried to make a judgment on Member's membership.
A Member who is suspended has a mark of disapproval from Parliament which can be taken into account by his or her constituents. The Member can still carry out his or her duties to a degree—he or she can still see Ministers and other Members as well as constituents. The constituents are not deprived entirely of the services of their Member. That being so, it seems to me that Parliament has to make some mark of its disapproval of the breach of the rules of this place.
There is the argument that the rules are not especially clear and cannot be followed easily. I remind hon. Members that we introduce rules for ordinary citizens of a complexity and length which would baffle every hon. Member. I am not talking about sums such as £50,000, which many millions of our fellow citizens would regard as a dream. Many people regard sums of that sort as unrealisable. We tell those who are making claims of £40, £45 or £50 a week that they must supply information of intricate detail—and woe betide them if they fail to provide the information which the forms request. For example, housing benefit is often only £10 or £12 a week. Given the large sums that the Select Committee was called upon to discuss, it might regard £10 or £12 a week as paltry. In many terms such sums are paltry, but for so many of our fellow citizens housing benefit is a lifeline in their struggle and scrape each week for existence.
We in this place do not say that we can overlook any lapse on the part of those outside who fail to give the information that is required of them. We do not say, "Well, they are difficult rules. If you do not provide the information, we shall shrug our shoulders, let it go by and say that it should not happen again."
There should not be double standards. It seems that there is one standard for Members of this place: we are
950
prepared to say of them that there could have been an oversight. There is another standard, however, for those outside this place for whom we legislate and for whom we provide scrupulous rules. We are all aware of the statutory instruments and delegated legislation that we produce for the social security system. The pile stands at least a foot high. The legislation is designed to ensure that every penny that is paid is properly expended and that there is no cheating. If we do that for our fellow citizens outside this place, the same standards can reasonably be expected to be operated in this place. But that is not the position.
We formulate rules that have no criminal penalties attached to them, and this is the only place in the country that provides criminal sanctions. We have decided that we shall not apply criminal penalties to ourselves, but we apply them to people outside. If we introduce modest rules that must be followed and we find that there are transgressions, surely we must demonstrate that we do not have double standards—one standard for us and another for those outside.
Mr. Barry Field: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that taxpayers' money was involved in the matters that we are considering?
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is right to make it clear that taxpayers' money was not involved. We have provided, however, that money from whatever source must be subject to a declaration. The position is the same whether money is taken from the public purse for a training school which is run by an hon. Member or whether there is payment by the Saudi Arabian Government, for example. We say that there must be a declaration. Although my parallel is not absolutely apt— the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) was right to take up the issue of taxpayers' money, and I do not grumble about that—it is valid when it comes to the rules, in the application of which we have been generous.
I shall remind the hon. Member for Isle of Wight how the rules came to be introduced. There was pressure from within the House. When I was first elected to this place in 1974, the first question that I tabled was about the registration of Members' interests. I told my constituents that I wanted to see a register established. A senior Labour Member came to me and said, "Don't worry, old boy, we know the wrong'uns in here. We can pick them out. We do not need a register. In any event, a register will never come to pass."
In fact, it came to pass because this place was brought into disrepute by the Poulson scandal, which erupted throughout the nation. The nation's response was to say, "Parliament must do something about this." We cannot lurch from crisis to crisis every 15 to 20 years when evidence of corruption comes to light, only to say, "We must tighten the rules." Once we establish rules, we must be certain that we apply them properly and consistently. that must be the mark of integrity and honesty of this place.
Mr. Benn: The parallel that deals with the question of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is that if an office of profit under the British Crown disqualifies, an office of profit under the Saudi Arabian crown should similarly disqualify. That is the question that the House must consider.
Mr. Cryer: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting comment, as always.
There is another example of double standards. It is an illustration that may interest the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. We have fairly sloppy rules about the declaration of Members' interests, but we tell councillors that they must observe tight rules. How did those rules arise? They came into being when the House was propelled to produce the Register of Members' Interests. That was the result of the Poulson scandal, the tentacles of which spread to virtually every local authority. Parliament said that local authorities should be subject to tight rules, but we introduced fairly generous rules for ourselves. That was not right.
Members of the public are elected to local authorities for a variety of reasons. Some seek election because they think, wrongly, that election will add to their prestige. Most people, whatever their party view, want to do well by their fellow citizens. Surely it is wrong that those who set out with the best of intentions should have placed upon them obligations which we have chosen to shrug off when it comes to the first test of our rules. We say that there are other and better ways of proceeding. There may be, but we set up the rules. At the first hurdle we are talking about a new inquiry. We say that the procedures are inadequate, along with the Select Committee itself, and that we cannot and should not do anything.
I think that we can and should do something. At the very least we should exhibit our concern as a House for what I regard as a deliberate and mendacious failure to register. I accept that that is not the view of the Committee. The Committee left the matter open, although there are implications of concern in the report. Given the nature of the Committee and the way in which it constructed and compiled the report, I believe that there should be a suspension. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) put down his amendment.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Is it not right that under the present rules an hon. Member is entitled either to register his interests or to decline to do so? Therefore, is it not fatuous for the House, whatever else it has done, to say, "You failed to do what you did not have to do"?
Mr. Cryer: That is the Powell argument, and that has gone by. In any case, it is not true to suppose that, if a Member failed to register, he would not be in the position that we are discussing. If there had been a complaint about a business interest of the Member, the fact that he had failed to register would not have prevented the Select Committee from having an investigation and reporting the matter to the House for debate. So that is completely erroneous.
I do not want to go into detail, but at the beginning the hon. Gentleman was asked whether he had a conscientious objection to registration and he made it clear that he had not. So the whole question of the Powell position is not relevant to the debate.
Failure to act may be delayed until pressure builds up, but it will bring the House into disrepute. We are concerned about people outside. I think that they want hon. Members to follow at least some portion of the standards that we expect of them. Therefore, I support the main proposal of the Leader of the House.
952
The registration of commercial lobbying organisations has been raised. I have mentioned the Poulson affair several times. When it broke, the Government of the day set up a Royal Commission, chaired by Lord Salmon, to report on standards of conduct in public life. The report has never been debated, which is a serious omission by the House. It made one recommendation for Members of Parliament which has been shrugged off. No crisis has erupted, so we have been able to put it to one side. The Royal Commission recommended that bribery of a Member of Parliament should be made a criminal offence. It is not. That is something we should remedy.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, for many years I have been putting forward a private Member's Bill to register commercial lobbying organisations so that we can keep track of what they do. We should give the House of Commons Commission power to draw up guidelines so that, if the rules are breached, they can be thrown out. My Bill would implement a recommendation made as long ago as 1976. People outside would then see that we did not have double standards and that we had just one standard of justice—rules to be followed by everyone. That would be the fairest way of dealing with the problem.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Most of the hon. Gentlemen who have risen have been here throughout the debate. I should like to be able to call them all. May I ask for brief contributions, perhaps 10 minutes or even less?
8.53 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I rise with great trepidation, partly because a cold has robbed me of part of my voice and partly because, as many hon. Members have said, it is easy in a debate like this to sound sanctimonious or trite. However, I am so disturbed by some of the issues that I feel compelled to speak, new as I am to the House.
The first point which disturbs me was eloquently covered by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said that there was a growing cry of corruption levelled at the House of Commons. I do not believe that that is justified, but that is not the point—we have to take seriously the fact that the cry is being heard, and we have to nip it in the bud. I want to speak up because I have heard the cry before.
I was in local government before I came to the House and I know what happened there following the Poulson scandal. I assure all hon. Members that it was no fun chairing a planning committee, as I did, after that scandal. I did not enjoy being criticised publicly because my wife, my children and I continued to swim in the swimming pool of my next-door neighbour, who happened to be a developer. That is the level to which it went. I sense that the same may happen here in the near future if we are not careful. My constituent, my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), said that he smelled a whiff of a search for a scapegoat. So do I.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) observed that we are all being tarred with the same brush. I suspect that all of us who have canvassed have had the same accusation levelled at us, irrespective of party. There is guilt by association if we do nothing. The ultimate result, so eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), may be over-reaction and an invasion of privacy.

953
It would be absurd, but I would be interested if someone could tell me the relevance of my registering my one share in Bristol City football club. There are those who would go that far. What I saw in local government when there was over-reaction was a loss of many good people who cared about the community and who wished to serve, but who found that the pressures were too great, and left.
I also saw a lowering of public esteem due to guilt by association. I believe that the loss of people from local government and the lowering of public esteem had a great deal to do with the problems now facing local government, so heaven help us if Parliament loses its special place in the minds of the public. That is why I believe that the matter is important and why we have to act now.
When, at 10 o'clock, we all have to decide how to act, we have to resolve a dilemma. How do we send the correct signal to the public at large about the conduct of the House, while at the same time making sure that justice is done to an individual colleague? If democracy is to survive, the public have a right to expect us to set an example by all of us being above reproach. If we are to go on insisting that Edmund Burke was right and that we are here not as mere voting machines on behalf of our party but as individuals to use our judgment, and to be sound and independent in our decisions, we must not only be seen to be sound and independent—we must be able to prove it. The conclusion that I draw from the report is that our procedures do not make it easy for us to prove that we are independent and sound in our judgment.
It is in that context that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester in making an admission about errors of judgment, leaves us with an important matter on which we must act and which we cannot duck. It follows that if somebody stands here, as my hon. Friend did today, and apologises for an error of judgment, we can no longer say that we can safely ignore that report. We must do something. If the facts in that report and its conclusions are correct, we must all make it crystal clear to the country that we expect the highest standards from all of us.
That leads me to the other part of my dilemma. Who in this place should decide whether the facts and the conclusions are correct? The more I have thought about that before the debate and while I have been sitting here since 4 o'clock, the less clear I have become about who should take that decision. I have reached a stage where I am sure now about just one thing—the full House is most certainly not the right place to take some of the decisions being put before us.
Why do I believe that? Surely a cornerstone of democratic justice in any country is that the politicians who write the rules must not be responsible for enforcing them or for interpreting them, lest we become judge and jury in our own cause, and that is to undermine democracy.
Who are the right people? It depends what sort of matter we are facing. Are we discussing criminal wrongdoing, political wrongdoing, moral wrongdoing or perhaps just the one thing that has been admitted—the making of an error of judgment?
If we wish to pursue the question of criminal wrongdoing, the answer is simple. The House should send the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We
954
could then step back and let him get on with it. That is the only way in which criminality can be dealt with in a matter of this sort.
On the other hand, if we wish to say that there may be some element of political wrongdoing in all of this, we should again simply step back and say that it is for the selectors and electors of Winchester to take action, not for the House.
If we wish to pursue the notion of moral wrongdoing, we must take great care that we do not seek to turn the House into a court of morals. I see moral judgments as a matter for every individual in Britain, not just 650 of them. It is not for the House to reach a collective moral judgment about a colleague or anyone else. All that we can do today is to act as individuals, reach our own individual conclusion and make that conclusion public. That is as far as an individual can go in making moral judgments of this sort.
Where does that leave me? It leaves me wanting to uphold the high standards of the House so that we do not bring it into disrepute. I want to leave any further discussion of criminality for the Director of Public Prosecutions and to leave any further consideration of political action to the selectors and electors of Winchester.
What am I then left with? I am left with an admission of an error of judgment and with a growing feeling, which other hon. Members have also expressed, that the rules that we have here are not clear enough. I conclude that those are the only things on which we dare take action—an admission of an error of judgment and an admission that our rules need looking at.
In those circumstances, the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) requesting the Speaker to express our displeasure is as far as we dare go on the matter. I equally believe that we should accept the proposal from the Leader of the House that the rules of this place should be tightened up. I shall therefore be voting accordingly on both motions.
9.3 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is not the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) who is on trial today—it is the ethics of the House of Commons. I say that purely because of the experience of many hon. Members on both sides of the House in local government. Local government never finds itself in the one-off situation of effectively trying one of its own members in its own council chamber. That is because the rules are clear, tight and, as many hon. Members have pointed out—from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)— the rules are enshrined in law. Whether the House reaches a decision today or on another occasion, that is how the matter will ultimately be resolved.
In looking at an individual Member tonight, we are looking at a symptom rather than the cause of the problems that have beset the Select Committee on Members' Interests for the past year, during part of which time I was a member of that Committee.
The hon. Member for Winchester finds himself in the present position because we do not know the interests that all hon. Members have. Any person who puts himself or herself in the firing line by seeking to represent the local population in Parliament takes on many responsibilities.

955
Interests cannot be hidden. Indeed, to a large degree we give up our privacy. There is no separation between our public and private lives. We are on trial all the time.
That becomes obvious when we start pretending that there is a division between what we seek to do as individuals in terms of making money and what we do in our political lives here. That is why I have reservations about the concept of something being a House of Commons matter. There is no such thing that is neutral and above the political fray, be it crude party politics or the wider politics that we practise in Parliament.
Political, party and policy issues are at stake today. We on the Opposition Benches should state clearly that a Labour Government would act differently in relation to the Register of Members' Interests. In saying that, I leave aside the case that is in our minds today. We would take a different view from that of the present Government towards the register. Labour Members can express opinions on behalf of a wider public, who expect more from their Members of Parliament in this era of television and radio.
The public should know exactly what the Members they elect get up to. We must concentrate on prevention rather than cure. Rather than one of our number being dragged through the extremely invidious experience that the hon. Member for Winchester is undergoing, there should be clear ground rules to prevent such a case from ever reaching this point, which means total disclosure.
My view on that was made clear in the amendment which stands in my name but which, sadly, was not selected. Many of the ideas contained in it are not new. They are common currency in France, America, Canada and Australia. Legislatures elsewhere in the world take such principles in their stride. We could learn from the best practices of those legislatures and create a really effective register here so that all hon. Members are clear where their duty lies before coming to Parliament and while they are here. There would then be no errors of judgment.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—God bless him—drew attention to some of my proposals. For example, I believe in full-time Members. I find that there are never enough hours in the week to enable me properly to do my one job here, let alone service other organisations, companies, directorships and consultancies outside. I see no reason why all directorships and consultancies, and the remuneration therefrom, should not be declared openly in the Register of Members' Interests. The clients of consultancies should also be listed, and the remuneration therefrom, so that it could never be said, "You are getting money underhandedly because of your activities in the House of Commons," through parliamentary questions, comments in the Chamber or whatever.
All shareholdings and dealings should be listed. The present Register means that a Member could sell all his or her shares on one day, register the next day as having no shareholdings and then buy back the same shares or others the day after. That would accord with the concept of the Register.
Mr. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Allen: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue——
Mr. Rooker: That is absolutely wrong. My hon. Friend must appreciate that any change in the circumstances does
956
not outweigh the details published in the Register, because it is updated daily. There is a requirement that if there is a change of circumstances it must be registered at the time. My hon. Friend must get the record right. Let us not do ourselves down more than we need to.
Mr. Allen: Without checking for myself, I will take my hon. Friend's intervention at its face value and I am glad to do so.
I believe that the Register should include hon. Members who are involved with Lloyd's syndicates, and that the entries should provide the public with clear information about whether and to what extent hon. and right hon. Members have benefited personally from any legislation with which they were involved. There have been a number of cases where hon. Members have gone on to benefit—for example, when voting for a privatisation. Minister who, on appointment, divert shareholdings into trusts should be required to declare those shareholdings and to identify any relatives with a beneficial interest in such a trust.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has amplified in his amendment, which has been selected, the fact that the Representation of the People Act should be amended so that people who become parliamentary candidates understand that they will have to make a full and total declaration of their shareholdings and all their interests and that failure to do so would be in breach of a rule of the House and in breach of the law of the land. They would thus disqualify themselves from Parliament without any intervention from some kangaroo court which might be constituted in this place. I believe that the Act will have to be amended in that way sooner or later.
I was particularly interested in the concept of the well-rounded Member of Parliament—the idea that poor people such as myself, who work here full time, do not have the necessary depth of personality and that it would do us a lot of good to have a couple of directorships in the city, or perhaps to spend five or six hours a day in the law courts to give us a better view of the world.
Mrs. Llin Golding rose——
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend may intervene if she wishes.
Ideally, Members of Parliament should take up this position of honour and trust as full-time employment. The House deserves nothing less, and the electors whom we are here to represent deserve nothing less. That day will come —and the sooner the better.
9.13 pm
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is all very well to say that this is not a trial, but it is. We are the High Court of Parliament and we are trying my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) whether we like to say so or not.
I do not wish to appear on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. I am not willing to judge whether his admissions or his follies were right or wrong.
As someone who believes in the concept of justice, and in the House of Commons, I am horrified that we should adopt a procedure whose nature is contrary to justice. We have set up a Committee because of what in Scotland would be called a clype—[HoN. MEMBERS: "A clype?"] English Members may not have such a good word. A clype is someone who tells tales.

957
The Committee was set up with no judicial form and no rules according to natural justice under which a Member of the House could be indicted. My hon. Friend was not indicted on any particular charge, nor was he entitled to call witnesses: what members of a democratic society would regard as justice did not obtain. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) should not laugh; these are serious matters, principles of justice on which the House depends.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is not true that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) could not call witnesses; he could.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: We all respect the Chairman of the Committee, but that Committee has none of the characteristics of natural justice. The Leader of the House knows what they are.
What I find so upsetting and disturbing is that the House should suddenly be in a position which, according to the traditions of British justice, should never arise: the jury is being allowed to decide on the sentence. Someone who has been accused of nothing has been found "prospectively" guilty of certain offences, but we have not decided what they are. We know that they are not criminal; we do not know whether they are ethical or moral, but they are supposed to be unconstitutional.
I find this difficult to understand. Let me say to the Leader of the House, entirely seriously, that although we are apparently supposed to declare our interest, we do not need to do so. How can a Committee without the principles of natural justice find someone guilty of not declaring an interest that the House that has found him guilty says he does not need to declare in any case? I find that an extraordinary concept.
Here we all are. Some members of the jury are out, and some are in. The jury is being asked to say what the sentence should be, but the jury was not even in court. Most of its members who are in court now have not read the report, and do not conceive of the rights or wrongs of what the Committee found.
Whatever the party of the accused, what I find offensive and appalling is that the House of Commons, the High Court of Parliament, should be fussing about saying, "The jury has 100 sentences that we have thought up." The Leader of the House has thought of 20. Others have talked about an honourable discharge and yet others have talked about a forfeit. I find that offensive to all concepts of justice and decency.
The concept of a jury is absurd in this instance—some are here and some are not; some have gone—some have returned; some have listened; some have not, but they will have to vote—on this and that—in one Lobby or another —and pronounce a sentence. Are we going to give out the message tonight that that is the concept of justice of the House of Commons? Are we going to say that that is our attitude to the duty and rectitude of law, equity and judgment? If we are, the House is not performing its duty or doing itself any credit.
Nobody wants to believe more than myself that hon. Members are respected and behave with rectitude and honour. However, if we make this place into an absurd circus of magic justice in which nothing of the principle of
958
natural justice survives, we cannot say to ourselves or to the public, "Hurrah—we have broken the boil. We have shown that wrong will be righted." We cannot do that.
From tonight we should have a Register of Members' Interests that is simple and sensible. We should ensure that we have a code of honour that we all understand, so that if we break it, we know that that is what we are doing. Let us not sit as a fatuous jury—some gone, some here—and pretend that we are doing justice in the name of the honour of the House. Let us say, "The man has done wrong. He has admitted that he has done wrong." Let us say, "We all accept that fact," and then, like Burns, let us say,
"The unco' guid should not stand in judgment, lest they be judged."
Tonight's procedure will be foolish if we do not understand that this partial jury should not exercise the concept of punishment.
9.23 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Unlike both the hon. and learned Members for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I do not regard this as a court room. When the Government introduced their anti-trade union legislation, I wish that Conservative Members had been equally worried about the rights of workers on the factory floor who do not have the defence of a lawyer. Although, as a result of that legislation, some of those workers could be sacked on the spot, I did not then hear any pleas on their behalf from those hon. and learned Members.
There has been a breach of discipline; the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has been good enough to admit that. Our credibility with the public would be in serious jeopardy if we did not opt for some type of suspension. For that reason, I am prepared to go along the road that the Leader of the House has asked us to follow.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Winchester. His greatest punishment is not the suspension that we might give him but the fact that his business has been discussed from about 5 pm until 10 pm tonight. He has apologised. He has done wrong and he must be accountable, but I have some sympathy for him.
As a family man, I know that our wives and families do not choose that we go into public life. Even in the good times, they often have to put up with the ridicule of neighbours and sometimes so-called friends. I should like to put it on the record that I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's wife and family in view of what they must be going through and must have already been through.
I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but he said that the Register of Members' Interests was full of items declared by both Labour and Conservative Members. He mentioned the fact that we declare our sponsorship by trade unions. I should not like any member of the public or the press to go away with the idea that union sponsorship and business interests are one and the same thing. They are not. I do not gain any financial benefit whatever from being sponsored by Manufacturing Science Finance. There is a great difference between that and hon. Members who take upon themselves jobs which pay £8,000 and sometimes £10,000 per annum into their personal accounts. It would be wrong for anyone to make that comparison.

959
The Leader of the House also fell into that trap when he said that the House would be an empty place if we did not have jobs outside. I left school at 15 and went straight into engineering. I had a spell as a trade union officer and a spell as a councillor. I can draw on that experience, and I have done so ever since I came into the House. I defy anyone to say that I am a worse Member of Parliament because I have no other pecuniary interests. That is nonsense.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) cited the example of members of the 1945 Government. He could not have picked a worse example. The 1945 Government consisted of men who spent six years in the forges and knew what life was all about. They had travelled aid had had to make decisions on the spot. They brought their experiences into the House and gave the House the best Government that we have ever known in the history of Parliament.
I am not a great traveller with Select Committees but I have been on some Select Committee trips. There is an hon. Member in the Chamber tonight who went with me on a Select Committee trip to the far east. I was deeply embarrassed by the behaviour of some hon. Members on that trip. They would walk up to guests and Government representatives and say, "Here is my House of Commons card and here is my business card. I am into this business, that business and the next business." I have witnessed Select Committee Clerks of the House being deeply embarrassed because they knew that hon. Members were seeking information, not for the purpose of their work here in the House, but for the benefit of their outside interests.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martin: No, I shall not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke for a long time. I shall not be long, but I have been here all day.
Mrs. Llin Golding: Two minutes.
Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend tells me that I have two minutes. I wish that she had said that to other hon. Members who have spoken.
Clerks of the House and Officers working in the Library have been deeply embarrassed when they have had to give information to Members knowing full well that it is not for the benefit of the House.
I am sorry that we had to have a disciplinary hearing to discuss these matters. I hope that the Leader of the House will return with a motion so that we can talk, not about disciplinary action but about the uses to which hon. Members put the catering, Library and research facilities of the House. If hon. Members are honest, they will say that it is wrong to take money for their own benefit from outside organisations. They know full well that they are damaging the reputation of the House by doing so.
9.29 pm
Mr. Barry Field: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wholly spoilt the atmosphere of the debate by his partisan comments.
960
As a junior Member of the House, I decided to speak because I believe that the media have hounded my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) for a considerable time. I share that experience. Twelve years ago, a national newspaper wrote an article on the Economic League which involved the company in which I worked at that time, and it mentioned me. It was recently regurgitated in the Hogarth press and now by the National Council for Civil Liberties, and so it goes on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned political wrongdoing. The NCCL does not look into the affairs of the Isle of Wight where the Liberal Democrats deposed school governors because they were Conservative. It does not look into how they hound Freemasons from council chambers.
Bernard Ingham was right to say to the press that today the media will not allow the facts to interfere with a good story. This week The Guardian carried on its front page an article which stated that Conservative councillors on the Isle of Wight would resign. That was wholly without foundation. It was the Liberal Democrats who said that they would resign if they were community charge capped. That is a good example of journalists deciding not to allow facts to interfere with a good story.
I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said about outside interests, but I do not entirely agree with his remedy. The remedy of not being heard in the Chamber should be used by the House only for those who ignore either your authority, Mr. Speaker, or the rules of debate. To exclude my hon. Friend from the Chamber for breaking a rule of the House is not a proper use of the sanction. That is wrong. The House is the crucible for freedom of speech. If we infringe the rules, it should be a matter of note and investigation, which in this case it has been. Then it is up to the people to make a decision at the ballot box because they send us here. We should use lightly our right of excluding Members from the Chamber. We have the right of freedom of speech and we should deny it only to an hon. Member who disrupts the workings of the Chamber.
In my maiden speech I referred to one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, who had to vacate the Chair because of financial misdoings. He represented Isle of Wight. That shows that these matters are hardly new to the House. Unusually, I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley and Sidcup (M r. Heath), who said that the House would be much poorer if hon. Members did not have financial interests, although he almost lost me when he started to defend accountants. He is absolutely right in saying that the House is the richer for that. Labour Members may be lecturers or shop stewards; Tory Members may be lawyers and continue to practise. It rarely occurs to the House that the lifeblood of the nation is business, trade and commerce. That need must be represented properly in this House.
Sometimes the House gets into that sanctimonious mode of the lady in Belgravia who looks straight down her nose and says, "Ew goodness, he's in trade, is he?" Great Britain Ltd. and Great Britain plc must trade at a profit. The House must reflect a trading nation.
It is improper to refer to events that occurred eight years ago. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that the people will be the final arbiters in this matter. I shall vote against the motion because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member

961
for Winchester, having been sent here by his constituents, should continue to be heard in this House. The man who never made a mistake never made anything.
9.35 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before asking the Lord President four concise questions, I wish him well when he goes to Brazil next week on our behalf in the hope that he can help them do something about the rain forests.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify the question about the precints of the House? Those of us who have been suspended have been politely, courteously but firmly escorted by the Serjeant at Arms—sword and all—to ensure that we get out of the precincts. The police keep a kindly eye on us to ensure that we do not come back to our rooms by a circuitous route. Would similar actions be taken in regard to what we are discussing today, or is it different if one says certain things about the Prime Minister?
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member of Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) rightly asked about the Salmon committee. Paragraph 311 of that committee's report states:
"Membership of Parliament is a great honour and carries with it a special duty to maintain the highest standards of probity, and this duty has almost invariably been strictly observed. Nevertheless in view of our report as a whole"—
a considered and serious report—
"and especially in the light of the points set out…we recommend that Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity within the ambit of criminal law. Our recommendation is limited to this single point, and we do not raise any questions about other aspects of Parliamentary privilege and related matters."
Could we have the Government's view on the considered recommendation of the Salmon committee?
My third question arises out of personal experience, because I was reprimanded in distressing circumstances in 1967. Let no one pretend that those who are reprimanded by this House do not carry the scars for a long time. I plead with colleagues, however, to go extremely carefully down that road. When I went before the Select Committee on Privileges, I was asked an amalgam of questions, which were confusing and sometimes irrelevant. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was there, was very nice about it; he may recollect the occasion. We had better be clear what such parliamentary investigations are about and are sparked off by what they purport to be about.
I do not think that we would be discussing this subject today had it not been for press reference to the matrimonial problems of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and, whatever else we are, we are a jolly bad matrimonial court. Moreover, had he not produced a totally unacceptable private Member's Bill, we would not be debating this matter today.
In my case, it was made clear some years after the matter that it did not involve security, chemical and biological weapons or any formula of that kind, or even about giving Lawrence Marks details of a Select Committee report which had been printed and which the Ministry of Defence knew very well did not contain anything that would damage our country. The late Sir Harry Legge-Bourke rather shamefacedly told me some
962
years later that he had been approached by people in the Ministry of Defence who thought that I had been asking inconvenient questions on Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, Aldabra atoll and my Government's east of Suez policy, and they now had a chance to "get me" on a technicality.
We must be sure that we do not set up a system in which hon. Members can be "got at" for whatever reason, irrelevant to what the matter is supposed to be about. Therefore, I go along with those who would have liked the hon. Member for Winchester to be able to cross-question and confront those who were accusing him, as in a court of law. There is no substitute for that. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member never had the opportunity to cross-question his accusers. As every lawyer knows, it does not do merely to say that he could submit written evidence.
Frankly, amendment (d) which stands in my name, is in one sense tongue in cheek but it makes a serious point. If we are to have a six-hour debate on behaviour, let us discuss the behaviour of certain bigger fish in the House. Behaviour extends in all sorts of different ways, and doing that for which I would be suspended for five days were I indelicate enough to mention it, is also a matter of behaviour. We must strike some sort of balance.
9.42 pm
Dr. Cunningham: By leave of the House, I have been asked by a number of hon. Members to clarify what I said earlier. I thought that what I had said was quite clear, but I am more than happy briefly to reiterate my position.
I congratulate the Leader of the House—I omitted to do so earlier—on the wide consultations that he has undertaken before bringing any motion to the House. In principle, I support the proposals of the Leader of the House and I shall vote for the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) to be temporarily suspended from the House. I shall vote for the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and if that amendment is not carried, I shall certainly support the substantive motion in the name of the Leader of the House.
I said, absolutely without equivocation, that I thought that motions to dismiss the hon. Member for Winchester from the House would not gain my support. However, it seems abundantly clear—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has strong feelings about matters of discipline—that there is little point in having a Register of Members' Interests if the House does not move to have that Register's provisions enforced and upheld. The Select Committee unanimously recommended to the House that we should take action on this matter.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way.
I have no difference of opinion with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), but I believe that sponsorship by a trade union in the House —I am sponsored by the GMB and have been as long as I have been a Member—does not bring me significant financial gain. However, it is a considerable material benefit to me and brings considerable financial support to my constituency party, election expenses and other people's salaries. To suggest that that is not a financial

963
interest seems wrong. I have always declared it in those terms. In the Register I am said to have financial benefit from it. That is the honest way to describe matters.
I am not suggesting for a moment that financial sponsorship by trade unions enriches Labour Members of Parliament or adds to their bank balances, but there is no denying that it is of major significance.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: There is a big difference between a constituency party receiving £600 to spend as it pleases, and some hon. Members putting the proceeds from six or seven consultancies into their personal bank accounts.
Dr. Cunningham: Of course there is a quantitative difference, but we are discussing issues of principle to do with Members' financial interests, and I cannot deny that sponsorship by a trade union is a financial interest.
I hope that these remarks have clarified my position. I welcome the motion tabled by the Leader of the House. I shall vote for it, but first I shall vote for the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr.
9.47 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: With the leave of the House, I want to respond first, lest I forget, to the message transmission asked of me by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I shall try to think of him throughout my time in Brazil.
Turning to more serious issues, I believe that there has been a great deal of common ground in this long debate. On both sides of the House there has been a great understanding of the anguish faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), not excluding the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow—that there is no justice about where the lightning strikes in terms of publicity.
There has been wide admiration for and acknowlegment of my hon. Friend's apology. The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for reminding us of the case for sympathy with my hon. Friend's wife and family.
On the other hand, there has been equally widespread recognition of the importance of upholding the proprieties that we have been discussing throughout the day, graphically expressed in different ways by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Both had a clear insight into the dangers with which we have been concerned. Out of all that, a great deal of common ground has emerged.
First, there has been real concern about the need to be above reproach, as far as we can be, in relation to conflicts of interest. Secondly, there is recognition of the formidable difficulties of definition and judgment to which the Select Committee was invited to address itself. Thirdly, and perhaps most strikingly, on both sides of the House there has been real anxiety about the procedural problems of trying to reconcile the best efforts of my hon. Friend the Member Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his Committee with the requirements of natural justice—including the issue of limitation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire,
964
North (Mr. Biffen) have identified the need to try to refine and improve the procedures for investigation of matters of this kind.
In response, I say only that no one should underestimate the immense difficulties of designing an alternative procedure which will comply to the full extent required with the rules of natural justice. We must take great care not to have too high expectations in that respect.
The House will be glad that the Select Committee is ready to study both subjects referred to it by my second motion. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden recognised the need, as did the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, to pay special attention to the problem of lobbyists, but not in the direction of any relaxation of our guard in that respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham emphasised that there was a considerable job of policing to be done.
When the Committee addresses itself to that, I hope that it will take account of the warning uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) against inclining too much in the direction of too much law. Those of us who heard the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) were not surprised to hear him utter what was, in effect, a reductio ad adsurdum of the legal position with a touching but terrifying faith in the capability of the legal process.
Mr. Roger Moate: My right hon. and learned Friend has just referred to the significant speech by our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Did he hear him recommend that the apology by our hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) should be taken as enough? Given the revision of the rules that my right hon. and learned Friend recommends, would it not be advisable to leave aside the question of more precise penalties and follow the advice of our right hon. Friend and leave this matter to the electors of Winchester?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It was because I heard clearly the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that I intend to deal with that matter at the appropriate time in my speech. Perhaps I may conclude my observations on the second motion. The House will welcome the fact that the Select Committee intends to address itself to these matters.
The first motion raises the question of what penalty, if any, would be appropriate in this case. Effectively, there is a choice between the recommendation in my motion of a suspension of 20 days and the recommendation in the motion standing in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) which suggests that there should be no suspension at all.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow—I should like to have the hon. Gentleman's attention—is that Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 or suspended under Standing Order No. 43 must withdraw forthwith from the precincts of the House. A Member suspended from the service of the House on a motion not made pursuant to that Standing Order is not excluded from the precincts of the House unless the order for suspension expressly provides for that. That is the

965
distinction. Remuneration is not withdrawn except in consequence of a special order of the kind that I propose here.
The choice lies between two alternatives. I emphasise that the choice should be made upon the basis of the candid acceptance by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester of the finding of the Select Committee. The House was impressed by that acceptance, and that is an important point of knowledge because it overcomes the anxieties of hon. Members about the procedures. Those procedures are far from ideal. They are to be examined but, as some hon. Members have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has nevertheless candidly acknowledged the shortcomings that were alleged against him. That is the basis upon which we have to decide what to do.
What are we addressing? Are we addressing ourselves to a matter of criminal law? The answer is most certainly not. Are we addressing ourselves to a matter of political judgment? Again the answer is most certainly no. That distinction was clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. We are addressing a question of impropriety in a professional respect in relation to the standards that the House seeks to set for hon. Members of all parties. That is a perfectly familiar concept which should not be dismissed because it does not fall into any of the other categories.
In my days at the Bar—now long ago—I spent many weeks appearing before the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and other professional bodies. Professionals were invited, in proceedings short of an ordinary law court but nevertheless operating under the rules of natural justice to pass judgment on their peers. That is what we are expected to do in this case and there is nothing intrinsically wrong in that.
How are we to choose between the two penalties that I have identified? It is argued that a suspension of one month is insubstantial and, according to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), no more than a slap on the wrist. The same point was made rather sanctimoniously by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
On the other hand, it is said—this point was made strongly by a number of my hon. Friends, and certainly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—that the very fact of conviction, the exposure and anguish of the months that have gone by, and the jeopardy to a wider career represent sufficient punishment already for my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. We have been urged and invited—quite properly—by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside to take account, in every respect, of the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester.
Mr. Donald Thompson: Before the Leader of the House mentions my name, which is one of those in which the amendment stands, may I say that I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) said. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, our most important task is to represent our constituents. We are elected by our constituents, and we are called honourable. I did not think that my hon.
966
Friend for Winchester, whose apology was otherwise admirable, considered his constituents. Therefore, I shall not support my own amendment tonight.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his position clear in that respect. Nevertheless, I think that I should address myself, as I was doing, to the argument that has been supported by his co-sponsor.
I was dealing with the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, which was criticised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in regarding that as quite unjustified. It is perfectly proper for this House to take account of the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, but the question remains—to what judgment are we to come? The dilemma was identified most correctly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, and I shall close my remarks by returning to that question. I put the question before the House not in any sense as a prosecutor —[Interruption.] I should like to have the attention of the House while I try to focus on exactly what that question is.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North asked what was the motive which led my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to act as he did. Was it an inadvertent oversight, or was it a conscious and acknowledged misjudgment? That is one way of putting it. My right hon. Friend complained that that had not been precisely found by the Select Committee.
That may be the position, but the question was also rightly put from a different point of view by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), when he asked what judgment on that question is consistent with our duty of ascertaining the seriousness of our view about the importance that we should attach to the rules that we formulate. That is one approach that we have to have in our minds as we try to answer the questions posed by my right hon. Friend.
The best that I can do, in inviting the House to look at that matter, is simply to remind hon. Members of the terms in which the Select Committee dealt with the two allegations that it upheld. Those terms are to some extent enlightening. In paragraph 65 of its report the Committee says:
"We consider that Mr. Browne should have declared both the client relationship and the foreign payment. A substantial payment from a foreign Government to a Member, or to a company controlled by a Member, is precisely the kind of interest for which the rule was framed. Such a payment is at least as likely to influence a Member's conduct as a sponsored visit. If such payments are excluded, it is difficult to see what benefits (other than an occasional Gold Watch given to a member of a Parliamentary delegation) category 7 would cover. We therefore uphold the complaint."
Those are the terms in which the Committee deals with that matter. In respect of the second matter it says:
"We believe that Mr. Browne's assistance in approaching contractors and in writing to Ministers appreciably enhanced Mr. Chidiac's chances in playing a role in arranging contracts any of which would have given him a substantial commission. In our view it is beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Browne had in effect a 'client' relationship with Mr. Charles Chidiac, founded on the Selco East retainer of £2,400 per annum (although, in fact, only £1,600 appears to have been paid) which influenced his parliamentary actions and conduct … and which should have been declared on the Register. We uphold this part of the complaint."
It is entirely a question for the House to decide as to what insight that offers into these conjoined questions—the scale and nature of the misconduct acknowledged by

967
my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, and the conclusion at which we should arrive in determining what judgment is proper in asserting the importance that we attach to the rules that have been commended by Members on both sides of the House. For my part, I stand by the terms of the motion, but I am content to leave the matter to the House.
Amendment proposed: (a), to leave out from 'Winchester' to end of the Question.—[Mr. Colvin.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 237.

Division No. 107]

[10 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Knapman, Roger

Ashby, David

Knowles, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Lawrence, Ivan

Bendall Vivian

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Madel, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Miller, Sir Hal

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

Mills, Iain

Buck, Sir Antony

Mitchell. Sir David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Moate, Roger

Cash, William

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Monro, Sir Hector

Colvin, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Conway, Derek

Pawsey, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Critchley, Julian

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

Powell, William (Corby)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Dover, Den

Shelton. Sir William

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Shersby, Michael

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Gardiner, George

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Tracey, Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Warren, Kenneth

Gorst, John

Watts, John

Hague, William

Wells, Bowen

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Wheeler, Sir John

Hawkins, Christopher

Woltson, Mark

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Patrick Cormack.

Janman, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Adley, Robert

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Allen, Graham

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Alton, David

Buchan, Norman

Arbuthnot, James

Buckley, George J.

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burns, Simon

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Caborn, Richard

Ashton, Joe

Callaghan, Jim

Aspinwall, Jack

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Atkinson, David

Canavan, Dennis

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Baldry, Tony

Cartwright, John

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Chapman, Sydney

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Beckett, Margaret

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clelland, David

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

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benyon, W.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Blair, Tony

Corbyn, Jeremy

Boswell, Tim

Cran, James

Bottomley, Peter

Crowther, Stan

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Cryer, Bob

Bowis, John

Cunningham, Dr John

Boyes, Roland

Dalyell, Tam

Brazier, Julian

Day, Stephen

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Devlin, Tim

968

Dixon, Don

Leadbitter, Ted

Dobson, Frank

Lee, John (Pendle)

Dorrell, Stephen

Leighton, Ron

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lewis, Terry

Durant, Tony

Livingstone, Ken

Dykes, Hugh

Livsey, Richard

Eastham, Ken

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Eggar, Tim

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Loyden, Eddie

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

McFall, John

Fallon, Michael

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Fatchett, Derek

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Faulds, Andrew

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fearn, Ronald

Maclean, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

McLeish, Henry

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

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

McNamara, Kevin

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

McWilliam, John

Fishburn, John Dudley

Madden, Max

Flannery, Martin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, John (Handon S)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Forman, Nigel

Mates, Michael

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Maxton, John

Foster, Derek

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Fraser, John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

French, Douglas

Meale, Alan

Fyfe, Maria

Michael, Alun

Galloway, George

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

George, Bruce

Miscampbell. Norman

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Goodlad, Alastair

Morley, Elliot

Gordon, Mildred

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Gould, Bryan

Mowlam, Marjorie

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mudd, David

Herman, Ms Harriet

Murphy, Paul

Harris, David

Nellist, Dave

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hayes, Jerry

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Haynes, Frank

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

O'Neill, Martin

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hind, Kenneth

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Paice, James

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Patchett, Terry

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Patnick, Irvine

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pendry, Tom

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Portillo, Michael

Howells, Geraint

Prescott, John

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Price, Sir David

Hoyle, Doug

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Radice, Giles

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rathbone, Tim

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Redmond, Martin

Illsley, Eric

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Ingram, Adam

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jack, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Jackson, Robert

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Janner, Greville

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Jessel, Toby

Rogers, Allan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rooker, Jeff

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Rowlands, Ted

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Key, Robert

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kilfedder, James

Sheerman, Barry

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kirkwood, Archy

Short, Clare

Knight, Greg (Darby North)

Sims, Roger

Knox, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lambie, David

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lamond, James

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

Lang, Ian

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

969

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spearing, Nigel

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Stevens, Lewis

Wilshire, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wilson, Brian

Stott, Roger

Winnick, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Worthington, Tony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Thurnham, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Turner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Viggers, Peter

Mr. John Battle and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour by the Order [6 March].
Amendment proposed: (b), to leave out from 'Winchester' to end of the Question and add
'and that Mr. Speaker do reprimand Mr. John Browne for his failure on a number of occasions to register, or where appropriate to declare, his pecuniary interests as required by the Resolutions of the House of 22nd May 1974 and 12th June 1975.'.—[Mr. Benn.]
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Amendment proposed: (c), to leave out from 'accordingly' to end of the Question and add
'calls upon him to resign as a Member of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Corbyn.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 254.

Division No. 108]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Lewis, Terry

Allen, Graham

Livingstone, Ken

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Loyden, Eddie

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

Madden, Max

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Caborn, Richard

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Canavan, Dennis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Cox, Tom

Nellist, Dave

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Patchett, Terry

Eastham, Ken

Primarolo, Dawn

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Redmond, Martin

Fearn, Ronald

Skinner, Dennis

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

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Flannery, Martin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Flynn, Paul

Gordon, Mildred

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Mr. Eric Illsley.

Kirkwood, Archy

NOES

Adley, Robert

Beckett, Margaret

Aitken, Jonathan

Bellingham, Henry

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bendall, Vivian

Alton, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Arbuthnot, James

Benyon, W.

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Blair, Tony

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ashby, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Ashton, Joe

Boswell, Tim

Aspinwall, Jack

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Atkins, Robert

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkinson, David

Bowis, John

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Boyes, Roland

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Brazier, Julian

Baldry, Tony

Bright, Graham

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Batiste, Spencer

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

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

970

Buck, Sir Antony

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Burns, Simon

Ingram, Adam

Burt, Alistair

Jack, Michael

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Jackson, Robert

Cartwright, John

Janman, Tim

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Janner, Greville

Chapman, Sydney

Jessel, Toby

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Clelland, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Colvin, Michael

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Conway, Derek

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Key, Robert

Cormack, Patrick

Kilfedder, James

Couchman, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Cran, James

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Cryer, Bob

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cunningham, Dr John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dalyell, Tam

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Knapman, Roger

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Day, Stephen

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Devlin, Tim

Knowles, Michael

Dixon, Don

Knox, David

Dobson, Frank

Lambie, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Lang, Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawrence, Ivan

Durant, Tony

Leadbitter, Ted

Eggar, Tim

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fallon, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fatchett, Derek

Livsey, Richard

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

McFall, John

Fishburn, John Dudley

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Fookes, Dame Janet

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Forman, Nigel

Maclean, David

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

McLeish, Henry

Foster, Derek

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fraser, John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

French, Douglas

McNamara, Kevin

Fry, Peter

Major, Rt Hon John

Fyfe, Maria

Mans, Keith

Gardiner, George

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maxton, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Meale, Alan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Michael, Alun

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Miller, Sir Hal

Goodlad, Alastair

Miscampbell, Norman

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Gorst, John

Mitchell, Sir David

Gould, Bryan

Moate, Roger

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hague, William

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Morley, Elliot

Hannam, John

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

Mudd, David

Harris, David

Murphy, Paul

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hawkins, Christopher

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Haynes, Frank

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Norris, Steve

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

O'Neill, Martin

Holt, Richard

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

Paice, James

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Patnick, Irvine

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Pawsey, James

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howells, Geraint

Pendry, Tom

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Portillo, Michael

Hoyle, Doug

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Price, Sir David

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Radice, Giles

971

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Rathbone, Tim

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Temple-Morris, Peter

Riddick, Graham

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Thurnham, Peter

Rogers, Allan

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rooker, Jeff

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rowlands, Ted

Tracey, Richard

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Tredinnick, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Turner, Dennis

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Viggers, Peter

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Sheerman, Barry

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Shelton, Sir William

Ward, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sims, Roger

Watts, John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wells, Bowen

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wheeler, Sir John

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Widdecombe, Ann

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Wilshire, David

Spearing, Nigel

Wolfson, Mark

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wood, Timothy

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Tellers for the Noes:

Stott, Roger

Mr. Michael Shersby and Mr. Kenneth Hind.

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: (d), to leave out '20 sitting days' and insert 'three months'.—[Mr. Rooker.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:
The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 189.

Division No. 109]

[10.26 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Allen, Graham

Golding, Mrs Llin

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Gordon, Mildred

Ashton, Joe

Gould, Bryan

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Beckett, Margaret

Harman, Ms Harriet

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

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Blair, Tony

Haynes, Frank

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Buchan, Norman

Hoyle, Doug

Buckley, George J.

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Callaghan, Jim

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Illsley, Eric

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Ingram, Adam

Clelland, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kirkwood, Archy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lambie, David

Cox, Tom

Lamond, James

Crowther, Stan

Leadbitter, Ted

Cryer, Bob

Lewis, Terry

Cunningham, Dr John

Livingstone, Ken

Dixon, Don

Livsey, Richard

Dobson, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Eastham, Ken

Loyden, Eddie

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McFall, John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Fatchett, Derek

McLeish, Henry

Faulds, Andrew

McNamara, Kevin

Fearn, Ronald

McWilliam, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Madden, Max

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

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Flannery, Martin

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Flynn, Paul

Maxton, John

Foster, Derek

Meale, Alan

Fyfe, Maria

Michael, Alun

George, Bruce

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

972

Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

Morley, Elliot

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Spearing, Nigel

Murphy, Paul

Stott, Roger

Nellist, Dave

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Dennis

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Patchett, Terry

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Pendry, Tom

Wilson, Brian

Prescott, John

Winnick, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Quin, Ms Joyce

Worthington, Tony

Redmond, Martin

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rooker, Jeff

Rowlands, Ted

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mr. Harry Ewing and Mr. Allan Rogers.

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Aitken, Jonathan

French, Douglas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fry, Peter

Alton, David

Galloway, George

Arbuthnot, James

Gardiner, George

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Ashby, David

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Aspinwall, Jack

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Atkins, Robert

Goodlad, Alastair

Atkinson, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gorst, John

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Hague, William

Batiste, Spencer

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bellingham, Henry

Hanley, Jeremy

Bendall, Vivian

Hannam, John

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

Benyon, W.

Harris, David

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hawkins, Christopher

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Boswell, Tim

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Bottomley, Peter

Hind, Kenneth

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Holt, Richard

Bowis, John

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

Brazier, Julian

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Bright, Graham

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Howells, Geraint

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

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Buck, Sir Antony

Jack, Michael

Burns, Simon

Jackson, Robert

Burt, Alistair

Janman, Tim

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Jessel, Toby

Cartwright, John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Chapman, Sydney

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Conway, Derek

Key, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Kilfedder, James

Cormack, Patrick

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Couchman, James

Kirkhope, Timothy

Cran, James

Knapman, Roger

Dalyell, Tam

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Day, Stephen

Knowles, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Knox, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Lang, Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawrence, Ivan

Durant, Tony

Lee, John (Pendle)

Eggar, Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fallon, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Maclean, David

Fookes, Dame Janet

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forman, Nigel

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

973

Major, Rt Hon John

Shersby, Michael

Mans, Keith

Sims, Roger

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mates, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Miller, Sir Hal

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Miscampbell, Norman

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stevens, Lewis

Mitchell, Sir David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Monro, Sir Hector

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mudd, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thurnham, Peter

Norris, Steve

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Paice, James

Tracey, Richard

Patnick, Irvine

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pawsey, James

Viggers, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Portillo, Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Price, Sir David

Ward, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rathbone, Tim

Watts, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wells, Bowen

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, Sir John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wilshire, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Wood, Timothy

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tellers for the Noes:

Shelton, Sir William

Miss Ann Widdecombe and

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mr. Graham Riddick.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House

(i) agrees with the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (HC 135); and

(ii) endorses the findings of the Committee in respect of the specific allegations against the honourable Member for Winchester and accordingly suspends him from the service of this House for a period of 20 sitting days and suspends his salary as a Member for that period.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to motion No. 2. Thereafter, I shall put the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House requests the Select Committee on Members' Interests to study and report further on the questions raised by its Report (HC 135) relating to:

(i) the definition of outside interests and the enforcement of obligations in relation to declarations of outside interests by honourable Members; and

(ii) the procedures whereby complaints may be brought before the Select Committee and whereby the Select Committee investigates such complaints;

together with such other questions as might appear to it to arise therefrom.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
Amendment proposed: (b), to leave out from '(HC 135)' to end of the Question and add
'and prepare draft legislation that will:
(1) identify the responsibilities which honourable Members owe to the electors in respect of their pecuniary interests;
(2) provide for the disqualification from membership of the House of certain offices of profit, which though not held under the Crown, may because of their nature be incompatible with
974
membership of the House, such offices to be added to list of disqualifying offices under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975;
(3) provide for the extend of disclosure of other relevant pecuniary interests and for the publication thereof;
(4) provide for the preparation of a Register of all enterprises which have been established for the purpose of influencing ministerial, or parliamentary, decision by lobbying in support of external interests;
(5) lay down rules, where appropriate, for declarations of interests by those who hold official passes to the House of Commons;
(6) provide for the application, interpretation and enforcement of this legislation;
and to report progress by the end of this session.'.—[Mr. Benn.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 194.

Division No. 110]

[10.39 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Livingstone, Ken

Ashton, Joe

Livsey, Richard

Beckett, Margaret

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

Loyden, Eddie

Biffen, Rt Hon John

McFall, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Buckley, George J.

Madden, Max

Callaghan, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Canavan, Dennis

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Meale, Alan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Michael, Alun

Cox, Tom

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dalyell, Tam

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Darling, Alistair

Morley, Elliot

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Nellist, Dave

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Patchett, Terry

Eastham, Ken

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Prescott, John

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Primarolo, Dawn

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Redmond, Martin

Fatchett, Derek

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Rogers, Allan

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

Rooker, Jeff

Flannery, Martin

Short, Clare

Flynn, Paul

Skinner, Dennis

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Fraser, John

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

Fyfe, Maria

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Galloway, George

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Gordon, Mildred

Wareing, Robert N.

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Haynes, Frank

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Wilson, Brian

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Winnick, David

Hoyle, Doug

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Worthington, Tony

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Illsley, Eric

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kilfedder, James

Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours.

Lamond, James

Lewis, Terry

NOES

Adley, Robert

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Baldry, Tony

Alton, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Arbuthnot, James

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Batiste, Spencer

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Ashby, David

Bellingham, Henry

Aspinwall, Jack

Bendall, Vivian

Atkins, Robert

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Atkinson, David

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

975

Boswell, Tim

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bottomley, Peter

Hanley, Jeremy

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Hannam, John

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

Bowis, John

Harris, David

Boyes, Roland

Hawkins, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Bright, Graham

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

Hind, Kenneth

Burns, Simon

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Burt, Alistair

Holt, Richard

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

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

Cartwright, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cash, William

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Chapman, Sydney

Howells, Geraint

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Colvin, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Conway, Derek

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jackson, Robert

Cormack, Patrick

Jessel, Toby

Couchman, James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cran, James

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cunningham, Dr John

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Devlin, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dixon, Don

Key, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Durant, Tony

Kirkhope, Timothy

Eggar, Tim

Kirkwood, Archy

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Fallon, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Fearn, Ronald

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Knowles, Michael

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Knox, David

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lambie, David

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lang, Ian

Forman, Nigel

Lawrence, Ivan

Foster, Derek

Lee, John (Pendle)

Gardiner, George

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Goodhart, Sir Philip

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Goodlad, Alastair

Maclean, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Gould, Bryan

McNamara, Kevin

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Major, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hague, William

Mates, Michael

976

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shersby, Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Sims, Roger

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Miller, Sir Hal

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Miscampbell, Norman

Spearing, Nigel

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mitchell, Sir David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Moate, Roger

Stevens, Lewis

Monro, Sir Hector

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Stott, Roger

Mowlam, Marjorie

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mudd, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Norris, Steve

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Thorne, Neil

Paice, James

Thurnham, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Pawsey, James

Tracey, Richard

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pendry, Tom

Viggers, Peter

Portillo, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Price, Sir David

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Ward, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

Wells, Bowen

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, Sir John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Widdecombe, Ann

Rowlands, Ted

Wilshire, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Wolfson, Mark

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tellers for the Noes:

Shelton, Sir William

Mrs. Teresa Gorman and

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mr. Graham Riddick.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House requests the Select Committee on Members' Interests to study and report further on the questions raised by its Report (HC 135) relating to:

(i) the definition of outside interests and the enforcement of obligations in relation to declarations of outside interests by honourable Members; and

(ii) the procedures whereby complaints may be brought before the Select Committee and whereby the Select Committee investigates such complaints;

together with such other questions as might appear to it to arise therefrom.

Tax System
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
10.51 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the administration of the tax system. There can be no doubt that in many, perhaps most, respects, the administration of the tax system has improved out of all recognition since 1979.
First, and most important, income tax rates have been cut at all levels, while the yield has risen. In 1979, the standard rate of income tax was 33 per cent.; today it is 25 per cent. While the rate has been cut by nearly a quarter, the yield has risen by nearly 10 per cent.
When the top rates of tax were 83 per cent. and 98 per cent. on earned and unearned income respectively, the incentive to avoid tax could hardly have been greater. A great deal of time and energy was spent by some bright people in the late 1970s devising tax avoidance schemes. Rossminster, although best known for such schemes, was only the tip of a large iceberg.
Secondly, income tax has been further simplified by the introduction of relief at source for mortgage interest, and by the extension of tax deduction at source to bank as well as building society interest. That means that millions of PAYE taxpayers have a tax coding that consists solely of a personal allowance, and do not need to complete a tax return each year.
Furthermore, as well as the welcome reduction in tax rates, allowances for alimony, forestry and deeds of covenants to individuals have largely been abolished, resulting in simplification in those areas.
Thirdly, Inland Revenue staff numbers have fallen. In 1978, there were 85,000 staff. In 1989, there were 68,000. It is worth noting, however, that in 1960, there were only 56,000 and in 1950, 50,000.
Fourthly, receipts per Inland Revenue employee have increased considerably in the past 10 years from about £1·1 million in 1980 to about £1·6 million in 1989. Those changes have occurred at a time when the number of schedule E taxpayers has grown substantially to nearly 30 million in the current year and when the number of self-employed has grown even more rapidly to more than 2·5 million.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am well aware of and welcome the improved efficiency of the Inland Revenue. The Revenue probably publishes more information about its management planning, its budgetary and management information systems, its application of information technology and its work measurement than any other Government Department.
The most recent annual report of the Revenue contains five paragraphs entitled, "Reducing the Burden on Business". It explains that the best administrative procedures simplify the job for everyone—for taxpayers, businesses and the Department. It says that proposals for new legislation or changes to existing policies are all assessed for their likely compliance costs for business. The aim is to assess and where possible to quantify the effect on compliance costs for businesses and other taxpayers whenever the Revenue advises Ministers on policy issues. The report also refers to the annual programme of reviews
978
of existing regulations introduced in 1988 to complement the systematic compliance cost assessments for new proposals.
As part of that programme, the Inland Revenue undertook a review of PAYE communications with employers. Other recommendations from efficiency scrutinies deal with the construction industry tax deduction scheme and schedule D procedures. All those improvements in the administration of the tax system are most welcome.
However, I believe that the time has come for a much wider review. It should start with the aims and objectives of the Inland Revenue. The 1986 public expenditure White Paper listed 10 factors that are considered when proposals for changes in direct taxation are being evaluated. The sixth was the effect of the proposals on increasing or reducing the complexity of the tax system. The eighth was the compliance burden on employers, businesses and other taxpayers.
In the 1990 White Paper, those 10 factors are reduced to five. There is no reference to the effect of proposals on the complexity of the tax system, but the fact is that the tax system is becoming more and more complex each year. The volume of tax legislation is growing at an alarming rate.
In the 10 years from 1980 to 1989, there have been 12 Finance Acts. Between them they contained 1,335 sections and 200 schedules, and they took up 2,185 pages. The Finance Act 1989 was the largest in history. It has 188 sections and 16 schedules and it runs to 275 pages.
There are two reasons why that volume of legislation is unacceptably high. The first relates to the costs that it inevitably imposes on the Inland Revenue and on taxpayers. The second relates to the burden that it places on the House of Commons. I want to deal with each of those reasons in turn.
There is now an overwhelming acceptance within the business community and, I am sure, the Inland Revenue, that our tax system is needlessly diverting an increasing number of highly trained personnel within the accountancy and legal professions, not to mention people building up and running businesses of all kinds, from work of far more importance to the nation. The complexity of tax legislation is undoubtedly one of the main reasons why the Inland Revenue is continually losing expensively trained staff to the private sector. I am convinced that the resources of the Revenue could be used far more effectively—for example, in pursuit of the black economy and in the development of various specialist units.
A further result of fiscal complexity is that many statutory provisions and judicial dicta are in practice overlooked because of the sheer impossibility of tax practitioners and the Inland Revenue being aware of everything in the statutes, statutory instruments, statements of practice, extra-statutory concessions and other Revenue pronouncements.
So the complexity of our tax legislation ties up a lot of talented people who could be put to more productive use, and it brings the law into disrepute, since it cannot be fully enforced. For those reasons, I believe that simplification should be given much greater political priority. I am sorry that it has been dropped as a consideration from the 1990 public expenditure White Paper, and I hope that it will be reinstated. Of course, I understand that Ministers have other important priorities when considering the contents of a Finance Bill, but I firmly believe that simplification

979
should be moved up the agenda. Last year's Finance Bill was the largest and probably the most complex in history. I hope that this year's Bill, which will follow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget on Tuesday week, will not set a new record.
I recognise that if simplification is to be given greater emphasis, the case must first be made that the present system is damaging. As I have said, it creates inefficiencies, and results in the misallocation of scarce and highly trained resources. We now need a full inquiry into the matter. I hesitate to recommend a royal commission as I know that that would not find favour: I simply point out that it is nearly 40 years since the last full inquiry, which was a royal commission, into our system of taxation.
It may be that such an inquiry would conclude that the only realistic way in which we can simplify tax legislation is by abolishing taxes. The abolition of capital gains tax would certainly be most effective in that respect. The inquiry should examine all the options, but it should have relatively narrow terms of reference. It should not be asked to conduct a comprehensive review of United Kingdom taxation, but should be invited to focus on the volume and complexity of tax legislation, and to assess the cost to the Inland Revenue and compliance costs to taxpayers. It should be asked to examine the growth of tax advice as a source of business for accountants and solicitors and to estimate the cost to the nation of that waste of talented resources. It should take into account the cost to the taxpayer of the constant poaching of Inland Revenue staff and should look at all the options for simplifying tax legislation and make recommendations. The Inland Revenue, taxpayers and their advisers should be represented on such an inquiry and it should have an independent chairman.
Secondly, I shall deal with House of Commons procedure and consider briefly the burden that a Finance Bill of the size and complexity of that produced last year places on hon. Members. This is, of course, an old chestnut. As long ago as 1978, when he was shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend, now the Leader of the House, argued in his Addington speech for the introduction of a technical tax Bill.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with the argument. It is that most of the clauses in the annual Finance Bill are wholly technical. Those that are political—for example, changes in tax rates and allowances and the introduction of new tax reliefs—are relatively few. Lumping them all into a Bill which is not published until five months of the parliamentary year have already elapsed, means that parliamentary scrutiny is inevitably rushed and inevitably focused on the political elements.
I do not seek to denigrate the efforts of those who serve on the Standing Committee. They do the best they can in the circumstances, but I was responsible when I worked for the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for the preparation of our annual submission on the Finance Bill. It was always the most unbelievable rush. We had to allow each of our 90,000 members the opportunity to comment, but we had to finalise our submission within two or three weeks of publication of the Bill if it was to have any influence at all either on Treasury Ministers or on members of the Committee.
It is true that in recent years the Treasury has done more to consult interested parties about prospective tax
980
changes. That is obviously a most welcome development. How much better it would be if a technical Finance Bill could be published at the beginning of each Session. Ample time could then be given for representations to be made and for proper consideration in Committee.
I appreciate that Treasury Ministers dislike the prospect of two Finance Bills every year, and that they like to save everything up and put it in the Budget. But the Budget is about fiscal policy, that is to say, total tax revenue and total borrowing or debt repayment, not about the minutiae of taxation. Many of the matters that take tip most room in the subsequent Finance Bill do not even rate a mention in the Budget Statement. I am sorry, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend dropped the idea of a technical tax Bill as soon as he became Chancellor. No doubt the Inland Revenue persuaded him of its impracticability, but one way or another we have to try to avoid the situation that arose last year.
Philip Hardman, senior tax partner of Grant Thornton, to whom I pay tribute for the tenacity with which he has pursued the cause of tax simplification, has written about last year's Finance Bill:
"Certain battles need not have been fought. If the Government had sought the views of experienced tax practitioners beforehand, we would not have seen the close investment company legislation crawling out of the ashes of the apportionment legislation only to be squashed to death by the tanks of the accountancy and legal professions."
I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will refer to the abolition of development land tax arid investment income surcharge and to other improvements. I went out of my way at the beginning of my speech to acknowledge the many changes for the better that have been introduced since 1979. The fact remains, however, that Finance Bills have been getting bigger and bigger arid more and more complex. Philip Hardman tells me that parts of our tax legislation are ignored—by accident, not design—as they are too complex. This is a serious situation, which merits urgent consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to set up the inquiry that I have suggested.
11.4 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for his success in securing this debate and for the unparalleled expertise that he brings to this subject; it is unrivalled among Members of this House. I share his worry about the length and complexity of tax legislation. I suppose that I should declare an interest in this subject. No one has a greater interest than I have in ensuring that legislation is kept as simple as possible so that my little brain can understand it, and as brief as possible so that my time on the Finance Bill is minimised.
Inevitably it is something of a perplexity to a party whose members are of our disposition to understand how a Government committed to the minimum of laws find themselves, none the less, producing a great number of taxation laws. I have looked into the matter, and I can tell the House that there is a number of reasons for this. Undoubtedly they do not explain everything, but I think that they should be borne in mind when this problem is being considered.
Even simplification takes Finance Bill space. In the last Finance Bill—my hon. Friend will understand why I take the last one rather than the forthcoming one—we introduced a measure to simplify schedule E receipts. It

981
took 11 pages, but we now have a simpler law. Even abolition takes Finance Bill space. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we abolished much of the legislation affecting close companies. There were 20 pages on the statute book. It took eight pages to repeal and, in so far as it was necessary, replace that legislation.
Another of our objectives is to make legislation more user-friendly. This results in its being longer. For example, in simplifying the schedule E matters to which I have referred, we have used the modern and, I hope, more user-friendly approach. The draftsmen deliberately sought to help practitioners and others who need to refer to the legislation by making it self-contained. Legislation by reference would have been shorter, but it would also have been less convenient for those who have to understand and apply the new rules. That is why we had to go to 11 pages. I hope that in doing so we simplified the legislation in a way that practitioners welcome.
The structural reform to which my hon. Friend paid tribute is essentially a process of reducing rates and reducing the number of allowances and reliefs so that the tax burden is spread more widely. Inevitably that has involved some major tax reforms over our period in office—sometimes comprehensively replacing a whole mass of legislation by a new structure which it is felt is less onerous but which requires a great deal of legislation. In the last Finance Bill, for instance, we carried out the major part of the reform of life assurance taxation, reducing the rate and spreading it over a wider tax base. That itself took quite a sizeable chunk of space—10 pages, plus a couple of schedules, with more to come.
Inevitably, if one is reducing the rate and spreading it more widely, one wants also to stop tax avoidance. If some people avoid paying tax, others have to pay more. Therefore, there is a dollop of tax avoidance measures to try to keep up with the amazing ingenuity and fertility of mind of those in the profession who perhaps are over-assiduous in seeking to minimise the tax burden on their clients. In the last Finance Bill, 28 pages fell roughly under that heading.
If we are to keep the tax system up to date and in a form which is usable and relevant to practitioners and the ultimate clients of practitioners, we must modernise constantly to take into account the changing and increasingly sophisticated environment in which we live. There were about 18 pages in the previous Finance Bill on adapting the tax system to deal with deep discount bonds. They were welcomed largely by the practitioners in the City because they met a more complex situation which did not exist before those financial vehicles had been invented and developed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the possibility of a major inquiry into various aspects of the tax system which concern him. I understand his concern, and I shall think deeply about it as I study what he said this evening. I remind him, however, that we had a major inquiry under Lord Keith into compliance with taxation. We consulted extensively and major parts of the report have already been implemented. About 30 pages of the previous Finance Bill—it was probably the largest single item in the Bill—were used to implement some of the recommendations
982
resulting from the Keith commission. There has been a major investigation resulting in major legislative reforms. Perhaps the reforms need time to bed down before we take up those matters again.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is aware of a non-governmental inquiry into the tax system that has been carried out by Professor Sandford of Bath university, with the help and active co-operation of both Customs and Excise and the Revenue. A measure has been attempted of the burdens of compliance on industry and business, and there is no escaping the fact that they are onerous. Professor Sandford pays tribute, however, to the United Kingdom and its tax authorities. In his opinion, they are clearly ahead of the rest of the world in taking into account the compliance burdens—on this account, my hon. Friend paid tribute to the tax authorities—that tax law inevitably imposes.
We can see how far we are ahead of some countries when we compare our legislation—it embraces direct taxes and secondary legislation and has reached the giddy heights of 3,700 pages—with that of the United States, which extends to nearly 10,000 pages of direct legislation and regulation. We can claim that we have kept our legislation more continent than that of some of our competitors internationally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the possibility of a technical Finance Bill which would break the present Finance Bill into two parts and, he argued, permit more consultation. We consult, and we are in the habit increasingly of publishing draft clauses. Last year we published draft clauses in respect of the European Court of Justice ruling on VAT on property, which I proudly referred to as my green budget—no one took the blindest bit of notice—in February 1989. It is quite common for us to consult in depth with the active participants of industries which are organised enough to participate. That is the case when we are involved in reforms such as those of life assurance and those affecting the oil industry.
Two Bills might well conflict with the desire for less legislation rather than more. I know that that is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, but such is the nature of this place that if we had two Bills passing through the House I cannot believe that it would result in less than half as many pages in each measure. Each would tend to be an opportunity for insiders and outsiders to add to the initiatives which we already had.
Although the organisations of accountants and so on share my hon. Friend's concern about the burden of taxation, they are not slow to come forward with suggestions. For the coming Budget we have had from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales 12 proposals, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland 24 proposals, from the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants 76 proposals, from the Law Society of England and Wales 30 proposals, from the Law Society of Scotland 33 proposals and from the Law Society of Northern Ireland, commendably, a modest one. If they were given two bites at the cherry annually, those numbers would be unlikely to diminish. Although we do not satisfy them all, inevitably they put ideas in our mind.
My hon. Friend has highlighted a serious matter, to which the Government attach the highest importance.

983
They will constantly strive to simplify and lighten the burden which the tax system imposes on practitioners and on industry. I shall consider my hon. Friend's proposal for an inquiry or commission to study the
984
matter. Obviously, if that idea bears fruit, he will hear more about it in due course. I am grateful to him for bringing the subject to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the criteria he has adopted to determine the standard spending assessment for local education authorities in England and Wales for the year 1990–91; and, for each element, if he will quantify the relevant sums he deems appropriate for expenditure by the London borough of Newham in that financial year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The basis on which the education components of the standard spending assessments (SSAs) for 1990–91 for England and Wales are calculated is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) and the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report. Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library. The sectoral elements of the London borough of Newham's SSA for education are as follows:

  £ million

  Primary Education

  352·81

  Secondary Education

  35·105

  Post-16 Education

  14·772

  Under 5 Education

  7·251

  Other Education

  6·101

  Total Education

  98·510

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has made any estimates of the amount by which Staffordshire county council would be required to reduce its education budget for 1990–91 if it were to spend at the level of its standard spending assessment for education; and whether he has made any assessment of the reductions in teaching staff and of spending on books at such a spending level.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is for Staffordshire county council to reach its own conclusions on priorities within any particular level of spending.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any estimate of the reduction in teaching and non-teaching staffs and in non-pay items including school books and equipment which would be required if local education authorities in England brought their spending in 1990–91 to the level of their standard spending assessments for education.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is for individual authorities to determine their own priorities for expenditure.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the additional administrative costs falling upon higher education institutions of(a) the proposed student loans scheme, (b) the proposed access funds and (c) the payment of tuition fees in three instalments rather than one.
  622
  Mr. Jackson
  The Government are considering what role the higher education institutions might play in securing access to the top-up loans for their students. It is not expected that administration of the access funds will add noticeably to the costs of institutions' student advisory services. The additional costs of the termly payment of tuition fees are expected to be negligible.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are at present 14 internal auditors in the Department. The total staffing cost of the Department's internal audit division, including travel and subsistence, training and the cost of support staff, is estimated at £405,000 in the present financial year. In addition, £12,000 has been spent in the present year on bought-in support from private firms to achieve economic and effective audit coverage, particularly in computer areas. The audit plan for 1989–90 covers 60 discrete audit areas; reports are issued on each assignment. Two of the reports have been drawn to the attention of Ministers.

  Food Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much he has allocated for spending on the closure of the Institute of Food Research at Bristol: and from which year's allocation it will come.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend announced his allocation of the science budget in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 10 January 1990 at columns 623–24. It is for the research councils to determine how much they will spend from their allocations for any particular purpose.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has been allocated to Staffordshire county council for teacher training on drug abuse and for anti-drug co-ordinators.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  For the financial year 1990–91, Staffordshire education authority will receive grant aid on education support grant expenditure of £66,500 on preventive health education, and on expenditure of £69,000 under the associated LEA training grants scheme national priority area. Both these programmes cover education about drug abuse.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the total cost of the proposed phased implementation of the recommendations of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay in 1990–91; what was the corresponding figure in the remit to the committee; and who will he responsible for funding any difference between these two figures.
  623
  Mr. MacGregor
  The additional cost in 1990–91 of implementing the IAC's recommendations in the way I have proposed would be £620 million in England and Wales, compared with the financial constraint set out in the IAC's remit of £600 million. The difference should not be an appreciable burden for local authorities given the scope that exists for savings across their services.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received regarding a fourth access fund for disabled students.

  Mr. Jackson
  Representations in favour of such a fund have been made by several hon. Members and organisations representing disabled people.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make a statement on the revised arrangements for the disabled students' allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  Shortly.

  Disabled Graduates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what representations his Department has received regarding the disposable income level of disabled graduates;

  Earnings and Prices Levels

  Year (April)

  Lecturer maximum salary (£)1

  Retail prices index2

  Average United Kingdom earnings (£)3

  Real terms lecturers' salaries6

  Real terms average United Kingdom earnings6

  1970

  3,105

  100

  1,347

  3,105

  1,347

  1979

  8,452

  295·4

  4,633

  2,861

  1,568

  19894

  520,469

  621·9

  12,464

  3,291

  2,004

  Percentage Increases

  Lecturers' salaries (cash)

  Retail prices index

  Average United Kingdom earnings (cash)

  Lecturers' salaries (real terms)

  Average earnings (real terms)

  April 1970–April 1979

  172

  195·4

  244

  -8

  16

  April 1979–April 1989

  5142

  110·5

  169

  15

  28

  April 1970–April 1989

  5559

  521·9

  825

  6

  49

  1 Excludes non salary earnings.

  2 Based on April 1970=100.

  3 Average earnings for all occupations males and females combined, excluding those whose pay has been affected by absence. Figures are on a full-time adult rates basis and are taken from the new earnings survey.

  4 April 1990 salary data not yet available.

  5 Excludes maximum of discretionary range = £22,872 effective from 1 October 1989. Inclusion of this attainable maximum salary indicates 171 per cent, increase during the period April 1979–October 1989, and 637 per cent, increase during the period April 1970–October 1989.

  6 Both at April 1970 prices.

PRIME MINISTER

  Visits
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she make an official visit to Newham.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.
  624
  (2) whether his Department has carried out any research into the disposable income levels of disabled graduates.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has received a number of representations from organisations representing the interests of disabled people. A few have provided evidence in support of their claim that disabled graduates will be at a disadvantage when repaying top-up loans. We have also examined evidence from the OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain.

  University Lecturers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the real increase in the earnings of university lecturers over the last decade, over the previous decade and over the two decades combined; and if he will set out in a table(a) the salary of a university lecturer at the top of the lecturers' scale, (b) the retail prices index and (c) average United Kingdom earnings for (i) the 1970s, (ii) the 1980s and (iii) the two periods combined.

  Mr. Jackson
  Data for total earnings of university lecturers are not available. The following table shows lecturers' salaries in actual and real terms in comparison with the retail prices index and average earnings over the periods (i) April 1970 to April 1979 (ii) April 1979 to April 1989 and (iii) April 1970 to April 1989:

  Inner Cities Initiative
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list by project the £4 billion expenditure announced for the inner cities on 28 February; how much was already approved and how much was additional moneys; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that he received today from my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities [column 734.]
  625
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of(a) her official visit to Bradford and west Yorkshire on 28 February and (b) the inner cities launch and television link-up on that date.

  The Prime Minister
  The costs of visits of this nature are not readily identifiable. The final cost of the inner cities launch and TV link-up on 28 February is not yet known, but is likely to average about £15,000 for each of the seven centres involved.

  Travel Expenditure
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure in travel for her and her staff(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) to countries outside the United Kingdom in 1989 and 1990 to the most recent practicable date; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of my travel and that of my staff in the United Kingdom in 1989–90 to date is £378,663. The total cost to countries outside the United Kingdom is £258,403.

ENERGY

  Property Sale, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a direction to British Coal to prevent the sale to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers below market prices, of the property known as "The Sycamores," Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Coal that the sale has already taken place. In any case, the disposal of assets belonging to British Coal is a matter for the corporation's management.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what expenditure over the next three years is planned by his Department for development of(a) nuclear power, (b) tidal power and (c) wind power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Figures for the Department's most recent expenditure plans for 1990–91 to 1992–93 are set out in chapter 5 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1005). These show that in 1990–91 the Department plans to spend £126·4 million on nuclear research and development (including some restructuring costs), and £20·3 million on research and development on renewable sources of energy, including £7 million on wind energy and £1·2 million on tidal energy.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the basis for the statement by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) that Britain was at the bottom of the league on energy efficiency in June 1984; and what assessment he has made of evidence that Britain was achieving the target of being at the top of the league by the end of that Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was 626
  designed to encourage efforts to improve the United Kingdom's energy efficiency, not to set operational measures of performance. The United Kingdom's performance over the period 1983 to 1987 matched, and in some cases exceeded, that of most other countries, as the following table shows:

  Total Primary Energy Requirement /GDP ratio (Tonnes of oil equivalent per $1,000 GDP at 1985 prices)

  GDP ratio

  1983

  Japan

  0·28

  Switzerland

  0·29

  Denmark

  0·31

  Italy

  0·34

  France

  0·37

  Austria

  0·41

  West Germany

  0·43

  United Kingdom

  0·45

  Spain

  0·46

  United States of America

  0·48

  Finland

  0·49

  Ireland

  0·49

  Netherlands

  0·49

  Norway

  0·49

  Iceland

  0·51

  Australia

  0·52

  Belgium

  0·52

  Sweden

  0·52

  Greece

  0·54

  New Zealand

  0·55

  Portugal

  0·62

  Canada

  0·68

  Turkey

  0·78

  Luxembourg

  0·93

  1957

  Japan

  0·26

  Switzerland

  0·28

  Italy

  0·33

  Denmark

  0·34

  France

  0·38

  West Germany

  0·42

  United Kingdom

  0·43

  Spain

  0·43

  Austria

  0·44

  United States of America

  0·44

  Norway

  0·46

  Australia

  0·48

  Iceland

  0·49

  Ireland

  0·50

  Netherlands

  0·51

  Sweden

  0·54

  Finland

  0·54

  Belgium

  0·55

  Greece

  0·57

  Portugal

  0·62

  New Zealand

  0·63

  Canada

  0·64

  Turkey

  0·80

  Luxembourg

  0·85

  Source: "Energy Balances of OECD countries 1986–87" OECD 1989.

  Note: These energy ratios are determined by many factors, including climate and industrial structure.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.
  627
  Mr. Wakeham
  There are 10 internal auditors in the Department of Energy, including the head of internal audit. The total cost of the unit is £185,000 per annum. Fifteen reports were produced in 1989, none of which was brought directly to the attention of a Minister. No internal audit work is contracted to private firms; it is a completely internal professional service.

  Fuel Exports and Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide figures for January 1990 of fuel exports and imports equivalent to those given in his answers of 9 November 1989,Official Report, column 767 and 19 December 1989, Official Report, columns 118–19.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The equivalent information for fuel exports and imports for January 1990 as set out in my previous answers on 9 November 1989,Official Report, columns 767–68, and 19 December 1989, Official Report, columns 118–19, is as follows:

  Table 1

  January 1990

  Thousand tonnes

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Coal

  269

  Oil1

  7,472

  Imports (c.i.f.)

  Coal

  1,194

  Gas2

  1,462

  Oil

  6,523

  Number of auditors

  Cost £

  Audit reports produced

  Sub-contract work—Computer Auditor Consultants

  Cost £

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  27·5

  594,660

  39

  —

  16,000

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  5

  98,700

  25

  None

  —

  Land Registry

  6

  117,569

  19

  None

  —

  No reports have been drawn to the attention of the Lord Chancellor by internal audit. The head of internal audit reports to the accounting officer.

THE ARTS

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many internal auditors are employed in his office and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to his attention; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Luce
  No internal auditors are employed by the Office of Arts and Libraries. Internal audit services are, however, provided by the Cabinet Office team at no cost to the Office of Arts and Libraries. Two internal audit reports were produced in 1989 as part of a predetermined cycle of audit reviews, neither of which was drawn to my attention. No internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms.
  628

  Table 2

  January 1990

  £ million at 1985 prices3

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Coal

  10

  Oil1

  1,274

  Imports (c.i.f.)

  Coal

  64

  Gas

  55

  Oil

  1,052

  Note:

  It should be noted that these figures exclude exports and imports of other solid fuels and electricity.

  1 contains a small amount of natural gas exports.

  2 coal equivalent.

  3 Figures at 1985 constant prices have been derived by applying the unit value for exports in 1985 to the relevant volumes in 1990

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General how many internal auditors are employed in those departments for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  The Attorney-General
  Internal audit coverage for departments for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible is as follows: the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Public Record Office; the Northern Ireland Court Service and the Land Registry. For the financial year 1988–89 the figures requested are:

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Anti-dumping Duties
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list details of(a) successful anti-cartel actions which have been taken by the European Commission over the last 10 years, indicating whether the products involved were subject to anti-dumping duties and (b) anti-cartel actions which have been taken by the European Commission over the last 10 years which have resulted in an agreement between the Commission and the cartel in order to preclude action, indicating whether the products involved were subject to anti-dumping duties.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of cases in which the European Commission has taken decisions are listed in the table. In a much larger number of cases the Commission has negotiated satisfactory undertakings which have precluded the need for action, but these are not usually made public.

  In the two cases asterisked, certain imports from third countries of the products involved were, during the period

  629
  of the infringements, subject to anti-dumping duties. This may also have been so in some other cases but, if so, those cases are not readily identifiable.

  Cartels found by the European Commission (since 1980) to have infringed the EC competition rules

  Case

  Date of decision

  Publication1

  Bundesverband Deutscher Stahlhandel eV (rolled steel)

  8 February 1980

  1980 L62

  French and German special steel producers

  27 March 1980

  Bulletin of the EC 3–1980

  IMA-Statuut (plywood)

  18 September 1980

  1980 L318

  Italian cast glass

  17 December 1980

  1980 L383

  Italian flat glass

  29 September 1980

  1981 L326

  VBBB/VBVB (books)

  25 November 1981

  1982 L54

  ANSEAU-NAVEWA (water)

  17 December 1981

  1982 L167

  SSI (tobacco)

  15 July 1982

  1982 L232

  Rolled zinc products and zinc alloys

  14 December 1982

  1982 L362

  AROW/BNIC (cognac)

  14 December 1982

  1982 L362

  Vimpoltu (agricultural and horticultural machinery)

  13 July 1983

  1983 L200

  Cast iron and steel rolls

  17 October 1983

  1983 L317

  IPTC Belgium (washing machines and dishwashers)

  5 December 1983

  1983 L376

  Flat glass sector Benelux

  23 July 1984

  1984 L212

  Zinc Producer Group

  6 August 1984

  1984 L220

  Peroxygen products

  23 November 1984

  1985 L35

  Fire insurance

  5 December 1984

  1985 L35

  Milchforderungsfonds (milk products)

  7 December 1984

  1985 L35

  Woodpulp

  19 December 1984

  1985 L85

  Aluminium

  19 December 1984

  1985 L92

  Siemens/Fanuc (numerical controls etc.)

  18 December 1985

  1985 L376

  Polypropylene

  23 April 1986

  1986 L230

  Roofing felt

  10 July 1986

  1986 L232

  Meldoc (dairies)

  26 November 1986

  1986 L348

  Fatty acids

  2 December 1986

  1987 L3

  Verenigde Blowmenveilingen Aalsmeer (flowers)

  26 July 1988

  1988 L262

  Hudson's Bay/Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening (furs)

  28 October 1988

  1988 L316

  Flat glass—Italy

  7 December 1988

  1989 L33

  Polyvinyl chloride (PVQ)*

  21 December 1988

  1989 L74

  Low-density polyethylene*

  21 December 1988

  1989 L74

  Welded steel mesh

  2 August 1989

  1989 L260

  1 Official Journal of the EC unless otherwise indicated.

  Recycling
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to move from material specification to performance specification in respect of British Standards in order to allow a greater use of recycled material.
  630
  Mr. Ridley
  The Department's Warren Spring laboratory has identified the historical emphasis upon material specification for standards as a significant barrier to the development of markets for recycled materials, and a shift towards performance specification would begin to undermine that barrier. The whole question of standards
  631
  has been identified as a key area for discussion by the recycling advisory group, set up to help to develop a national approach to recycling and to propose means of increasing United Kingdom recycling rates. The group is due to present its recommendations shortly and these will be carefully considered by the Government.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to amend British Standard 5750 to allow a greater use of recycled material.

  Mr. Ridley
  The question of standards has been identified as a key area for discussion by the recycling advisory group, set up to help develop a national approach to recycling and to propose means of increasing United Kingdom recycling rates. The group is due to present its recommendations shortly and these will be carefully considered by the Government.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the recycling advisory group to report on its consideration of recycling of domestic and industrial waste.

  Mr. Ridley
  The group is expected to complete the current phase of its work before the end of May.

  Company Audits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring forward legislation to require all organisations seeking the status of a qualifying body under the Companies Act 1989 to issue recommended reading lists to their students.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will legislate to require all auditors of all companies to detect fraud and report it to the appropriate authorities.

  Mr. Redwood
  No, but I hope that all auditors will apply the guidance in the newly issued auditing guideline on the auditor's responsibility in relation to fraud, other irregularities and errors.

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those of his Department's inspectors' reports completed since January 1979 that have taken four years or longer to be published.

  Mr. Redwood
  There have been no reports completed since 1979 for which the date of publication is four years or more later than the date of the report.

  Departmental Structure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on his plans for the future structure of his Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 783–4.

  Mr. Ridley
  None, as of 5 March 1990.

  Accounting Standards Task Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the sources of funding for the accounting standards task group.
  632
  Mr. Redwood
  The sources of funding for the accounting standards task group are my Department and the Bank of England. In addition, two major accountancy firms are respectively providing the services of a senior manager and a secretary.

  Postal Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the efficiency of the postal services.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Post Office has set itself a target for this year to deliver 3 per cent. more letters on average by the next day. I welcome this commitment. Its real unit costs fell by 4·6 per cent. over the last target period, the three years to 29 March 1989.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department employs 32 internal auditors at a cost of £786,000 a year. In 1989, 54 final internal audit reports were produced; none of these was referred to a Minister. No internal audit work is contracted out to private firms at the present time.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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 child care network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Ridley
  [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 combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues, have encouraged the development of a range of high quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what record was kept by an official of his Department of the information given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North on 6 December 1988 by the chairman of British Shipbuilders concerning the financial support available from the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union for the north-south bridge consortium which was bidding to acquire North East Shipbuilders Limited; and what steps have subsequently been taken to check the accuracy of this information.
  633
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The view taken by British Shipbuilders and its financial advisers was that the proposal received from the north-south bridge consortium did not provide the basis for a viable future for merchant shipbuilding in the Sunderland yards. This was irrespective of whether the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union had been able to confirm an oral indication of £10 million towards the consortium's capital provision. The Department's financial advisers agreed with this assessment. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took account of all relevant considerations in reaching the decisions announced on 7 December 1988. The Department's records refer to sources of finance available to the consortium. Given the view taken of the proposal as a whole, there was no point in inviting financial advisers to investigate the GMBATU indication.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the national organisations responding to his consultation paper on possible changes to the breath testing legislation that were in favour of the police being given powers to conduct random breath testing either within the prescribed context of a roadside checkpoint or in the context of them being given unfettered discretion powers;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the outcome of his consultation on changes to the breath testing legislation;

  (3) if he will place copies of responses from organisations to his consultation exercise on breath testing legislation in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on 1 February 1989 at column 252, the following national organisations wrote to the Home Office to express support for extended police powers to conduct roadside breath tests, either in the form of unfettered discretion or some other form:

  Alcohol Concern

  Association of Industrial Road Safety Officers

  Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of Scottish Police Superintendents

  Automobile Association

  Baptist Union of Great Britain

  British Medical Association

  British Safety Council

  Campaign Against Drinking and Driving

  Churches Council on Alcohol and Drugs

  County Surveyors' Society

  Cyclists Touring Club

  Guild of Experienced Motorists

  Institute of Incorporated Highway Engineers

  Justices' Clerks' Society

  K-DOOR (Keep Death Off Our Roads)

  Liberty

  Magistrates' Association

  Medical Commission on Accident Prevention

  National Council of Women

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety

  Police Federation (England and Wales)

  Police Superintendents' Association (England and Wales)

  Royal College of Community Medicine

  Royal College of Midwives

  Royal College of Nursing

  634

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Scotland's Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers

  Scottish Accident Prevention Council

  Scottish Council on Alcohol

  Scottish Police Federation

  We have considered carefully these and other responses received and we intend shortly to announce our conclusions.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve drivers' perception of the actual risk of being detected for excess alcohol.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Regular surveys carried out on behalf of the Department of Transport indicate a marked change in public attitudes towards drinking and driving in recent years. This included an increased awareness of the risk of being caught. This is borne out by the publication on 7 February of statistics of roadside breath tests for the 12 months to September 1989. They show that while the overall level of breath testing continues to rise, there is a continuing downward trend in the proportion of positive tests. A copy of the relevant Home Office statistical bulletin (4/90) is in the Library.

  The Government encourage chief constables to make full use of police powers to require roadside breath tests. The efforts of the police will be further reinforced by the Government's drinking and driving campaigns to be launched again this year during the summer and at Christmas.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Waddington
  Twenty-one internal auditors, including three support staff, were employed as at 1 October 1989. The annual cost is estimated at £524,000.

  In the current financial year 31 reports have been issued. One assignment was partly contracted out to a private firm at a cost of £30,000. One internal audit report was specifically drawn to the attention of a Minister. More generally, internal audit findings and recommendations which are relevant to issues that Ministers are considering are reported to them in the context of submissions on those issues, but information on the number of reports thus drawn to the attention of Ministers is not readily available.

  Ministerial Visits (Security)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the police and security operation for the visit to Bradford and west Yorkshire by the Prime Minister on 28 February.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of west Yorkshire that the additional police costs for the visit were £7,132.

  Political Asylum (Chinese Citizens)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Chinese diplomats applied for political asylum in the United Kingdom since June 1989; and what action was taken in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Four Chinese diplomats applied for political asylum in the United Kingdom in 1989. All were granted refugee status.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political asylum have been received within the last 12 months from Chinese citizens residing in the United Kingdom; and how many have been granted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Applications1 received for refugee status by Chinese nationals subsequent to their entry to the United Kingdom, and decisions1 on such applications, 1989.

  Number

  Applications

  52

  Decisions

  15

  Granted refugee status

  10

  Granted exceptional leave

  5

  Refused refugee status or exceptional leave

  —

  1 Provisional figures which may be underestimates.

  These figures do not include Chinese nationals who apply to remain here on an exceptional basis, and are being allow to stay under the terms of the announcement to the House on 20 December 1989, at column 274.

  Suspects' Rights
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a statement as to the Government's proposals on the right of silence.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are still considering the comments we have received on the report of the departmental working group on the right of silence. I cannot yet say when we shall be ready to announce proposals.

  Laundry Services

  Table of Contracts Awarded In-House and Externally by Region since 1983

  Year ending 31 December

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Total

  Northern

  In

  1

  3

  4

  5

  —

  —

  13

  Out

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Yorkshire

  In

  —

  5

  2

  1

  1

  —

  9

  Out

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Trent

  In

  1

  3

  6

  —

  1

  —

  11

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  East Anglia

  In

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Out

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  North West Thames

  In

  3

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Out

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  3

  North East Thames

  In

  3

  3

  4

  —

  1

  1

  12

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of general practitioners per 1,000 population for(a) England and Wales and (b) the Greater Manchester area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of general practitioners per 1,000 population for England and Wales at 1 October 1988 (the latest data for which figures are available) was 0·54. The figure at 1979 was 0·46.

  The information requested is collected from family practitioner committees (FPCs), which are not necessarily coterminous with metropolitan boundaries. The number of GPs per 1,000 population in the areas covered by the FPCs which cover the Greater Manchester metropolitan area was 0·51 at 1 October 1988 and 0·44 at 1 October 1979.

  Hospital Laundering
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table of the numbers of laundry, cleaning, catering and security contracts awarded in-house and externally each year since 1983 in each health authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally is readily available in the form requested only on a regional health authority basis and is shown in the tables. It represents the results of the initial tendering exercises undertaken following the launch in late 1983 of the Government's competitive tendering initiative for domestic, catering and laundry services.

  Similar information is not held centrally for other services.

  The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  637

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Total

  South West Thames

  In

  1

  4

  1

  1

  2

  —

  9

  Out

  6

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  9

  South East Thames

  In

  —

  2

  2

  3

  2

  —

  9

  Out

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Wessex

  In

  —

  6

  1

  3

  —

  —

  10

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Oxford

  In

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Out

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  South West

  In

  6

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  12

  Out

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  West Midlands

  In

  —

  1

  5

  9

  2

  —

  17

  Out

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Mersey

  In

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  North West

  In

  —

  4

  3

  8

  1

  —

  16

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  SHAs

  In

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  4

  Out

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Totals

  In

  16

  41

  36

  35

  10

  4

  142

  Out

  13

  6

  4

  4

  2

  1

  30

  Domestic Services

  Table of contracts awarded in-house and externally by region since 1983

  Year ending 31 December

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Totals

  Northern

  In

  —

  16

  27

  17

  1

  —

  61

  Out

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  5

  Yorkshire

  In

  —

  16

  21

  5

  1

  —

  43

  Out

  1

  5

  5

  2

  1

  —

  14

  Trent

  In

  —

  34

  47

  18

  —

  —

  99

  Out

  —

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  7

  East Anglia

  In

  —

  12

  5

  3

  —

  —

  20

  Out

  4

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  9

  North West Thames

  In

  —

  6

  16

  4

  —

  3

  29

  Out

  1

  8

  9

  1

  1

  —

  20

  North East Thames

  In

  —

  12

  24

  11

  3

  1

  51

  Out

  2

  7

  9

  1

  —

  —

  19

  South West Thames

  In

  3

  12

  10

  4

  1

  —

  30

  Out

  7

  10

  3

  1

  1

  —

  22

  South East Thames

  In

  —

  12

  19

  14

  4

  1

  50

  Out

  9

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  14

  638

  639

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Totals

  Wessex

  In

  —

  12

  36

  11

  —

  —

  59

  Out

  —

  2

  5

  1

  —

  —

  8

  Oxford

  In

  —

  12

  8

  5

  2

  —

  27

  Out

  6

  1

  4

  1

  —

  —

  12

  South West

  In

  1

  12

  17

  9

  —

  —

  39

  Out

  —

  2

  2

  4

  1

  —

  9

  West Midlands

  In

  —

  30

  52

  32

  6

  —

  120

  Out

  —

  12

  1

  2

  —

  —

  15

  Mersey

  In

  —

  13

  5

  5

  —

  —

  23

  Out

  —

  7

  4

  1

  —

  —

  12

  North West

  In

  —

  16

  47

  17

  1

  —

  81

  Out

  —

  1

  8

  5

  —

  1

  15

  SHAs

  In

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  Out

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  6

  Totals

  In

  4

  217

  334

  156

  19

  6

  736

  Out

  33

  64

  58

  24

  5

  3

  187

  Catering

  Table of contracts awarded in-house and externally by region since 1983

  Year ending 31 December

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Total

  Northern

  In

  —

  9

  12

  8

  —

  —

  29

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Yorkshire

  In

  1

  7

  14

  7

  —

  —

  29

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Trent

  In

  —

  10

  28

  13

  1

  3

  55

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  East Anglia

  In

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  North West Thames

  In

  —

  7

  4

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Out

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  4

  North East Thames

  In

  —

  5

  4

  4

  1

  1

  15

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  South West Thames

  In

  1

  8

  13

  3

  4

  —

  29

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  South East Thames

  In

  1

  10

  8

  6

  2

  1

  28

  Out

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Wessex

  In

  —

  6

  20

  9

  —

  —

  35

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Oxford

  In

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  640

  641

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Total

  South West

  In

  —

  10

  9

  5

  —

  —

  24

  Out

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  West Midlands

  In

  —

  19

  29

  21

  3

  —

  72

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Mersey

  In

  1

  4

  9

  3

  —

  —

  17

  Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  North West

  In

  —

  16

  15

  17

  1

  —

  49

  Out

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  SHAs

  In

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  Out

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Totals

  In

  4

  115

  171

  97

  14

  5

  406

  Out

  2

  3

  4

  2

  1

  2

  14

  Rates
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what manner under the current rating system(a) National Health Service property and (b) private hospitals are assessed;

  (2) in what manner, for the purposes of the uniform business rate (a) National Health Service property and (b) independent hospitals, will be assessed.

  Mr. Freeman
  NHS property is occupied by the Crown and is thus exempt from rates. However, contributions in lieu of rates are paid on the same basis as though the property were rateable. The Treasury valuer determines the values of NHS property for rating purposes, applying the principles laid down in rating legislation and agrees these with the representative of the rating authority; the contribution is then calculated by applying the local rate poundage to the value. Similar principles will apply to the determination of contributions in lieu of rates after 1 April 1990; the Treasury valuer has revalued all non-domestic NHS property for this purpose.

  Private and independent hospitals are rateable and are assessed by the valuation office in accordance with the relevant legislation. This will continue after 1 April 1990.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the number of deaths from cervical cancer in 1988; and how many of these deaths were of women aged 65 years and over.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table:

  Number of deaths from cervical cancer1 by age-groups in England and Wales, 1988

  Age-group

  Number of deaths

  All ages

  1,942

  65 and over

  967

  1 Assigned to 9th revision International Classification of Disease; (ICD)code 180.

  When invasive cervical cancer develops from initial pre-cancerous change in cells of the cervix this generally takes, on average, over 10 years. Therefore, we would expect some time to elapse before the call
  642
  and recall programme reduces the mortality in the 65 years and over age group. Our guidance to health authorities states that women aged 65 years and over who have not had two consecutive negative smears in the last 10 years should be screened. The new GPs' contract, which places a much greater emphasis on health promotion and ill health prevention, should provide additional opportunities for GPs to offer a cervical smear test to women in this age group when appropriate.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the prevalence of encephalopathy amongst patients identified as suffering from AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not recorded as part of the reporting system for AIDS cases. I am advised that there are a number of reports about encephalopathy in people with AIDS in the scientific literature. These show varying prevalence rates which may reflect different patient populations and diagnostic criteria.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will set up a national fund to finance the provision of drugs and treatment for illnesses requiring long-term treatment such as AIDS; what representations he has received on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The costs of treatment and drugs for HIV disease and for other long-term illnesses will continue to be financed as now, by means of allocations to health authorities or through the family practitioner services, as appropriate. Pressures on services, such as those caused by HIV disease will continue to be taken into account in assessing the overall funding requirements of the NHS. There are no plans to set up a separate national fund for any specific group of illnesses; we have received no representations suggesting this course of action.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each nuclear plant in the United Kingdom, the number of children who have been treated for
  643
  leukaemia; and if he will show in his answer the percentage whose parents were or have been employees at a nuclear plant.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available. However, following a recommendation from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment last year, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is proposing to link the data on the national register of radiation workers with information on the geographical distribution of childhood cancer held by the childhood cancer research group at Oxford. We are urgently considering this and other related research proposals. A large amount of parallel research has already been commissioned by Government, which has either been completed, or is under way or planned.

  Milk Tokens
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance his Department is giving to people who claim free milk tokens, but where milk distributors in their area refuse to accept them.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any beneficiary whose usual supplier refuses to accept milk tokens can seek information from the local social security office about alternative suppliers in the locality prepared to accept tokens. Where, exceptionally, the local office is satisfied that a token cannot be exchanged for milk a beneficiary can, as previously, be given a payment in lieu.

  General Household Survey
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) further to table 3.20 of the general household survey 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report, for 1986 and the latest year for which figures are available, the population in each country corresponding to the percentages given for the total of (i) two-adult households together with a subdivision by family size and (ii) three or more adults together with a subdivision showing the

  Table 1: Equivalent of Table 3.20 GHS 1987 Report

  Household members aged 16 and over: household type by sex and country

  Persons aged 16 and over

  Great Britain: 1987 per cent.

  Household type

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Men

  1 adult aged 16–59

  5

  5

  4

  5

  2 adults aged 16–59

  15

  13

  13

  15

  Youngest person aged 0–4

  34

  32

  35

  34

  Youngest person aged 5–15

  3 or more adults

  25

  24

  31

  26

  2 adults, 1 or both aged 60 or over

  17

  20

  14

  17

  1 adult aged 60 or over

  4

  5

  4

  4

  Base= 100 per cent.

  8,542

  449

  896

  9,887

  Women

  1 adult aged 16–59

  3

  3

  4

  3

  2 adults aged 16–59

  14

  11

  12

  14

  Youngest person aged 0–4

  33

  32

  34

  33

  Youngest person aged 5–15

  3 or more adults

  21

  19

  23

  21

  2 adults, 1 or both aged 60 or over

  17

  19

  14

  17

  1 adult aged 60 or over

  12

  15

  13

  12

  Base = 100 per cent.

  9,310

  549

  1,017

  10,876

  Total

  1 adult aged 16–59

  4

  4

  4

  4

  2 adults aged 16–59

  15

  12

  12

  14

  644
  families by number of adults, distinguishing those where the adults are children aged less than 18 years and the proportion of such children in full-time education;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report, for 1986 and the latest year for which figures are available, the population in each country corresponding to the percentages given for the totals in table 3.20 of the general household survey 1986 together with (i) a subdivision of single-adult households between males and females and (ii) the number of parents with children in each case under (i).

  Mr. Freeman
  Not all the requested information is available, but the following tables give such data as can be provided.

  1. Table 1 gives an analysis by country of the total column of Table 3.20 in the 1986 GHS annual report updated to 1987. These are the latest figures available.

  2. Table 3.20 in the 1986 report shows the proportion of adults (aged 16 or over) living in households of various types. The category "2 adults aged 16–59" consists of two-person households in which both members are in the specified age-group and consequently, by definition, excludes households with children. All households containing children are subsumed in this table under the classes, "Youngest person aged 0–4" and "Youngest person aged 5–15". Such households will contain varying numbers of adults.

  3. Table 2 shows, in column (a), the percentage of all households in Great Britain consisting of one adult and one child, one adult and two children, etc. Households containing two adults are distinguished by whether they are of different sexes or the same sex. Column (b) gives the same information but with the percentages based on all households containing children under 16 rather than on all households of any kind. These figures are not available for the three countries separately.

  4. Table 3(a) shows the proportions of families' in Great Britain headed by married couples (or married mothers whose husbands are temporarily absent), by lone fathers, or by lone mothers, with one, two, and three or more dependent children. Table 3(b) repercentages the data to show the proportions of families with one, two, and three or more dependent children headed by a married couple, a lone father, or a lone mother. These data are not available by country.

  1In the GHS, a "family" is defined as (a) a married or cohabiting couple on their own or (b) a married or cohabiting couple/lone parent and their never-married children, provided that these children have no children of their own.
  645

  Household type

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Youngest person aged 0–4

  33

  32

  34

  33

  Youngest person aged 5–15

  3 or more adults

  23

  22

  27

  23

  2 adults, 1 or both aged 60 or over

  17

  19

  14

  17

  1 adult aged 60 or over

  8

  11

  9

  8

  Base = 100 per cent.

  17,852

  998

  1,913

  20,763

  Table 2

  Households with children by type of household

  Households with children

  Great Britain: 1987

  Household type

  As percentage of total households

  (a) in the sample

  (b) with children

  1 adult + 1 child

  1

  4

  1 adult + 2 children

  1

  3

  1 adult + 3+ children

  1

  2

  2 adults (different sex) + 1 child

  7

  8

  23

  25

  2 adults (same sex) + 1 child

  1

  1

  2 adults (different sex) + 2 children

  10

  10

  33

  34

  2 adults (same sex) + 2 children

  1

  1

  Table 3

  Families by type and number of dependent children

  Families with dependent children

  Great Britain: 1987

  per cent.

  (a) Number of dependent children

  Family type

  Married couple2

  Lone mother

  Lone father

  All families with dependent children

  1

  40

  57

  363

  42

  2

  44

  28

  335

  42

  3 or more

  16

  16

  33

  16

  Base= 100 per cent.

  2,909

  412

  40

  3,361

  (b)

  Base= 100 per cent.

  1

  82

  16

  2

  1,418

  2

  91

  8

  1

  1,399

  3 or more

  88

  12

  4

  544

  Total

  87

  12

  1

  3,361

  1Dependent children are persons under 16 or aged 16–18 and in full-time education, in the family unit, and living in the household.

  2 Including married women whose husbands were not defined as resident in the household.

  3These percentages should be treated with caution because of the small base.

  4 Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many internal auditors are employed in those departments for which he is responsible and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  An average of 22 internal auditors were engaged in the internal audit of the Department of Health and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1989. The estimated cost was £498,000 including superannuation and training. Thirty-five audit reports were produced in 1989. No audit reports were drawn to the attention of Ministers, but the results of internal audit's work are considered by the audit committees of both Departments and the accounting officers receive an annual summary of the principal audit findings and recommendations. No internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms.
  646

  Household type

  As percentage of total households

  (a) in the sample

  (b) with children

  2 adults (different sex) + 3 + children

  4

  4

  12

  12

  2 adults (same sex) + 3 + children

  1

  1

  3 adults, 1 child

  3

  9

  3 adults, 2 children

  1

  4

  3 adults, 3+ children

  1

  1

  4+ adults, at least 1 child

  2

  6

  Base = 100 per cent.

  10,367

  3,161

  1Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Disability
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of section 8(2) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials have recently opened consultations with the local authority associations on the cost and other implications of the remaining sections of the Act, including section 8(2). Decisions on implementation will be made in the light of the outcome of these consultations and the availability of the necessary resources.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment services are available to local authorities to assist them in carrying out their duty under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act to assess the needs of deaf-blind people.

  Mr. Freeman
  Section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was implemented on 1 April 1987, requires local
  647
  authorities to assess the needs of a disabled person for services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, if asked to do so by a disabled person or their carer. The Government White Paper "Caring for People" contains provision for the publication in late 1990 of a detailed code of guidance for local authorities which will offer advice on the working of the new assessment system. The code of guidance will be developed following discussions with professional and representative bodies.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring has been carried out by his Department into the implementation by local authorities of sections 4, 8, and 9 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's social services inspectorate has carried out a number of exercises to monitor the implementation of the Act. The results of an inspection of the operation of all sections of the Act in force, including sections 4, 8 and 9, were published on 6 February under the title "Developing Services for Disabled People", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specialist resources are available for the rehabilitation, care and training of deaf-blind people.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally. Local authority social services departments allocate resources for the rehabilitation, care and training of deaf-blind people on the basis of their own, local assessment of need. A number of voluntary organisations also provide excellent services for deaf-blind people. Over the last three financial years, the Department has provided funding of £960,000 to voluntary organisations concerned with the needs of deaf-blind people.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to encourage local authorities to respond to the report, "Breaking Through—Developing Services for Deaf-Blind People".

  Mr. Freeman
  In October 1989, the Department and the deaf-blind services liaison group jointly funded and co-hosted with the Association of Directors of Social Services a national seminar to promote the recommendations in the report "Breaking Through". The seminar, which was aimed at senior managers of social services departments, was well attended and a report of the discussions will shortly be published and distributed to local authorities.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, in the light of the Beverley Lewis case, he has any proposals relating to the training given to professionals on assessing and meeting the needs of deaf-blind people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The death of Beverley Lewis is a very tragic case. We have received reports from the health and social services authorities concerned. When we have received the report from the coroner, we shall consider what, if any, action the Department should take in relation to the needs of deaf-blind people who are also mentally handicapped.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the implications of the Beverley Lewis case for community care services, with particular regard to monitoring the quality of care provided and the setting of national guidelines on community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are awaiting the coroner's report on the Beverley Lewis case. Any implications for community care services will be fully considered when it is published.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of the National Health Service trust non-executive helpers provided by regional health authority chairmen.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the figures by year and in total for the number of hospital posts notified to his Department in which the job description included a duty to advise, undertake or participate in abortions from 31 December 1983 to the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the total number of such posts vacant in each year and in total for(a) psychiatry, (b) anaesthetics and (c) obstetrics and gynaecology.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 February 1990, column 719]I regret the answer given was incorrect.

  The number of hospital posts notified to the Department of Health in which the job description included a duty to advise, undertake or participate in abortions from 31 December 1983 to the latest date for which figures are available are given in the table. These figures refer only to consultant posts, as information on other hospital grades is not held centrally. Also, the data requested on vacant posts are not held centrally.

  Year

  Total

  Psychiatry

  Anaesthetics

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  1984

  11

  0

  2

  9

  1985

  2

  0

  2

  0

  1986

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1987

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1988

  3

  0

  1

  2

  1989

  5

  0

  0

  5

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Banks (Bad Debts)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of revenue to be lost in respect of write-offs for bad debts incurred in 1990–91 by the main banks in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  The revenue cost of write-offs of bad debts incurred in 1990–91 by the main banks in the United Kingdom has not been estimated.
  649
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to collect information on the total tax write-off for bank lending to the Third world.

  Mr. Lilley
  Banks' published accounts contain information about the commercial provisions they make. Information about the amounts allowable for tax can be obtained only after the banks have submitted their accounts to the Inland Revenue and the tax allowable provisions have been discussed and agreed between the taxpayer and the Revenue. This can be a lengthy process. The Inland Revenue collects information on amounts eventually allowed for tax.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to issue guidance to banks regarding future Government tax subsidies or write-offs to banks which fail to recoup loans to the Third world or other debtor nations.

  Mr. Lilley
  The amount of tax relief available to banks in respect of bad or doubtful debts, including debts owed by sovereign debtors, is determined by the tax laws enacted by Parliament.

  Taxation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings the couple with an earner on average earnings, with two children, paid in tax, treating child benefit as negative income tax, in 1978–79 and in 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for 1978–79 have been placed in the Library of the House, as noted in Official Report, 13 April 1989, column 624, and estimates for 1989–90 were given in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 8 January 1990, Official Report, column 559.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the Governor from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Privatisation Revenue
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates privatisation revenue will be in 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) on 15 February, column 381–82.

  Consumer Spending
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his reply of 19 February,Official Report, column 524, concerning consumers' expenditure on rent, rates and water charges, if he will publish an estimate for 1989 and a forecast for 1990 together with (a) a table showing the current price figures for each year deflated by the increase in the retail prices index and (b) a table listing and quantifying the factors accounting for the changes in volume between 1979 and 1988.
  650
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates for 1989 will not be available until the latter part of March following the publication on 16 March of the CSO press notice on gross domestic product for the fourth quarter of 1989. Forecasts for 1990 are not available. With regard to(a), my earlier reply gave figures in constant prices; the use of the retail prices index for deflation is not appropriate here. With regard to (b), a description of the method of compilation of these constant price estimates is given in pages 77–78 of "United Kingdom National Accounts: Sources and Methods", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table, further to table 15.1 of the Annual Abstract of Statistics 1989, showing for the latest available year the number of households in each country corresponding to the 13 listed categories together with the numbers of adults and children in each category in each country; and if he will provide a further breakdown of the other category.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information on the actual number of households for each category in each country is not available: in 1986 there were some 21·5 million households in the United Kingdom. However, an approximate guide to the relative numbers of households can be obtained from the family expenditure survey. This is given in the table for 1986, the latest available year. A further breakdown of the "other" category could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of households, adults and children from the 1986 Family Expenditure Survey1, by household type and country England

  Number of:

  Household type

  H2

  A

  C

  1 adult—non-pensioner

  914

  914

  0

  1 adult—pensioner

  532

  532

  0

  2 adults—non-pensioner

  1,683

  3,366

  0

  2 adults—pensioner

  286

  572

  0

  2 adults, 1 child

  462

  924

  462

  2 adults, 2 children

  611

  1,222

  1,222

  2 adults, 3 children

  199

  398

  597

  3 adults

  444

  1,332

  0

  3 adults, 1 child

  167

  501

  167

  4 adults

  174

  696

  0

  1 adult with child(ren)

  228

  228

  392

  Other households

  304

  1,056

  672

  All households in sample

  6,004

  11,741

  3,512

  Wales

  Number of:

  Household type

  H

  A

  C

  1 adult—non-pensioner

  56

  56

  0

  1 adult—pensioner

  38

  38

  0

  2 adults—non-pensioner

  94

  188

  0

  2 adults—pensioner

  22

  44

  0

  2 adults, 1 child

  36

  72

  36

  2 adults, 2 children

  32

  64

  64

  2 adults, 3 children

  21

  42

  63

  3 adults

  31

  93

  0

  3 adults, 1 child

  15

  45

  15

  4 adults

  13

  52

  0

  1 adult with child(ren)

  10

  10

  17

  Other households

  21

  72

  47

  All households in sample

  389

  776

  242

  651

  Scotland

  Number of:

  Household type

  H

  A

  C

  1 adult—non-pensioner

  101

  101

  0

  1 adult—pensioner

  69

  69

  0

  2 adults—non-pensioner

  154

  308

  0

  2 adults—pensioner

  29

  58

  0

  2 adults, 1 child

  47

  94

  47

  2 adults, 2 children

  82

  164

  164

  2 adults, 3 children

  19

  38

  57

  3 adults

  49

  147

  0

  3 adults, 1 child

  19

  57

  19

  4 adults

  23

  92

  0

  1 adult with child(ren)

  26

  26

  40

  Other households

  34

  119

  77

  All households in sample

  652

  1,273

  404

  Northern Ireland

  Number of:

  Household type

  H

  A

  C

  1 adult—non-pensioner

  18

  18

  0

  1 adult—pensioner

  14

  14

  0

  2 adults—non-pensioner

  32

  64

  0

  2 adults—pensioner

  1

  2

  0

  2 adults, 1 child

  10

  20

  10

  2 adults, 2 children

  19

  38

  38

  2 adults, 3 children

  7

  14

  21

  3 adults

  10

  30

  0

  3 adults, 1 child

  1

  3

  1

  4 adults

  2

  8

  0

  1 adult with child(ren)

  4

  4

  5

  Other households

  15

  53

  39

  All households in sample

  133

  268

  114

  United Kingdom

  Year

  Imputed income1 from owner/rent free occupancy

  Weekly 1 3 equivalent of rateable value £/household

  Rents price4 index 1985 = 100

  Index of local5 authorities rents 1985 = 100

  Components of the retail prices index annual averages

  £/week average per household

  Percentage of average household income2

  Rent 1985 = 100

  Rates 1985 = 100

  1975

  2·44

  3·4

  3·19

  32·0

  26·6

  27·3

  26·9

  1976

  3·46

  4·2

  3·20

  37·1

  30·6

  31·4

  31·0

  1977

  3·93

  4·2

  3·32

  41·2

  35·4

  35·9

  34·5

  1978

  4·93

  4·6

  3·54

  46·3

  37·7

  39·7

  38·1

  1979

  5·65

  4·7

  3·62

  53·7

  41·3

  43·6

  44·2

  1980

  6·75

  4·6

  3·68

  62·6

  49·7

  52·0

  55·4

  1981

  7·79

  4·6

  3·70

  74·8

  7·7

  70·5

  70·1

  1982

  8·57

  4·8

  3·64

  84·5

  85·7

  82·7

  80·3

  1983

  9·70

  5·2

  3·71

  90·8

  89·3

  88·0

  87·1

  1984

  10·23

  5·2

  3·74

  94·3

  93·9

  93·2

  92·4

  1985

  11·86

  5·5

  4·30

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1986

  12·57

  5·4

  4·45

  105·1

  106·1

  106·5

  113·0

  1987

  12·95

  5·1

  4·48

  110·3

  112·4

  112·8

  123·2

  1988

  15·83

  5·6

  4·60

  116·9

  123·4

  121·1

  133·4

  1989

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  136·6

  132·2

  145·8

  1 Estimates based on Family Expenditure Survey.

  2 Household income figures for 1982 and earlier are not comparable with 1983, or with 1984, or with 1985 and following years.

  3 In 1985 rateable values for Scotland were reassessed.

  4 Consumers Expenditure rent deflator.

  5 Estimates for local authorities Great Britain only based on returns by local authorities to the Department of the Environment, Scottish Development Department and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing, for each region, total investment by companies in research and development.
  652

  United Kingdom

  Number of:

  Household type

  H

  A

  C

  1 adult—non-pensioner

  1,089

  1,089

  0

  1 adult—pensioner

  653

  653

  0

  2 adults—non-pensioner

  1,963

  3,926

  0

  2 adults—pensioner

  338

  676

  0

  2 adults, 1 child

  555

  1,110

  555

  2 adults, 2 children

  744

  1,488

  1,488

  2 adults, 3 children

  246

  492

  738

  3 adults

  534

  1,602

  0

  3 adults, 1 child

  202

  606

  202

  4 adults

  212

  848

  0

  1 adult with child(ren)

  268

  268

  454

  Other households

  374

  1,300

  835

  All households in sample

  7,178

  14,058

  4,272

  1 The response to the survey differs as between regions and households and the results cannot be accurately grossed to give national figures.

  2 H = Households, A = Adults, C = Children.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table further to table 15.3 of the Annual Abstract of Statistics 1989, showing for each year and a forecast for 1987, 1988 and 1989 the amount and percentage share of imputed income from owner rent-free occupancy together with (i) the weekly equivalent of the rateable value, (ii) the percentage uplift for the general increase in rents, (iii) the corresponding increase in council rents and (iv) the rate and rent factors included in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is given in the table. Figures for 1989 are not available for all items.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the expenditure of central Government for each year since 1979 in(a) cash terms and (b) constant price terms for the latest year for which figures are available; what was the percentage increase in each year; and what was the percentage increase between 1979 and the latest available year;

  Central Government's own expenditure, 1978–79 to 1988–89

  1978–79 outturn

  1979–80 outturn

  1980–81 outturn

  1981–82 outturn

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  Cash terms:

  Total expenditure £ billion

  44·9

  52·7

  64·1

  73·8

  82·4

  86·2

  93·2

  99·6

  106·1

  111·2

  116·3

  Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  17·4

  21·7

  15·1

  11·7

  4·5

  8·2

  6·8

  6·6

  4·8

  4·6

  Total expenditure per head1 £

  799

  937

  1,139

  1,310

  1,464

  1,529

  1,651

  1,759

  1,869

  1,953

  2,038

  Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  17·3

  21·5

  15·0

  11·8

  4·4

  8·0

  6·5

  6·3

  4·5

  4·4

  Real terms (adjusted to 1988–89 prices for effect of general inflation by the GDP deflator):

  Total expenditure £ billion

  98·7

  99·2

  102·0

  106·9

  111·4

  111·2

  114·6

  116·2

  119·8

  119·2

  116·3

  Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  0·5

  2·9

  4·8

  4·2

  -0·1

  3·1

  1·4

  3·1

  -0·5

  -2·5

  Total expenditure per head1 £

  1,757

  1,764

  1,812

  1,898

  1,979

  1,974

  2,031

  2,053

  2,111

  2,094

  2.038

  Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  0·4

  2·7

  4·8

  4·3

  -0·2

  2·8

  1·1

  2·8

  -0·8

  -2·7

  1 Per head figures are based on mid-year population estimates.

  Between 1978–79 and 1988–89, central Government's expenditure increased by 159 per cent. in cash terms and by 18 per cent. in real terms. The increase per head of population over the same period is 155 per cent. in cash terms and 16 per cent. in real terms.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Milk Quota
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the distribution in Northern Ireland of the 1 per cent. of additional milk quota which has been allocated to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 15 February that he had submitted to the European Commission for approval the Government's proposals for the allocation of the extra I per cent. quota in the United Kingdom.

  The proposals include allocation

  to new entrants

  to producers whose quota is less than 200,000 litres

  to producers in certain remote areas

  to producers whose Tribunal awards had not been granted in full because insufficient quota was available

  Producers in Northern Ireland will benefit under each of the categories with the exception of the remote areas provision which applies only to the Scilly Isles and Scottish islands.

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many administrative staff employed by the Eastern health and social services board are on a
  654
  (2) what was the expenditure of central Government for each year since 1979 per head of population in (a) cash terms and (b) constant price terms, based on the latest year for which figures are available; what was the percentage increase in each year; and what was the percentage increase between 1979 and the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: The information requested on central Government's expenditure is given in the table:

  salary scale which at the minimum point is in excess of £30,000 per annum; and what is the designated name of each such grade.

  Mr. Needham
  There are 12 administrative staff employed by the Eastern health and social services board who are on a salary scale which at the minimum point is in excess of £30,000 per annum. The designated name of each grade is as follows:

  Board General Manager

  Director of Finance

  Director of Operations

  Director of Personnel and Management Services

  Director of Planning

  Unit General Manager 1 (4 posts)

  Unit General Manager 2 (3 posts)

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out in the Official Report the qualifications and experience required from applicants for posts of manager of units of management in the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Needham
  There are nine unit general manager posts in the Eastern health and social services board and applicants for all these posts were required to have:

  (1.) A good academic or professional qualification to degree level and have had recent senior management experience in the public or private sector; or recent senior management experience of at least five years in the public or private sector.

  (2.) A proven record of managerial achievement in their current and previous posts and be able to demonstrate leadership skills in a multi-professional environment.

  (3.) The ability to set and work to agreed objectives.

  (4.) The ability to communicate effectively through all levels of the organisation and with the external environment.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the annual
  655
  expenditure incurred by the Eastern health and social services board is accounted for by the salaries of staff being paid in excess of £20,000 per annum who are in administrative grades.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. However, the total salaries and wages element of the Eastern board's gross revenue expenditure in 1988–89 was approximately 75 per cent. and the administrative and clerical staffs salaries and wages accounted for about 7 per cent. The proportion relating to those paid in excess of £20,000 would therefore be very small.

  Litter
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prosecutions there have been under the anti-litter legislation in each district council area since the legislation came into operation; what is the number that have been successful; and what was the range of fines imposed by the courts.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under article 28 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 it is an offence with a maximum penalty of a £400 fine for anyone, without lawful authority, to throw, dump or deposit litter in any place in the open air.

  The information requested is not held centrally and is being sought from individual councils. I will write as soon as possible and will place copies of my letter in the Library.

  Emigration
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish in the Official Report the latest estimate of figures for emigration from Northern Ireland to (a) other parts of the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Eire and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 16,100

  (b) 1,600

  (c) 3,100

  Figures are derived from the 1989 mid-year estimates of population and cover the period 1 July 1988 to 30 June 1989.

  Family Benefits
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families in Northern Ireland were in receipt of child benefit in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested, as at 31 January, is as follows:

  31 January 1988

  215,476

  31 January 1989

  215,858

  31 January 1990

  215,750

  Radiation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, following the publication of the Gardner report on radiation risks, he will review current radiation exposure limits at facilities licensed to handle radioactive materials in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The legislation which specifies the maximum permissible occupational dose of ionizing 656
  radiation is currently under review in Great Britain. Should this review result in changes in the statutory limits applicable in Great Britain, similar changes will be made in the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that identical legislative control exists throughout the United Kingdom.

  Coleraine Hospital
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his answers to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 19 February,Official Report, column 569, what steps he is taking to ensure that the Northern health and social services board is aware of the standards required by the Government for the option appraisal; and if he will outline the options being considered in the option appraisal.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The standards required by the Government for option appraisal are set out in the HM Treasury publication "Investment Appraisal in the Public Sector" and the Department of Health publication "Investment Appraisal—A Guide for the National Health Service". Both documents have been issued to health and social services boards. The identification of options is part of the appraisal process and these should include all feasible ways of providing the required level and quality of services to patients.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 21 February, whether a code of practice, acceptable to the Fair Employment Commission, exists for disclosure of information as to the religious composition of the work force in each different premises of a private firm similar to that agreed for the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: I am informed by the Fair Employment Commission that it is not aware of any private sector firm which has drawn up guidelines on the disclosure of monitoring information. However, this issue is dealt with in "Fair Employment in Northern Ireland Code of Practice", published by the Department of Economic Development and circulated to all employers in Northern Ireland in December 1989.

  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees the Western health and social services board has; and how many were educated at a primary school in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) the Irish Republic and (c) Great Britain.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: On 3 January 1990, the Western health and social services board employed 6,809 staff (excluding homehelps), of whom 5,174 were educated at primary schools in Northern Ireland and 885 were educated at primary schools outside Northern Ireland. No record of primary school attended is held in respect of the remaining 750 staff.

  The latest available figure for homehelps relates to 18 October 1989. Of the 1,866 employed on that date, 989 were educated at primary schools in Northern Ireland and

  657
  110 were educated at primary schools outside Northern Ireland. No record of primary school attended is held in respect of the remaining 767 homehelps.

  Of those educated outside Northern Ireland it is not possible to disaggregate those who attended school in Great Britain and those who attended school in the Republic of Ireland.

  Fisheries Research
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) on how many(a) occasions and (b) total days, at what cost and leasing income per day, and to whom the vessel Lough Foyle has been leased since it came into the possession of the Northern Ireland authorities;

  (2) whether the leasing of the vessel Lough Foyle has shown a profit or loss.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The objective of leasing the Lough Foyle is to offset the costs associated with ownership and crewing during periods when it is not required for research by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  The MV Lough Foyle has been chartered on nine occasions involving 93 days since the vessel came into the possession of the Northern Ireland authorities. Lessees have been the Scottish Marine Biological Association, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Department of the Marine, Republic of Ireland.

  The average daily full economic cost of operating the vessel while at sea to the Department is currently £1,500.

  The total leasing income to date has been £93,826·15.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what consultations were made with local social security offices in determining the 1990–91 social fund

  Social Fund Loans: Details of Amounts Repaid1

  Social Security Office

  Period up to 31 March 1989

  Period up to 30 June 1989

  Period up to 30 September 1989

  Period up to 31 December 1989

  Andersonstown

  310,217·18

  459,780·84

  619,360·43

  777,718·03

  Antrim

  138,151·64

  208,698·21

  283,135·11

  367,895·85

  Armagh

  90,170·00

  142,147·66

  199,858·96

  260,749·62

  Ballymena

  130,697·32

  190,399·54

  253,730·61

  316,671·94

  Ballymoney

  83,855·55

  126,920·25

  174,031·91

  222,689·66

  Ballynahinch

  12,142·99

  19,688·78

  28,732·49

  37,305·14

  Banbridge

  48,621·24

  75,22008

  103,324·33

  133,504·76

  Bangor

  62,632·25

  97,309·14

  133,466·91

  169,468·41

  Carrickfergus

  66,741·15

  100,130·57

  133,313·75

  167,055·30

  Coleraine

  138,359·05

  203,330·74

  271,468·91

  342,255·78

  Cookstown

  87,151·99

  133,957·42

  181,453·82

  231,206·61

  Corporation Street

  293,354·23

  473,023·91

  666,515·15

  871,057·57

  Downpatrick

  64,412·81

  91,743·89

  119,061·09

  151,830·46

  Dungannon

  128,599·41

  200,102·84

  274,385·24

  351,787·76

  Enniskillen

  98,319·58

  155,491·13

  214,853·62

  278,642·47

  Falls

  284,793·85

  417,867·39

  559,122·30

  712,196·60

  Holywood Road

  167,158·84

  250,541·13

  343,994·49

  448,407·92

  Kilkeel

  15,155·75

  24,528·68

  34,421·69

  44,719·40

  Knockbreda

  103,472·26

  150,266·12

  196,938·62

  247,286·23

  Larne

  68,863·40

  99,895·56

  134,230·39

  168,584·00

  Limavady

  64,474·52

  93,506·13

  122,835·69

  154,127·58

  Lisburn

  210,938·49

  299,729·25

  398,619·68

  498,756·31

  Londonderry

  357,795·15

  589,318·67

  836,453·59

  1,091,846·02

  Lurgan

  160,122·26

  247,788·58

  339,370·42

  434,782·91

  Magherafelt

  81,438·76

  128,549·05

  182,222·52

  241,751·18

  Newcastle

  26,139·12

  40,671·16

  53,595·63

  69,301·79

  Newry

  147,094·52

  244,663·95

  352,667·25

  470,703·56

  Newtownabbey

  113,804·24

  167,412·06

  224,037·36

  284,787·86

  Newtownards

  66,456·06

  95,867·33

  125,789·55

  157,905·27

  Omagh

  136,444·36

  202,436·16

  273,853·07

  354,034·82

  Portadown

  81,972·64

  120,370·70

  161,601·65

  206,677·56

  658
  allocation; and what weight was given to factors such as their premium case loads and the operation of their existing budgets;

  (2) what information is available to indicate the allocation of the social fund budget to each social security office for 1990–91, indicating the balance between loans and grants, the total income support case load of each and the figures for their respective premium case loads;

  (3) what reference was made to relevant health and social services agencies regarding their projections for community care in determining social fund allocations for 1990–91.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: The allocations to social security offices for 1990–91 have not yet been determined. They will be announced in due course and a paper containing details of the basis of the allocations will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate for each social security office the totals allocated for loans in the 1988–89 social fund budget, the total amount paid out, the number of loans given, the numbers refused, and the total amount repaid and the number of recipients who had totally repaid their loans by(a) March 31 1989, (b) June 30 1989, (c) September 30 1989 and (d) December 31 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: The number of recipients who have totally repaid their loans is not available, but the total amounts repaid are shown in the table. The remaining information is held in the Library.
  659

  Social Security Office

  Period up to 31 March 1989

  Period up to 30 June 1989

  Period up to 30 September 1989

  Period up to 31 December 1989

  Shaftesbury Square

  166,087·30

  252,539·26

  348,355·22

  451,992·73

  Shankill

  140,989·13

  199,196·13

  259,145·53

  320,247·44

  Strabane

  148,694·34

  224,681·56

  301,303·20

  374,734·59

  Total

  4,295,321·38

  6,527,763·87

  8,905,150·18

  11,412,683·13

  1 The amounts for each period are cumulative.

  One-Parent Benefit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) women and (b) men are in receipt of one-parent benefit.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The figures are 21,620 women and 2,096 men.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will tabulate in the Official Report investment in British Rail for each of the financial years 1983 to date showing what sums for capital investment have been derived from Exchequer and BR sources, respectively, together with indications of the parts of such capital liable and not liable to interest charge, respectively, in any one year.

  Mr. Portillo
  Table 7.33 in chapter 7 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990/91 to 1992/93" (Cm 1007) sets out British Rail's capital requirements and the internal and external resources from which these requirements are met. "External finance" comprises revenue subsidy paid by the Government and borrowing, principally from the national loans fund. We do not apportion particular forms of finance between investment and other expenditure. BR "rail" investment since 1983 is as follows, in £m and at constant 1989–90 prices:

  Year

  Rail investment

  1983

  348

  1984

  1369

  1985–86

  498

  1986–87

  482

  1987–88

  604

  1988–89

  610

  1989–90

  2670

  Note:

  (1) 1984–85 was a 15-month financial period. The figure shown for 1984 is the 12-month equivalent.

  (2) Estimate.

  Railways Safety Inspectorate
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the transfer of the railways safety inspectorate to the Health and Safety Commission.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 27 February,Hansard col. 143.

  Feasibility Studies (East Sussex)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those feasibility studies or other paperwork exercises carried out for his Department by East Sussex county council since 1985, giving the year, the nature of the study and details of any moneys paid in respect of these studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1985 East Sussex county council, as agent authority, has advised and assisted the Department on a wide range of issues relating to the maintenance and improvement of and development control affecting the trunk roads in the county. The number of items dealt with over this range is large. A detailed breakdown is not readily available and would be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The only major feasibility study carried out in this period is that for improving the A27 between the eastern end of the Lewes bypass and Polegate.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) in respect of the recent feasibility study into the A27 Lewes-Polegate road, conducted by East Sussex county council for his Department, on what date(a) the Department communicated to the county council its intention to commission a feasibility study, (b) the county council confirmed it wished to conduct the study, (c) the study was commissioned by his Department and (d) the completed study was received from the county council by his Department;

  (2) in respect of the recent feasibility study into the A27 Lewes-Polegate road conducted by East Sussex county council for his Department (a) what sum was paid to the county council for the work carried out and (b) if any other moneys were paid out for this study.

  Mr. Atkins
  The need for an A27 Lewes to Polegate scheme identification study was first announced in the 1987 roads White Paper published in April 1987. East Sussex county council offered to assist in February 1988, was commissioned to carry out the study in August 1988, forwarded its confidential report to the Department in October 1988 and was paid £17,567 (exclusive of VAT).

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he or his officials last met representatives from East Sussex county council; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Officials met representatives of East Sussex county council on 1 March when the Department's consultants, appointed to investigate options for improving the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, were introduced to county officers and lines of communication established for on-going liaison during the scheme's preparation.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will convene a national conference of all interested parties to discuss the future of the Channel tunnel and rail link throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. British Rail undertook an extensive programme of consultation in all regions before publishing in December last year its plan for international passenger and freight services when the Channel tunnel opens. In accordance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 the board will be keeping this plan under review. Interested groups should therefore make their points to British Rail.

  Midland Line (Electrification)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from elected bodies in the east midlands regarding the need to provide funding for the electrification of the midland line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a number of representations from local authorities about the electrification of the midland main line, including one from the midland main line consortium of local authorities. It remains for British Rail to come forward with any proposals it considers worth while.

  "The Road User and the Law"
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to bring forward legislation to implement the proposals in "The Road User and the Law".

  Mr. Atkins
  As soon as time is available.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the managerial competence of the docklands light railway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The management of the docklands light railway is a matter for the chairman and board of London Regional Transport. The performance of the railway's operations is a regular topic of discussion between the chairman of London Regional Transport, the chairman of the dock lands light railway and me.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department employs 26 internal auditors at an annual cost of around £580,000. In 1989, 73 internal audit reports were produced, none of which needed to be drawn to Ministers' attention. No internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms.

  Radioactive Waste
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has on the number of competing designs for a transportation flask for vitrified high-level radioactive waste; and if he will list the companies involved;

  (2) what method of review and assessment he anticipates for the design safety report accompanying British Nuclear Fuels plc's formal licence submission for a transportation flask for the return of vitrified high-level radioactive waste to its country of origin;

  (3) when he expects to receive a formal licence submission from British Nuclear Fuels plc's for a transportation flask for the return of vitrified high-level radioactive waste to its country of origin;

  (4) whether he will place in the Library a copy of British Nuclear Fuels plc's design safety report of a transportation flask for vitrified high-level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  No application has been received from BNFL plc or any other company for certification of a flask for the transport of vitrified high-level radioactive waste.

  Details of the designs involved, were such an application to be received, would be the property of the applicant and subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on transportation flasks for vitrified high-level radioactive waste(a) under development and (b) in service anywhere in the world; and if he will list the countries.

  Atkins
  None.

  Roundabouts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many roundabouts have been reduced in diameter each year for the last 10 years; and why.

  Mr. Atkins
  Numerical information of the kind requested is not collected. Reductions in the diameter of roundabouts are mainly made to improve efficiency and-or capacity.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was, for the five most recent years available, the number of road accidents which occurred at roundabouts; and whether the figures represent a growing or diminishing percentage of total road vehicle accidents.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department collects information only on road accidents involving personal injury. The information requested for personal injury road accidents is as follows:

  Personal injury road accidents at roundabouts: 1984 to 1988

  Accidents at roundabouts

  All accidents

  Per cent, of accidents at roundabouts

  1984

  Fatal

  70

  5,138

  1·36

  Serious

  1,884

  62,048

  3·04

  All severities

  11,592

  253,183

  4·58

  1985

  Fatal

  64

  4,768

  1·34

  Serious

  1,884

  60,286

  3·13

  663

  Accidents at roundabouts

  All accidents

  Per cent, of accidents at roundabouts

  All severities

  11,723

  245,645

  4·77

  1986

  Fatal

  82

  4,895

  1·68

  Serious

  1,862

  58,187

  3·20

  All severities

  12,028

  247,854

  4·85

  1987

  Fatal

  66

  4,694

  1·41

  Serious

  1,719

  54,352

  3·16

  All severities

  11,831

  239,063

  4·95

  1988

  Fatal

  68

  4,643

  1·46

  Serious

  1,775

  53,850

  3·30

  All severities

  13,037

  246,994

  5·28

  The figures show that there has been a slight increase in the percentage of road accidents occurring at roundabouts over the five-year period. The number of these accidents in which there were fatal or serious casualties has declined over the same period.

  London Road Assessment Studies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the total number of written comments received in response to(a) "Traffic in London", (b) the east London assessment study, (c) the south London assessment study, (d) the south circular assessment study and (e) the west London assessment study; and if he will respond to them;

  (2) what is the total number of signatories on petitions received directly by him concerning "Traffic in London" and the four assessment studies in London;

  (3) when he expects to make an announcement on the result of consultation on "Traffic in London" and the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  The thousands of responses on the London assessment studies and "Traffic in London" are currently being collated and analysed. To make interim counts would involve a disproportionate cost and would delay the decision process, thus prolonging the uncertainty for residents.

  Motorway Service Stations
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorway service stations he plans to open in the next five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's strategic programme for motorway service areas in England is designed to fill gaps in the existing network and provide facilities on new motorways. The programme comprises 19 sites, of which 13 are likely to open within five years, subject to completion of planning procedures and land acquisition.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport over what time scale he has been asked to approve investment in the new Networker rolling stock to be introduced by British Rail on the north Kent line.

  Mr. Portillo
  Last August my right hon. Friend authorised the purchase of the first 400 class 465 664
  Networkers at a cost of £257 million (at 1989 prices) and gave approval in principle for a further 276 vehicles. These will replace the existing rolling stock on routes to south-east London and north Kent. I expect to receive proposals for further orders of class 465s to cater for the continuing growth in demand on these routes.

  Eastern District Distributor Road
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will extend the construction of the eastern district distributor road and the proposed A46-A47 link road to at least dual carriageway throughout;

  (2) if, in the study that he is now making of traffic management around Leicester, he will proceed at the earliest date to make the eastern district distributor road dual carriageway standard throughout to relieve traffic congestion on the A6 at Oadby.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Leicester eastern district distributor road, the Leicester southern district distributor road and the A46–A47 link road are the responsibility of Leicestershire county council as highway authority, and it is for that authority to determine its standards and programming.

  The proposed Leicester eastern bypass is a trunk road scheme. It is hoped to announce a preferred route in 1994. The carriageway standard has yet to be determined.

  Beach Pollution (Sussex)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 February, regarding the MV Fathulkhair,Official Report, column 237, what steps he is able to take to secure compensation from the vessel's owners for the cost incurred in dealing with the dangerous cargo from the vessel on British beaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: I am looking into the question of whether the Government have a claim against the owners which would be enforceable as a matter of law, and if I am satisfied that there is a sustainable claim I shall initiate whatever proceedings are necessary.

EMPLOYMENT

  Workplace Health and Safety
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve health protection and safety conditions in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government have increased financial provision for the commission and executive over previously agreed levels again for 1990–91. The additional provision is £7 million excluding money transferred from the Department of Energy for nuclear safety research.

  My right hon. and learned Friend expects shortly to receive for his approval details of the commission's plans for 1990–91 and beyond. The commission hopes to publish its plan of work in May.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish the reports of inspections of the careers service begun after September 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Five inspections of careers services have been set up following the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) last year that reports on inspections carried out after September 1989 would be published. These inspections are all currently taking place and I would expect to publish the reports of these inspections in September or October of this year.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive's latest annual report.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The report of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive was published on 26 February. Latest provisional statistics for 1988–89 published in the report show an apparent levelling off of major injuries, which we very much welcome. But the number of fatalities, which include those from the Piper Alpha disaster, and high or increasing injury rates in particular industries demonstrate that there is not room for any relaxation of effort by industry to improve standards.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide statistics showing for each year between 1980 and 1989 the number of people working on Government-sponsored training programmes in the construction industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I regret the information is not available.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by tourist board area what information he has on the mean percentage increases that(a) hotel and (b) guest house owners are charging, following the introductions of the uniform business rate.

  Great Britain

  South West Division

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Number of establishments checked by all methods

  35,777

  31,524

  32,474

  2,319

  4,073

  3,586

  Number of establishments found underpaying

  8,205

  4,443

  5,597

  832

  961

  1,156

  Number of prosecutions for all wages council offences

  3

  8

  11

  —

  —

  2

  Bramley Employment Office
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement regarding the planned closure of the Bramley employment office in Leeds, West.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service is working progressively to bring jobcentres and benefit offices together under one roof. This will provide a new and improved one-stop service.

  I will ensure that the hon. Member is informed as soon as a decision about the future of the office at Bramley has been taken.
  666
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Public Sector Wage Bargaining (EC)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the system of public sector wage bargaining in each European Community country.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department does not: hold comprehensive information on public sector wage bargaining systems in other EEC countries.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what calculations his Department has made on job losses in the United Kingdom consequent upon the introduction of minimum wage legislation under the European social charter.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Officials in the Department have estimated that the imposition of a minimum wage set at 50 per cent. of the national average wage would result in the loss of about three quarters of a million jobs in this country.

  Wages Inspectorate
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of investigations carried out by the wages inspectorate for the United Kingdom, the south-west region, Avon and the Bristol, South constituency for the latest three years and the numbers of establishments found to be in breach of wages council rates and the numbers of prosecutions for each area and year, respectively.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics are not kept for areas smaller than the inspectorate's nine divisions. The table gives the information requested for the south-west division and for Great Britain as a whole. Statistics for 1989 are not yet available.

  Northern Ireland has a separate wages council system, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Number of auditors employed in the Department—124.

  (b) Total cost of the auditors—£2,723,881.

  667

  (c) Number of audit reports produced in 1989–302.

  (d) Number of audit reports drawn to attention of a Minister—3.

  (e) The following internal audit work was subcontracted to private firms—Nil.

  (f) The total cost of subcontracting works to private firms—Nil.

  Paisley Job Club
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many investigations have been made by his officials into the activities of the Paisley job club; and what were the results.

  Mr. Eggar
  Employment service officials visit Paisley job club at six-monthly intervals as part of the standard monitoring procedure. The last such visit took place on 9 January 1990. In addition, a further meeting took place on 22 February 1990 between employment service officials and the company which is contracted to run the job club on its behalf. This meeting followed allegations made by a journalist working for the Glasgow Evening Times.

  The employment service believes that the Paisley job club is, in general, being run in accordance with its requirements. It is accepted that some irregularities in record-keeping have occurred, but these have had no effect on unemployment statistics and have not resulted in any additional payments being made to the contractor. The job club records are being amended to correct the errors which have been found. I believe that the Paisley job club, like the programmes generally, provides valuable help to long-term unemployed people, and others at a disadvantage in the labour market, in their search for work.

  MTC Limited
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has regarding forged JC 18 forms processed by his Department and MTC Limited of Ingram street, Glasgow; and if he will make a statement on what further steps he intends to take to investigate the allegations and admissions of forged documents.

  Mr. Eggar
  Form JC18 is a record of membership of, and outcomes from, job clubs. Allegations that 12 forms had been forged at Paisley job club were made by a Glasgow journalist. Investigations are continuing, but it has been established that incorrect information had been entered on job club records by a member who was acting without the authority of MTC Limited or the employment service and who has now left the job club.

  Further checks are being made to ensure there are no other errors. The need for further action to ensure accurate record-keeping at the job club will be considered when the results of these checks are known.

  The allegations are confined to the Paisley job club.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the contractual relationship between MTC Limited and the Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  MTC Limited has 19 contracts with the Department of Employment in respect of programmes managed by the employment service. Thirteen of these are to operate job clubs and six are for the provision of restart courses.
  668
  There are further contracts between MTC Limited and the Department of Employment in respect of programmes managed by the Training Agency. These relate to employment training and YTS.

  Restart
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the outcomes of restart interviews conducted three months prior to and three months after the introduction of the Social Security Act 1989, or the nearest other appropriate dates.

  Mr. Eggar
  Monthly figures are not available. The only figures available are for the quarters ending September 1989 and December 1989.

  In the quarter ending September 1989, 505,600 restart interviews were conducted. Of these 85 per cent. resulted in an offer of help being made and 71 per cent. of interviews resulted in the offer being accepted.

  In the quarter ending December 1989, 464,100 restart interviews were conducted. Of these, 82 per cent. resulted in an offer of help being made and 71 per cent. of interviews resulted in the offer being accepted.

  Cumbria TEC
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet representatives of the Cumbria training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Eggar
  I last met Mr. Rick Emslie, the chairman of Cumbria training and enterprise council on Tuesday 27 February.

  Wages (Regional Variations)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring his Department undertakes on regional variations in pay level for jobs on offer at jobcentres in England.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Employment does not monitor regional pay variations for jobs on offer at jobcentres.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement about the sale of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  Further to the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend made to the House on 13 February 1990 (Official Report, 13 February 1990, column 141) about the sale of the Skills Training Agency (STA), I can announce that terms of sale have now been agreed with a consortium headed by Mr. Christopher Lakin for the training businesses located at Cumbria (Maryport), East Lanes (Accrington), Ipswich and St. Helens skillcentres.

  The offer from Mr. Lakin's consortium was considered against the Government's objectives for the sale, which were placed in the Vote Office on 13 February, and will involve a payment of some £2 million from the Government to the consortium: this reflects the need for restructuring and reforming the training businesses. There will be no loss to the Government from the transaction compared with the alternative of closing these skillcentres. The total number of skillcentres which will be sold is now 51.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on benefit paid to employment training trainees in December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Trainees on employment training do not receive benefit but a training allowance based on previous benefit entitlement plus an additional amount of £10 a week.

  Year

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Others1

  Total

  1979

  78·5

  87·5

  87·5

  253·5

  1980

  69

  73

  80·5

  222·5

  1981

  71·5

  66·5

  73·5

  211·5

  1982

  64

  57·5

  66

  187·5

  1983

  65

  58·5

  61

  184·5

  1984

  63

  50·5

  60

  173·5

  1985

  61·5

  42·5

  61·5

  165·5

  1986

  57·5

  43

  59·5

  160

  1987

  56·5

  45

  50

  151·5

  1988

  45

  47

  41

  133

  1989

  43·5

  46·5

  39·5

  129·5

  1 eg administrative and support.

  An analysis of staff employed at I February 1990 by broad occupational group and area is given in the table:

  EMAS staff at 1 February 1990 by occupational group and location

  Areas

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Others1

  Total

  South West

  4·0

  4·0

  3·0

  11·0

  South

  2·0

  2·0

  1·5

  5·5

  South East

  1·0

  2·0

  1·5

  4·5

  London North

  1·0

  2·0

  2·5

  5·5

  London South

  2·0

  1·0

  1·5

  4·5

  East Anglia

  1·5

  1·5

  2·0

  5·0

  Northern Home Counties

  2·0

  1·0

  2·0

  5·0

  East Midlands

  2·5

  2·0

  1·5

  6·0

  West Midlands

  3·0

  3·0

  2·0

  8·0

  Wales

  3·0

  4·0

  2·0

  9·0

  Marches

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  6·0

  North Midlands

  1·5

  2·0

  1·0

  4·5

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·0

  3·0

  1·5

  5·5

  West and North Yorkshire

  2·5

  1·0

  2·0

  5·5

  Greater Manchester

  1·5

  2·0

  2·5

  6·0

  Merseyside

  1·5

  2·0

  1·5

  5·0

  North West

  2·0

  2·0

  3·0

  7·0

  North East

  4·0

  5·0

  4·0

  13·0

  Scotland East

  3·5

  4·0

  3·0

  10·5

  Scotland West

  2·5

  4·0

  1·5

  8·0

  Totals

  44·0

  49·5

  41·5

  135·0

  1 eg administrative and support staff.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 384, to the hon. Member for Stretford he will itemise the provisional total of 327 accidents between March 1987 and December 1989, during work on the Channel tunnel, according to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations; and give the nature of the injury.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: The information as requested is not readily available and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  HSE Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of staff employed by the Health and Safety Executive employment medical advisory service for the latest date for which figures are available and for every year since 1979; and if he will provide a breakdown by occupation and location.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: The total numbers from 1979 to 1989 (at 1 June) by occupational group were:

  The table gives a breakdown of the nature of accidents which occurred at the tunnelling sites and were reported to the Health and Safety Executive between March 1987 and December 1989 in accordance with the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations:

  Nature of Accident

  Total Number of Accidents Reported1

  Contact with moving machinery

  15

  Struck by object

  91

  Struck by vehicle

  17

  Struck against something

  11

  Handling/Lifting/Carrying

  60

  Slip/trip/fall on same level

  73

  671

  Nature of Accident

  Total Number of Accidents Reported1

  Fall from height

  40

  Collapse or overturning

  5

  Exposure to harmful substance

  9

  Contact with electricity or electrical discharge

  4

  Other

  2

  1 Provisional

  Tourism (South Africa)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the United Kingdom ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 February 1990, c. 956]: My earlier answer to this question contained an error, in that it implied that the Foreign Ministers of the European Community were a party to the ban on the promotion of tourism. Paragraph two of the reply should have read:
  "In 1986 European Community Foreign Ministers and, separately, Heads of Government participating at the Commonwealth review meeting agreed to impose a number of measures against South Africa. In the case of the Commonwealth Heads, these included a ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment announced the implementation in the United Kingdom of this ban in a written answer to a parliamentary question on 30 October 1986 (Official Report, column 213). In our case the measure was voluntary."

WALES

  Gwent Health Authority
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the investigation into alleged misappropriation of funds regarding the Look After Yourself project sponsored by Gwent health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary Wales whether, from 1 January 1988 to date, water of any Welsh constituency has failed standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The EC standards on drinking water quality have been incorporated into national legislation by the Water Act 1989 and the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.

  Under this legislation water undertakers may approach the Secretary of State who appointed them for a relaxation of the standards where this is because of the nature and structure of the ground from which the supply emanates, exceptional meteorological conditions, or in order to maintain a public supply in an emergency. The Secretary of State may also accept undertakings given by water undertakers to carry out remedial work within a specified time scale to bring their supplies up to standard. As a result of these procedures, which have been endorsed by
  672
  the EC, the Secretary of State has been made aware of supplies including a number in Wales which do not currently meet EC standards.

  The undertakers are now required to maintain public registers which include particulars of relaxations, undertakings and the results of sample analysis. In accordance with the regulations, the information is prepared on a water supply zone basis, rather than by constituency.

  Local authorities have a duty to monitor the quality of water supplies for domestic purposes in their areas. Water undertakers must provide local authorities with information on the extent to which the undertaker has complied with its obligations to supply wholesome water and, where appropriate, the remedial action taken. Should a local authority believe that the public supply is, or is likely to become, unwholesome and is not satisfied that appropriate remedial action has been taken, the authority is under a duty to notify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who if the water is supplied by an undertaker appointed by him, must in most circumstances take enforcement action against the undertaker.

  The local authority's duty to monitor water supplied for domestic purposes extends to private supplies and if these supplies are unwholesome, authorities may serve a notice requiring the improvement of the supply or connection to a public supply. These notices may be served without notifying the Secretary of State unless representations or objections are received.

  M4, Earlswood-Lôn Las
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a detailed analysis of the criteria used to judge tenders for the contract to construct the first stage of the M4 missing link between Earlswood and Lôn Las.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Tenders were assessed against the criteria specified in the documents issued to tendering firms and the award of contract was made on the basis of the lowest acceptable offer.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the unsuccessful tenderers for the construction of the first stage of the M4 missing link between Earlswood and Lon Las.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  It is not the practice to publish this of State for information.

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the recent publication "The Structural Funds of the European Communities", produced by the London chamber of commerce.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. Publications already held in my Department's library, including the Official Journal of the European Communities, provide sufficient material on the European structural funds for reference purposes.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost, how many internal audit
  673
  reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  During 1989, 17 staff were employed at a cost of £299,000, and 43 reports were issued. All reports are submitted to senior management who may draw Ministers' attention to specific matters as appropriate.

  Subcontracted work includes internal audit services for NDPBs and advice and support on the development of computer audit. The total value of these contracts is £194,000.

  Number of farmers and workers employed in agriculture June 1989 County by standard statistical region

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Whole-time principal farmers

  2,512

  7,309

  1,338

  2,965

  561

  3,894

  316

  497

  19,392

  Whole-time other partners

  620

  1,553

  278

  574

  130

  1,046

  91

  110

  4,402

  Whole-time total

  3,132

  8,862

  1,616

  3,539

  691

  4,940

  407

  607

  23,794

  Part-time principal farmers

  999

  2,509

  597

  1,184

  291

  991

  120

  282

  6,901

  Part-time other partners

  417

  946

  245

  401

  106

  570

  60

  102

  2,847

  Part-time total

  1,416

  3,455

  842

  1,505

  397

  1,561

  188

  384

  9,828

  Total Farmers and Directors

  4,548

  12,317

  2,458

  5,124

  1,088

  6,501

  595

  991

  33,622

  All workers (excluding salaried managers) male

  2,255

  4,805

  1,122

  2,003

  520

  2,996

  424

  463

  14,588

  All workers (excluding salaried managers) female

  452

  1,385

  317

  308

  96

  476

  119

  129

  3,282

  All workers (excluding salaried managers) total

  2,707

  6,190

  1,439

  2,311

  616

  3,472

  543

  592

  17,870

  Salaried managers

  56

  63

  33

  40

  11

  42

  16

  9

  278

  Source: June census 1989

  Note: Figures exclude minor holdings not included in June census.

  Hospital Construction
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the approximate average lead-in time, from formal submission of planning application to commissioning, of district general hospitals constructed in Wales since 1975.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not readily available for all district general hospitals completed in Wales since 1975 but the average lead-in time from submission of a planning application to commissioning has been seven years 10 months for the three most recently built hospitals for which the information is available.

  Employment
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest available figures of employment in the following sectors in Wales:(a) coal mining, deep-mined and opencast, (b) banking, (c) steel manufacture, (d) dock work, (e) railways and (f) construction.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Employment estimates for sectors(b), (e) and (f) are available from the Department of Employment's quarterly series and are given in the table. Information for sectors (a), (c) and (d) is not available from this source.

  Employees in employment at September 1989

  Thousands

  (b) Banking (and bill discounting)

  111·9

  (e) Railways

  5·8

  (f) Construction

  44·0

  Farming
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers, partners, directors and farm workers were employed in each county in Wales in(a) June and (b) December 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Figures from the agricultural census for June 1989 are shown in the following table. County figures cannot be produced from the December agricultural sample surveys.

  1 Total employment in the financial services sector amounted to 68,000.

  Figures for dock work are included in the supporting services for sea transport category for which there were estimated to be 3,300 employees in employment in September 1989.

  British Coal produces the most recent figures available for the deep-mined coal mining sector. There were, on average, 4,100 employees on colliery books in the year up to 31 October 1989. The latest available information on opencast coal mining is from the census of employment, September 1987 when there were 1,400 employees in employment.

  Statistics compiled by the British Steel Corporation and the United Kingdom Statistics Bureau show that there were 19,400 employees in the steel industry in December 1988.

  Road Improvement
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has proposals to improve the roads between Welshpool and the English border; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The A458 Buttington Cross-Wollaston Cross improvement is planned to start in the period April 1991-March 1994, as indicated in table 6 of "Roads in Wales—Progress and Plans for the 1990s".

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to issue a statement of policy to guide the proposed Countryside Council for Wales in the exercise of its powers from 1 April 1991.
  675
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I have placed copies of the draft statement of policy in the Libraries of both Houses and copies have also been placed in the Vote Office.

  It is customary for such statements to be determined following discussions between the sponsor Department and the board of the organisation concerned, taking due account of any comments that may be received from other interested organisations. The draft statement will accordingly form the basis of discussions with the new Countryside Council for Wales when the relevant appointments are made.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide for the index-linking of all pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to index-link pensions to earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to do so.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single-pensioner households in Scotland are in receipt or have been in receipt of housing benefit for each of the past five years, expressed as a percentage of all single-pensioner households and as a numerical total.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. In 1988 in Scotland, an estimated 250,000 single people aged 60 or over were receiving housing benefit. This represents 11·3 per cent. of the total single-person population aged 60 or over in Scotland.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures for the total number of(a) single parents in Scotland, (b) single-parent households in Scotland and (c) single-parent households in Scotland in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: We do not hold precise information about the single-parent population in Scotland. It is broadly estimated that in 1986 there were 100,000 single parents in Scotland, including single households which cannot be identified separately. I regret that comparative information for housing benefit is not available before May 1988 when an estimated 80,000 single parents in Scotland were receiving benefit.

  Taxation
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) 1960, (b) 1970, (c) 1980 and (d) the latest year, the number of married couples (i) with children and (b) without children when (i) both or (ii) only one partner works and pays tax; and if he will estimate the numbers below the tax threshold.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The available information is shown in the table:676

  1989–90 (millions)

  2 Above tax threshold

  3 Below tax threshold

  Married couples with children

  Both partners working

  3·1

  0·1

  Only one1 partner working

  2·0

  0·2

  Married couples without children

  Both partners working

  3·0

  0·1

  Only one1 partner working

  1·3

  0·3

  Note:

  Figures for the earlier years are not available.

  Source:

  Figures form 1987 FES uprated to 1989–90.

  1Either husband or wife.

  2Tax unit pays tax.

  3Tax unit does not pay tax.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of pensioners' organisations; and what matters were discussed.

  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 it.

  Community Charge
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any additional information on the income levels up to which community charge benefits will be payable for the personal circumstances contained in the reply to the hon. Member for Taunton of 1 November 1989, Official Report, columns 233–34, on a community charge in 1990–91 of £350.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton on 1 November 1989 showed the relevant income levels using the benefit rates applicable from 1 April 1990 on an assumed community charge of £350. I have nothing further to add.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many Scots are eligible for poll tax rebates at less than the maximum rate in 1989–90;

  (2) how many Scots are receiving the maximum 80 per cent. poll tax rebate in 1989–90;

  (3) how many single householders in Scotland are (a) eligible for the maximum 80 per cent. poll tax rebate and (b) eligible for poll tax rebate at less than the maximum rate, in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: Information is available only on numbers estimated to be receiving community charge rebates, not numbers eligible. In 1989–90, some 320,000 claimants in Scotland are receiving rebates at less than the maximum rate and 560,000 at the maximum rate. About 280,000 single householders are receiving maximum rebate and 120,000 less than the maximum. Claims from couples are counted as one.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) of 26 February,Official Report,

  677
  columns 56–58, if he will give for each of the social security offices listed (a) their single payment expenditure in 1987–88, (b) their social fund expenditure on loans and grants for 1988–89, (c) their social fund expenditure on loans and grants for the first nine months of 1989–90, (d) their current refusal rate for social fund applications and (e) the extra allocation of social fund money they have received.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is either in the Library or can be derived from that information.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the expenditure during the current financial year to date, and in the previous financial year, by way of(a) social fund loans and (b) grants for each social security area office in Wales.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the Library.

  Disability
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure deaf students will continue to be eligible for(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) unemployment benefit following the introduction of top-up loans for students.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We propose that those deaf students who meet the criteria for the disability premium will continue to be eligible for income support and housing benefit. This will include any deaf student in receipt of attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalidity pension or severe disablement allowance, and those who are also registered blind. Students whose sole disability is deafness are among the least likely to have additional weekly living expenses because of their disability of the kind that income support and housing benefit are intended to meet. Deaf students who face additional costs in connection with their course of study will continue to be eligible for the disabled students allowance under the mandatory award arrangements. We also propose that all full-time students will be excluded from unemployment benefit since students have removed themselves from the labour market and are not unemployed.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that all disabled students will continue to be eligible for(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) unemployment benefit following the introduction of top-up loans for students.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We propose that students who meet the criteria for the disability premium will continue to be eligible for income support and housing benefit. This will include any student in receipt of attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalidity pension or severe disablement allowance and students who are registered blind. We also propose that all full-time students will be excluded from unemployment benefit since students have removed themselves from the labour market and are not unemployed.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the European Community's programme to assist handicapped people has been apportioned between the individual states; and how the United Kingdom's allocation is to be used.
  678
  Mr. Scott
  The amount allocated to the programme, called HELIOS, was not divided between member states but assigned to the various aspects of the programme, the majority going towards the development of HANDYNET, the multilingual computerised database of information on disability questions.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department of Social Security currently employs 159 internal auditors at an annual cost of £3·08 million. A total of 94 internal audit reports were produced in 1989. None was drawn to the attention of Ministers.

  No social security internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms.

  Children in Hospital (Parental Visits)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the travel expenses as detailed in his most recent annual report of the number of requests his Department's offices received from parents to visit children in hospital, a profile of the amounts granted and refused and a breakdown by region, county or district.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 29 January 1990 at column 34.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently receive invalid care allowance; and how many of them are on income support.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated average number receiving invalid care allowance in 1989–90 is 110,000. The latest information is that at May 1988 there were some 8,000 income support recipients where invalid care allowance was also in payment to themselves or their partner.

  Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he gave to the constitutional implications before he laid regulation 72, Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations, S.I., 1986 No. 2218; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Prior to the introduction of regulation 72 of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1986, arrears of social security benefits payable as a result of the review of a decision were generally restricted to 12 months, even though the decision was erroneous because of official error, including an error of law by the adjudication officer.

  Regulation 72, which came into force on 6 April 1987. was designed to enable the statutory payment of arrears of benefit in full where there had been an underpayment of

  679
  benefit that was solely attributable to a mistake on the part of an official, including an adjudication officer. However, legal advice revealed that regulation 72 had an unintended side effect in that where a social security commissioner, or higher judicial authority, overturned the prevailing interpretation of the law, adjudication officers' decisions given prior to that new interpretation fell to be described as errors of law, even though they were made in good faith and in accordance with the interpretation of the law at the time.

  As a result, with effect from 1 September 1987, the 12-month limitation on arrears was reimposed where adjudication officers reviewed decisions in consequence of a reinterpretation of the law by a commissioner or higher appellate body.

  Relocation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the criteria used in deciding(a) to relocate offices of his Department and (b) where to relocate offices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 21 February 1990]: The decision to relocate some processing work from 21 inner London local social security offices to three social security centres in Glasgow, Makerfield and Belfast was announced to the House by the former Secretary of State on 16 January 1989 at columns 46–47. None of the 21 local offices is to be closed and the whole project is driven by our desire to improve the quality of our service to our customers.

  The local offices were selected using the systematic application of the following criteria:

  where the service to the public was most likely to be improved

  where staff recruitment or retention problems were particularly severe

  where working conditions for staff were poor

  which combination of offices would produce a sensible pattern of service on the ground.

  The selection of the locations for the three social security centres was the result of the systematic analysis of the 335 travel-to-work areas in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, against the following criteria:

  a work force big enough to sustain 500 clerical jobs;

  good educational standards;

  assisted area status;

  recent Department of Social Security experience that recruitment and retention was good;

  availability of suitable buildings or sites suitable for a fast build;

  where we could make the best contribution to offering alternative posts to our staff who would otherwise be surplus to requirements when our computerisation programme is complete.

SCOTLAND

  Home Security
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what portion of local authorities' housing budgets are devoted to improving security of homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. It is for individual authorities to determine their own policies and priorities within the resources available.

  Housing (Glasgow)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last discussion between a Minister and Glasgow district council on the matter of housing capital programmes; and what decisions have been taken by him since then which affect the capital programme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I paid a housing visit to Glasgow district council on 2 February. Since then I have announced a supplementary capital allocation of £3·5 million to Glasgow district council to support work in the public and private sectors in the current financial year.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and those for which the Lord Advocate is responsible and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 2 March 1990 28 staff and five staff were employed on internal audit duties in the Scottish Office and in my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate's Departments, at a total cost of about £800,000 and £85,000 respectively. A total of 69 reports were produced in the Scottish Office in 1989, none of which required to be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend or other ministerial colleagues. A total of 22 reports were produced in my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate's Departments, one of which was drawn to the attention of the Minister. No internal audit work is undertaken by private sector firms.

  Farming
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers, partners, directors and farm workers were employed in each county in Scotland in(a) June and (b) December 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish counties ceased to be used for agricultural statistics purposes after 1975 following local government reform. The number of farmers and farm workers in June 1989, by local authority region, is shown in the table; partners and directors are not separately enumerated in the June agricultural census but are included either as farmers or farm workers:

  Region

  Number of farmers

  Number of farmworkers

  Islands

  2,166

  901

  Highland

  2,817

  1,901

  Grampian

  4,689

  5,095

  Tayside

  2,073

  3,736

  Fife

  744

  1,613

  Lothian

  758

  1,764

  Borders

  1,281

  2,507

  Central

  786

  1,027

  Strathclyde

  4,288

  5,458

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,352

  3,938

  Scotland

  21,954

  27,940

  The December survey is based on returns from only a sample of farmers and is not designed to produce statistics of the agricultural labour force at regional level.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest job entry rates for people in job clubs in Scotland, broken down by regional area.

  Mr. Lang
  The information sought is not available in the form requested as it is possible to provide a breakdown only by employment service areas. On 26 January 1990 for these areas of Scotland the cumulative job entry rates for people in job clubs were as set out in the table:

  Area

  Jobclub job entry rate per cent.

  Lothian and Borders

  58

  Glasgow North and Dumbarton

  50

  Ayrshire, Dumfries, Galloway, Inverclyde and Argyll

  59

  Lanarkshire and Central

  57

  Highlands, Islands and Grampian

  59

  Tayside and Fife

  62

  Glasgow South and Renfrew

  55

  Scotland

  57

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many providers of employment training and youth training schemes in Scotland have attained approved training organisation status broken down by regional area.

  Mr. Lang
  To date, no employment training agent or training manager in Scotland has attained full approved training organisation status.

  Information about the number of youth training scheme managing agents in Scotland who have attained approved training organisation status is available only by Training Agency area as set out in the table:

  Number of approved training organisations

  Area

  Number

  Grampian and Tayside

  46

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  39

  Central and Fife

  59

  Glasgow City

  56

  Highlands and Islands

  33

  Lanarkshire

  36

  Lothian and Borders

  61

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  57

  Total

  387

  Bellsdyke Hospital
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Scottish hospital advisory service on Bellsdyke hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library today.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take urgent action to deal with the inadequate standards of staffing, accommodation and other resources, referred to in the report of the Scottish hospital advisory service on Bellsdyke hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish hospital advisory service (SHAS) is a Government-funded "watchdog" service 682
  with an independent remit. Its report on Bellsdyke hospital contains both criticism and praise and has been sent I o Forth Valley health board to consider the findings and recommendations in the normal way. The board will advise the Scottish Home and Health Department of its proposals for follow-up action shortly. The board's strategic plans already address problems at the hospital and the recent SHAS report helps focus the attention of both the Department and the board upon the most pressing areas for action.

  Further Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been paid out in non-recurrent grants under the Further Education (Approved Associations) (Scotland) Grant Regulations 1989; and to which bodies.

  Mr. Lang
  The information for 1989–90 for each education authority area is set out in the table. The figures include estimates, where appropriate, of grant still to be claimed before 31 March 1990.

  Non recurrent grants under the Further Education (Approved Associations) (Scotland) Grant Regulations 1989 Year 1989–90

  Amount of grant £

  Borders Region

  Blainslie Village Hall Committee

  1,964

  Southdean Village Hall Committee

  1,250

  Denholm Village Hall Committee

  1,500

  Morebattle Institute

  573

  Lothian Park Youth Group

  20,000

  25,287

  Central Region

  Gartmore Association

  16,810

  Menzies Hall Management Committee

  20,000

  Trossachs Welfare Association

  12,578

  Gargunnock Community Association

  5,000

  Buchanan Hall Users Committee

  5,300

  Braehead Community Project

  5,000

  64,688

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Irongray Hall Committee

  5,987

  Murray Hall Committee

  4,332

  Locharbriggs Village Hall Committee

  4,615

  Collin Hall Management Committee

  7,477

  Middlebie Community Centre Committee

  642

  New Abbey Hall Committee

  19,250

  42,303

  Fife Region

  15th West Fife (Freuchie) Scout Group

  6,500

  Newton of Falkland Hall Committee

  2,400

  Cairneyhill Community Youth Foundation

  12,500

  Auchtermuchty Community Centre Association

  19,550

  40,950

  Grampian Region

  Buckie Girl Guides Association

  3,402

  Milltimber Community Association

  10,837

  Portsoy Institute Hall Association

  194

  Woodside Facilities Trust

  3,301

  Fettercairn Public Property Committee

  2,669

  Richmond Memorial Hall Committee

  54,333

  Echt Hall Association

  4,740

  Finzean Community Association

  569

  Rothienorman Hall Committee

  952

  Fordoun Memorial Hall Committee

  1,043

  Ritchie Hall Committee, Strichen

  882

  683

  Amount of grant £

  Kemnay Public Hall Committee

  79

  Newtonhill Community Association

  1,573

  Duffus Village Hall Committee

  5,603

  Gourdon Public Hall Committee

  19,353

  Culter and District Community Association

  500

  Margach Hall Committee

  4,913

  Craigievar Hall Committee

  5,000

  Premnay Village Hall Committee

  3,500

  Roseisle Village Hall Committee

  990

  Logie Coldstone Hall Committee

  2,555

  Peterhead Sea Cadet Unit

  4,000

  Burghead Village Hall Committee

  2,473

  Melvin Hall Committee

  10,000

  Hatton of Fintray Hall Committee

  12,332

  Chapel of Garioch Hall Committee

  10,000

  1st Dyce Scout Group

  10,000

  175,793

  Highland region

  31st Aviemore Scouts

  6,342

  Dunvegan Community Hall Association

  53,668

  Kyleakin Village Hall Committee

  7,130

  Stratherrick Public Hall Committee

  510

  Edderton Hall Committee

  6,500

  Kinlochewe Village Hall Committee

  2,397

  Kyle of Lochalsh Public Hall Committee

  16,048

  Kinlochbervie Village Hall Committee

  3,383

  Balnain Village Hall Committee

  77

  Melness Community Centre Association

  1,428

  Carrbridge Village Hall Committee

  1,406

  Embo Community Centre Association

  6,759

  Pentland Hall Committee

  1,309

  Lairg Community Centre Association

  6,417

  Dornoch and District Community Association

  2,697

  Invershin Village Hall Committee

  25,000

  North Kessock Amenities Association

  4,523

  Invergarry Hall Committee

  201

  Brittania Hall Committee, Dunnet

  2,779

  Lochinver Public Hall Committee

  14,000

  162,574

  Lothian region

  Pathhead and District Community Association

  3,707

  1st Lothian (Gorebridge) Scout Group

  26,500

  6th West Lothian Scout Group

  3,025

  2nd West Midlothian Scout Group

  3,807

  37,039

  Strathclyde region

  Girl Guides County of Dumbarton

  22,292

  19th Ayrshire Scout Group

  7,500

  37th Ayrshire Scout Group

  19,162

  6th Ayrshire Sea Scout Group

  445

  Renfrewshire Girl Guides Association

  20,000

  42nd Renfrewshire (Kilmacolm) Scout Group

  9,000

  65th Ayrshire Scout Group

  4,600

  4th East Kilbride Scout Group

  3,222

  48th Ayrshire Scout Group

  1,191

  St. Columba's Boys Club

  2,366

  Dervaig Village Hall Committee

  2,116

  Bunessan Community Association

  56,903

  Brookfield Village Council

  24,566

  Jura Hall Committee

  29,000

  Rhinns Hall Committee

  12,275

  North Connel Village Hall Committee

  1,093

  Darnley Street Family Project Association

  10,538

  226,269

  Tayside region

  Broughty Ferry Scout Council

  967

  684

  Amount of grant £

  Forfar Old Age Pensioners Association

  7,188

  9th Angus (Brechin) Scout Group

  5,002

  Carnbo Village Hall Committee

  3,605

  Kirriemuir Scout Group

  12,250

  Bridge of Earn Institute

  5,844

  Monikie War Memorial Hall Committee

  2,503

  Orkney Islands

  37,359

  Orkney Girl Guides Association

  5,040

  Rendall Community Association

  32,387

  Stenness Community Association

  1,727

  Wyre Community Association

  1,331

  Shetland Islands

  40,485

  North Unst Public Hall Committee

  28,957

  South Nesting Public Hall Committee

  21,352

  Walls Public Hall Committee

  28,874

  Symbister Public Hall Committee

  31,655

  Western Isles

  110,838

  Stoneybridge Community Centre Association

  4,922

  Southend Community Hall Committee

  40,000

  44,922

  Total for Scotland

  1,008,507

  Takare plc
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce when Greater Glasgow health board expects to complete the contract with Takare plc.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: I have today given Greater Glasgow health board approval to finalise contractual arrangements with Takare plc for the provision of 120 beds for the elderly and elderly with dementia in Rutherglen. This is to be welcomed as an innovative collaboration between Greater Glasgow health board and Takare. It will provide a modern appropriate environment with the highest standards of care for the elderly. This will be achieved more rapidly than the board could otherwise guarantee. The costs will be lower than the board's present costs with savings being reinvested in further improvements in health care for patients in the Greater Glasgow health board area. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome these improvements in the care of the elderly in his constituency.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Rifkind
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: My Department as a matter of course provides guidance for members of recruitment and promotion boards which includes reference to the need to avoid discrimination of

  685
  this kind. The practice of my Department, subject to certain conditions, is to reinstate all applicants who originally resigned for domestic reasons. Previous service is taken into account for pay and seniority purposes and, in certain circumstances, previous performance assessments count towards eligibility for promotion boards. In addition, plans are in hand to introduce short answer tests as an alternative to formal education qualifications for recruitment at administrative assistant and administrative officer level and to extend special leave arrangements to allow staff breaks in employment of up to five years with automatic right of re-engagement.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to make a further visit to Hong Kong in the immediate future. I hope to visit in the next few months.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay an official visit to Green Island.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to do so.

  Estonia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has received a copy of the declaration of the General Assembly in Estonia on independent statehood of 2 February; and whether he sent any message to the Estonian Parliament to coincide with the Estonian national day on 24 February.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received a copy of the declaration. He did not send a message in connection with the Estonian national day.

  British Hovercraft Expedition
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to give publicity and assistance to the British hovercraft expedition to China from Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The organisers of this expedition have been in close touch with the ODA, as well as the British embassy and British Council in Peking, and the British trade commission in Hong Kong, which have given advice on commercial sponsorship and publicity. The British ambassador in Peking has also donated £1,000 toward the purchase of solar refrigerators for the expedition. The, objectives of this expedition are admirable, and I wish it well.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has held with the Palestine Liberation Organisation representatives about the abandonment of terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens and others.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take every opportunity to stress to the PLO the importance of its maintaining its commitment to refrain from terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did so most recently when he saw Bassam Abu Sharif on 1 March.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Palestine Liberation Organisation with respect to terrorist attacks undertaken by Fatah against Israeli civilian targets within Israel's 1967 borders, since December 1988.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made clear to both the PLO and Israel that we deplore violence from whatever quarter and look to them to resolve their differences through face-to-face negotiations.

  Albania
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made recently on Albanian human rights.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 21 February, at the current session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, we and our EC partners expressed our concern at the reports of recurring violations of human rights and particularly religious persecution in Albania.

  German Unification
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his policy on the issue of German unification.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have long supported the principle of German unification, to be brought about as the result of the freely expressed choice of the peoples of the two Germanys. Alongside self-determination goes the need for joint determination of external issues. This need will be fulfilled through the framework agreed in Ottawa and through other consultations.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his Federal Republic of Germany counterpart concerning German reunification and the position of existing international boundaries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had regular meetings with Mr. Genscher, most recently when he called on the Prime Minister on 15 February. My right hon. Friend shall be seeing him in Bonn on 12 March to discuss a number of subjects of mutual interest, including the external aspects of German unification.
  687
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's European Economic Community partners about the reunification of Germany.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last discussed German unification with his EC colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council on 5 March. We are looking forward to further discussion at the informal EC summit proposed by the Presidency for 28 April.

  EC-United States Relationship
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to strengthen the relationship between the European Community and the United States.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to strengthen the relationship between the European Community and the United States.

  Mr. Maude
  We have set out a framework for a strengthened EC-US relationship. We have proposed more frequent ministerial meetings, closer consultation between officials on political co-operation subjects and more regular high-level dialogue on Community issues. We want to create with these elements a new transatlantic consultative partnership. A package on the lines we have proposed has gained wide support within the Community and in the United States.

  South Africa
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the conditions and prerequisites which he considers that the United Kingdom and its European Community partners should adopt for the abandonment of sanctions against South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Community's ultimate objective is the achievement of a democratic multiracial system in South Africa through peaceful means. As South Africa progresses towards that goal we believe it would be right for the Community to make a measured response by lifting some of its restrictive measures.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We will maintain our policy of encouragement and pressure on the South African Government to bring about an end to apartheid, giving a measured response to progress.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with whom he hopes to have consultations on his coming visit to southern Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During any visit to South Africa, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would hope to have consultations with a wide range of opinion across the political spectrum.
  688
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he now proposes to make a visit to the Republic of South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to visit South Africa soon, perhaps at the time of Namibian independence.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of South Africa regarding Walvis bay.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. It is for the Government of an independent Namibia to decide how they wish to approach negotiations with South Africa on Walvis bay. We remain committed to the principle of UNSCR 432 that Walvis bay should be reintegrated into Namibia. We and our contact group partners have made clear our willingness to offer diplomatic support, if required, to achieve a successful negotiation.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the subject of the Government's policy on sanctions against South Africa since the release of Nelson Mandela.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received representations from members of the public, hon. Members of this House and from certain organisations.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy on sanctions against South Africa.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government now propose to take to encourage the end of apartheid within South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We will maintain our policy of encouragement and pressure on the South African Government to bring about an end to apartheid, giving a measured response to progress.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received with regard to the recent march by Mrs. Winnie Mandela and 50,000 people to present an ultimatum and its implications for Government policy on South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received no representations on this subject.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to visit India to discuss disputed territory in Kashmir.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to be able to make an early visit to India, but has no current plans.

  Iraq
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have received to their protests, made last year, to the Iraqi authorities over their use of chemical weapons against Iraq's minority Kurdish population.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Iraqi Foreign Minister gave a public undertaking in September 1988 that Iraq would not resort to the use of chemical weapons. He reaffirmed his Government's commitment to this policy at the Paris conference on chemical weapons in January 1989. We take these undertakings seriously and expect the Iraqi Government to honour them.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive the report from David Browning on the conduct of the elections in Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive the report from David Browning on the conduct of the elections in Nicaragua; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have already received a preliminary report from Dr. Browning. We expect to receive his definitive report on his return to the United Kingdom. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House at the earliest opportunity.

  In this preliminary report, Dr. Browning said that, despite a campaign in which the FSLN made maximum use of the inbuilt bias towards it in the prevailing political system and of its control of the state apparatus, the evidence of the polls was that the people of Nicaragua were able to make their choice in a secret and properly administered vote.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet with the newly elected Government of Nicaragua.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no present plans to meet members of the newly elected Government.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the outcome of the Nicaraguan elections.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The election, which all observers judged to be free and fair, gave the people of Nicaragua an opportunity to exercise their right to choose their own Government. We warmly welcome this development, which marks a further strengthening of democracy in the region.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom-Nicaraguan relations following the election in Nicaragua.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to review his policy concerning Nicaragua.
  690
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider changing United Kingdom policy towards Nicaragua.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It remains our policy to support the Esquipulas II peace agreement and, in particular, its provisions for the establishment of pluralistic democracies throughout central America. The election of 25 February marked a further welcome development in this process, and we look forward to working with the Government of Mrs. Chamorro.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States on the conduct and outcome of the recent elections in Nicaragua.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide range of subjects, including Nicaragua.

  Central America
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed prospects for peace in central America with the Government of the United States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed prospects for peace in central America with the Government of the United States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide range of subjects, including central America.

  United States Secretary of State
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of State; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no firm plans for his next meeting with the United States Secretary of State.

  China
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to do so.

  Jordan
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any reports on military co-operation between Jordan and Iraq; and whether he will make a statement on the future of British military assistance to Jordan.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is a long history of military co-operation between Jordan and its Arab friends,
  691
  including Iraq, although recent reports about the extent of the latter appear exaggerated. Military assistance will remain an important element in our close and friendly relations with Jordan.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues he expects to discuss at the next General Affairs Council of Ministers meeting.

  Mr. Maude
  We expect a range of EC issues to be discussed.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Foreign Affairs Council met on 5 March. The Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations is due to end in December 1990. The European Commission, which negotiates on behalf of member states, will report to the Council on the current status of the negotiations. Ministers are expected to discuss proposals from the Commission on European Community policy on Japanese car imports after 1992. Ministers will adopt the draft negotiating mandate for an EC-Czechoslovakia trade and co-operation agreement and the Commission may seek member states' views on the timing of the conclusion of an EC-GDR trade and co-operation agreement. Ministers are also expected to discuss preparations for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference and to consider proposals for the site of the European Environment Agency. The Commission will report on how it intends to respond to the Council's declaration at Strasbourg that there should be a substantial increase in EC aid to the occupied territories. The Council will endorse the Community's position for the EC-GCC joint council to be held in Muscat on 17 March.

  The Agricultural Council met on 5, 6 and possibly 7 March to discuss the annual price fixing and possibly non-food uses of agricultural products, bovine semen, the amendment of regulation 857/84 (milk) and the position on the adoption of agricultural structures regulations. It will also meet on 26 and 27 March to discuss the annual price fixing and possibly non-food uses of agricultural products, medicated feedingstuffs and pesticide residues.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 12 March to discuss the Commission's progress in the fight against fraud as set out in its first annual report, the Court of Auditors' report on the 1988 budget to inform an opinion from the Council to the European Parliament on granting the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the 1988 budget, a revision of the financial perspective with an aim for agreement on Commission proposals for a substantive revision of the financial perspective for 1991 and 1992, the proposed revised Council decisions on economic convergence and co-operation between central banks, economic surveillance procedures during stage I of economic and monetary union, and a proposal to increase the borrowing limit for loans made by EURATOM. Ministers are also expected to discuss the need for early production of the Commission's revised VAT technical proposals and the need for rapid decisions thereafter.

  At the Industry Council on 13 March, the Commission
  692
  is expected to introduce a proposal for a Council directive on the creation of a restoration certificate. The certificate would in effect extend the term of patent protection of a pharmaceutical product from the present 20 years in most EC states, to a maximum of 30 years. The Commission will argue that such a measure is necessary to compensate for the increasing time taken for new drugs to obtain the safety approval without which they cannot be placed on the market. The Council will consider Commission reports on the future of the EC textiles and clothing industry, the trade barriers operated by other countries against EC textiles and clothing exports, and the possibility of establishing a central body ("observatory") to provide statistics in this sector. The Council will also consider a Commission report on the Community footwear industry. The report outlines measures the Commission believes the industry needs to adopt to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the completion of the single market. It lays much stress on increased EC collaboration in R and D, the development of profession training, and improvements in production process by means of technical innovation and modernisation. A discussion will take place on the need for a regulatory framework for biotechnology in the Community.

  At the Environment Council on 22 March Ministers may discuss further the proposed Environment Agency. It is hoped that the proposal to establish a committee to facilitate amendment of directives on drinking water, bathing water and surface water will be adopted. The Council is hoping for agreement on a resolution on the proposal for a Community strategy on waste management, and there is likely to be detailed discussion and the possible adoption of the proposal to guarantee the public freedom of access to data on the environment. A detailed discussion is expected leading to the possible adoption of the proposal to protect waters from pollution by nitrates. An early exchange of views is expected on the proposal to consolidate European anti-pollution standards for all categories of vehicles; EC member states are required to introduce tighter gaseous emission standards for cars over 1400 cc by 31 December 1992. There is likely to be a discussion on a Community position on the adoption of severe measures to protect the ozone layer in the light of the forthcoming renegotiation of the Montreal protocol.

  The Transport Council will meet on 29 March. Further discussion will take place on the detail of proposals for a second stage of air transport liberalisation, for increasing the Community road haulage quotas by 40 per cent. for 1990, 1991 and 1992 and for fixing maximum authorised dimensions for road trains. There will also be some discussion of the Commission's railway policy proposals, centering on combined transport and possibly leading to discussion of transport infrastructure and the problems of transit through third countries. There may be some discussion of EUROS and of the liberalisation of shipping, of passenger transport by coach and bus and an exchange of views on fiscal harmonisation in the road haulage sector.

  Drugs
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international measures are in hand to combat the drugs trade.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Some 90 states, including the United Kingdom, have now signed the 1988 United Nations
  693
  convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs recently addressed a United Nations special session on drugs in New York, which adopted a political declaration and a global programme of action. We will host a world ministerial summit in London in April to look at ways of reducing the demand for drugs and combating the cocaine threat. Within Europe, anti-drugs co-operation takes place in a number of fora, notably with our European Community partners and within the Pompidou group, which the United Kingdom chairs. The United Kingdom has played an active part in the work of the financial action task force set up by the Paris economic summit to consider measures to combat money laundering.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part Britain is playing in international efforts to defeat the drugs trade.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The British Government will host a world ministerial summit in London in April to look at ways of reducing the demand for drugs and combating the cocaine threat. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs addressed a United Nations special session on drugs in New York. The United Kingdom is one of some 90 states to have signed the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. We have signed bilateral agreements or arrangements to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking with 13 countries. We co-operate closely with our European neighbours in a number of fora, and have played an active part in the work of the financial action task force set up by the Paris economic summit to consider measures to combat money laundering.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the visit of Senor Collor de Mello, President-elect of Brazil.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Senor Collor de Mello on 7 February. On 8 February he had meetings with HRH the Prince of Wales, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and several Cabinet colleagues. During conversations which covered trade, the environment, debt and many other bilateral and international matters, Senor Collor impressed us with his grasp of a wide range of issues and his determination to tackle Brazil's economic and social problems. We wish him well and look forward to working with him and his Administration when he is inaugurated President on 15 March. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President will represent Her Majesty the Queen at the inauguration. I shall also attend.

  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the United Kingdom's relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  694
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Anglo-Soviet relations are better than ever. We are moving cautiously but steadily from an era of confrontation to one of co-operation in an increasingly wide range of areas.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met a representative of the Soviet Government; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Shevardnadze in Ottawa on 13 February. Their discussions focused on developments in Europe.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit eastern Europe.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any further plans to visit eastern Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Hungary from 27 February to 1 March and the GDR from 22 to 24 January. He hopes to visit Poland soon. He has no further plans to visit other eastern European countries at present. I visited Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia from 25 to 28 February, Romania from 15 to 17 January and Poland and Hungary last year.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds have been committed by Her Majesty's Government for environmental aid to eastern European countries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on 2 February 1990, Vol. 166, column 403.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for a regular bulletin relating to visa requirements to be posted in British consulates in eastern Europe for the benefit of intending travellers to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information about United Kingdom visa requirements is available to intending travellers at all British embassies in eastern Europe. This information is regularly updated to take account of changes in the immigration rules or other administrative requirements.

  Developing Nations (Debt)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the forthcoming year as regards the debt burden of developing nations.

  Mr. Maude
  For those indebted countries pursuing economic reforms, we will continue to provide financial assistance through the IMF and World Bank, the rescheduling of official debts in the Paris club and, where appropriate, bilateral aid. We will also continue to implement the special measures for the poorest debtors agreed at the 1988 Toronto economic summit. For
  695
  middle-income debtors, specific support for commercial bank debt reduction operations will continue to be available through the IMF and World Bank.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to the Government of Sri Lanka concerning that country's human rights record; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have made clear to the Sri Lankan Government our concerns about human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Our High Commissioner discussed the matter with President Premadasa on 28 February. We welcome the positive measures which the President has taken recently.

  Namibia
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government will make available to Namibia following independence.

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

  Middle East
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to finding a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict acceptable to the international community.

  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a middle east peace settlement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We support the current efforts to promote a dialogue between Israel and representative Palestinians as an important step towards a settlement.

  United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what troops, equipment and services the Government are ready, in principle, to contribute to United Nations peacekeeping forces in 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We already provide contingents for the United Nations forces in Cyprus and Namibia, and logistic support for those in Lebanon and the Golan. We shall look sympathetically on any new request.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the recent murder of United Nations personnel by Israeli forces; and if he will make a statement.
  696
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We share the regret expressed by the United Nations Secretary-General at the death on 19 February of two Nepalese soldiers serving with UNIFIL.

  European Commission
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the President of the European Commission.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 5 March. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council discussed progress and prospects for the GATT Uruguay round, reffirmed its commitment to a successful outcome and agreed on the need for EC initiatives, particularly on the settlement of disputes. The United Kingdom stressed the importance of making progress on agriculture.

  The Council accepted that the Commission on its own responsibility should begin discussion with the Japanese on the future regime for imports of Japanese cars. The United Kingdom pressed for a liberal approach, arguing that there should be no restrictions on cars produced by Japanese-owned firms in the United Kingdom.

  In a brief discussion of eastern Europe, the Council approved the Commission's negotiating mandate for a trade and commercial and economic co-operation agreement with Czechoslovakia. The Commission also reported on the recent fact-finding mission to Belgrade. The United Kingdom suggested that for purposes of future EC aid Yugoslavia should be treated primarily as an east European rather than a Mediterranean country. Herr Genscher briefed his colleagues on the latest developments over German unification and its external consequences, which Ministers then discussed.

  The Council approved a Commission report on future EC assistance to the occupied territories following the commitment at the Strasbourg European Council to double the volume of EC aid to the territories.

  Ministers discussed preparations for the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union, initiated the formal procedure for consulting the European Parliament and agreed to consider arrangements for informal dialogue with the Parliament.

  There was also discussion of the siting of the European Environment Agency, the European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD) and other Community institutions. The United Kingdom pressed the merits of Cambridge and London to host the Environment Agency and EBRD respectively.

  Lebanon (Hostages)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps have been taken by his Department to seek to secure the release of British hostages held in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of 30 January to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), Vol. 166, column 125.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government are currently giving to Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The existing know-how funds for Poland and Hungary are to be expanded to cover other eastern European countries once they are fully committed to reform. We hope to extend the fund to Czechoslovakia and will discuss with the Czechoslovak Government what form this assistance should take.

  NATO
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Secretary-General of NATO and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a very useful meeting with Dr. Woerner in Brussels on 5 March. They discussed developments in Europe as they affect NATO, and agreed on the importance of consultations within the Alliance on the security aspects of German unification. They identified the need for an early discussion of all these issues at ministerial level.

  Kiyoaki Tanaka
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Thai Government regarding the granting of an amnesty for war crimes to Kiyoaki Tanaka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Israel
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the complement of the consulate in Jerusalem in order to monitor more effectively Israeli human rights practices in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The consulate-general in Jerusalem is doing an excellent job with its existing complement. We see no grounds at present for increasing this although, as with all Her Majesty's missions overseas, the situation is kept under regular review.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to support the European Economic Community decision to review scientific agreements with Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Maude
  There has been no such decision by the Community.

  North Korea
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding relations with North Korea.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We do not recognise North Korea as a state, and accordingly have no relations with any authorities in North Korea.

  Myamar
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position on relations with Myamar (formerly Burma).

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 27 February at column 111.

  Romania
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to provide further aid for handicapped children in Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the light of recent reports about the inadequacy of all forms of health care in Romania, we have sent emergency medical and food relief both directly and through the European Community. The total value of all aid sent so far by both routes, or now in the pipeline. is over £6 million. We are now considering what more can be done.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of people killed(a) before or (b) since the coup d'etat in Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Romanian authorities have told us that no reliable figures can yet be provided of the number of people injured during the revolution. But we are sceptical of reports that it ran into thousands.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he now has for a programme of aid to Vietnam.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are considering the possibility of supporting British NGO activities in Vietnam, in particular to help the communities in areas from which the boat people came.

  Palestinian Political Leaders
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United Nations to press the United States Government to permit access to its proceedings in New York for Palestinian political leaders.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The question of access to proceedings in New York is for the United Nations to resolve in consultation with the United States Government in accordance with the headquarters agreement. There is an observer mission of Palestine at the United Nations and the head of the PLO political department visits the United Nations regularly.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United States Secretary of State to remove restrictions on Palestinian political leaders entering the United States of America to address meetings and engage in political dialogue.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It must be for the United States Government to decide who should or should not be
  699
  allowed to enter the United States. A number of leading Palestinians have visited the United States and addressed meetings there. We welcome this and the official US-PLO dialogue in Tunis.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of how many directives under the 1992 programme the United Kingdom is in default of implementing in due time.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 9 January by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), which gave these details and confirmed our excellent record.

  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of how many European Community directives the United Kingdom is the subject of complaint by the Commission for failure to implement correctly.

  Mr. Maude
  The Commission issued 22 preliminary requests for information from the United Kingdom in 1989 about possible failures to implement EC directives. Twelve have already been clarified satisfactorily. On a further eight, we have provided the Commission with details of implementation; and shall do likewise for the remaining two.

  The United Kingdom's implementation record is among the best in the Community.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The joint internal audit unit of the FCO, which serves both wings, employs 21 internal auditors at an estimated total cost of approximately £845,000 (excluding superannuation) for 1989–90. In 1989 the joint internal audit unit issued 64 audit reports; one of these was brought to the attention of a Minister in the FCO.

  None of the work of the joint internal audit unit is subcontracted out, although the FCO has used private consultants on internal audit work on four occasions in the last five years, and once in the last year sought unsuccessfully to negotiate a consultancy.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn,Official Report, 28 February, column 210, on the communications with the European proliferation information centre (i) what recent letter he has received from the centre, (ii) what reply has been sent and (iii) what are the reasons for the proposed meeting between his Department and the centre, to which he made earlier reference, not taking place.
  700
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The most recent correspondence received from the European proliferation information centre (EPIC) is a letter from Dr. David Lowry dated 23 February, our reply to which will be sent shortly. The offer to hold a meeting between this Department and EPIC was made in reply to EPIC's letter of 31 October, and we hope it will soon be possible to arrange a meeting.

  UNICEF
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom's contribution to UNICEF in real and nominal terms for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom contributions to UNICEF 1974–88

  £ thousand

  In current prices

  In constant 1988 prices

  Year

  General contributions

  Special appeals

  General contributions

  Special appeals

  1974

  1,300

  —

  5,329

  —

  1975

  2,000

  1,545

  6,445

  4,979

  1976

  2,300

  —

  6,442

  —

  1977

  3,300

  20

  8,113

  49

  1978

  4,500

  2,032

  9,936

  4,486

  1979

  5,800

  1,582

  11,191

  3,053

  1980

  4,400

  591

  7,102

  954

  1981

  5,900

  1,456

  8,551

  2,110

  1982

  5,900

  83

  7,945

  112

  1983

  6,000

  69

  7,673

  88

  1984

  6,000

  25

  7,333

  31

  1985

  6,300

  2,100

  7,289

  2,430

  1986

  6,500

  1,808

  7,264

  2,020

  1987

  7,000

  5,000

  7,463

  5,331

  11988

  3,750

  8,473

  3,750

  8,473

  2 3 1989

  11,750

  1,362

  10,981

  1,273

  1 The 1988 general contributions should have totalled £7,500,000, but a payment of £3,750,000 was delayed.

  2 The 1989 general contributions include the delayed payment of £3,750,000 made in respect of 1988.

  3 Provisional figures.

  European Parliament Resolution
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received a copy of the European Parliament's resolution about amending the treaties, Community legislation and institutional reform of 23 November 1989 which the President was instructed to forward to all national Governments; and whether he will state Her Majesty's Government's policy towards it.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received a copy of the European Parliament's resolution to which my hon. Friend refers. We do not believe that treaty changes are necessary at this stage. The Foreign Affairs Council on 5 March discussed preparations for the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union, initiated the formal procedure for consulting the European Parliament and agreed to consider arrangements for informal dialogue with the Parliament.

  Chile
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Chile after 11 March.
  701
  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Chile; but my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President will represent Her Majesty the Queen at the inauguration of President Aylwin.

  Mr. Vorng Ky
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the reasons for the delay in reaching a decision on the visa application of Mr. Vorng Ky of Cambodia; when a decision is to be expected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I understand that the Home Office wrote to the hon. Member on 5 March 1990, in response to her letter of 20 February 1990, requesting further details of Mr. Ky in order to trace his visa application. On receipt of this information I will also make appropriate inquiries of the overseas post concerned.

  Helsinki Final Act
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation by the Soviet Union and eastern European countries of the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act during the period 1 July to 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have recently prepared a report on the implementation by the Soviet Union and eastern European countries of their CSCE commitments for this period. Copies will be deposited in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  RAF Bentwaters
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) at what stage in the decision-making proposals are to station F-15E aircraft of the United States Air Force at RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk;

  (2) how many F-15E aircraft would be supported by (a) the proposed field training facility and (b) the proposed conventional munitions shop at RAF Bentwaters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) on 6 February 1990, column 604. No decisions have been taken to station F-15E aircraft at RAF Bentwaters.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deactivation of the 527 aggressor squadron at RAF Bentwaters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States Government recently announced their intention to withdraw the squadron of F-16 aircraft—the "aggressor squadron"—from RAF Bentwaters as part of a series of proposed changes in United States force levels in Europe. I understand that the aircraft are being placed in reserve at bases in Germany. The withdrawal of the aircraft themselves is now complete.

  RAF Molesworth
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much will be the contribution by(a) the United States in fiscal year 1991 and (b) the United Kingdom in fiscal year 1990–91 towards construction of facilities announced by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Official Report, 11 January, columns 691–92, at Royal Air Force Molesworth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All costs for the development of the joint analysis centre at RAF Molesworth will be borne by the United States Government. I understand that the request for funding authorisation in United States' fiscal year 1991 amounts to some $17·25 million.

  United States Military Construction Projects
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military construction projects in the United Kingdom for support of United States forces funded from the NATO infrastructure fund currently under construction, giving for each project its location, the nature of the facilities to be constructed, the date that construction started and the scheduled date of completion.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to publish information of this kind.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States military construction projects in the United Kingdom for which funding approval was given in fiscal year 1990, giving for each project its location, the nature of the facilities to be constructed and the scheduled dates for the start and completion of the construction.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that the US authorities have received US congressional funding approval for fiscal year 1990 for the following military construction projects in the United Kingdom. The detailed start and completion dates for these projects are a matter for the US authorities, although it should be noted that Her Majesty's Government have not yet given approval for all these projects to be carried out.

  RAF Alconbury

  Conventional Munitions Shop

  RAF Barford St. John

  Physical Security

  RAF Bentwaters

  Add/Alter Fire Station

  Alter Munitions Storage

  Add/Alter Flight Simulator Facility

  RAF Christmas Common

  Site Security

  RAF Edzell

  Operations Building Annex

  RAF Fairford

  Digital European Backbone Facility

  RAF Macrihanish

  Operations Facility

  RAF Mildenhall

  Upgrade Sewage Treatment Plant

  RAF Upper Heyford

  Alter Munitions Storage

  Bovingdon

  Site security

  Department of Defense Dependants Schools

  Bicester Elementary School

  Upwood Elementary School

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the United States military construction
  703
  projects in the United Kingdom for which funding approval is being sought for the United States fiscal years 1991 and 1992, giving for each project its location, the nature of the facilities to be constructed and the scheduled dates for the start and completion of the construction;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), Official Report, 6 February, columns 603–4, whether he has now been informed by his United States counterpart of any United States military construction projects additional to those listed in that answer for which funding is being sought for the fiscal year 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My answer to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 6 February (columns 603–4) listed projects in the United Kingdom for which the United States Air Force had sought funding in fiscal year 1991. In addition, funding approval is being sought for a Department of Defense dependants' school at Harrogate, and by the United States Navy for a dental clinic at RAF Edzell and for a fleet hospital facility at RAF Lanark. I understand that the United States authorities have not yet sought funding approval for military construction projects for their fiscal year 1992.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future use of RAF Greenham Common by United States forces including details of what functions will be continued on the base, how many personnel will remain on base, and whether there will be any regular flying activity from the base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 6 February, columns 591–92. I understand that current United States plans are for around 400 personnel to be retained at the station.

  RAF Wethersfield
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future use of RAF Wethersfield by his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No decisions have yet been taken concerning the future of RAF Wethersfield after it is handed back to the Ministry of Defence in June 1991.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any of the United States forces units or equipment currently based at RAF Wethersfield will be moved to other locations within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand from the United States authorities that about a quarter of the 400 personnel of the 819 civil engineering squadron will remain in the United Kingdom, dispersed among the United States' main operating bases. The squadron's equipment will remain in the United Kingdom in storage.

  Radiation
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the upper quartile range of maximum radiation doses rates sustained by workers at (a) the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston, (b) Plymouth, Devonport and (c) Rosyth for each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  704
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures requested are given in tables 1 and 2, based on the interpretation of upper quartile as the range of doses to which the most highly exposed 25 per cent. of the workers are subjected. The lowest dose of the upper quartile range cannot be readily identified for the royal dockyards (table 1) due to the way the figures are compiled. Both for AWE and the royal dockyards, however, the vast majority of exposures are much less than 15mSv.

  Table 1

  Uppermost Quartite Data for Exposures to External Irradiation for the Royal Dockyards, including data for workers of the Contractors (Devonport Management Ltd. and Babcock Thorn) after 1987

  Year

  Dose Range (mSv)

  1985

  <15–50

  1986

  <15–40

  1987

  <15–55

  1988

  <15–30

  1989

  <15–50

  Table 2

  AWE Uppermost Quartile Data for Exposures to External Irradiation

  Year

  Dose Range (mSv)

  1984

  0·7–15

  1985

  0·8–20

  1986

  0·8–15

  1987

  0·7–15

  1988

  0·8–10

  Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of notified accidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Neubert
  The numbers of abnormal occurrences notified by Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston to regulatory and environmental authorities, under the criteria in force at the time, for each of the past five years are:

  Number

  1985

  3

  1986

  26

  1987

  46

  1988

  47

  1989

  46

  The apparent increase between 1985 and 1987 was a result of changed reporting arrangements and criteria.

  Almost all these occurrences were industrial injuries or other events unconnected with radioactive substances. None involved exposure to radiation above one thousandth of a milliSeivert.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the Royal Air Force will not introduce a computerised logging system for military low-flying aircraft sorties before 1992 at the earliest.

  Mr. Neubert
  The intention to introduce a computerised notification and warning system in the United
  705
  Kingdom low-flying system was announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 20 October 1988, at column 1101. It is planned to bring the system into use in 1992. This is a complex system and it will take this period to develop the appropriate software and install terminals in all low-flying units.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will establish an exclusion zone of a radius of 20 miles around the sites of major open air festivals in low-flying training areas.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken by his Department to brief other NATO aircrew of the need to avoid disturbance to major open air festivals in low-flying areas.

  Mr. Neubert
  Relevant notices to airmen (NOTAMs) are brought to the attention of all military aircrews planning low-flying sorties in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the aerodrome at Netherthorpe lies within a military low-flying transit area.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  Nerve Gas
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tonnes of nerve gas are stockpiled on United Kingdom soil by NATO forces; and if he will show in his answer the amount for each member country.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by location, the sites of NATO nerve gas stockpiles in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is none.

  Royal Navy (Vessel Location)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to publish regular updates of the global location of(a) Royal Navy surface ships, (b) Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, (c) Royal Navy diesel-powered submarines and (d) Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Military Personnel (Radiation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he will review the relevance to his Department of the research conducted by Professor Martin Gardner for the Medical Research Council into the correlation between childhood leukaemia and fathers working at Sellafield; and whether he will commission a report into radiation and submariners by Professor Gardner;

  (2) if he will commission research into the health of submariners with (a) abnormalities in the offspring of submariners working on nuclear submarines and (b) abnormalities in the offspring of groups regularly working in closest proximity to the nuclear reactors of submarines;

  (3) what research studies have been undertaken into the health of the offspring of and individuals (a) working with nuclear materials in the armed forces and (b) working in the nuclear defence industry;
  706
  (4) whether he will commission studies into abnormalities in the offspring of those working around (a) military nuclear power stations, (b) sites involved in the manufacture of nuclear reactors, (c) sites involved in the manufacture of nuclear arms, (d) sites where military nuclear waste is stored, (e) nuclear weapons storage facilities and (f) naval dockyards working with nuclear material.

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

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence if he will make it his policy to re-evaluate the current programme of seeking Z-berths for reserve use by nuclear submarines in the light of the Gardner report on radiation risks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to charge facility fees when journalists or radio or television crews are carried in search and rescue helicopters engaged in flying operations;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to recover landing charges incurred by search and rescue helicopters when these are caused by the picking up and setting down of journalists or radio or television crews.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is already the policy to charge for the costs of providing facilities for journalists and radio or television crews, except where the provision of the facilities is judged to be in the interests of the Department, when no charge is made. Each case will continue to be judged on its merits.

  Anti-tank Helicopters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards United Kingdom participation in the Franco-German PAH-2 anti-tank helicopter programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The PAH-2 Tiger is one of several options being studied to replace the Army's anti-armour helicopters.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many internal auditors are employed in his Department and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are 113 internal auditors employed in MOD at an annual cost of £2·07 million. In 1989 736 internal audit reports were produced. None was drawn to the attention of a Minister in the Department. No internal audit work in MOD is subcontracted to private firms.

  Ballistic Missiles (Iraq)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate an investigation into the role of the British-registered firm Matrix Churchill in supplying consultancy services to Iraq for the development of ballistic missile technology.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to comment on specific defence export cases.

  Harrier GR5
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications were carried out to the Harrier GR5 ejector seat after October 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Following the crash of Harrier GR5 ZD325 a total of 21 modifications were identified as being necessary to the ejection seat. Five of these were declared mandatory before flying could recommence: two to the seat itself, two to the emergency oxygen selector valve and the fifth to remove a cockpit wander lamp thought to be a potential loose object hazard. All have been carried out. Three further modifications to the oxygen system mounted on the seat were declared mandatory before aircraft could fly at heights above 10,000 ft and are in the process of being embodied. Aircraft not yet modified are required to fly below 10,000 ft. The remaining modifications are not safety critical and are being made on an opportunity basis.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of 26 February,Official Report, column 73, he will place a transcript of the conversation between his officials and General Sir Peter Leng of 17 February, in the Library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by his Ministry to ensure co-ordination in coastal protection work between Departments, along the lines of the steps being taken by the standing conference on the problems associated with the coastline to co-ordinate coastal protection works between neighbouring local authorities on the south coast.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Departments involved in policy matters relating to coastal defence work are my Department in England and the respective territorial Departments.

  It is recognised that there are other associated issues such as those relating to nature conservation, tourism, aggregate extraction and so on. Many of these matters will be addressed in submissions of proposed coast protection work or through the existing system of consultation. In addition, any such issues which might have more general implications for the defence of the coastline are kept under regular review.
  708
  It is encouraging that groups of authorities concerned with both coast protection and sea defence are discussing these matters together. Such groups, and the standing conference is a good example, have the advantage of a wider perspective of the coastal environment than is possible for the individual authorities. My regional engineers also have a co-ordinating role when discussing potential coast protection and sea defence schemes with the authorities and my Department is grant-aiding research studies of coastal processes with a view to identifying appropriate solutions for defence of stretches of the coastline.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the sources of grant aid available from his Ministry for work on coastal protection and sea defences including details of the amounts to be paid during 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department makes available grant aid for the construction of capital works of coast protection and sea defence. In 1989–90 the total grant available for coastal protection and sea defence work is £28 million. In 1990–91 the total available is expected to be over £33 million.

  Further increases in grant are planned for 1991–92 and 1992–93. The needs of authorities undertaking coast protection and sea defence works are kept regularly under review.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to streamline the procedures in respect of the statutory consultations required under the Coast Protection Act 1949 for grant-aiding coast protection work and sea defences.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Coast Protection (Notices) Regulations 1950, a coast protection authority must publish notice of proposed coast protection schemes and serve like notice on interested parties such as the county council, fisheries organisations and neighbouring coast protection authorities. In addition, my Department consults a small number of other bodies, such as the Nature Conservancy Council. Such representations or objections as may be made are already handled as quickly as possible, but our procedures are nevertheless under continuous review.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, 26 February,Official Report, column 71, if he will identify the slaughterhouses and markets at which bovine spongiform encephalopathy-suspect cattle were identified; and if he will list them in the Official Report.

  Mr. Maclean
  It has been the Ministry's long-established practice not to disclose details of premises from which notifiable diseases have been reported.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the welfare of animals during transit.
  709
  Mr Maclean
  It is most important that people involved in transporting animals plan journeys properly and conduct them with full consideration for the living creatures in their care.

  There is comprehensive legislation covering the welfare of animals in transit to, from and within this country. Responsibility for enforcement lies with county and metropolitan local authorities. The Ministry is also prepared to prosecute offenders and this was done successfully over the tragic deaths of beagles being exported to Sweden. Specific statutory controls ensure that all food animals leave these shores rested, fed and watered and inspected for fitness to travel at approved export lairages. Compliance with existing EC directives outside our jurisdiction is of course a matter for other member states. We are currently seeking the best possible welfare safeguards during negotiations on proposals for new Community rules on the protection of animals during transport.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Brussels Agriculture Council held on 5–6 March.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  The Council completed its first consideration of the 1990 farm price proposals. Discussion will resume at the next meeting beginning on 26 March, when the Presidency is expected to put forward a compromise proposal.

  Number of farmers and workers employed in agriculture June 1989

  County by standard statistical region

  Farmers, partners and directors

  All workers (excluding salried managers)

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  Total farmers.partners and directors

  Salaried managers

  Principal farmers and partners

  Other partners and directors

  Total

  Principal farmers and partners

  Other partners and directors

  Total

  partners and directors

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Cleveland

  301

  108

  409

  82

  60

  142

  551

  418

  105

  523

  25

  Cumbria

  4,428

  1,575

  6,003

  1,015

  688

  1,703

  7,706

  4,012

  654

  4,666

  79

  Durham

  1,505

  499

  2,004

  394

  271

  665

  2,669

  1,535

  448

  1,983

  23

  Tyne and Wear

  1,635

  612

  2,247

  384

  335

  719

  2,966

  2,554

  475

  3,029

  78

  Northumberland

  185

  54

  239

  43

  33

  76

  315

  301

  114

  415

  10

  Northern Region

  8,054

  2,848

  10,902

  1,918

  1,387

  3,305

  14,207

  8,820

  1,796

  10,616

  215

  Humberside

  2,358

  1,101

  3,459

  671

  480

  1,151

  4,610

  4,839

  1,616

  6,455

  236

  North Yorkshire

  5,914

  2,149

  8,063

  1,519

  1,115

  2,634

  10,697

  7,684

  2,987

  10,671

  282

  South Yorkshire

  904

  329

  1,233

  343

  212

  555

  1,788

  1,199

  417

  1,616

  30

  West Yorkshire

  1,639

  511

  2,150

  1,048

  413

  1,461

  3,611

  2,137

  704

  2,841

  74

  Yorks and Humber Region

  10,815

  4,090

  14,905

  3,581

  2,220

  5,801

  20,706

  15,859

  5,724

  21,583

  622

  Derbyshire

  2,344

  744

  3,088

  799

  501

  1,300

  4,388

  2,381

  728

  3,109

  50

  Leicestershire

  1,712

  626

  2,338

  565

  351

  916

  3,254

  2,479

  859

  3,338

  100

  Lincolnshire

  3,856

  1,513

  5,369

  1,192

  968

  2,160

  7,529

  8,877

  4,265

  13,142

  431

  Northampton

  1,177

  426

  1,603

  455

  331

  786

  2,389

  1,945

  476

  2,421

  108

  Nottingham

  1,266

  507

  1,773

  354

  295

  649

  2,422

  2,365

  925

  3,290

  113

  East Midlands Region

  10,355

  3,816

  14,171

  3,365

  2,446

  5,811

  19,982

  18,047

  7,253

  25,300

  802

  Cambridgeshire

  2,343

  870

  3,213

  717

  525

  1,242

  4,455

  4,543

  2,665

  7,208

  237

  Norfolk

  3,039

  1,036

  4,075

  1,181

  698

  1,879

  5,954

  8,070

  4,760

  12,830

  393

  Liquid Egg
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to whether salmonella enteritidis PT4 can multiply in bulk liquid egg in a frozen state.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not available on whether salmonella enteritidis PT4 specifically is able to multiply in bulk liquid egg in the frozen state. It is expected to behave like most bacteria, which are unable to multiply at temperatures below 0 deg C.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many internal auditors are employed in his Ministry and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Curry
  Currently 36½ staff are employed at a direct cost in 1989–90 of £889,000. One hundred and twenty-four reports were issued in 1989. All audit reports are summarised in a bimonthly report I receive. During 1989 the audit of staff restaurants was contracted out at a cost of £8,000.

  Farm Employees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers, partners, directors and farm workers were employed in each county in England in(a) June and (b) December 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  County results from the June 1989 agricultural census have recently become available and are shown in the table. County figures are not available from the December agricultural sample surveys.
  711

  County by standard statistical region

  Farmers, partners and directors

  All workers (excluding salaried managers)

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  Salaried managers

  Principal farmers and partners

  Other partners and directors

  Total

  Principal farmers and partners

  Other partners and directors

  Total

  Total farmers, partners and directors

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Suffolk

  2,129

  762

  2,891

  811

  557

  1,368

  4,259

  5,100

  2,396

  7,496

  306

  East Anglia Region

  7,511

  2,668

  10,179

  2,709

  1,780

  4,489

  14,668

  17,713

  9,821

  27,534

  936

  Bedfordshire

  778

  303

  1,081

  261

  162

  423

  1,504

  1,425

  636

  2,061

  79

  Berkshire

  423

  124

  547

  247

  114

  361

  908

  1,160

  373

  1,533

  112

  Buckinghamshire

  1,035

  316

  1,351

  546

  255

  801

  2,152

  1,836

  635

  2,471

  133

  East Sussex

  1,137

  307

  1,444

  715

  327

  1,042

  2,486

  2,092

  1,254

  3,346

  123

  Essex

  2,088

  821

  2,909

  780

  660

  1,440

  4,349

  4,493

  2,516

  7,009

  276

  Greater London

  248

  102

  350

  109

  56

  165

  515

  673

  489

  1,162

  37

  Hampshire

  1,584

  520

  2,104

  876

  418

  1,294

  3,398

  4,320

  2,398

  6,718

  362

  Hertfordshire

  711

  268

  979

  290

  185

  475

  1,454

  1,548

  503

  2,051

  107

  Isle of Wight

  312

  80

  392

  123

  82

  205

  597

  582

  290

  872

  26

  Kent

  2,220

  665

  2,885

  1,268

  732

  2,000

  4,885

  6,984

  7,807

  14,791

  373

  Oxfordshire

  1,205

  391

  1,596

  513

  300

  813

  2,409

  2,593

  751

  3,344

  186

  Surrey

  800

  183

  983

  582

  235

  817

  1,800

  2,177

  1,501

  3,678

  189

  West Sussex

  1,117

  341

  1,458

  624

  320

  944

  2,402

  3,602

  2,721

  6,323

  292

  South Eastern Region

  13,658

  4,421

  18,079

  6,934

  3,846

  10,780

  28,859

  33,485

  21,874

  55,359

  2,295

  Avon

  1,228

  332

  1,560

  456

  229

  685

  2,245

  1,773

  1,348

  3,121

  102

  Cornwall and Scilly

  4,326

  1,116

  5,442

  1,740

  784

  2,524

  7,966

  4,120

  1,346

  5,466

  62

  Devon

  7,088

  1,761

  8,849

  2,180

  1,148

  3,328

  12,177

  7,139

  1,726

  8,865

  174

  Dorset

  1,747

  523

  2,270

  760

  424

  1,184

  3,454

  3,154

  815

  3,969

  157

  Gloucester

  1,836

  497

  2,333

  861

  448

  1,309

  3,642

  2,972

  1,263

  4,235

  161

  Somerset

  3,537

  991

  4,528

  1,343

  696

  2,039

  6,567

  4,868

  1,563

  6,431

  148

  Wiltshire

  1,744

  554

  2,298

  664

  402

  1,066

  3,364

  3,688

  864

  4,552

  254

  South Western Region

  21,506

  5,774

  27,280

  8,004

  4,131

  12,135

  39,415

  27,714

  8,925

  36,639

  1,058

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,034

  1,206

  5,240

  1,665

  936

  2,601

  7,841

  6,199

  3,901

  10,100

  257

  Salop

  3,221

  984

  4,205

  966

  611

  1,577

  5,782

  4,340

  1,395

  5,735

  130

  Staffordshire

  2,777

  857

  3,634

  1,006

  529

  1,535

  5,169

  3,676

  1,001

  4,677

  82

  Warwickshire

  1,424

  488

  1,912

  564

  315

  879

  2,791

  2,195

  919

  3,114

  122

  West Midlands

  276

  80

  356

  111

  80

  191

  547

  443

  366

  809

  17

  West Midlands Region

  11,732

  3,615

  15,347

  4,312

  2,471

  6,783

  22,130

  16,853

  7,582

  24,435

  608

  Cheshire

  2,769

  878

  3,647

  867

  466

  1,353

  5,000

  3,964

  932

  4,896

  163

  Greater Manchester

  884

  281

  1,165

  377

  223

  600

  1,765

  1,026

  469

  1,495

  24

  Lancashire

  3,659

  1,327

  4,986

  1,113

  686

  1,799

  6,785

  4,664

  2,013

  6,677

  160

  Merseyside

  332

  105

  437

  94

  74

  168

  605

  571

  256

  827

  15

  North West Region

  7,644

  2,591

  10,235

  2,451

  1,469

  3,920

  14,155

  10,225

  3,670

  13,895

  362

  England

  91,275

  29,823

  121,098

  33,274

  19,750

  53,024

  174,122

  148,716

  66,645

  215,361

  6,898

  Source:June Census 1989

  Note:Figures exclude minor holdings not included in June Census.

  ADAS
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people have been employed in the ADAS research and development service for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The research and development service of ADAS was established in 1987. The number of staff, including industrials and adminstrative support, employed in the research and development service for each year since then at the dates indicated was as follows:

  Number

  1 March 1987

  987·0

  1 March 1988

  995·0

  1 March 1989

  926·5

  1 March 1990

  798·0

  712
  Each individual employed for fewer than conditioned hours (37 hours per week outside London) has been counted as 0·5 of a post in the figures.

  Laboratories
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations of his food science laboratories, and give the number of people employed in each laboratory in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  During the past 10 years the food science laboratory has occupied premises at Romney street, London, and two locations in Norwich (Colney lane and Queen street); these have been operated as a single scientific laboratory and information about staff numbers on each site is not available in the form requested.

  The total number of staff employed in each year is given in the table and excludes administration support staff:

  713

  Year

  Numbers Employed at1 Food Science Laboratory

  1980–81

  45

  1981–82

  48

  1982–83

  46

  1983–84

  52

  1984–85

  49

  1985–86

  49

  1986–87

  48

  1987–88

  50

  1988–89

  55

  1989–90

  59

  1excludes administrative staff.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) veterinary laboratories, (b) ADAS farm, countryside science laboratories, excluding facilities for milk testing etc., (c) ADAS research and development science laboratories, (d) fisheries laboratories and (e) food science laboratories, which are currently operating; what are his estimates for the number operating in 1990 and 1991 in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  On present assumptions, the number of laboratory sites will be as follows at the end of the current financial year and of 1990–91 and 1991–92 respectively:

  Financial year ending 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  (a) Veterinary Laboratories (including the Central Veterinary Laboratory, outstations and Veterinary Investigation Centres)

  22

  21

  21

  On 1 August 1990 the cattle-breeding centre at Shinfield will be closed as already announced. From 1 April 1990 the central veterinary laboratory, including its outstation at Lasswade, will become an executive agency. A review of the structure of the veterinary investigation service to look for ways of improving the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the services was announced on 19 October 1989. I have yet to consider the report.

  SVS BSE

  CVL BSE

  SVS Zoonoses

  CVL Zoonoses

  1 April 1988 to 30 September 1988

  6,746

  3,747

  15,318

  8,229

  1 October 1988 to 31 March 1989

  18,292

  6,405

  28,207

  9,254

  1 April 1989 to 30 September 1989

  34,575

  9,893

  37,186

  9,266

  1 October 1989 to 1 February 1990 (4 months)

  28,287

  7,877

  32,479

  8,998

  Notes:

  1. The zoones figures do not include sampling of imported proteins.

  2. The figures do not include work carried out in VI centres on a chargeable basis for bacteriological monitoring of salmonella in poultry, or a diagnosis of diasease caused by these other organisms on material submitted by veterinary surgeons.

  3. Separate figures for salmonella, listeria and campylobacter are not available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the numbers employed in the central veterinary laboratory, giving a separate figure for the number of scientists, for each year since 1979, and including the current figure.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  Permanent Staff in Post in the CVL

  Scientific Staff

  1990

  503

  272

  1989

  536

  285

  1988

  534

  287

  714

  1990

  1991

  1992

  (b) ADAS—Farm and Countryside Service (excluding minor facilities for milk testing, testing etc)

  9

  7

  7

  As announced on 21 March 1989 regional laboratories are being rationalised in order to improve cost-effectiveness.

  (c) ADAS—Research and Development Services

  6

  6

  6

  The six individual laboratory sites are managed as a single central science laboratory pending collocation expected in 1993.

  (d) Fisheries Laboratories

  6

  6

  6

  Of the above, five sites form the directorate of fisheries research, while the sixth is Torry research station, Aberdeen.

  (e) Food Science Laboratories

  1

  1

  1

  The food science laboratory, formerly on three sites, was collocated at one site in Norwich from 5 February 1990.

  I am satisfied that the restructuring and collocation of the Ministry's laboratories already carried out or in prospect has maintained and will maintain the necessary facilities for R and D and analytical work in support of policy objectives.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of man hours of people employed in(a) the central veterinary laboratory and (b) the state veterinary service on (i) bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (ii) salmonella, (iii) listeria and (iv) campylobacter on 1 October 1988, 1 April 1989, 1 October 1989 and 1 March 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of hours of the people employed by the SVS (including the VIS) and the CVL, (scientific staff) on BSE and zoonoses for the periods stated are as follows:

  Permanent Staff in Post in the CVL

  Scientific Staff

  1987

  535

  291

  1986

  568

  307

  1985

  585

  313

  1984

  584

  306

  1983

  592

  306

  1982

  620

  311

  1981

  647

  327

  1980

  667

  327

  1979

  659

  321

  715
  Notes:

  Taken from January figures for each year in respect of the central veterinary laboratory at Weybridge; the separate laboratories of the Reading cattle breeding centre and Lasswade (Scotland) are excluded.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the roles of and the current relationship between the state veterinary service and the central veterinary laboratory; and how he expects this to change in the future.

  Mr. Maclean
  The objectives of the state veterinary service are published in "Animal Health 1988, The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer" (page 2). The central veterinary laboratory is currently part of the state veterinary service and contributes to meeting these objectives by providing specialised diagnostic, research, advisory services and products.

  On 2 April the central veterinary laboratory will become an executive agency within MAFF. It will continue to deliver those services required by the state veterinary service in pursuit of its objectives on a more formalised contractual basis.

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STATE VETERINARY SERVICE
  The prevention control of animal diseases
  To prevent the importation of animal diseases, particularly exotic diseases, through national and EC measures. To control and/or eradicate all notifiable diseases. To assist the industry in the control of non-notifiable diseases.
  Farm animal welfare
  To encourage high standards of animal welfare on farms, during transport, at markets, in abattoirs and, as far as possible, on export. To explain government policies on farm animal welfare. To provide support for the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) and act as appropriate on its recommendations.
  Livestock protection
  To improve the health status and genetic quality of farm livestock by the establishment of voluntary disease control schemes and regulatory control over artificial insemination and embryo transplant. To support the export trade by the establishment of herds and flocks of known health status.
  Veterinary medicines
  To ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of all veterinary medicines produced, imported, sold and supplied in the United Kingdom. To encourage the proper use of medicines.

  Veterinary public health and export promotion
  To provide safeguards for public health in the production and import of meat. To facilitate exports of live animals, meat and other animal products by doing everything possible to ensure that the animal health and public health requirements of importing countries are met.
  To meet these objectives the veterinary service consists of a regulatory force (the Veterinary Field Service), a surveillance network (the Veterinary Investigation Service), and a research and development facility (the Central Veterinary Laboratories).
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to co-locate his three food science laboratories; where the new food science laboratory will be located; and how many scientists he will employ there.

  Mr. Maclean
  New accommodation for the food science laboratory has recently been completed in Colney lane, Norwich and staff from the three existing sites were transferred to the new building on 5 February 1990. A total of 83 laboratory posts are approved for 1990–91 and of these 63 will be for qualified scientists.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries in which the irradiation of poultry meat is legal.

  Mr. Maclean
  According to information provided by the international consultative group on food irradiation, the following countries have approved the process for the treatment of poultry meat:

  Bangladesh

  Brazil

  Chile

  France

  Hungary

  Israel

  Netherlands

  South Africa

  Sierrean Arab Republic

  Thailand

  Taiwan.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries in which irradiation is used as a method of preservation of poultry meat.

  Mr. Maclean
  Of the countries submitting returns for the information of the international consultative group on food irradiation, irradiation of poultry meat has been reported from France and the Netherlands.

ENVIRONMENT

  Populations
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest available population figures for each of the district council areas in Essex, Surrey, Kent, Hampshire, Cheshire, Lancashire and Durham.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest available information on resident population for the areas requested is given in the table. It is that estimated by the registrar-general as at 30 June 1988. Information on adult population calculated in accordance with the population report (England) was placed in the Library on 11 January.

  Estimated resident population at 30 June 1988

  Thousands

  Essex

  Basildon

  157·5

  Braintree

  117·2

  Brentwood

  70·0

  Castle Point

  85·5

  Chelmsford

  151·7

  Colchester

  150·2

  Epping Forest

  111·8

  Harlow

  72·0

  Maldon

  53·6

  Rochford

  74·4

  Southend-on-Sea

  165·4

  Tendring

  129·6

  Thurrock

  124·4

  Uttlesford

  66·1

  Surrey

  Elmbridge

  107·1

  Epsom and Ewell

  67·5

  Guildford

  123·2

  Mole Valley

  76·2

  Reigate and Banstead

  113·6

  717

  Thousands

  Runnymede

  71·3

  Spelthorne

  85·8

  Surrey Heath

  83·6

  Tandridge

  75·6

  Waverley

  109·7

  Woking

  86·1

  Kent

  Ashford

  95·1

  Canterbury

  131·9

  Dartford

  78·4

  Dover

  106·3

  Gillingham

  95·3

  Gravesham

  90·2

  Maidstone

  136·0

  Rochester-upon-Medway

  146·6

  Sevenoaks

  107·3

  Shepway

  87·6

  Swale

  115·3

  Thanet

  129·7

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  101·2

  Tunbridge Wells

  99·3

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke and Deane

  139·7

  East Hampshire

  103·5

  Eastleigh

  101·0

  Fareham

  100·3

  Gosport

  76·9

  Hart

  85·9

  Havant

  117·5

  New Forest

  163·3

  Portsmouth

  183·8

  Rushmoor

  77·0

  Southampton

  196·7

  Test Valley

  102·3

  Winchester

  96·0

  Cheshire

  Chester

  117·1

  Congleton

  86·6

  Crewe and Nantwich

  96·8

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  79·7

  Halton

  124·0

  Macclesfield

  152·3

  Vale Royal

  113·3

  Warrington

  186·0

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  134·4

  Blackpool

  143·8

  Burnley

  85·4

  Chorley

  96·7

  Fylde

  73·2

  Hyndburn

  78·9

  Lancaster

  131·1

  Pendle

  84·4

  Preston

  128·1

  Ribble Valley

  52·8

  Rossendale

  64·6

  South Ribble

  100·2

  West Lancashire

  105·4

  Wyre

  103·0

  Durham

  Chester-le-Street

  53·1

  Darlington

  99·7

  Derwentside

  85·9

  Durham

  85·8

  Easington

  95·0

  Sedgefield

  88·4

  Teesdale

  24·9

  Wear Valley

  64·1

  Source:OPCS Monitor PP1 89/1 issused 10 August 1989.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many P and T staff the Property Services Agency plans to have in(a) projects, (b) special services and (c) international and building management on 1 April.

  Mr. Chope
  Property Services Agency plans to have the following distribution of P and T non-industrial staff in its businesses on 1 April:

  Number

  Projects

  1,305

  Building management

  5,200

  Specialist services

  352

  Property Services Agency International

  425

  TOTAL

  7,282

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff from grade 5 to executive officer and support staff the Property Services Agency plans to have in(a) projects, (b) special services and (c) international and building management on 1 April.

  Mr. Chope
  Property Services Agency plans to have the following distribution of staff in its businesses on 1 April:

  Grade 5 to executive officer

  Support staff

  Projects

  141

  314

  Building management

  13,500

  —

  Specialist services

  26

  85

  Property Services Agency International

  77

  36

  1Includes "Support" staff.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities in East Sussex, on the information currently available to him, are planning budgets which will lead to community charge levels above those indicated in his Department's projections.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has received returns from East Sussex county council and Wealden borough council. Both authorities are planning budgets above the levels assumed in the settlement.

  Councillors
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the regulation he is to bring forward consequent on part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will include provision to ensure that councillors who are employees of companies that will be deemed to be controlled by the local authority in which they are a member may see out their term of office.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The disqualification of employees of companies under the control of a single local authority arises directly from paragraph 21 of schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989: an order under part V of the Act could not modify this provision.

  Tenants' Choice
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the tenants' choice promotion campaign starts.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 March 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)Official Report, Volume 168, column 388.

  Carers
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to take steps to ensure that volunteer care workers providing care for a disabled person who are not employed by a charitable body but by an individual disabled person are not liable to pay the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  The current exemption does not require the care worker to be employed by a charitable body. An individual may be exempt if he or she is employed by the person receiving care, provided that he or she has been introduced to that person by a body established for charitable purposes, receives a wage or salary of less than ·25 a week, is required to work for at least 24 hours a week and is ordinarily resident in premises provided by or on behalf of the employer for the better performance of his or her duties.

  Red list Substances
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many substances appear on the red list as drawn up by each country within the European Community; if he has any plans to increase the number of chemicals on the red list; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The red list is a United Kingdom initiative: a list of chemicals which are particularly dangerous to the aquatic environment. Not all other Community countries have such lists and I do not have details of those which do exist.

  The Commission of the European Communities has recently proposed to the Council that most of the substances on the red list which have not already been dealt with as list I substances should receive priority treatment for the setting of limit values and quality objectives. A list of agreed hazardous substances, which includes many of the red list substances, is likely to be agreed at the North sea conference this week.

  The Department is starting to assess new candidates for the red list, but it is unlikely that any will be given red list status before the end of next year.

  Carbon Canister Technology
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government will support the proposals contained in the European Community draft directive COM (89) 662 to reduce evaporative emissions from cars by the fitting of carbon canister technology; whether the Government will support the further "stage 1" controls; and what the likely costs of such measures will be.
  720
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  I am preparing an explanatory memorandum on the COM (89) 662 proposals (Council document No. 4704/90). It will be submitted to the House shortly. The Commission has yet to make proposals concerning stage 1 controls on evaporative emissions in the petrol distribution network from refinery to retail forecourt.

  Street lighting
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to issue local authorities with guidelines regarding street lighting standards.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  No. Local authorities already have such guidelines produced by the British Standards Institution with the participation of the Department and local authorities. A copy of the current edition, BS 5489, is in the Library.

  Waste Control Policy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implication for waste control policy of European Community draft directive 88/C295/03.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department of the Environment submitted an explanatory memorandum to Parliament on 25 October 1988 setting out the Government's view on the implications of the Commission's proposal for revision of the 1975 directive on waste (88/C295/03) and submitted a further explanatory memorandum on 10 January 1990 on the Commission's amended proposal. The Government also expressed their view in the debate held in the First Standing Committee on European Committee Documents on 20 July 1989 (Official Report, First Standing Committee on European Community Document, 20 July 1989).

  Halon Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to eliminate atmospheric emissions of(a) halon 1211, (b) halon 1301 and (c) halon 2402; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the negotiations to revise the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer we are seeking international agreement to phase out these chemicals by 2005.

  House Conditions
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the number of houses identified in 1971, 1976, 1981 and 1986 by the English house conditions survey as(a) being unfit for human habitation, (b) lacking basic amenities and (c) being in a state of serious disrepair.

  Mr. Chope
  The numbers are as follows:
  721

  1971

  1976

  1981

  1986

  Unfit dwellings

  1,216,000

  1,162,000

  1,116,000

  1,053,000

  Dwellings lacking basic amenities

  2,815,000

  1,531,000

  863,000

  543,000

  Dwellings in serious disrepair

  1,104,000

  1,097,000

  1,178,000

  1,113,000

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list by location, and by year for the last 10 years, the rateable values of property that have been reduced, because the letting value has been affected due to the risk of nuclear contamination;

  (2) if he will list by location, and by year for the last 10 years, the rateable value appeals of property that have been heard, due to the claim that the letting value has been affected due to the risk of nuclear contamination.

  Mr. Chope
  No information is held centrally from which to establish whether there have been any such reductions or appeals.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the community charge increase over rates for the village of Eriswell; what contribution the United States air force personnel will be required to contribute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I cannot say what the difference between the community charge and the rates paid by the residents of the village of Eriswell will be. It depends on the level of the community charge, which Forest Heath district council has yet to set, and on the present rateable value of each home. My Department does not have information on individual rateable values. United States air force personnel are exempt from the community charge and will make no contribution. Local authorities are compensated for the loss of income arising from these and any other exemptions by the operation of the revenue support grant system. They receive enough grant to enable them to spend at the level of the standard spending assessment and set a charge of ·278, before transitional arrangements, on the assumption that it is collected only from those who are subject to the charge.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why an owner of an hotel is eligible for phased transitional relief on the original building but not on any extensions carried out;

  (2) what arrangements his Department is making to make phased transitional relief on commercial rating for the hotel and guesthouse trade available to new owners after 1 April.

  Mr. Chope
  Transitional relief is intended to phase in the new business rate to protect existing ratepayers from large overnight increases in their rate bills. A person who extends his property, or takes on a different property, on or after 1 April 1990, will know what his liability will be before doing so. Transitional relief could be made available in these circumstances only by reducing the limits on rate reductions at the expense of many businesses in northern England, including those in south Yorkshire, where average rate bills would fall by 26·7 per cent. in 1990–91 without transition.
  722
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reason the scaling factor for children's personal social services in table C of the calculations for Humberside's standard spending assessment is specified to 14 decimal places; what the figure represents; and what the effect of this scaling factor is on the standard spending assessment for Grimsby.

  Mr. Chope
  The scaling factor for children's personal social services ensures that the sum of the SSA elements for individual authorities is equal to the total of SSA available for children's social services for England of ·1,275·1 million in 1990–91.

  It is specified to 14 decimal places to ensure that this exact total is achieved. It has no effect on the standard spending assessment for Grimsby since Grimsby, as a non-metropolitan district, is not responsible for social services.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how, with reference to paragraph 3.29 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), poll tax payers and council officials may check the validity of the figure of ·1·37.

  Mr. Chope
  The figure referred to in paragraph 3.29 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report was arrived at after full consultation with local authority representatives, and was approved by the House on 18 January. Local authorities are able to check that this figure has been correctly applied to the circumstances of their particular local authority.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how, with reference to paragraph 3.32 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), poll tax payers and council officials may check the validity of the figure of(a) ·1,928·93 and (b) ·13·05.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures referred to in paragraph 3.32 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) were arrived at after full consultation with local authority representatives, and were approved by this House on 18 January. Local authority officials are able to check that the figures have been properly applied to the circumstances of their particular local authority.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allowance was made in the standard spending assessment of each English local authority for the use of reserves; and what information he has on the actual figure announced by each authority.

  Mr. Chope
  The standard spending assessment for an authority is intended to represent the amount of revenue expenditure which it would be appropriate for the authority to incur to provide a standard level of service consistent with the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of the amount of revenue expenditure which it would be appropriate for all local authorities to incur. We considered that it was not
  723
  appropriate to make any allowance in SSAs for reserves. I have no firm information on the use of reserves announced by each authority.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate was made of the number of second homes in each local authority area in fixing the standard spending assessment for that area; and what is the ratio of each estimate to the total population or the poll tax register.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of second homes is not an indicator used in calculating standard spending assessments. I do not have any estimate of the number of second homes in each local authority area.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment with reference to paragraph 3.29 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), what effect the choice of the figure of(a) ·7·11 and (b) ·1·37 has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Humberside.

  Mr. Chope
  The figure of ·7·11 in paragraph 3.29 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) when applied to the resident population of Humberside contributes ·9 per relevant adult to Humberside's SSA. The figure of ·1·37 when applied to the ward-weighted density for Humberside accounts for ·5 per relevant adult of the SSA for Humberside.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment with reference to paragraph 3.32 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), what effect the choice of the figure of(a) ·1,928·93 and (b) ·13·05 has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Humberside.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures referred to in paragraph 3.32 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) contribute ·28 and ·2 per relevant adult, respectively, to the SSA for Humberside.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply of 19 February,Official Report, column 474, concerning the amount of rates and poll tax in inner and outer London, whether he will publish in the Official Report the information placed in the Library on 11 January.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 23 February,Official Report, Vol. 167, column 929.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his written reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 14 February,Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult for each region etc., whether in each case the proposed reduction or increase in the local tax and ratepayer's contribution to local expenditure assumes an increase or decrease in the per adult contribution made by central Government; and whether he will publish in the Official Report the per adult figures for the central Government contribution in each case together with figures showing that contribution as a percentage of the local tax and ratepayer's contribution.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have not proposed specific increases in local contributions to expenditure in 724
  1990–91. The Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) sets out the basis of distribution of revenue support grant for 1990–91. The Revenue Support Grant Transition Report (England) sets out the adjustments to that basis of distribution and the Special Grant Report specifies two special grants for 1990–91. The distribution of business rates will be in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I have today placed in the Library a table which shows the aggregate of these amounts (known as "external support") for each area, as amounts per adult and as percentages of the average assumed personal community charge or 1989–90 rate bill per adult.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimated public expenditure cost to central Government in 1990–91 of the community charge transitional relief scheme for individuals.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: My latest estimate is that about ·350 million of transitional relief will be distributed in 1990–91 and that this will benefit about 7·5 million charge payers. This estimate is consistent with the figures on the distributional effect of the community charge placed in the Library on 15 February.

  The figures for later years are ·260 million in 1991–92 and ·200 million in 1992–93. The total amount of relief over the three years is therefore about ·810 million.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer on 28 February,Official Report, column 208, that he is responsible for monitoring all extra costs imposed on local authorities by (a) Act of Parliament, (b) statutory instruments and (c) departmental circulars, he will list by Department the notifications under each of these headings, by quantum, for each of the next three years, of the new costs to be borne by local authorities since the rate support grant quantum was agreed with the Treasury in July 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is not yet possible to provide a comprehensive list of all the extra costs that will fall to local authorities in the next three years as many of the new pressures and new savings on local authority expenditure for 1991–92 and future years have not yet been quantified.

  We will shortly be entering into discussions with the local authority associations before deciding what would be appropriate for local authorities to spend in 1991–92. These discussions will provide the opportunity to identify new burdens on local authorities across the whole range of local authority functions.

  Countryside Premium
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ask the Countryside Commission to consider extending the countryside premium designed to secure environmental benefits from set-aside land from the counties of eastern England to Hampshire.

  Mr. Trippier
  The countryside premium scheme was launched last June and initially covers only seven counties in eastern England. Arrangements are in hand for monitoring the effectiveness of the scheme in these
  725
  counties. It is too early yet to consider extending the scheme to other areas. The scope of the scheme will be reviewed in the light of the results of monitoring.

  Beaches
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the beaches which are designated under the EC directive of 1975 which were not monitored for salmonella and enteriditis in 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  On 25 January I announced that a detailed summary of the results of the 1989 survey of United Kingdom bathing waters identified under the European Economic Community bathing water directive would be placed in the Library,Official Report, 25 January 1990, column 785. This includes numbers of samples taken for the salmonella and enterovirus parameters and the number of these which failed to meet the directive's mandatory standards, at each bathing water.

  England per cent.

  Wales per cent.

  Scotland per cent.

  (a) 1986

  Owner occupied, owned outright

  25

  36

  14

  Owner occupied, with mortgage

  39

  31

  28

  Rented with job or business

  2

  3

  3

  Rented from local authority or New Town

  24

  21

  49

  Rented from housing association or co-operative

  2

  1

  2

  Rented privately, unfurnished

  5

  6

  3

  Rented privately, furnished

  2

  2

  1

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Base (number of households) = 100 per cent.

  8,720

  492

  973

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  (b) 1987

  Owner occupied, owned outright

  24

  34

  14

  Owner occupied, with mortgage

  41

  29

  28

  Rented with job or business

  2

  3

  3

  Rented from local authority or New Town

  23

  25

  50

  Rented from housing association or co-operative

  3

  2

  1

  Rented privately, unfurnished

  4

  6

  3

  Rented privately, furnished

  2

  1

  1

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Base (number of households) = 100 per cent.

  8,842

  518

  939

  Sample sizes for Wales and Scotland are small and, in those two countries, changes in the percentages between the two years are not statistically significant.

  Results are not yet available from more recent surveys and the Department does not make such forecasts.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the figures in table 5.11 of "Regional

  Average dwelling prices for Building Society borrowers

  1988

  1989

  Index of dwelling prices 1985 = 100 1988

  All

  All excl. Local Authority Sitting Tenants

  Local Authority Sitting Tenants

  First Time Buyers

  Index dwelling prices 1985 = 100 1989

  All

  All excl. Local Authority Sitting Tenants

  Local Authority Sitting Tenants

  First Time Buyers

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  United Kingdom

  167

  49,400

  52,200

  18,000

  35,800

  202

  54,800

  59,700

  19,800

  39,700

  Northern

  132

  30,200

  31,800

  12,300

  21,700

  170

  37,400

  40,900

  11,700

  24,400

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  139

  32,700

  34,000

  13,000

  23,800

  194

  41,800

  45,300

  14,600

  29,500

  Downing Street (Gates)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what alternative opening and closing arrangements are under consideration for the newly erected gates at the entrance of Downing street.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to table 6.2 of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report the figures for each country in 1986 with the relevant base together with an estimate for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 together with a forecast for 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  The information from the 1986 and 1987 general household surveys is as follows:

  Trends 1989" for 1988 and a forecast for 1989, together with figures showing the average dwelling price for mortgages taken out by sitting tenants of local authorities in each year.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is listed in the table:
  727

  1988

  1989

  Index of dwelling prices 1985 = 100 1988

  All

  All excl. Local Authority Sitting Tenants

  Local Authority Sitting Tenants

  First Time Buyers

  Index dwelling prices 1985 = 100 1989

  All

  All excl. Local Authority Sitting Tenants

  Local Authority Silting Tenants

  First Time Buyers

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  East Midlands

  159

  40,500

  42,600

  14,800

  28,700

  207

  49,400

  53,200

  18,900

  36,600

  East Anglia

  189

  57,300

  60,700

  20,800

  40,700

  221

  64,600

  68,700

  26,600

  48,500

  South East

  1

  74,000

  77,900

  28,100

  56,200

  1

  81,900

  87,900

  33,400

  61,700

  Greater London

  187

  77,700

  83,000

  28,400

  63,100

  203

  82,400

  90,500

  33,600

  66,800

  Rest of South East

  187

  72,600

  75,900

  28,000

  52,200

  216

  81,600

  86,700

  33,300

  58,800

  South West

  181

  58,500

  61,700

  20,800

  41,400

  219

  67,000

  71,200

  25,300

  48,300

  West Midlands

  167

  41,700

  44,800

  13,800

  28,100

  219

  49,800

  55,500

  16,900

  34,300

  North West

  137

  34,100

  35,200

  12,100

  24,200

  184

  42,100

  44,600

  13,600

  29,000

  England

  172

  52,000

  54,600

  19,700

  38,000

  207

  58,500

  62,800

  22,100

  43,000

  Wales

  142

  34,200

  36,300

  13,100

  25,700

  193

  43,000

  48,000

  16,200

  31,800

  Scotland

  122

  31,500

  36,200

  12,400

  21,700

  144

  35,400

  42,300

  12,800

  22,600

  Northern Ireland

  118

  29,900

  31,000

  9,400

  24,800

  124

  30,300

  32,800

  9,800

  24,300

  Source:—5 per cent. Sample Survey of Building SocietyMortgages at completion stage.

  1 Not Available

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the figures in table 5.13 of "Regional Trends 1989" for 1988 and a forecast for 1989, together with the ratio of mortgages to the private dwelling stock in each year and in 1983.

  All Building Society Borrowers

  First Time Borrowers

  Numbers of loans1 (000's)

  Average recorded income £

  Average percentage of price advanced

  Percentage of advances over £30,000

  Percentage of all loans

  Average deposit £

  (a) 1988

  United Kingdom

  1,232

  15,700

  68

  45

  47

  5,400

  Northern

  75

  12,700

  75

  18

  47

  2,600

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  135

  12,500

  72

  21

  47

  3,300

  East Midlands

  91

  13,500

  68

  33

  46

  4,400

  East Anglia

  40

  15,500

  62

  58

  42

  6,800

  South East

  362

  20,700

  66

  78

  47

  8,600

  Greater London

  105

  23,500

  71

  83

  60

  9,300

  Rest of South East

  257

  19,500

  63

  76

  42

  8,200

  South West

  116

  15,600

  62

  60

  40

  8,000

  West Midlands

  104

  13,900

  68

  35

  48

  4,200

  North West

  144

  13,300

  73

  23

  48

  3,200

  England

  1,067

  16,000

  67

  49

  46

  5,800

  Wales

  54

  12,500

  73

  25

  51

  3,600

  Scotland

  89

  13,900

  76

  25

  53

  2,800

  Northern Ireland

  23

  13,000

  79

  18

  63

  3,600

  (b) 1989

  United Kingdom

  866

  17,200

  67

  52

  52

  6,800

  Northern

  55

  14,100

  69

  29

  47

  3,400

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  95

  14,500

  69

  38

  49

  4,600

  East Midlands

  54

  15,700

  68

  52

  51

  5,500

  East Anglia

  25

  18,600

  66

  70

  53

  8,200

  South East

  224

  22,800

  66

  78

  54

  11,400

  Greater London

  69

  25,300

  72

  79

  64

  12,300

  Rest of South East

  155

  21,700

  63

  78

  49

  10,900

  South West

  65

  17,600

  63

  71

  49

  9,400

  West Midlands

  76

  15,700

  66

  50

  53

  5,600

  North West

  122

  14,900

  69

  38

  50

  3,900

  England

  721

  17,700

  67

  56

  51

  7,300

  Wales

  41

  14,700

  68

  40

  57

  5,800

  Scotland

  84

  15,000

  73

  31

  56

  3,700

  Northern Ireland

  20

  13,900

  77

  18

  64

  4,400

  Source: Five per cent. Sample Survey of Building Society Mortgages at completion stage.

  1 Monthly Survey of Building Society Mortgage approvals and completions.
  728
  Mr. Chope
  The information is listed in the table. In Great Britain the proportions of owner-occupier households with mortgages in 1983 and 1988 were 58 per cent. and 63 per cent., respectively. Estimates for 1989 are not yet available.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many potential sites of special scientific interest are awaiting notification or renotification;

  (2) if he will list the total number of sites of special scientific interest notified under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;

  (3) if he will list the total number of sites of special scientific interest notified under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that 4,043 SSSIs were notified to local planning authorities under the 1949 Act. By December 1989 the NCC had renotified 3,251 of these and in addition had identified a further 3,091 new sites, of which 1,853 had been notified under the 1981 Act.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been damaged in each of the last five years as a result of operations which were granted planning permission.

  Mr. Trippier
  Full information on the numbers of SSSIs damaged since April 1984 is set out in the NCC's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list all sites of special scientific interest currently the subject of(a) planning applications, (b) appeals and (c) inquiries;

  (2) if he will list those sites of special scientific interest in respect of which planning applications were made but were not objected to by the Nature Conservancy Council;

  (3) if he will list those sites of special scientific interest where the Nature Conservancy Council objected to a planning application in 1988–89;

  (4) if he will list those sites of special scientific interest which have been notified with existing planning permissions in place.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial resources are available to local authorities for compensation payments in respect of revocation or discontinuance orders made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Decisions on revocation and discontinuance orders are no different from other local authority decisions which may result in expenditure being incurred. In making any such decision an authority will need to have regard to its available resources and its priorities for expenditure.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to reduce the 40-year period of planning permission granted for mineral and peat extraction which relates to a site of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Mineral planning authorities have the power to impose conditions on a planning consent which specify the limit of duration of planning permission for mineral sites. Where they do not specify a time limit, the 730
  development must cease not later than 60 years from the date of the permission. Where planning permission was already in existence at the time this provision came into effect, development must cease by the year 2042. Mineral planning authorities which wish to limit existing developments can make orders revoking or modifying the planning permission or requiring the use of land to be discontinued or continued subject to conditions. We have no proposals to alter these provisions.

  Peat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 1981 revocations or discontinuance orders have been made in respect of planning permissions granted for the extraction of peat.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth's letters dated 26 June 1989 and 2 January 1990, acknowledged by card on 29 June 1989 and by letter on 18 December 1989, referring to Mr. A. S. Johnson of Rugby.

  Mr. Chope
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 5 March.

  North Sea Dumping
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the ministerial declaration made at the second international North sea conference concerning the reduction of inputs of dangerous substances to rivers and estuaries is achieved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the United Kingdom North sea action plan which is being presented at the third North sea conference today in The Hague. This document reports considerable progress being made by the Government, the regulatory authorities and industry in ensuring that significant reductions are achieved for those substances which pose the most serious threat to the aquatic environment.

  "Action for Cities"
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of spending is planned under the "Action for Cities" initiative for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Spending under the "Action for Cities" initiative is planned to be about ·4 billion in 1990–91, compared with just over ·3 billion in 1988–89 and just under ·3·5 billion in 1989–90. The Government are determined to build on the real progress being made in reviving our inner cities and this increase will help speed the pace of renewal still further. A breakdown of the planned spending on "Action for Cities" in 1990–91 is given in the table:
  731

  Action for cities expenditure

  Estimated expenditure in the inner cities—1990–91

  £ million

  England

  Estate Action: involving tenants in management of their homes, and improving them. Housing capital expenditure by local authorities

  190·0

  Funding for Housing Associations through Housing Corporations and through Local Authorities

  620·0

  Housing Investment Programme: special allocation for inner cities

  100·0

  Training, programmes to encourage enterprise (including support for small firms) and to help people back into work (Employment Department)

  1,040·0

  Support for inner city business, including Regional Selective Assistance, investment and innovation grants for small firms, and English Estates

  192·0

  Derelict Land Reclamation

  21·0

  Urban Programme

  261·0

  City Grant

  49·0

  Section 11 grants to LAs for staff expenditure to meet special needs of commonwealth citizens

  73·0

  Homelessness: special capital allocations to local Authorities and Housing Associations

  147·0

  Urban Development Corporations

  542·0

  Net current expenditure by service in constant (1989–90) price terms1

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–902

  Norfolk county council

  Education

  170·610

  180·516

  190·271

  195·016

  3189·276

  School meals and milk

  4·867

  5·554

  4·195

  3·705

  3·435

  Libraries, museums and art galleries

  5·214

  5·412

  5·765

  5·854

  5·958

  Personal social services

  32·591

  34·154

  34·393

  36·430

  36·697

  Police

  34·813

  37·935

  39·349

  40·623

  42·123

  Fire

  8·686

  9·343

  9·740

  9·696

  9·914

  Other Home Office services

  4·401

  4·668

  5·272

  5·894

  6·177

  Local transport

  22·134

  21·003

  24·479

  26·419

  29·348

  Local and environmental services

  5·633

  4·890

  5·848

  6·165

  8·033

  Other services

  4·184

  3·524

  3·952

  4·417

  4·474

  All services

  293·132

  307·000

  323·262

  334·220

  335·435

  Norwich county council

  Refuse collection and disposal

  0·966

  1·015

  1·107

  1·351

  1·326

  Recreation, parks, swimming pools

  3·040

  3·274

  3·565

  3·634

  3·908

  Town and country planning

  0·917

  0·986

  1·049

  0·715

  0·774

  Local and environmental services

  1·886

  0·652

  2·515

  3·101

  3·416

  Other services

  0·788

  0·418

  0·331

  0·869

  1·434

  All services

  7·599

  6·345

  8·567

  9·670

  10·858

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

  2 Budget estimates.

  3 Polytechnics were transferred from the local authority sector in April 1989.

  Seaton Carew (Bathing Waters)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for Seaton Carew centre(a) the dates in 1989 when total coliforms and E.coli samples were taken, (b) the corresponding total coliforms and E.coli results for each date and (c) the EEC bathing waters directive [76/160/EEC] conforming level for both total coliforms and E.coli.
  732

  £million

  Task Forces

  23·0

  City Action Teams

  8·0

  Safer cities

  6·5

  Roads (DTp programmes and TSG supported local authority roads)

  300·0

  Housing Action Trusts

  42·0

  City Technology Colleges

  45·0

  Scotland and Wales

  400·0

  Total

  4,060·0

  Expenditure(Norfolk)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish a table showing a breakdown of the expenditure of Norwich city council since 1985–86 on its major areas of responsibility, set out in constant price terms;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing a breakdown of the expenditure of Norfolk county council since 1985–86 on its major areas of responsibility, set out in constant price terms.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: The results obtained over the course of the 1989 bathing season are as follows:

  Date

  Total coliforms Number per 100 ml

  Faecal Coliforms Number per 100 ml

  5 May 1989

  31,000

  5,200

  19 May 1989

  780,000

  66,000

  26 May 1989

  2,800

  1,800

  733

  Date

  Total coliforms Number per 100 ml

  Faecal Coliforms Number per 100 ml

  2 June 1989

  1,700

  430

  9 June 1989

  51,000

  51,000

  16 June 1989

  5,800

  1,600

  23 June 1989

  14,000

  4,300

  30 June 1989

  350

  130

  7 July 1989

  13,500

  9,400

  21 July 1989

  300,000

  300,000

  28 July 1989

  12,000

  5,600

  11 August 1989

  40,000

  20,000

  18 August 1989

  2,700,000

  1,220,000

  24 August 1989

  4,600

  2,500

  1 September 1989

  132,000

  14,000

  7 September 1989

  24,900

  1,500

  8 September 1989

  25,000

  5,400

  14 September 1989

  38,000

  5,700

  15 September 1989

  95,000

  21,000

  21 September 1989

  260

  120

  22 September 1989

  1,200,000

  4,100,000

  28 September 1989

  74,000

  37,000

  29 September 1989

  9,700

  2,100

  The mandatory standards set in directive 76/160/EEC are 10,000 per 100 mls for total coliforms and 2,000 per 100 mls for faecal coliforms. Northumbrian Water plc has plans to improve the bathing waters at Seaton Carew to ensure that they consistently meet the coliform standards.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether his Department has received any representations on the effects of the community charge on the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether his Department will consider modifying the application of the community charge towards bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this matter. He has no plans to modify the proposals for the treatment of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the purposes of the community charge and the new business rate which were given effect by the Standard Community Charge and Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Domestic Property) Order 1990 [SI No. 162], which came into force on 2 March.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the provision made in his Department's expenditure plans for grant aid to local authorities for work in coastal protection and sea defence.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today.

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.

Lord Fieldhouse
Admiral of the Fleet Sir John David Elliott Fieldhouse, GCB, GBE, having been created Baron Fieldhouse, of Gosport in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Lewin and the Lord Bramall.
The Earl of Drogheda The Earl of Drogheda—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BBC Programme: Balance of Views
2.47 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What remedy is available to licence payers who heard BBC Radio 4's programme "Return Ticket" on Monday 22nd January, which was presented by a prominent campaigner against nuclear weapons, giving only one point of view, without a subsequent balancing programme being broadcast as required by the existing rules on impartiality.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the BBC is under a general duty to maintain balance and impartiality in programmes. Within that, editorial decisions are a matter for the corporation. Licence payers can of course write to the BBC with their comments on programmes.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the programme is the latest in a short series where imbalance has been very palpably in evidence? Is he aware that such failures to provide balanced programmes on the same subject in the same series underline the need to look at the matter in considerable depth while Parliament is debating the Broadcasting Bill in both Houses?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should make clear that the BBC, in the annexe to its licensing agreement dated 18th January 1981, stated:
"The Board recall that it has always been their object to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality, and they intend to continue this policy both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy".
Also, under Section 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, the IBA is required to ensure so far as possible that controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a balance means a proper range of views
1166
in perspective aired over a reasonable period of time, which is part of the BBC producers' guidelines? Is that not a proper adult approach to balance, rather than a rigorous ping-pong match which can only be dull and rather patronising to the listeners?
Further, following the agreements on defence between the United States and the Soviet Union, does the Minister agree that the missiles at Greenham Common, which I believe were the subject of the noble Lord's Question, are no longer a matter of propaganda? The BBC has confirmed that if that was a live issue, the programme would not have been aired.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I go along with the noble Baroness and quote from the BBC producers' guidelines:
"Programme executives, editors and correspondents must ensure, however—and over a reasonable period of time—that they have done justice in their domain to a range of views and interests. It is not sufficient to claim that other programmes or media will ensure that balancing views will be heard".
The noble Baroness went on to say that a personal view had been given. The guidelines deal with a personal view by saying:
"When a platform is offered—to an individual or group—to espouse a controversial view, programme executives should be willing to provide a suitable opportunity for a response—in good time and in an appropriate position".
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that there are subtleties in this matter which do not easily respond to definition? For example, is he aware that on several occasions recently a leading politician was described as being "obsessed" with something when perhaps the word "preoccupation" would have been better?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree. I have already referred to the producers' guidelines. It is the fact that viewers and listeners might see or hear a programme which represents a particular point of view, but may not necessarily hear the counterbalancing programme. The balance should be achieved at a much earlier stage, when editors plan a series of programmes.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that these were autobiographical programmes and, in accordance with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, the last one was an account of a royal tour? Does he not agree therefore that the BBC were deeply culpable not to show a tour by a republican to balance?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that those remarks find great favour in the House.
Lord Parry: My Lords, would the noble Viscount like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the BBC general advisory council, which spans the broadest possible range of opinion in this country, exists to receive a report of objections from the public to particular programmes and that each time it meets there is a lively debate on the issue? No producer, therefore, goes uninformed as to any mistakes that he might have made.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to hear the remarks of the noble Lord. As I have said, it is up to those who hear the programmes to write, with their comments, to the BBC if they feel so inclined.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I took the precaution of asking the BBC whether it cared to make a statement on this particular question? I have the statement here and, for the sake of accuracy, if your Lordships agree, I should like to read it.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord will not think that I am indulging in tedious repetition, Question Time is to seek and not to give information.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord the Leader of the House will agree with me that it is desirable that we should have on the record the BBC's comment on this Question.
Noble Lords: Question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that it ill becomes the House not to want to hear what the criticised organisation has to say on the subject? I should therefore be grateful if the Leader of the House would be kind enough to reconsider what he said and permit me to read out the statement handed to me by the BBC this morning.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not certain that I understood the question. However, broadcasters are sensitive people. What is put before them they should resolve. The BBC and other broadcasters are likely to accept that they do not always get it right.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that politicians are also sensitive people? During the period of the Labour Government many politicians on their side were deeply suspicious of the BBC. Is the noble Viscount further aware that the present unpopularity of the Government is much more due to their own actions rather than to the actions of the BBC?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on occasions such as this I do not believe I should take sides in what is being said. It is a matter for the BBC and for those listeners or viewers who, if they feel aggrieved, should write to the BBC.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we are very grateful to him for reporting what is in the charter and the annexe? I believe we needed to be reminded of that. Is he also aware that we have no doubt that the management is trying its best to keep in accord with the agreements, annexes and the like? However, can I make two points? My
1168
noble friend pleaded in his first reply that it was a personal view. "Personal view" is not an exception written into any charter.
Noble Lords: Question.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that "personal view" is not written into any part of the annexe? Even if it is accepted that this was a personal view, why was not one person from NATO given an opportunity in the short series to put a contrary point of view in accordance with the annexe?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the best response I can give at this point is to say that I will certainly draw to the attention of the chairman of the BBC the remarks made in your Lordships' House today.

Mentally Disturbed Offenders: Security
2.58 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made, since the publication of the 1987 DHSS-Home Office report on mentally disturbed offenders in the prison system, towards a comprehensive secure programme for those who are detainable under the Mental Health Act and for whom the regional secure unit programme was not designed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government welcomed the report of this working group and accepted all 16 recommendations that it made. Ten of the recommendations have been implemented and work on a further three is nearing completion. The remaining recommendations call for continuing attention over time.
With regard to my noble friend's second point, regional health authorities are generally satisfied that the present level of regional secure unit provision is adequate, at least in terms of the programme's original remit. But there may be a need to review the range of secure facilities of which regional secure units form part. There is evidence of some shortfall in longer term, medium secure provision.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her very full reply. Can she add to it by indicating how many district health authorities do not have secure facilities and who, in each authority, is responsible for providing and planning these facilities? Can she also say whether progress in this area is regularly monitored by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we do not routinely collect information centrally about the location of secure facilities other than those related to regional forensic services. However, we intend to do so as part of a forthcoming comprehensive review of secure provisions. It is for each district authority to determine the levels and patterns of local services

1169
in the light of national and regional policies and guidelines. It is for the regional health authorities to ensure that districts are planning to provide a full range of psychiatric services including secure facilities. The department plans to discuss with the regions the development of local secure provision.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the department also look at the position of male nurses employed in such establishments for the mentally disturbed, both from a legal point of view and their terms of employment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to bring that aspect to the attention of my right honourable friend; but I am not absolutely certain of the point of the question.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I too welcome the statement made by the Minister. However, at a time when there is increasing evidence of inappropriate placing of people with psychiatric illness in the criminal justice system, where so few treatment facilities exist, how is it that, first, so little progress has been made by the Home Office in developing psychiatric bail hostels? Secondly, why does the number of psychiatric probation orders seem to be going down? That is obviously the Home Office side of the joint working party's recommendations. Can the Minister answer those questions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the department and the Home Office seek to ensure that mentally disordered offenders receive the most appropriate treatment—certainly we must all agree with that—and timely placement. Our common aim is to ensure that where possible such offenders are dealt with without resort to the courts or, failing that, without resort to the penal system. We recognise that there is scope to increase the level of diversion. That can best be done by increasing local awareness of non-custodial options and encouraging closer and more effective working relationships between all the professional agencies and individuals involved. Guidance has been drafted by the Home Office. It is being discussed with the Lord Chancellor's Department and other bodies. I understand that the guidance is likely to be issued soon.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, has the Minister any information on how many mentally ill people are being held in prison simply because there is no other accommodation for them? Is it planned that when secure units are available within the health service the health service will be required to accept such people? At present, if there is no place for offenders to go, the prisons cannot refuse them, even though it is known that prison is a totally unsuitable place for them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. We know that at any one time a relatively small number of prisoners—about 330, I understand—is likely to meet the criteria for detention under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. We know also that there is widespread concern
1170
about a possibly much larger group which is thought to suffer from a lesser form of mental disorder.
There is a lack of sound information on this subject, but there can be little doubt that a number of offenders could be dealt with in more satisfactory ways than imprisonment. Research commissioned by the prison service itself to assist the development of its policies will help and shed light on the scale of the problem. The point made by the noble Baroness is that flexibility should be the order of the day and that appropriate provision is important.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a call for the adequate provision of secure units by the regional health authorities for mentally disturbed offenders was made by the House of Commons Expenditure Committee as long ago as 1978? The May Committee on the prison system endorsed that call in very strong terms in 1979. The all-party Penal Affairs Group reinforced both those recommendations in 1980. In view of the numbers of mentally disturbed offenders inappropriately held in our prisons, is it not high time that this pressing need was met?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the frustration behind the noble Lord's question; that much has been done but over a long period of time. We must not detract from the achievements so far made and nor must we detract from the incredible push given by this House in making sure that a proper service is delivered. Concern has been expressed, for example, about the closing down of the larger institutions and the way in which appropriate provision has been made on the discharge of a person but without the proper follow-up aftercare.
In the general sense, all I can say is that there is much in the pipeline. There is a real sense of urgency on the part of the Government to resolve this problem, to have a much more flexible approach to provision for such people and to make sure that the provision is, in every sense, appropriate.

Community Charge Targets: Inflation Basis
3.5 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assumed level of inflation for 1990–91 was used when the Government fixed the community charge targets for local government authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the illustrative community charge figures which were published on 11th January assume that, in aggregate, local authorities spend at the level of total standard spending for 1990–91; some £32.8 billion. This is the amount of expenditure which the Government think it appropriate for local authorities to incur to provide a standard level of service.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. Perhaps I may repeat my Question and ask him what was the assumption of the rate of inflation? Is it not true that it was 4·6 per cent? Is the Minister aware that current City forecasts for inflation in the coming year are double that at 9 per cent? Is the Minister further aware that about three-quarters of local government expenditure is on labour costs, and that about three-quarters of that is settled by central negotiations and formulae? Does he not therefore agree that it is unfair to blame local authorities for all the difficulties arising from the poll tax?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, total standard spending in 1990–91 is 11 per cent. higher than the equivalent figure for 1989–90. The Government have thus recognised that it is reasonable for local authority expenditure to increase from year to year in response to increased costs and increased pressures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister now has a third opportunity to answer the original Question. Why does he not answer in regard to the inflation rate?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to a figure of 4·6 per cent. I believe the actual figure was 3·8 per cent. However, the overspend that occurred for the previous year results in a net effect of 11 per cent., which is above inflation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, notwithstanding the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, a number of well-run local authorities have managed to put forward a community charge that is below the target proposed by the Government? I refer, notably, to Westminster and Wandsworth. Is not that good example one to be followed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always, I am deeply indebted to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. With regard to inflation, it would be appropriate to suggest to the House that although the rate in January was 7·7 per cent., for local government expenditure it would be entirely reasonable to remove the mortgage interest rate component, which reduced it to 6·1 per cent.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are not the Government entirely justified in ignoring this Question? A year ago they assured me that they would abolish inflation. If so, it would be absurd for them to take it into account! When is inflation to be abolished?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, like Christianity, great struggles can last for two millenium.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even if the assumed rate of inflation was replaced by the actual rate of inflation, many local authorities are still well above what their expenditure should be, based on past experience? Is he further aware that many people in this country are disturbed at the consequences of that and expect such authorities to be capped without undue delay?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always, I am grateful for the contribution of my noble friend. I must remind the House of the facts recently produced in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; that is, current community charges as they appear to be at the moment equate to a 35 per cent. increase in the rates.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that people like myself who live in Tory-controlled Berkshire feel oppressed in two senses: first, by a Tory Government who have brought in a most vicious and absurd individual tax, and, secondly, by a profligate Tory-controlled county council? Does the noble Lord not realise and understand that places like Maidenhead and Windsor are hardly likely to be described as red, militant areas, though they have had overflow meetings to protest at this disgraceful charge against the residents, their children and relatives? Does the Minister not understand that at the next general election the map of Berkshire will turn red from blue?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would like to table a Question on Berkshire I should be more than happy to answer it.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government have now grasped the simple reality that if they must have a universal flat rate tax it must be a very low one well below the Government's own target estimate of £278 and covering purely local services? Otherwise the tax will be politically unacceptable and it will become—as it has already become—a recruiting agency for the Labour Party.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my experience at this Dispatch Box, for as long as I have been representing the Department of the Environment, is of constantly being accused by Members on the Benches opposite of not allowing local accountability. I believe that the community charge will do that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I ask the Minister to comment further on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The noble Lord used the phrase "a well-run local authority". Does the Minister agree that a low community charge is not a sufficient definition of a well-run local authority? One must also think of the quality of the services delivered.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I always find it encouraging, when I drive into Wandsworth, to see flower baskets hanging from the public lighting system. The combination which the noble Earl requires is a combination of a low charge and a well-run authority.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, did my noble friend read in the press—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we cannot have two noble Lords on their feet at the same time. As there has been a slight altercation between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, I invite him to rise to his feet now.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House. I always knew that he was good-hearted. Is the Minister aware that if he lived in Wandsworth, as I do, he would take a very different view of Wandsworth Borough Council? He would know that one pays for low expenditure by having poor services. That is the situation in Wandsworth.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can only repeat my previous answer, in that I have always found it most encouraging when I arrive in Wandsworth.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, did my noble friend read in the press a report to the effect that there had been a directive to Labour-run councils that they should increase their expenditure to the maximum amount this year?
Noble Lords: Where?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have the evidence which my noble friend presents. However, I am sure that the local voters will take that matter into account when they have time to consider excessive charges.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it required asking three times to get a simple, straightforward reply to the simple, straightforward Question from my noble friend Lord Donoughue. Does the Minister not agree that that indicates, as regards the assumptions about inflation, as in all matters relating to the calculation of the poll tax, that the Government have got the answer very badly wrong indeed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was very clear in my answers and they equated to a simple fact: the level of expenditure is nearly double the level of inflation.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I wish to return to the question of accountability. The noble Lord said that the main aim of the poll tax is to make local authorities accountable. Is it not a fact that three-quarters of the expenditure is controlled by central government? Does the Minister not agree that there is no accountability from local authorities on three-quarters of the total expenditure?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, according to the remarks made by the right honourable gentleman in another place who speaks on behalf of the Labour Party—maybe I am under a misapprehension, though I do not believe I am—an even greater part of expenditure on local government will be controlled by central government if that party has its way.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the House is in any doubt about the increase in answerability
1174
that has been brought about by the poll tax, is my noble friend aware that in the Angus district of Tayside the poll tax has gone up by only 2·7 per cent. and that this year is election year?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is encouraging news. I have to draw your Lordships' attention to these disappointing facts: in the post-electoral years for county councils, for example, in 1982 the rates rose by 15 per cent.; in 1986 by 18 per cent; and this year by 15 to 20 per cent.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord was unable to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as to when inflation will be abolished as the Government have promised to do for many years. Is the Minister aware that the poll tax itself is calculated to add over 1 per cent. to the present rate of inflation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, all great undertakings take time. The fact is that if this Government were willing to judge their future entirely on the basis of one single influence, they would not be a government fit to run the country.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!

TGWU Election: Conduct
3.17 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take with regard to the conduct of the recent election in the Transport and General Workers' Union and the breaches of Section 15(4) of the Employment Act 1988 laying down the duties of the independent scrutineer.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it has been a consistent principle of the Government's approach to the reform of industrial relations and trade union law that those directly affected should have a remedy, by means of legal proceedings, to prevent or restrain unlawful acts. Accordingly, any union member or election candidate can make a complaint to the certification officer or to the court if he believes there is evidence that his trade union has failed to comply with the statutory requirements on elections.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the cost of rerunning the election will be £500,000 to be borne either by the taxpayer or, as many union members think, by the union members themselves? Is he further aware that the independent scrutineer who was appointed failed to keep charge of the distribution of the votes and allowed about 7,000 to be held at the headquarters of the Transport and General Workers' Union where they were targeted on nine marginal seats in an election which he did not even know was being conducted? Is the Minister also aware that it is laid

1175
down in the Act that the independent scrutineer must keep control of the votes at all times? Perhaps the Minister will also note that the Transport and General Workers' Union executive has refused to call in the police.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the face of it, it would certainly appear that this official did not properly discharge his duties in the conduct of this election. I certainly believe that Mr. Todd was right to call for a new election. I dare say that he regrets that as much as the noble Lord. It will be an additional expense which is to be regretted. However, I believe that is better than to allow the election to be improperly conducted.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the independent scrutineer to whom reference was made has been granted two injuctions against the newspaper that orginated the story and is currently suing for libel? In such circumstances, is it not better to leave the matter in the hands of the courts?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, there is a proper procedure for complaints about the conduct of elections. That is the right way to proceed. I also believe that Mr. Todd was right to convene a new election.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, irrespective of the legal position and given the unsatisfactory history of balloting in the union and its earlier unwillingness to permit the Electoral Reform Society to conduct or supervise the poll, would it not be wise for the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union to refer the latest malpractice without delay to independent investigation in the interests of the union's members and of the trade union movement as a whole?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the shortcomings in the conduct of elections in trade unions were not formerly confined to the Transport and General Workers' Union. That is why we have introduced legislation in recent years to correct the position and to make the officials in trade unions much more accountable to their members. We have included procedures whereby members can complain about the conduct of elections and have any shortcomings put right. I believe that that is the right way to proceed.

Business
3.21 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after the short debate on citizens advice bureaux and before that on pressures on National Health Service staff, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the House of Fraser.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. As
1176
the mover is allowed 15 minutes and as the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, all the other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes. In the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to impose any formal time limit but I know that noble Lords will wish to keep their speeches within limits compatible with the spirit of these short debates.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that announcement about speaking times for the two short debates today. However, some noble Lords are in a little confusion concerning the first debate. The footnote to the speakers' list shows that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in replying to the debate, will be allowed a certain amount of time, whereas on the speakers' list itself the name of the Minister who is to reply to the debate is given as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I wonder which is correct.
Lord Denham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will make the Statement between the two short debates. The noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip is absolutely right that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will reply to the first of the two short debates.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the speakers' list does not quite say that.
Lord Denham: My Lords, there is a slight misprint. The noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip has sharper eyes than perhaps I have.

Citizens Advice Bureaux
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to call attention to the work of the citizens advice bureaux and the problems they face; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am happy this afternoon to have the opportunity to debate the work of the citizens advice bureaux and the problems faced at the moment by these very respected centres. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in the debate.
This debate is an important one because at present we hear a great deal about the existence in Britain of a property and share-owning democracy. We are told that people have never been so well off. But we do not hear so much about those who have been left out of the new prosperity and those who have not been beneficiaries of the so-called Thatcher miracle. So believing as I do that what goes on inside the walls of these advice bureaux is an indicator of how the lives of our less fortunate fellow citizens are shaped, I hope that this debate will reveal the other side of the coin so to speak in regard to those people who in the past decade have been squeezed harder and harder by present social policies.
By way of background perhaps I may remind the House that the citizens advice bureaux service is

1177
made up of about 1,000 outlets and deals with as many as 7 million inquiries each year. Out of its 15,000 workers only 10 per cent. are paid specialists, which means that the other 90 per cent. are volunteers. That is a very high proportion indeed. The network now deals with an average of more than 3,800 inquiries every hour of the working week. Although in the past two or three years the number of queries has not gone up, the complexity of many of those inquiries has increased dramatically. This means that many bureaux are now overstretched, a state of affairs which can only get worse with the introduction of the poll tax and other pieces of legislation.
The funding arrangements for NACAB are somewhat equivocal in that while the DTI provides money—in 1989–90 nearly £9 million—for the information system, for training, for the development of services, for social policy work and so on, local bureaux rely on their local authorities for funds to operate. In 1989–90 total local authority funding was £23,223,000. Unfortunately this funding is inconsistent across the country. In some areas their work is strongly supported, while in others centres are provided with only precarious support, depending on the finances of the local authority concerned. The anomaly is that the quality of service the CAB can provide varies across the country and is often weakest in rural areas. When one considers the importance of these advice centres, this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The problems which over recent years have been brought most frequently to the bureaux relate to social security, debt and housing and employment. The increased demand for advice in these areas has been caused by the staggering amount of new legislation affecting the less well off. I refer to the Social Security Act 1986, the Wages Act 1986, the Housing Act 1988, the introduction of the community charge, the major changes in unemployment benefit entitlement, the small claims legislation in Scotland and the changes brought about by the employment protection legislation. A wealth of new legislation has created problems of understanding for those people affected by it. Advice workers make the point that it is not so much one single issue such as serious debt or homelessness that brings about disaster for their clients but the interaction of a whole range of factors. It is not a question of one thing coming after another but more of one thing coming on top of another.
I should like to quote some statistics to illustrate the extent to which poorer people have suffered from recent government measures and how inequality has increased over recent years. First, in the last six months of 1989 mortgage arrears brought about a 17 per cent. increase in repossessions. Secondly, single people claiming income support lost out by as much as £8.84 a week as a result of last year's changes to the benefits system. Thirdly, the London School of Economics estimates that between 1979 and 1988 the bottom 20 per cent. of households experienced a 6 per cent. fall in real living standards. At the other end of the scale we note that as a result of the 1988 Budget the richest 1 per cent. of the population saw its unearned income rise by 89 per cent. These
1178
figures point to a shameful picture and compare most unfavourably with those relating to inequality among our more socially conscious European neighbours.
I should like to highlight one or two of the complex problems which people bring to the citizens advice bureaux. As I said, these fall within the areas of social security benefits, housing, debt and the employment situation. I hope that other speakers will consider them more deeply. With regard to social security, the citizens advice bureaux report that replacement of single payments by the Social Fund has brought about not only great hardship but also the creation of a vicious circle of debt in which very large numbers of people are being trapped. It is thought that as many as 400,000 people were repaying Social Fund loans at the end of 1989.
One begins to wonder why the Government allow so many opportunities for people to get into debt. First, there is the debt which arises out of the rise in interest rates; now it is debt through the Social Fund and soon it will be debt through student loans and the poll tax. It is a fact that there has been a massive increase in the number of clients seeking help with debt problems. That is reinforced by a series of reports which have been published on the subject of consumer debt. Yesterday in my newspaper I read that the Policy Studies Institute published a report stating that one in nine familes struggled with debt and that last year's debt was £2.9 million.
According to the citizens advice bureaux there are two very distinct reasons for indebtedness. First, there is the debt which is precipitated by a crisis in the family, for example, by a job loss or by illness. In such circumstances advice is given on how best to restructure payments. However, the second type of debtor is the individual or family with long-term dependency on benefits who over a period of time finds it harder and harder to pay for the essentials of living. Such people simply do not have enough money. However much you juggle around no money, it will end up as no money. The only hope for the CAB is to ensure that these clients are claiming everything they possibly can.
For nearly the first time ever the CABs report that young people of 16 and 17 years of age are coming to them for advice. They do so for reasons which they cannot control themselves; for example, eviction by parents, pregnancy, emotional disturbance and so on. For them it is impossible to take a YTS place and of course they find themselves completely destitute. Moreover, the advice workers find themselves in the very heartbreaking position of having no advice to give them.
A CAB on Humberside reported the case of a 17-year old who had to leave home because of violence. She was granted a council flat after a year in a hostel. She lost her YTS place after an illness but has been refused income support on grounds of severe hardship. It is very difficult to obtain income support when you have to prove grounds of severe hardship. She had to wait six months for the decision. She has no other source of income; she has rent and rates arrears and an electricity bill which she cannot pay. I suspect that there are many similar

1179
cases where young people through no fault of their own cannot get a YTS place and therefore are left in a very problematic position.
The lone parent is a regular citizens advice bureaux client. Very often such people would like to move on from the position of receiving benefit and take a job. However, they are very often caught in the poverty trap, finding that they would be worse off if they had a job. Therefore they are forced to remain on social security. In such circumstances the CAB can only advise such clients to stay on benefit.
Elderly people in private residential care homes find that the level of their income support has now fallen well below the amounts charged by the homes. That is another problem which has been brought to the attention of the citizens advice bureaux. These people either risk eviction or have to accept a serious reduction in the quality of services and care. That presents a horrifying picture where within one residential home there may be elderly people receiving different levels of care; for example, one may receive a cup of tea while the other may not. The position is most serious. I do not think that we can possibly blame the residential care homes for the situation. With inflation and the increase in costs, they are unable to provide the services at the level of income support.
Many inquiries are also received about employment protection. That is due to the erosion of the powers of the wages councils and the Wages Act 1986 which produced many quandaries for people. Again, such people consult the citizens advice bureaux. Finally, from that point of view, there is an indication of the level of inquiries as regards the poll tax which comes from the citizens advice bureaux in Scotland. They say that between April 1989 and January 1990 there were 46,000 inquiries about the community charge. That is a sign of the increase in the number of inquiries that these bureaux can expect when the community charge commences in this part of the country. That is a very brief snapshot of these insoluble dilemmas which are presented to the citizens advice bureaux. They reflect the high degree of confusion and anxiety to which so many of the most vulnerable people are subject.
Finally, I turn to the problems facing NACAB. The bureaux are certainly working under enormous and increasing pressure. I witnessed that fact in a bureaux which I visited on Monday in Marylebone. It is one of the oldest bureaux and was set up in 1939. I found that the office consisted of very small accomodation, which of course is given by the local authorities, a queue of about 50 people, seven paid workers and four volunteers. The workers told me that it would be most unlikely that they would be able to deal with all the people who were waiting. They said that the telephone lines were often permanently engaged during opening hours and that they themselves were under great strain due to working under such conditions.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the funding for NACAB has not been increased in line with costs; that is, costs to cover pay awards and inflation. In 1988 the DTI carried out a staff
1180
inspection of NACAB. Despite the obvious workload and the relatively low pay, the report only recommended a total increase in resources of £64,000—that on a grant of nearly £9 million was really a pitiful offer. The main burden of funding is carried by local authorities, but the restriction in their finances make it very difficult for them to expand the services as they need to be.
Another concern of NACAB is that there will be a return of more women to paid employment as the number of school leavers diminish. These are the women who form a large part of the volunteer service. NACAB is entirely dependent upon such women and is greatly worried about what will happen when the numbers decrease. The association believes that there should be a development plan for the services with central government playing a much more creative role in backing new initiatives, investing in bureaux expansion and backing the use of information technology to assist advice work.
In conclusion, there can be little doubt that seen through the lens of the citizens advice bureaux government policies have brought anxiety and great hardship to many people in this country. In turn, this has brought intolerable pressures to bear upon those workers and volunteers in the bureaux who are trying so hard to meet this urgent and real community need. I hope, having listened to the debate, that in reply the noble Viscount will have something positive to say as to how the Government plan to support the CAB service in fulfilling its aim. I should remind noble Lords that the aim of the CAB is to:
"Ensure that individuals do not suffer through ignorance of their rights and responsibilities or of the services available or through an inability to express their needs effectively;
and to:
"Exercise a responsible influence on the development of social policies and services, both locally and nationally".
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that those objectives are extremely important to the less well off in this country. There is unequivocal proof that the public respect and trust these advice workers. There is growing evidence that as we move into the 1990s there will be increasing demand for services. Together with the demographic changes, this will have a profound implication for the bureaux. Something needs to be done. I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has described the highly complex nature of the vast number of inquiries with which the citizens advice bureaux deal year by year. There is a tendency to believe that problems such as these exist only in the inner cities and that that is generally where one will find housing and overcrowding as well as unemployment and possibly low wages. However all these problems are experienced also in rural areas where they are compounded by problems of isolation and possibly the scarcity of essential services. It is primarily about the rural problems that I wish to speak.
The bureaux find already that in rural areas the lack of low cost housing is increasingly of critical

1181
concern. The comparatively high cost of building and lack of replacement council houses for those which have been sold is most worrying. I deplore it. I am in favour of the sale of council houses but I wish that they could be replaced. More especially, there is the development of the holiday cottage industry, if I may so call it.
All these factors have combined to produce a situation in which it is almost impossible in many parts of the country for people to find anywhere to live. The difficulties are further exacerbated by the prevalence in rural areas of only average or perhaps lower levels of wages. It is common for people to be employed predominantly by smaller firms which are unable to provide anything more than average levels of wages.
A number of bureaux have, I understand, reported on the problems that agricultural workers will face with the advent of the community charge. They are concerned about the situation. Currently, agricultural workers in tied accommodation do not have to pay rent or rates. However, they will have to pay the community charge along with all other adults in their household who are not exempt. Those workers are worried about the financial problems that will arise. Probably in many cases their employers will be able to reimburse them by increasing their wages or paying the charge for them. But that will not happen in every case.
I could describe many instances of financial hardship with which the bureaux deal because of the lack of adequate and reasonably priced transport services in parts of rural Britain and the problems of people who do not have access to a car. There is particular difficulty where the services concerned do not make allowance for the problems of rural areas. I have in mind the policies of the electricity industry and the gas hoards. The increasing use of meter keys and tokens as a system for purchasing power is creating difficulties for many people who are unable to reach places where tokens can be bought or meter keys topped up.
The bureaux play an important part in bringing these problems to the attention of the relevant authorities. Often they find themselves filling the gaps left by the statutory services in rural areas.
The bureaux need to provide services to people living in rural areas which are as comprehensive and effective as any provided to the urban communities. In practice, it is often the case that the rural bureaux are the most poorly funded. The level of funding, as the noble Baroness has already pointed out, is inconsistent across the country.
In many areas the bureaux are struggling to provide an adequate level of service. Some of the costs which need to be met are the same for all bureaux. For example, I believe that there is a need for more paid manager hours. Without a doubt, where an investment in manager hours is made, there is a considerable improvement in the quality of work which the bureaux can provide. A full-time manager can devote time to recruiting new volunteers and providing them with adequate levels of support, thereby retaining staff for longer and reducing turnover. It can be difficult to recruit
1182
volunteers in many rural communities. It is evident that more resources need to be invested in finding ways of attracting volunteers into the service.
However, there are costs associated with running a rural CAB service which are additional to the costs in areas of higher population concentration. In order to reach all the people potentially needing help, it is necessary that the service should not remain office-based. It must be taken to where the people are. If there is only a restricted bus service available—probably an expensive one at that—individuals will not be able to visit a bureau unless it is in the immediate locality. The CAB needs to open extensions which ensure that more people have direct access to services. Free phone services can be enormously beneficial to people who live in isolated areas and also to those whose mobility is restricted by age or disability, or to those who have young children. Home visits are an essential additional service to back up any telephone-based work and also to provide help to people who are not on the telephone.
All these services cost money. Extensions involve extra rent, telephones, heating and information systems. They also require extra volunteers whose expenses have to be paid. As the noble Baroness has said, the level of funding in rural areas is proportionately lower than in urban areas. Rural district councils have much smaller budgets at their disposal and certainly less in real terms to distribute to voluntary organisations. I know that everyone is asking for a larger slice of the cake, but the quality of the service cannot be substantially improved or extended unless more resources are invested.
It is evident that there is a need for a co-ordinated strategy on the funding of advice services. If both national and local government are committed to the need for the public to have this provision and for the provision to be of an equally high quality throughout the country, it cannot be left to rural district councils, out of their limited budgets, to bear the full brunt of the disproportionately high cost of rural advice.
The Rural Development Commission has been involved in a joint funding initiative over six years for the development of new advice and information schemes in rural areas. In the first three years 20 projects have been funded, including extension CABs, the provision of advice sessions at outlying venues and free phone services. Analysis of these projects has demonstrated that there is a high level of need which can be met by extending the range of services. However, there is still scope for considerable further development. I believe that people living in rural areas have a right to expect quality advice. The CABs can and will give that, but they need funding in order to deliver it.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we have heard much from the Government during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill through this House about access to justice. The Government have told us that:

1183
"free competition will ensure that the public is provided with the most effective and efficient network of legal services at the most economical prices".
That statement has been attacked from these Benches as false because it disguises the need for a significant commitment of resources. The basic truth about any market is that it operates to provide services only for those who are able to enter it. The free market does nothing whatever for those who have no access to it, and those for whom no one competes because they cannot afford legal services.
Since 1979 10.8 million people and 5.5 million households have become ineligible for legal aid. For the vast majority it is the CABs, the advice centres and the law centres which provide their only access to justice. Yet, as the policies and legislation of central government give these bodies more and more to do locally on the ground, they remain starved of funds, with a hand-to-mouth, week-to-week existence. The free market has no application to those agencies. They receive next to no central government funding. The great bulk of their funding comes from hard pressed local authorities which do not even have any duty to fund them and which, until very recently, have not even had a specific power to do so. What is required is a policy for a geographically fair network of CABs, advice centres and law centres.
Further, what is required is that these bodies be securely funded. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for bringing before the House for debate the work of the CABs and the problems that they face. The CABs are of course but one major part of a much larger advice sector in England and Wales. The principal weakness of that sector is that it is not fashioned into a geographically fair national network ensuring equal access to justice. Everyone who has knowledge of these bodies is aware that the story of the generalist advice centres is one of serious geographically based inequalities. The story of the specialist centres in many parts of the country is that they simply do not exist. Therefore the crucial questions concern whether the Government have a policy for a geographically fair network of CABs, law centres and advice centres. Further, do the Government have a policy for secure funding and, if so, what is that policy?
The truth is that the Government have neither. The great bulk of the funding of the CABs, the advice centres and the law centres comes from local government. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of people in this country would be shocked if they appreciated that there is so little central government funding; that provision is so haphazard across the country, and that neither local nor central government are under any duty to provide funding for any of these bodies.
Until now councils which have been in a position to offer funding support have not had a specific power to do so. They have had to fall back on a general power under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. That enables them to spend a limited amount of money on matters, not otherwise authorised, but which are in the interests of their area or their inhabitants. In other words, local authorities
1184
had to fall back on what used to be called the "tuppenny rate".
It is fair to acknowledge that Section 38 of the Local Government and Housing Act of 1989 has made some improvement. That will give—the provision concerned is not yet in force—local authorities a specific power to assist voluntary organisations, to provide information and advice concerning the rights of individuals, to write letters on their behalf and to provide representation for them. However, it remains a fact that central government is under no duty to fund these bodies. Local government is under no duty to fund them. Local government is under no duty even to consider what is required in its area. The matter is left to local authority discretion and the funding position of these bodies after the 1989 Act comes into force, unless there is change, will remain chaotic and insecure.
In Committee on the Legal Aid Bill in this House on 14th January 1988 my noble friend Lord Mishcon, who I am pleased to see is in his place on the Front Bench, moved an important amendment that the new Legal Aid Board should:
"have regard to the need to maintain and develop a competent accessible independent national network of advice centres and law centres".
The amendment of my noble friend won support from many quarters of the House although it was opposed by the Government and defeated by the government vote. In supporting the amendment, however, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who sadly is not present today, drew attention to the fact that:
"the whole country is not covered by citizens advice bureaux, by legal centres or by money centres".
She therefore called for:
"a network—or at least a survey to see how a network can be set up—to meet the needs of every part of the country, including the country areas".
I think that will find an echo with the noble Lord, Lord Wise.
The answer of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was, it must be said, disappointing on that occasion. He said that he regarded as:
"quite outside the legal aid field—matters with which, for example, citizens advice bureaux are concerned".—[Official Report, 14.1.88; cols. 1390–96.]
The noble Viscount will have an opportunity at the end of the debate to tell me whether I am wrong, but as I understand it the Government's basic position is that the funding of the CABs is a matter for local government. I believe there will be no review of this matter, but I ask the noble Viscount to confirm whether that is the case. There will be no White Paper and no national effort to provide geographically fair provision or secure funding. It is all to be left to the discretion of local authorities which can do as much or as little as they feel able within their current financial constraints. Yet the need for advice grows and grows. In 1981–82 there were 4·5 million inquiries to the CABs. Last year there were 7 million inquiries. That is an increase of 55 per cent.
The increased burdens on the CABs are substantially attributable to central government

1185
action. Over the past decade there has been a 289 per cent. increase in social security inquiries. There have been major increases in inquiries due to the cuts in housing benefit, problems about debt replacement following the huge increases in interest rates and the poll tax, to mention but a few. Therefore the CABs in practice are squeezed between central and local government. Central government have massively increased their responsibilities but still it is essentially up to local government to decided whether it can provide more funds for advice services that have to be delivered locally.
The poll tax is a first-class case in point. Government departments see the CABs as an easy way to communicate with the public. Recent newspaper advertisements for poll tax rebates, for example, referred to getting help from the CABs. How can CABs help, how can managers deliver, without adequate resources?
It is true that the Department of the Environment is making NACAB a one-off grant to cover the information and training costs of the introduction of the poll tax. It is a mere £36,000. It is woefully inadequate. It does nothing whatever to provide more personnel in the CABs to give the advice.
The Commission for Racial Equality has recently had to restrict the amount of general advice given by its local community relations councils. Therefore, people from ethnic minority communities who would have gone to their local CRC will now have to go to their local CAB. Yet no provision whatever is made to assist the CABs to take on those extra clients. Many of them obviously need to see advisers with specialist language skills.
The current financial position, which was touched on by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, is that during 1989–90 local authorities in England and Wales are paying collectively £23·2 million to their local CABs, and the DTI grant to NACAB for that year is £8·958 million. However, that grant is not, and I repeat not, provided, for services on the ground. The Government say that those are the responsibility of the local authorities. The grant is for the provision of central services for the local CABs, for example, reference information, training, quality control, and support through the area office network, research, press and parliamentary work.
In practice, however, NACAB, to its great credit, succeeds in applying a portion of that DTI grant—currently that proportion is about £2 million—to three-year development grants to local CABS on a partnership basis with local authorities. The highly successful use which NACAB makes of that proportion of its grant should point the way to more effective central government funding. It works in this way. Typically NACAB agrees with a local authority a scheme for the expansion or establishment of a local CAB. In the first year NACAB pays three-quarters of the cost and the local authority one quarter. In the second year it is 50/50. In the third year NACAB pays 25 per cent. and the local authority 75 per cent. In the fourth year, if all has worked well and the local authority is satisfied, the local authority bears the whole cost and will do so thereafter.
1186
Surely that points the way. Not only would it be right for central government to provide more funds when it is central government which is imposing more burdens on CABs. Central funds could fruitfully be targeted in that way. Also, when central government is considering revenue support grant and addressing the standard spending assessments of the local authorities, surely a specific allowance should be made for local advice centres.
There should be a partnership of effort between central and local government, but funding obligations should be the subject of statutory obligation and not discretion.
I do not doubt that when he comes to reply to the debate the noble Viscount will have much that is appreciative to say about the work of the CABs. Like love, a quiet conscience and the laughter of little children, the CABs are great goods. So they earn nothing but applause for their good works. However, the real question is whether the noble Viscount will agree that effective access to justice is a basic right of citizenship and that it is the duty of the state to deliver it. That is the point of principle. Does he agree that that basic right can be realised only through a geographically fair national network of independent CABs and advice and law centres, attuned to local needs and securely funded?
If the Minister can only repeat, if his brief will only allow him to say, that it is all down to the discretion of the local authorities, then the geographical inequality and the funding chaos will certainly continue. Any affirmation that there is in this country equal access to justice will be a sham.
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, although this debate has been introduced by an eloquent speech by a distinguished Labour Peeress, I believe that we can honestly say that this is a subject which cuts across the parties. The citizens advice bureaux forms one of the most valuable networks that we possess in Britain and is something of which we should be proud. Its work and the enormous problems and pressures that it faces at the moment are, I am sure, of deep concern to all sides of the House.
It is notable that people of all political persuasions are involved as volunteers in the work of CABs. It is also notable—and I was particularly glad to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wise—that the need for CABs is not confined to inner city and council estate areas, like those of my own diocese in particular, but is widely spread throughout the country. The Church Urban Fund has recently been launched by the Church of England. We are still obtaining money and putting forward projects. The fund has similar aims and employs people doing very similar work to the CAB in advising citizens of their rights and how to obtain help.
It has been especially important to have an organisation such as the CABs in our country in recent years because of the growth in the numbers of the relatively poorest in our society. Poverty was once much more widespread in Britain than it is today. When I arrived in Salford I was given two books which drew a wonderful picture of what life

1187
was like at the turn of the century and in the early years of this century. I commend them to your Lordships. They are Robert Roberts' studies The Classic Slum about Salford and A Ragged Schooling. They show that in those days of widespread poverty there was a great deal of local support in working class communities under such tremendous financial pressures.
Things have changed today. The fact that the poorest are a minority in society means that the pressures on them are that much greater. They do not receive so much mutual help and support. In those days the pattern of wealth, affluence and poverty was like a pyramid. As we all know, there was a small number of the very affluent at the top of the pyramid, an increasing number of the affluent in the middle and very large numbers at the bottom of the pyramid. That has changed and the pattern is now a diamond. Those at the bottom are the relatively poorest, with large numbers of modestly affluent people living alongside them. The pressures on them are that much greater. Those are the people who find their way to the citizens advice bureaux and the doors of our vicarages and presbyteries in inner city areas.
My inquiries in my own area have shown that those pressures have increased in recent years. Noble Lords who have spoken, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in opening the debate, have already indicated where the pressures are most heavy. They come from changes in social security legislation. Of 15,000 inquiries to CABs in the town of Bury in the past year, 25 per cent. concerned social security matters. Housing problems have increased tremendously, as has debt. Reference has already been made to the important Policy Studies Institute study reported in the press today which estimates that 560,000 households—5 per cent. of all households—have severe financial difficulties.
The pressures are greatest among young people and poorer families with incomes of less than £150 per week. Those are the people most at risk. Problems of social security, housing and debt and the coming problems of the poll tax increase week by week. In spite of rebate, the poll tax will bear hardest on some of the poorest people in our communities.
I should like to mention briefly the profile of the kind of inner city area from which I made inquiries about CAB work and which will be found widespread across the country. Those are areas in which there are high numbers of long-term benefit claimants who include many single parents; large numbers of elderly people who are spread throughout society but include particularly those on low pensions; a high proportion of the chronically sick; and many ethnic communities. The population of one area from which I wish to quote some individual cases is composed of 25 per cent. from the Indian sub-continent. In addition, there are male unemployment rates of 20 per cent. or even higher.
As an indication of what is happening among local CABs, perhaps I may quote from a letter that I have just received. It states:
1188
"We are finding it very difficult to cope with the sheer volume of clients. This morning we had 3 trained volunteers. 12 people were waiting when we opened at 10 a.m. We locked the doors at 1 p.m. and have just (2.45 p.m.) finished seeing the clients. No-one has stopped for lunch. I have been here for 6½ years. In that time enquiries have more than doubled, with the same staff resources. Problems are increasingly complex and often insoluble. We have only 30 hours paid staff time with volunteer advisers and clerical helpers. The primary problems are those of poverty. Even family, housing and health problems can often be seen to have poverty as a root cause. In my time in this area I have seen no social improvement—quite the contrary".
The correspondent then goes on to talk about debt and points out that that must be seen in the context of the inequalities of British society because many do not have sufficient money to live what would be considered in other parts to be a reasonable, not luxurious, lifestyle.
I have little time to describe individual cases, but perhaps I may briefly quote to noble Lords just three cases so that we realise that behind this afternoon's debate are real people, real families and real problems.
Mrs. C is a victim of domestic violence. Her husband also refuses to give her money. She is torn between wanting to flee from home and scruples about her children and her religion. The CAB has been able to set up a refuge and to obtain legal help for her and to look into her benefits.
Mr. D is a young man just released from prison. He could not obtain a grant from the DSS until he had accommodation. That is a double bind about which we all know. Now he has it, he is told that he must wait four weeks for processing. Even when one is young and fit, Manchester in March is a bit grim without a bed or a cooker. The CAB has been able to organise the loan of a cooker and a settee for him to sleep on from NACRO. It is felt to be vital that that young man is given support and stability to enable him to go straight.
Mr. E is a pensioner in his eighties on a basic pension. He has had a series of estimated electricity bills leading to a final accurate bill for over £200. He came to us in a frantic state. No DSS help was available. We are now looking for charitable funds and we are fending off the North-Western Electricity Board.
That is one small indication of the kind of people who come to the CABs and with whom the CABs try to cope with minimum resources. Let me emphasise that one fully appreciates that poverty has always been a feature of life in this country under whatever government and that it will still be here with the next government, whichever of the parties opposite takes over at whatever point in the future. Yet it has become worse for the poorest in recent years. One of my correspondents has simply put it this way:
"We try hard to maintain the CAB principle of political impartiality but cannot help but contrast what we see here in the inner city with our own lives and that of our friends and become increasingly depressed at the flow of legislation which makes our clients' lives worse".
Government will of course say that, far from making lives worse, the aim has been to improve lives, and they will doubtless try to give evidence for that. Part of the problem has been that it is false to imagine that one can tackle the problems of poverty

1189
simply by targeting help to those who need it most. It sounds fine on paper; it does not work very well in practice on the ground.
That is so for a number of reasons. People do not like being stigmatised as poor and having to claim against means tests for everything. Perhaps I may take the example of school meals. That is fine in a school to which I may go in an inner city area where almost everyone claims free school meals. It does not work so well in areas where some kids feel discriminated against because it becomes known that their parents are having to claim in that way. The loan principle also has its limits. A revolving loan sounds fine on paper, but when one tries to work it out in practice, particularly in view of the pressure of debts, it does not work out nearly so well.
Why do not the poor manage their affairs better? That question is often asked, perhaps not quite as crudely as that. Why, for example, is so much spent on smoking, drinking and betting by people from poor communities? It is important for us all to appreciate that those habits become built into a lifestyle. In a way, they become symptoms of the poverty syndrome. It grieves me to see women in poor communities smoking inordinately when we all know what that may lead to in later life. Yet it is part of the pattern and culture and is difficult to break. Lifestyle and the abuse of lifestyle cannot simply be blamed on individuals, although I fully accept the duty of the Churches, among others, to struggle to point people towards a better lifestyle and a better use of money and towards taking care of their health. All those things are important and we must continue to commend them to people in those areas.
However, as CABs know all too well, the trouble is that many of those who lead unhealthy lifestyles and misuse and mismanage money are caught up in a cycle of poverty. I believe that a distinguished Member of this House once coined the phrase, "the cycle of deprivation". One can certainly see that evidenced on the ground.
I return to the question which has been touched on by noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Irvine; namely, the question of funding. Every pound of central government money will be well used in the work of CABs and it is essential that they should receive an increasing grant from central government. On the question of local authorities, I found myself yet again rather angry at the exchange during Question Time. I am sick of hearing accusations flung across the Floor of the House from one side to the other about profligate, extravagant local authorities. What matters is what the expenditure goes for. It is true that one can always find instances of mismanagement in local authorities. One can always find instances of silly spending on things that do not matter, but, as we all know, the vast majority of the money goes to tackle such matters as education, social security and the funding of CABs.
I hope that something will come out of the debate and that the Minister will be able to give us encouragement that local authorities will hear positive words from the Government about support
1190
for CABs. I noted in the report of the CABs that they now receive increasing support from commerce and industry. It is good that commerce and industry should realise that they are worth supporting. However, let us remember that everybody, including the Churches, these days are asking commerce and industry for support for worthy causes. I believe that fundamentally work of that kind ought to be nationally supported by government and by local authorities. I hope very much that we shall hear some encouraging words when the Minister comes to sum up.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords. first I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Baroness for raising this topic for debate. It is an important matter and indeed a vital one for the community as a whole. I shall speak more or less about the areas in which I have spent most of my life and which I have represented; namely, the inner cities. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, about the need to consider the rural areas. In those areas a citizens' advice bureau might be the only lifeline for people on their own and in need of services. The need for the service to be provided in such areas could very well be a high priority.
I start on the basis that without question the citizens' advice bureaux will need increased central government funding. They will have an expanding role. The legislation now coming forward is complex even for some noble Lords. So what chance will ordinary people have immediately of assessing it when it affects them? I do not know. We know that the financial strictures now placed on local government will not enable it to respond to the same degree and with the same generosity that it has done in the past. Unfortunately, when local government is in the business of having to make cuts and wants to maintain its housing, education and social service programmes, it is that type of service that is affected. Therefore, without question, there is an overwhelming case for government funding. The right reverend Prelate referred to the response of commerce and business, but even so they will only respond to a degree. The main burden will have to be carried by central government.
The areas which will most need the service are the poorer parts of the country. I do not say that other areas will not need it, but the poorer areas will need it most. I say that as one who comes from, and who has represented, such an area. Those Members of your Lordships' House who have been Members in another place will know how very different areas can be found within one constituency. I have a colleague who is Member for a constituency in the north-east of Manchester. The social make-up of the people who live there represents almost a split down the middle of the constituency. One part is almost a deprived area; the other part is pretty affluent. The people who live in the affluent area are capable of dealing with problems, as the Member's mail bag shows. The mail does not come from the other area—the large council estates which are run down and so on. The people there are not so affluent, not

1191
so well trained to pick up a pen, write their complaint and send it to the right authority. They are the people who need this service.
The other day I was in the other place when the Prime Minister referred to a very important question which has been raised before and which is now starting to show itself again. It is the question of how landlords are starting to behave to tenants in the private sector. It is a subject that has also been raised in your Lordships' House. The Prime Minister said that she hoped the landlords would behave properly and that they would not charge tenants for the rates but would deduct them in view of the poll tax. She said that a guideline leaflet would be issued.
However, I have to say that many people will need to have someone to whom they can go in order to be told just what to do. I do not like to use the word but there is more than a whiff of Rachmanism coming back into London in the private tenant sector. People are being exploited. People now require advice and aid to an increasing degree because of the complexity of such things as the poll tax legislation. They want to know whether they are entitled to relief and how to apply for it. I do not want to discuss the poll tax. I think that enough has been said about it and this debate is on another topic. However, the fact is that when I go to the other end of the building and see the mail bags which some Members of Parliament now collect I realise how astronomically large they are—to the point at which Members with even the most efficient secretaries find it almost impossible to cope. Nearly all their mail now relates to personal services which people require. Members of Parliament of all parties do a tremendous job in trying to respond, but they are becoming overwhelmed. If it gets to the stage where they cannot help, to whom will their constituents turn?
I held a surgery in Manchester when I was a councillor there, as did most other councillors. There would be a reasonable attendance. I should not like to hold one now. I do not think that I could cope with the questions that people would ask me. Nor would I be qualified to deal with them.
Citizens advice bureaux have a history of being able to cope with most forms of advice. They are able to direct people towards the best sources for dealing with their grievances. They are able to help them with their problems. To an increasing extent the CABs are now dealing with housing problems. Such problems form the third largest category of inquiry to citizens advice bureaux. In 1989 the service dealt with over 800,000 housing inquiries. That is a tremendous number by anybody's standard.
Most of the housing problems dealt with by the citizens advice bureaux fall into one or two categories: problems of availability and problems of affordability. I should like to cite just one or two individual cases which I believe typify the problems with which the CABs are trying to deal.
A citizens advice bureau in Essex reported a client faced with homelessness who had no security of tenure because he was the former licensee of a pub. I suppose that one could say that it was a form of tied employment. He was told by the local authority
1192
to ignore the notice to quit and await a court order for repossession before it could consider his claim. If he left before then, he would be considered to have made himself intentionally homeless. In that case he would be outside the responsibility of the council who would not be required to deal with him.
In another case, a citizens advice bureau in central London reported a family with two disabled children under five who had spent nearly five years in bed and breakfast accommodation awaiting an offer of permanent accommodation from the council. Yet another case, reported by a citizens advice bureau in Manchester—the right reverend Prelate spoke about this earlier—concerned a 19 year-old man who was homeless following the divorce and remarriage of both his parents. The local authority waiting list offered no help. There are, I believe, about 30,000 people or thereabouts in Manchester on the waiting list. All are very pressing cases.
Many private landlords do not want the unemployed. Those who would have accepted the man I have mentioned had no vacancies. He is therefore in a Catch 22 situation. However, at least he can go to the citizens advice bureau. He can talk to the people there and discuss his problem to see if there is any way forward.
It is reported also that housing associations find themselves under increasing pressure as any growth in that sector has nowhere near matched the decline in local authority letting. As a result, many waiting lists are at a complete standstill. A citizens advice bureau in Lancashire reported the case of a single parent with a 10 month-old baby who had taken a shorthold tenancy for six months. At the end of the term the landlord issued a notice to quit. The local housing department classed the single parent as intentionally homeless under the 1985 Housing Act and refused to accept responsibility for her.
The Act to which I referred has also led to many protected tenants being harassed to leave by their landlords who wish to let under the more favourable terms of the more recent legislation. A north London CAB reported several protected tenants who were asked by their landlords to sign assured shorthold agreements. When one client refused to sign, the landlord returned with his "heavies" who threatened him at knifepoint until he signed the document. The client was so frightened that he was reluctant to inform the police or the tenancy relations officer. That case might sound far-fetched, but I have it on good authority that it is not something that has gone out of fashion. That type of case is becoming more prevalent than any of your Lordships would wish to see.
It is easy—my noble friend Lord Stallard who has been a Member of Parliament in north London will agree—to tell someone that they should go to law and bring in the police. Most people will not do so. They are too frightened. They are therefore wide open to being dealt with in that way by some private landlords. I am not saying that all behave like that. But some of the more undesirable landlords are reacting in a manner that some of us predicted they would.
The Minister, who is from the Department of Employment, talked about the number of people

1193
who had lost their homes because they could no longer pay the interest on their mortgages. He seemed to think, as did the Prime Minister, that because they represented under 1 per cent. of home owners the problem was not so bad. When we take the figures, the previous six months were not too bad. However, we are now seeing the effects of the prolonged increase in mortgage repayments. The figure is massive. It is ballooning upwards. This is one area in which the CABs are seeing a substantial increase in the number of people coming to them for help.
People might say that the building societies are sympathetic. One can talk to them about making changes in one's loan repayments so that they are repaid over a longer period. But people tend not to want to do that. They would rather turn to someone who can offer them independent advice. The debate has given a clear indication of what most of your Lordships think about the CABs and their role. Since their inception, their role has increased dramatically. It will continue to increase dramatically because the problems of people at the bottom end of the social scale with which they have to deal are becoming more and more complex in every respect as time moves on.
I once again reiterate my appeal to the Minister to listen with sympathy to the pleas which are being made from various parts of the House, and if the case for increased financial assistance is proved, to respond sympathetically so that the CABs can carry on with their worthwhile and essential role.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, this is the 51st year that the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux has been in existence. It is timely—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs—to have a short debate. It is, as it were, a run around the houses to see how the bureaux are getting on. I am sorry that the tenor of our discussion so far seems to have concentrated more on current social conditions than on the work of the CABs. The few remarks that I want to make will be about the CABs and not about the other conditions which obtain, which of course give rise to the work of the bureaux.
Before I do so, I should like to pay tribute to Sir Kenneth Clucas, who was chairman for five years until October 1989 and who, with his lieutenant, the director, Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin, supervised a move from Drury Lane to Pentonville Road. When I was in the DTI I had the pleasure of opening those premises. I believe that I know a little about the work of the bureaux and the pressures that Sir Kenneth Clucas and his colleagues put upon me, as I had some responsibility at that time for the DTI budget for the bureaux.
The warm praise that I give to those two people should not in any way diminish the admiration I feel for the work of the current chairman, Mr. Stuart Errington, lately chairman of Mercantile Credit Group plc, and the new director, Mr. Martin White, who I am sure will follow their predecessors with as much if not more energy.
1194
I wish to repeat, because they are worth repeating, the two essential aims of the bureaux:
"To ensure that individuals do not suffer from ignorance of their rights and responsibilities or of the services available or through an inability to express their needs effectively; secondly, to exercise a responsible influence on the development of social policies and services, both locally and nationally".
It is that second aim which is of tremendous importance, because the bureaux have a rather more gentle way of persuasion. In the years that I have known it, the national association has not had a compaigning style. It would be wrong were it to change its style and to be pushed into changing it by the pressures that are put upon it. The very strength of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux is its independence, especially its political independence. I shall return to that point when I mention funding.
We have been given a number of figures this afternoon. I am surprised to learn that the bureaux deal basically with about 900 subject areas. Three of them have always remained top of the list, and that has been the case for innumerable years. They are social security, consumer debt and housing. They have always existed. It is wrong for some noble Lords to say that those three years are new and result from some of the legislation that has gone through Parliament in the past 10 years. The problems may be more numerous but they are not new. If one thinks about it, it is natural that they should always exist. We then have employment, the administration of justice, to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred, and the family.
Whatever one may think about present social conditions and the amount of legislation going through Parliament, there is no doubt that life is increasingly more complex. It is becoming more complex for a different kind of people. It does not affect simply the less well-off in our society; it affects the young who are starting out in a different world, a world which is far more competitive and perhaps even more hostile than when I was 16, 17 or 18 years of age. There are also many elderly people who, naturally, become confused about their rights and entitlements. The people who work in the bureaux are sympathetic towards clients who go to them with inquiries. There are a thousand bureaux, manned by 15,000 workers, of whom 90 per cent. are volunteers.
I must touch on the subject of funding, because it is crucial to the whole operation. I was glad that the right reverend Prelate reminded the House that, through the Church Urban Fund, the Churches are able to give advice and assistance in the same areas as the CABs. I was also glad that my noble friend Lord Wise mentioned the Rural Development Commission, which gives support particularly in rural areas. Therefore, support and advice comes from several directions and it is wrong to believe that the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux is the only organisation which exists to help people in giving advice.
No one has yet said that the citizens advice bureaux has the spending of over £50 million. Of that £20 million comes from the unremunerated value of its volunteer force; £23 million from local authorities; £9 million from the Department of

1195
Trade and Industry. An additional £1 million has been given by the Department of the Environment over three years. A further £1 million over three years has been given by the private sector, notably the banking fraternity—that is, Barclay's, National Westminster, Citibank, and the Finance Houses Association. That sum has been given to deal specifically with the money advice centres. Therefore, a great deal of money goes into the bureaux.
It would be wrong for the Government to find the bulk of the money which the bureaux require because it is a fact that the man who pays the piper calls the tune. The citizens advice bureaux are mercifully free from political influence. However, that would not be so if central government took on the funding responsibility because it could then dictate how the bureaux were to be run and in which areas they should conduct their business.
It is most important that local authorities recognise the separate and different needs in their areas and give support where necessary. I heed the warning note given by the right reverend Prelate but I shall not bandy across the Chamber accusations about who spends what and where. But, my goodness, during the past few years we have seen horrific examples of local authorities' spending on a variety of so-called institutions—clubs, rest centres and advice centres—for so-called deprived people. If they can do that without a statutory need they can aid the citizens' advice bureaux to a greater extent. That is all I wish to say on the matter, and perhaps it is enough. The Government should continue to provide the £9 million or £10 million for the central and support service and then let the bureaux get on and manage their business in concert with other authorities and agencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, spoke about housing. It is interesting to note that an additional £1 million was found over the past three years for a joint programme with SHAC and Shelter in order to make a further inroad into the problem of housing and the homeless.
The bureaux are strong; they are strong in heart. They will always be short of money, as will any advice centre. The problem will not be relieved by spending more central government money. It is essential that we support the bureaux where we can. The public needs the service; it needs a voluntary and not a statutory service, which would be most frightening.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, also spoke about the town halls, which are, generally speaking, frightening places. Although a bureau office may be small and in a shabby part of town it has a more friendly welcome than the marble steps of most town halls.
The service is useful and necessary. I believe that the bureaux will continue to provide good service and I wish them all the good fortune that they deserve during the next 50 years.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to discuss the
1196
work of the citizens advice bureaux and the problems that they face. I do not apologise for raising some of the problems with which they deal. On the contrary, we should be grateful to the bureaux for focusing our attention on some of the aspects of the legislation which we discuss and pass in this House.
I recently expressed my immediate interest when we discussed the social fund and the recent court ruling. I share the interest of the citizens advice bureaux in that judgment. It is my first example of their work. From their experience they were able to comment on the effects and implications of the judgment on their clients. The court decision was welcomed not only by the CAB but by all volunteer organisations who advise people about such difficulties.
The ruling supported the CAB which had already stated that budget limits and discretionary powers of social fund officers meant that the basic requirements of those most in need were not being met. That is a legitimate comment. The High Court stated that the guidance given by the social fund officers in the official manual on the administration of the social fund was unlawful in so far as it indicated in mandatory terms that officers had no powers to make payments for special needs if that would result in their budget being exceeded. Awards in the guidance were found to be effective.
NACAB maintained that as pressure on the social fund increased over time, the major inadequacies of the system to meet even the most basic needs of the claimants would become more apparent. Again, that is a perfectly reasonable comment.
Noble Lords will recall that the social fund was one of the central elements of the Social Security Act 1986 which took effect in 1988. Now a person receiving income support—in other words, someone on an extremely low income—must rely on a discretionary scheme when they have an unexpected expenditure for which it is impossible to budget. For example, the replacement of a broken cooker. Some claimants may be awarded grants but many more receive loans which they must repay out of their benefit at a high rate of interest.
Citizens advice bureaux have been to the forefront in trying to advise and guide people with all those new problems. They report considerable hardship among their clients. Many have been refused social fund payments, and of those who receive an amount, it is invariably less than is needed.
Perhaps I may quote a couple of examples. First a citizens advice bureau in West Yorkshire reported a case of a 25 year-old discharged from hospital following a brain haemorrhage and short term memory loss. He needed to buy 10 tokens to reactivate his electricity supply which is the system used in his area and he needed a £10 grant for food at the weekend when he was discharged. His grant was refused. Although in a priority group, the items were considered not to be of a high priority—possibly because the money had run out.
There is a further example from a citizens advice bureau in North London which reported a case of a refugee applicant who spoke no English, with a disabled child. The applicant was refused a

1197
community care grant for a pushchair because the applicant did not present a case of how the health and safety of the family would be affected.
That takes me back to something which your Lordships may recall that the then Government Minister said in debates on the Social Security Act 1988. She mentioned the fact that we should never have to rely on the persuasiveness of clients and their representatives to be able to justify a claim. Had that operated, then the client whose case I have just cited would have been given a grant. However, because the client was unable to speak adequate English and was unable to discuss the health and safety of the family—in other words, was not sufficiently persuasive—no grant was given.
Moving from grants to loans, repaying a loan can and often does cause considerable hardship. In a survey of citizens advice bureaux clients who had received loans from the social fund and were in the process of repaying them, 64 per cent. were repaying £5 or more per week. That is a lot of money for people on income support. At the time of the survey, the rate for a single person over 25 was £33·40. When those amounts are considered as a percentage of the client's weekly income, nearly half are repaying deductions of 15 per cent. or more of their weekly budget. That is a hefty sum from a weekly budget of £33.
The consequences of a 15 per cent. deduction are considerable for those receiving that minimal support. It leaves a person with very little money for essential items like food, water rates, fuel, the community charge and a whole number of essentials. Those costs are fixed unlike the social fund which is not based on a percentage of income.
By pointing out those anomalies and difficulties which their clients experience, the CABs are doing us a service. I do not not accept the view that we should not be discussing the effect of current issues. It is current issues with which we and our people are involved. It is current issues with which the CABs are very much involved. I cannot repeat often enough how grateful I am and have been for many years at the service provided by the CABs and the kind of guidance which they have been able to give me from time to time regarding legislation.
Again, I give a couple of examples of hardship due to high repayment rates on social fund loans. A citizens advice bureau in West Yorkshire reports that a single parent was left with £17 for herself and her child to live on after paying £18 in direct deductions for gas arrears and £6 for social fund repayments. You do not have to be a mathematician to work out the position that that poor client was in.
Another CAB in Berkshire reports a family which received a loan for a cooker and other essential household items. The family received half the amount requested but had to repay the loan at £10.78 per week, which was 15 per cent. of the family's weekly benefit. The family could not afford that as well as meeting payments for rates, water and fuel for their home which is difficult to heat. Therefore, they had to go without.
A CAB in Northern Ireland reported a case of a single parent with six children. She applied for a grant for a cooker but was given a loan. The DSS
1198
insisted on repayments of £20 per week arguing that she could afford that because she had no other debts although, as I said, she was a single parent with six children. Whether or not she has any other debts, £20 per week is still a lot of money. She had to meet all her other commitments to pay for fuel, food, rates, and clothing for six children. That is another example of the hardship caused.
NACAB, to its credit, has always been concerned that the social fund was restricted in its ability to respond to need by having a finite budget which cannot be overspent. The reason for most of my examples and the refusals is that the social fund officer believes that he is overspending or that there is a danger that he will do so. That view was expressed quite clearly by NACAB in response to the Green Paper Reform of Social Security in 1985. To me, that is another very important illustration of the valuable work of NACAB whose experience on those issues forms a major contribution to our discussions.
Also, in her opening remarks the noble Baroness mentioned the position in Scotland. I should like to enlarge on that because it is not a part of the world which people often mention when they discuss those problems. The Scottish CABs have their own independent association and a network of advice bureaux which stretch from Thurso in the North to Castle Douglas in the South, and there are CABs in all major cities and many other urban areas. There are also the problems outlined in the excellent contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, about the difficulties of CABs in rural and urban areas in some parts of Scotland.
Money problems form the largest single category in Scottish advice bureaux problems. Forty three per cent. of all queries in 1988–89 were concerned with financial difficulties. Problems of multiple debt increased from 13,000 in 1983 to 55,000 in 1988. As has already been mentioned, the community charge has placed a heavy burden on citizens advice bureaux services in Scotland. The service believes that that was introduced too quickly and the administrative chaos which resulted brought many thousands of people to the citizens advice bureaux.
A recent report from the Scottish Consumer Council recommended that central government and regional, highlands and district councils should get together with voluntary organisations to ensure the best possible service for the public. To all of us, that means adequate funding and a co-ordinated strategy on the part of all those responsible for such funding as soon as possible. I ask the Minister who is to reply to this debate whether any progress has been made in response to that report from the Scottish Consumer Council.
On the general question of funding which was touched on by one or two noble Lords, I should like to have gone much more deeply into the implications of the 1989 DTI report on the CABs because that left many questions outstanding to my mind and to the minds of others involved in the CABs and other organisations. It was felt that the report, if adopted and implemented, would transform NACAB into a kind of local government bureaucracy. Some critics went so far as to suggest that the Government

1199
appeared to be seeking an organisation based on CABs which could, with government support, supplant the need for many other voluntary organisations.
In some quarters there is a fear that it may possibly be the Government's intention to create a cheap, centralised and controlled network of information givers. I am not necessarily saying that I agree with that, but I know that those fears exist. I believe that we must have that in the back of our minds when we talk about a national government controlled and funded system. In that report the Government spoke about focusing issues, much like they talk about targeting social security and other benefits.
What the Government mean by "focusing issues" might not be what other people mean by "focusing issues". However, if the organisation was dependent for its funds solely on that source, then it may need to be influenced on where to focus. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he said that we have to recognise and accept the need for a system of independent advice bureaux: an independent advice service able to exercise its own rights and focus on issues which it considers, from experience, to be essential. To work adequately, such a system would have to be properly resourced and funded from government and local authorities.
5 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was absolutely right to emphasise that the citizens advice bureaux have now existed for just over 50 years, having been set up in 1939 at the onset of war to advise citizens of this country of the problems that were likely to occur during that difficult wartime period. However, the need for the bureaux continued after the war right up to the present. We are therefore particularly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for enabling us to look at the work of these bureaux and to identify some of the problems associated with them.
During the course of the debate four points emerged, I believe. First, there is not the slightest doubt that every noble Lord who has spoken has emphasised the social importance of these bureaux, their independence and their voluntary nature. A number of noble Lords—in particular the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard—gave telling examples of the kinds of human problem the bureaux deal with every day of the week.
Secondly, I believe that attention has been drawn to the geographical unevenness of the service available from the bureaux. That problem was underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Attention was also drawn to the problems that occur particularly in rural areas—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, referred.
Thirdly, the question of the need for linkage with other advisory services was raised, because CABs are not the only advisory services. There are money advice services and legal advice services, and there is a need for linkage and coherence. Many noble Lords referred to that point, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Finally, all noble Lords referred,
1200
in one form or another, to the question of funding, which links in with the need to expand the service.
I should like to spend the time that I have available on the question of indebtedness. I want to do so for two reasons. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, mentioned in connection with Scotland, the question of indebtedness spreads through a large number of queries put to the CABs and other advisory services. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, there have been reports in the newspapers of the important study by the Policies Studies Institute entitled Credit and Debt in Britain, which indicated that around 2 million households are in various forms of debt; that over 500,000 are in serious debt and 170,000 in very serious debt. Obviously it is a most important issue.
My second reason for raising indebtedness is that I was involved in a consideration of that issue over recent months. I was invited to act as chairman of a working party set up on the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading by the Finance Houses Association to consider how the contribution from the private sector—the finance establishments—to the provision of money advice could be extended and put on a more regular basis. I should therefore like to inform your Lordships of some of the conclusions of that report, which was issued in January.
First, we had to identify the size of the problem. The size of the problem we identified was very similar to that which came out in the PSI report; namely, we felt that there were some 200,000 families in serious debt problems; probably 500,000 in fairly serious debt problems and perhaps many more in some form of debt problems. The finding is therefore roughly similar.
Next, we had to consider how money advice is provided. We found that people's general tendency was to go to a citizens advice bureau. That was their first port of call. In addition, there is a very important service provided by local authorities, particularly by the trading standards organisation, with which I have some involvement. Therefore there is a combination of places to which people can go locally.
What tends to happen is that when people go to a CAB they receive what might be called a "first-aid" service. CABs are largely voluntary organisations and cover a wide range of activities. There is general guidance given to those who work in CABs as to how they should respond, but many problems of debt are becoming very complex. There are multiple debt problems. They raise legal issues; they raise questions of understanding how the law stands; they may raise issues of attending court and how the position of the debtor can best be represented. It has been estimated that in some of the more difficult debt cases up to 18 hours of work has to be spent by skilled people.
What became very clear is that if advice on indebtedness is to be effective, there must, in addition to the front-line service, be more professionally skilled back-up. This comes from the bodies, some of which already exist, known as money advice support units.

1201
We then came to the way in which we felt that the private sector could best help. Clearly we could not turn to the private sector for the very large sums of money needed to put the whole system right. However, we could identify that specific part of the system—providing money advice support—where a concentration of the skills that the private sector could provide, plus the resources that it might be prepared to put in, could have an impact. Therefore we costed out what was necessary to improve the money advice support services which could act in a specialist role standing behind the initial advice given at local authority or CAB level. We worked out that around £10 million would be required to establish the support services reasonably well throughout the country; an extra £10 million. How was that to be found?
First, it could not all be spent at once. We thought that a three-year period would probably be required in order to set up these establishments, recruit and train the people, second them from the financial institutions, and so on. The cost would amount to around £3 million a year.
Secondly, we considered what we thought the private sector could reasonably be asked to contribute. The working party included representatives of both the lending institutions and consumer organisations. After a great deal of discussion we came to the conclusion that a reasonable basis for their contribution could be rather more than double what they are already giving. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned that around £1 million was the present figure. We said "Let us put forward an objective of £2 million for three years". That should provide £6 million out of the £10 million. As to the remaining £4 million, we left that open. We did not feel that we could go to the private institutions for any more. If we went for too much they would probably respond totally negatively. Therefore, by other means—from local authorities or central government—and if our calculations were agreed with, that is the extra amount that would need to be found. I am glad to say that the response has been positive. At a recent press launch of the report. British Gas, for example, immediately contributed £50,000. Other financial institutions are already coming forward with donations of a similar nature. We have further proposed that a money advice trust should be established to do two things: first, to stimulate the provision of, collect and effectively disburse the private sector money, particularly for the money advice support units; secondly, and more importantly—this touches on a point raised by many noble Lords—to study the long-term implications of providing a comprehensive money advice service throughout the country, to integrate the work done by the CABs, the local authorities, the lending institutions themselves and the support units.
We know that that will take longer. We originally set out, as a working party, to cover both the short and the long term but wisely decided that we should endeavour to support the existing arrangements, however uneven they may be, and identify some part of the existing arrangements where additional funding could be helpful. We decided on the support
1202
services. However, we all felt that more work needs to be done to achieve coherence in the whole area of money advice, to ascertain where the gaps are, to see whether the matter should be handled by the CABs and to determine to what extent the local authorities, the trading standards officers, the banks and other institutions should come in.
I hope that it will not be long before the report is prepared and it could then become an important part of this whole subject of providing citizens with adequate advice. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is an important contribution to the matter. Although the £6 million contributed by the private sector will not cover all the needs, at least it points the way. It has identified where such sums can be usefully expended and it has created an organisation which will look at the overall implications of an important part of this question of advice to the citizen.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for introducing this debate and bringing the work of the CABs to our attention.
I was glad to note that the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Ezra, referred to the origins of the CABs. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, paid a deserved tribute to Sir Kenneth Clucas, whom I knew in a previous incarnation, if I may put it that way, and who did magnificent work as chairman of the national association.
The CABs were founded, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, at the beginning of the war. They were hurried through at the beginning of the war in order to meet the number of inquiries expected by what was then the National Council for Social Services (it became the National Council for Voluntary Organisations) due to the social disturbances in wartime. I take issue wit h the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who said that the inquiries have not changed. In fact, during the war typical inquiries were about the rationing of clothes and other materials, sending letters and parcels to people abroad, compensation claims for bomb damage, and so on. Those were the inquiries which the CABs had to deal with.
After the war the CABs found themselves in some considerable difficulty. It was felt by a number of people, both in government and outside, that this was not a suitable way of dealing with the resettlement programme brought about by demobilisation of the armed forces. Fortunately, the CABs survived and they have grown to a point where they now have about 1,200 offices in England and Wales and employ no fewer than 15,000 people, of whom 90 per cent. are voluntary workers. It is an astonishing fact that such an organisation can keep going in this modern world and rendering such great services.
At this point we must pay tribute to those who give their services for nothing to the CABs, who work extremely hard and, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, frequently without lunch. They are on the telephone the whole day and work late hours to help their fellow citizens who are in need.

1203
The CABs survived an attack, so to speak, in 1983 when the government of the day withheld half the DTI grant to the national association pending a review of the services. The Lovelock Report, which was the result of that review, described the CABs as an invaluable national asset. The grant was restored and, indeed, somewhat increased as a result. The CABs came through that test with flying colours.
However, fine words butter no parsnips, as we say, and we have to look at the problems faced today by the CABs. I am glad that my noble friends Lady Ewart-Biggs and Lord Stallard both mentioned Scotland. Scotland, with an independent association and offices and having had experience of the poll tax for a year, is an example of what will happen in England and Wales. We will do well to note the experience of Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Stallard was right to point out that the bulk of inquiries to the CABs in Scotland concern financial difficulties, but one-quarter of all inquiries in 1988–89 concerned the poll tax. At first, those centred on what rebates might be available under the poll tax but they now refer almost exclusively to the inability of people to meet their debts arising from the poll tax and asking how they are to manage.
We accept that in Scotland there have been particular difficulties in the collection of the poll tax. Noble Lords may be interested to know that recently I learnt that more than 10,000 people in the Strathclyde region had registered for poll tax purposes under the name of Donald Duck. That makes collection of the tax rather difficult. How can you collect the amounts due from 10,000 Donald Ducks? That will happen—not necessarily with Donald Ducks—in England and Wales. There will be problems for the CABs which they are in fact already having to handle.
There are two points in that connection. First, in Scotland the Scottish Office gave grant-aid to the CABs specifically for the purpose of handling poll tax inquiries. The Scottish association says that it is grateful for the grant-aid provided by the Scottish Office to assist in dealing with community charge inquiries but adds that there is no doubt—this is the second point—that the charge has placed great strain on the CABs and their voluntary officers.
Many of the people working in the CABs do so in conditions of great stress. It is not easy sitting at a desk day after day on the telephone and dealing personally with the problems that ordinary people and poor people are presenting, time after time. They queue up to explain their problems. That is work of great stress. While we can rightly talk about funding we must remember the human side of the problem relating to the people who work in CABs.
Therefore, the major problem faced by the CABs in England and Wales is the same as that faced by the CABs in Scotland—the onset of the poll tax. That is not to say that the other problems will go away. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester rightly pointed to the Church Urban Fund. I was glad to hear about that and other ways
1204
in which the Church can help. Nevertheless, the bulk of social security problems will land at the door of the CABs, whatever we do.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick spoke very movingly about housing problems and the problems of the homeless. Where do those people go for advice? They go the CABs. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the mountain of debt that many poor people, and not so poor people, are carrying at the moment and to what he has been doing in various capacities to assist them. I was very glad to learn about a money advice trust which I had also heard about from the Finance Houses Association. I was particularly glad that, in his capacity as chairman, the noble Lord and the organisation had decided that the right route at the moment is to work with existing organisations. It is the CABs which require real help in this area. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, the problems of consumer debt, if I may use that generic expression, are often much more complex than is realised. It is not simply a question of being overmortgaged or overborrowed on your credit card; it is part of a complex of problems to which we have to pay attention.
There is also the problem of lone parents to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred. There is the question of residential care and of elderly people in such care who are flung out because they cannot afford to pay. My noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg referred to the problem of legal aid. We shall be debating that subject when my noble friend Lord Mishcon moves a Motion in a week or so. In addition, there is the flow of legislation and the imposition of burdens on people. The right reverend Prelate also referred to this matter. Sometimes governments do not seem to realise that when they pour out legislation and orders they expect everybody to be literate, to read parliamentary language and to understand what their duties are. That is almost impossible for some people to cope with. All governments are to blame in this matter and I am not particularly criticising the present government or any other.
I now turn to the matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and others; namely, the geographic disparity in the CAB network. Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, spoke about rural areas. As I come from the rural area of mid-Wales I am extremely sensitive about the inability of people to find a citizens advice bureau within 10 or 20 miles. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for them to make proper use of the service available.
Where does that leave us? I say quite frankly that I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on one matter. I do not believe that it will be right to have a debate on the CAB without taking into account the present social conditions that the policies of this Government have brought to us. I say that absolutely frankly because I believe that is one of the major problems of the CABs. They now have to deal with what is known as an underclass which consists of between 20 and 25 per cent. of the population, according to figures which are available. That part of the population has to have proper access to proper information and advice about a whole variety of subjects which the noble Lord and I can

1205
deal with quite easily. That is a problem that we have to accept.
I wish to draw the attention of the noble Viscount to a suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg that there should be a geographically fair network and also secure funding. Those are the two principles on which we should be working. I accept almost everything that every noble Lord has said to the effect that the service must remain independent of government. It must continue to be part-funded by the DTI and local authorities and the donation of time and effort given by the voluntary workers, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out. It would be a terrible mistake if we were to create some bureaucratic monster which was wholly at the beck and call of government.
We must make sure that everybody of whatever race, class or creed has proper access at the right time to a citizens advice bureau. In the end that is a service for which the Government have to be responsible even though we like that service to be independent. We look for evidence from the noble Viscount, when he comes to wind up, that the Government have grasped the nature of the problems that the CABs face. As my noble friend Lord Irvine said, it is not enough simply to say what a marvellous body of men and women they are and how glad we are that they exist.
This is a time when the social fabric of this country is starting to deteriorate badly. It is very important that we make sure that everybody knows what their rights are, what they can do and who can help them. It needs a positive initiative by government. The CABs are crying out for an initiative from the DTI to help them make sure that they will be in place throughout the next decade; that they properly understand their role and that they are properly and securely funded. It is right that a fair network is established throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Initiative is needed and I hope very much that we shall hear about that from the noble Viscount today.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for raising this important subject today. We have had a most informative and wide-ranging debate on the noble Baroness's Motion, during which a number of noble Lords have shown themselves to be both knowledgeable and appreciative of the work of citizens advice bureaux. A number of interesting points have been made and some questions have been raised, and I should now like to respond on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Seven years ago an independent review of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux was undertaken by a small team under the chairmanship of Sir Douglas Lovelock. The team's report became known as the Lovelock Report and noble Lords may find it interesting if I were to read out the first few lines of that report. It begins as follows:
"The Citizens Advice Bureaux Service is an invaluable national asset. The provision of a service of information, advice and
1206
guidance meets a real and growing need. The dedication and competence of the Service have earned widespread respect.
"Because the Service's standards are high and because it relies predominantly on a volunteer workforce, it represents extraordinarily good value for money."
The introduction to the report goes on:
"The workload of the Service has grown continually over the last 20 years. We expect this growth to continue. The problems raised with the Service have also increased in range and complexity in recent years."
How familiar those words seem. They are just the sort of things that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and other noble Lords have been saying today. The Government accepted the findings of the Lovelock Report when it was published in 1984 and we still regard its main conclusions as valid today.
Not only do the Government recognise and appreciate the value of the advice and help provided by citizens advice bureaux, but we support the service in a very real way.
I think that it may be worth reminding noble Lords of the extent of this support. The Department of Trade and Industry finances, through grant-in-aid, virtually the entire costs of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and its sister organisation, Citizens Advice Scotland. As noble Lords will know, these two organisations provide the central support services for all the local bureaux throughout the country, including training, information and the maintenance of standards.
Contrary to the impression which some noble Lords—and more specifically, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—may have given during the debate today, this Government have a very good record on the funding of NACAB. The DTI grant to NACAB this year is nearly £9 million, compared with £1.7 million in 1979–80. That means that this Government's contribution to the CAB service in England and Wales has more than doubled in real terms since 1979. In Scotland it has more than trebled in real terms in the same period. I hope that the noble Lords will agree that those are impressive figures.
Noble Lords will know that local bureaux are funded locally: in practice by local authorities. This has been the case since 1945, when local authorities were first given the power to fund local information centres. The Lovelock Report came to the conclusion that this division of responsibility between central and local funding was right. Perhaps I may quote again from the report. It says:
"It [the system] enables the bureaux to maintain a degree of autonomy and ensures that they can be seen as separate from the Government bureaucracy and responsive to local needs. This autonomy enables bureaux to develop services, including specialist services such as tribunal representation, debt counselling and money advice, in response to local need. At the same time it allows central government to support the service through NACAB. The system is, in other words, well calculated to sustain with public money a service which is reliant on local volunteer labour. In our view this is an overriding advantage and outweighs the disadvantages".
Those words are as apt today as they were in 1984, and of course they apply equally to the situation in Scotland.
The Lovelock review considered the other options for funding local bureaux, including direct funding by central government and a statutory duty on local

1207
authorities. The report rejected these options and the Government continue to reject them for the same reasons as Lovelock did. That is the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
Obviously the service has come a long way since it was set up in 1939. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, explained the concerns of many people in those days. The service has had to keep pace with social trends and with changes in legislation and has had to meet the demands of an increasingly sophisticated society. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester vividly brought to our attention the lasting problems of poverty and how a sophisticated society seems to increase the pressure on some families. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to them as an under-class.
The advice and help that bureaux provide today is of a professional standard, even though it is free at the point of delivery. But the essential feature of NACAB, and what makes it the envy of the world, is that it is a professional service which is delivered mainly by volunteers. The voluntary effort which the CAB service harnesses is its most precious asset and it enables a service to be provided which has a value much greater than that of the money which goes into it. The volunteers of the CAB service are a fine example of the active citizenship which we should be encouraging wherever we can. They show the sympathy to which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth paid tribute, as well as the value of the work given by volunteers, quite rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Noble Lords will be aware that in one sphere at least the CAB service has already achieved some considerable success in attracting private sector funding. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned this point. I refer to the area of money advice and the funding that the finance industry is providing for it. More than £2 million has been contributed or has been pledged by the finance industry and there is the prospect of other significant contributions to local and national projects.
Last month saw the publication of the report of the working party on money advice funding. This working party, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was set up by the finance industry in response to an appeal by the Director General of Fair Trading that it should provide more funding for money advice. The working party's main conclusion was that money advice needs more funds and that a minimum contribution by the finance industry of £2 million per year for the next three years is realistic and achievable. I am glad that the noble Lord said those words today.
The working party suggested that such funds would be used mainly to support functions which, for one reason or another, tend not to attract local authority or government funding. There are, for example, already several money advice support units, financed by the private sector, which provide support services for citizens advice bureaux and other money advice agencies in certain parts of the country. I believe that the working party had in mind the idea of extending this network as one possible
1208
use for additional private sector money. I am sure that such an initiative would be very much welcomed by the bureaux and their clients alike. The Government welcome the thrust of the report and hope that the finance industry will respond favourably to it.
I should like to deal with one or two of the points raised during the course of the debate. Many noble Lords referred to debt problems and in particular to rent arrears, a subject mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. Such problems obviously take up a good deal of bureaux resources because they can be very time-consuming to sort out. The money provided by the finance industry should be a great help in this respect. The Government have made significant contributions to NACAB and CAS whose members provide the bulk of money advice. There is also a comprehensive framework of legislation to protect the consumers of credit, although nothing can protect people from falling into difficulties when their circumstances change. I refer to the problems of redundancy, marital breakdown or the death of a spouse. All we can hope to do in such cases is to try to pick up the pieces afterwards. That is where the CAB service does such a marvellous job.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the NACAB report, One parent families: benefits and work. This matter, as with many other matters this afternoon, would probably be more appropriate to a debate on social security provisions than to one on citizens advice bureaux. I understand, however, that NACAB concluded that there are no simple solutions in this complex area. The Government share that view and recognise that this problem needs action on a number of fronts. For example, the Government have already announced their intention to improve the system relating to maintenance payments. The Government are also actively considering how to encourage the provision of child care facilities by employers.
The noble Baroness, and in passing the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to the problem of the gap when the maximum income support paid for people in residential care and nursing homes is less than the fees charged by the home. I understand that in setting the current limits and those proposed for April the available evidence indicated that the majority of people in homes should be able to meet their fees in full from their income and benefits. But I must stress that it has never been, nor could it be, the policy of any government to meet all fees, however high. Nevertheless, the help that this Government provide through income support has enabled thousands of people to make their own choices about the type of residential care they want.
My noble friend Lord Wise brought to our attention the fact that problems are not confined to the inner cities and he went on to describe some of the difficulties faced by families in rural areas. My noble friend also brought to our attention the fact that NACAB and the Rural Development Commission have a joint funding scheme for CAB projects. This began in July 1986. The scheme provides pump priming finance for projects which provide advice and information in unusual or

1209
innovative ways in rural areas. The Rural Development Commission and NACAB each provide £50,000 a year. Since 1989–90 each has provided an extra £25,000 for specific areas of need. My noble friend mentioned the free phone pilot scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, raised the matter of the possible effect of the change to the community charge on the funding of citizens advice bureaux. I have not heard that that has been a problem in Scotland and therefore I do not see why it should be so in England or in Wales. The CAB service has expressed some concern that local authorities may have less money available for organisations such as the CABs under the new arrangements. However, there seems to be no foundation in that theory. It will remain a discretionary matter for each local authority to decide which organisation to fund and to what extent.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to the Social Fund. The fund is helping many people on low incomes—over 1.7 million loans amounting to £240 million and nearly 337,000 grants costing £89 million since the start of the scheme. That does not suggest to me that people in need are reluctant to seek help from the fund or that those most in need are being refused help.
As we have been reminded by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, last year saw the Golden Jubilee of the CAB service. In those 50 years CABs have become part of the fabric of Britain. It seems almost impossible to contemplate life without them and the army of volunteers upon which they so rightly depend. I suppose that they are one of the last remaining examples of the wartime spirit of mutual help and self-sacrifice. At the same time, they have changed with the times and are as relevant today as they were when they were first established. They are uniquely British and envied throughout the world.
The CAB service is recognised and supported by central government, local authorities and increasingly the private sector. Of course the service could use more money. Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any organisation which could not. But, as I outlined, the CAB service has had a very fair deal in terms of support from this Government. I hope that that fact is recognised. I believe that there are real prospects of increased support from the private sector and I know that I speak for your Lordships' House when I say that I wish the CAB service well for the next 50 years. For my part I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters today and for allowing me to put forward the Government's point of view.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he agree that, as seven years have passed since the Lovelock Report to which he referred, there is a case for a review of its recommendations with regard to local authority funding and should this not in some sense be statutory? I think he will agree that one point which has emerged from the debate is that inconsistencies
1210
in local authority funding face CABs in different parts of the country with very considerable problems.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am content to undertake to bring that point, which was not only reinforced by the right reverend Prelate but also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like briefly to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. There is no doubting the fact that there was one aspect upon which we all agreed; namely, the effectiveness and devotion of the managers, the paid workers and the volunteers of the CABs. I very much hope that they will read the Hansard report of the debate and that they will at least take heart from what has been said.
I was glad to hear the Minister's final remark that he will look again at the point raised by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg about funding. The matter was also brought to his attention by the right reverend Prelate. If he reads the speech made by my noble friend, he will recognise that he was not criticising the DTI grant to NACAB because that supports services. However, he queried the fact that the Government make no possible commitment to the local CABs for the services which they provide on the ground. As many noble Lords have said today, it is the complexity of present legislation and the interaction between so many of its features which brings problems to the clients of the CABs and therefore to the CABs on the ground. That is why we feel that perhaps the funding of CABs should be further considered so as to produce a fair and even distribution of their services throughout the country. That was one of the most important points to emerge from the debate. It was also mentioned by the right reverend Prelate.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for taking advantage of the debate to tell us about the money advice trust and about the coherence of advice about indebtedness which was planned in the working party. I believe that some very important work was done in this connection. I very much hope that it will contribute towards achieving a better service in the future for this growing problem of indebtedness which is faced by so many of our fellow citizens. Surely it must have the most terrible consequences upon families. We hope that the situation will be improved.
I shall not comment upon any of the other points which were raised in the debate but I should like once again to thank all speakers who have taken part in the debate. I am also most grateful to the Minister for replying in such a courteous way. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House of Fraser
5.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement on the House of Fraser being made by my right honourable

1211
friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I have today published the report of the inspectors appointed under Section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc.
"I should explain to the House that in this matter I have three main responsibilities as Secretary of State:
"First, to decide whether to publish the report. This I have now done, as soon as possible after I was informed by the prosecution authorities that they had withdrawn their objection to publication.
"Secondly, I had to consider whether to apply to the court to disqualify any director under Section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. I have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to do so. Anyone who reads the report can decide for themselves what they think of the conduct of those involved.
"Thirdly, I also have responsibility for decisions on whether to refer mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That responsibility was fully discharged by my predecessor. He had six months from July 1988 in which to consider the finding of the inspectors' report and to decide whether to refer the matter. He concluded in December 1988 that a reference to the MMC would not be appropriate. The House of Lords held that that was a proper decision. I cannot reopen the decision taken at that time. We have since taken steps in the Companies Act 1989 to make it a specific criminal offence for anyone knowingly or recklessly to mislead the competition authorities.
"No other matters require action from me. I have passed the report to all those authorities concerned with enforcement and regulation so that they may consider whether to take action under their various powers."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place. The Statement is fairly extraordinary but it raises any number of questions of which I shall only be able to put a few.
I should first like to know whether the Minister has read the conclusions of the report. The first conclusion reads:
"The Fayeds dishonestly misrepresented their origins, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the Secretary of State, the OFT, the press, the HOF Board and HOF shareholders, and their own advisers".
Can we seriously think that if they had not so dishonestly misrepresented all this they would have been able to take over the House of Fraser? The answer to that question must be no. In which case, is it not the role of government to correct that situation? Further, why have the Government done nothing about it? Secondly, why did the competition
1212
authorities buy all the rubbish which was put out by the Fayeds. After all, according to the report, the DTI, the advisers, the Director General and everyone else bought the story put out by the Fayeds. Why was such a hurried timetable adopted by Mr. Norman Tebbit, who was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time and who decided not to refer the matter? Why did the advisers buy the story? What have Kleinwort Benson and Herbert Smith to say? Have the Government any view on that? What was the Serious Fraud Office doing all this time?
We were told on 3rd April in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, that the report could not be published because,
"the prosecution authorities have told me that their inquiries might have to stop if there were publication now". [Official Report, 3/4/89; col. 898.]
It appears now that there was no case for prosecution. If that is the case, will the noble Lord agree that the unsatisfactory side of this affair is the inability of the Serious Fraud Office to obtain the evidence it was seeking? Is he aware that Mr. John Wood, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, has stated that the team's greatest problem was its inability to get witnesses from abroad to this country? Why then was the SFO team which was carrying out the inquiries reduced from five to two?
I turn to the Statement. What is the "public interest" that the Secretary of State has in mind when he concludes that it would not be in the public interest to apply to the court to disqualify any director under the Company Directors Disqualification Act? To which authorities concerned with enforcement and regulation has he passed the report? What action does he expect those authorities to take?
In order not to be one-sided—because we take no sides on this issue—I wish to ask a further question. Serious allegations have been made in the report about the conduct of private citizens. At the time of the Companies Bill, we discussed the whole question of investigations. I ask the noble Lord what redress these individuals have, about whom these remarks have been made—whether or not they are true I know not—to protect their reputation if this report is published? I believe that it is published under parliamentary privilege. If these individuals have no possibility of redress, is that not a gap in our law which should be corrected?
I could ask thousands more questions but, first, I have to read the report. I have no doubt that we shall come back to it. In the meantime I can only say that I am sad that the Government have treated this major issue which raises major points of interest and company law in a rather cavalier spirit.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too wish to say that I was extremely surprised at the brevity of the Statement. We have now received this report which was put in train on 9th April 1987. It has been with the Government since 1988; it has 752 pages and we are told practically nothing about what the Government wish to do about it.
In addition to the important questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I wish to know

1213
whether the reference to the changes in the Companies Act 1989, with which we have recently been concerned in this House, fully deals with the points raised on pages 10 and 11 of the report. The inspectors specify there the weaknesses in the previous Companies Act to deal with the matters under review. They specify quite a large number of points. Obviously nobody has had time to read the report, let alone go to the legislation. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether all these points are fully covered by the short sentence in the Statement.
I turn to chapter 25 on page 503, which is an indication of the size of this monumental document. We see there a chapter of great interest headed, "Lessons from the Case". It sets out a number of important lessons which affect the financial authorities, the regulatory bodies, relations with the media and so on. That is referred to in the last sentence of the Statement which we have just heard:
"I have passed the report to all those authorities concerned with enforcement and regulation so that they may consider whether to take action …".
That seems to be rather a cavalier way of dealing with these important issues. Do the Government care whether or not they take action? Important points are raised here. Is the Governor of the Bank of England to be asked to get these various bodies together? Will the regulatory bodies be asked to do anything about it, or will it be left entirely to them to decide whether or not they wish to take any not ice?
In conclusion, I am extremely disturbed that a case as unusual as this—which is how it is described in the report—and dealt with as extensively as this, raising so many consequential isues, should have been covered in such a short Statement which raises many large questions still to be answered. I very much hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we shall have the opportunity of returning to this with more time at our disposal.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Ezra, asked me a number of questions. I shall reply to as many of them as I can.
First, on disqualification, under Section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Secretary of State may apply to the court for a disqualification order if he considers:
"that it is expedient in the public interest"
for a disqualification order to be made. My right honourable friend has considered the matter most carefully and has concluded that it would not be in the public interest to seek such an order in this case. Those who read the report can make their own assessment of the conduct of those involved. The provisions of the Act are not intended as a punishment but as a protection for the public.
I should add that the mischiefs identified by the inspectors arose from the way in which the Fayeds acquired House of Fraser Holdings plc, not from the running of the company. Creditors and others can of course inspect the accounts and study the report.
I was asked to which other authorities the report had been passed. It was passed some time ago to the Serious Fraud Office and at about the same time to
1214
the Director of Public Prosecutions and also to the Bank of England, the Takeover Panel, the Inland Revenue, the Office of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Metropolitan Police and most recently to the Law Society, the SIB and the TSA. I have also been asked about the changes that we have implemented since the contents of this report became known to the Government. That was some time ago. Part III of the Companies Act 1989 introduces a number of changes to the investigative system, including some that are recommended by the inspectors.
I was asked about the protection that would be available to those criticised in the report, if that is the way in which they wish to proceed. As the noble Lord will be aware, both sides in the report—if I may describe them thus—were given, in accordance with an undertaking given by my noble friend the then Secretary of State, sight of the report three days in advance of its publication. That enabled them to take legal action to prevent publication if they thought fit. None of them thought fit to do so.
6 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I must say that the Statement seems too relaxed, bearing in mind the nature of the report in front of us. Fortunately that can be rectified. This is a first reaction and I have no doubt that after comments have been made in both Houses actions can be taken and extra thought given to the matter.
I would not be altogether happy if my friend relies only on the extra safeguards that he says are likely to be put in the Companies Act. There must be something a little more definite than that. My noble friend may not have the authority to do so this afternoon but perhaps as early as possible the Government ought to indicate that they have other steps in mind that they intend to take.
The key paragraph is contained in chapter 2 on page 23. It states:
"We see no reason to find any fault with the conduct of the Director General of Fair Trading and his staff in connection with the inquiries they made into the Fayeds' offer for HOF in 1984–85. It is, we hope, rare for deception of regulatory authorities to be practised on such a grand scale. They relied on what the Fayeds and their advisers"—
I emphasise the word "advisers"—
"were telling them which they tested to the extent which their resources permitted".
I particularly draw the attention of my noble friend to chapter 25 of the report which raises issues which need to be considered by the Office of Fair Trading if it is to feel safe in relying on assurances by advisers on future occasions.
On my first reading of part of the report—that is as much as I have been able to do so far—it seems to me to state that government departments are given a reasonably clear bill of health; that the Office of Fair Trading has been given a completely clear bill of health, but that the advisers upon whom they relied, Kleinwort Benson and its solicitor, Mr. Herbert Smith, were presumed to have made the necessary investigations in depth in order to give a fair description of the company. I hope that at this early stage my noble friend can indicate that steps

1215
will be taken to ensure that in future it will be possible to strengthen the responsibilities of advisers, be they banks, solicitors or any other body.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. However, I believe the responsibility for the conduct of professional advisers such as merchant banks and solicitors does not necessarily rest with the Government. It is the Law Society which governs the conduct of solicitors and it is the Bank of England which governs the conduct of banks. The Bank of England received a copy of the report some time ago and the Law Society received a copy today. It is for those bodies to decide what action they need to take in the light of the report's findings. My noble friend is also quite right to point out that the propositions that the Fayed brothers made about their wealth to the authorities were supported fully by their professional advisers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have one or two quesions to ask. Would the report have been published but for the extreme pressure which was brought on the Government by Mr. Rowland and Lonrho? The impression is abroad that the Government would have liked to shove this report under the carpet. I hope the Minister can give me an assurance that that is not the case. Further, does not the Minister also agree that it was deplorable that a spokesman for the Al Fayeds should seek today in the media to cast doubt upon the findings of the report and therefore upon the integrity of the inspectors who conducted the investigation and issued the report?
Should it not now be understood—I know these are harsh words—and should the Government not make it understood—that anyone who shops at or does business with Harrods or any other House of Fraser establishment is dealing with proven liars and cheats? Under those circumstances would not the public interest be properly protected if the Secretary of State decided, as he may so decide, that the Al Fayeds were not fit and proper persons to remain directors of the House of Fraser? Why does the Secretary of State not do something along those lines? Will the Minister also inform the House about the position of Harrods' bank, as banking needs to be under the control of people of the utmost honesty and probity? Should not the Bank of England withdraw its authorisation from Harrods' bank under those circumstances?
I also wish to ask the Minister about Kleinwort Benson, whose name has been mentioned in the report and in the questions that have been asked so far. It seems that, to say the least, that company was lax in its inquiries about the Al Fayeds. Will the Government give an assurance that that firm will not in future be employed by them to give them advice on privatisation, or anything else for that matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as regards publication of the report, the noble Lord may recall that my noble friend the former Secretary of State said in this House that he was most anxious to publish the
1216
report and was only prevented from doing so because the prosecuting authorities were still pursuing their inquiries. That was certainly the position of my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State. He published the report the moment it was possible to do so in the view of the prosecuting authorities. They withdrew their objection to publication during the course of last week and the report was published as soon as possible thereafter.
As regards the disqualification of the directors, I cannot usefully add to what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, earlier, that diqualification is designed as a protection for existing shareholders in particular and not as a punishment. Therefore my right honourable friend reached the conclusion that he did.
As regards Harrods' bank, that is an important matter but it is strictly a matter for the Bank of England and not for the Government. Similarly the position of Kleinwort Benson, the merchant bankers involved in the case, is not a matter for the Government but for the regulatory authorities in that case, which again is principally the Bank of England.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister said that disqualification is designed for the protection of shareholders. But surely he must see that the shareholders of Harrods and of the House of Fraser are in grave danger from the kind of persons we have been discussing.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, but they are principally the Al Fayed brothers themselves.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before I say anything, I wish to emphasise what my noble friend Lord Williams said; namely, that no one, if that is the appropriate phrase, wishes to take sides in this rather sordid matter. Having said that, I should tell the House how mystified I am by these proceedings, the Statement and the report itself. My noble friend Lord Williams quoted paragraph 2.1.1 of the report. That paragraph, which comes under the heading "General Conclusions", states:
"The Fayeds dishonestly misrepresented their origins, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the Secretary of State, the OFT, the Press, the HOF Board and HOF shareholders, and their own advisers".
Paragraph 2.1.2 states:
"During the course of our investigations we received evidence from the Fayeds, under solemn affirmation and in written memoranda, which was false and which the Fayeds knew to be false. In addition, the Fayeds produced a set of documents they knew to be false. This false evidence related mainly, but not exclusively, to their background, their past business activities and the way in which they came to be in control of enormous funds in the autumn of 1984 and the spring of 1985".
The Statement says that the public will be able to draw their own conclusions from the description of the conduct of these parties, as shown in the report. I am mystified for the following reason. If there is not absolutely conclusive evidence of the dreadful findings and accusations stated in paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, it is a dreadful thing that inspectors should put them in the report in this way and in this damning fashion. That would be quite unforgivable

1217
if there was not conclusive evidence. As the Statement says, the public will draw their own conclusions from the conduct revealed in this report.
If, on the other hand, there is conclusive evidence, as there must be before responsible inspectors make this kind of conclusion without any qualification, where in the name of heaven is our criminal law? The report says that under solemn affirmation evidence was given which was false and which the Fayeds knew to be false. Where is our law of perjury? The report goes on to say that documents were presented which the Fayeds knew to be false and which we assume led to their taking over one of our national institutions. Is there no criminal law to deal with that?
If there is, I ask the Minister what is the state of our criminal law. If there is not conclusive evidence, how unfair that these remarks, comments and conclusions should be made in the report in such a definite way.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly quoted from the summary of the report which appears in the opening pages. As he himself recognises, the report is 700 or so pages long and goes into great detail on some of the matters which the noble Lord mentioned.
Regarding the criminal law, as I have said, certain changes have been made in the Companies Act which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I discussed last year. They come into effect on 1st April. I agree that the report presents some very grave matters indeed. However, the question of prosecution is not a matter for Ministers, it is a matter for the prosecuting authorities.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before any noble Lord continues perhaps I may point out that we now have a firm limit of 20 minutes after my noble friend's first reply. Will noble Lords please keep their comments and questions as brief as is called for in the rules of order of this House?
Lord Marsh: Would the Minister be prepared to suggest to his noble friend the Leader of the House that it would be reasonable for this House to have an opportunity to debate this unique situation at greater length?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not a matter for me but for the usual channels. I dare say that it will be discussed in those channels in due course.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am concerned about the role of the Government in the issue. It has taken a long time for the report to be published, despite constant pressure. It is a very lame excuse that it has apparently taken 18 months for the prosecuting authorities to release the Department of Trade and Industry to publish it. As my noble friend Lord Mishcon has asked from the Front Bench—and the Minister has not answered him—what is happening to our prosecuting services if the matter takes so long?
1218
I should like to return to the mystery story that my noble friend Lord Williams told us at the outset. How is it that all those people and organisations were taken in by the story of the Al Fayeds? Why were the Government and the DTI taken in? I should like to quote my noble friend, Lord Bruce of Donington, who, on 28th November last (at col. 401 of Hansard, gave what may be an explanation of the mystery story. He accused the Government of:
"running to the Sultan of Brunei in January and February 1985, as a result of which 5 billion dollars passed across the exchanges in support of the pound, followed in some mysterious circumstances by unusual permission to acquire Harrods being given to the person holding power of attorney for the Sultan of Brunei".
That accusation has not been answered. It was not answered in that debate and it has not been answered since. My noble friend Lord Bruce pointed out that he was seeking an answer and if that answer was not forthcoming we should return to the matter. This is an opportunity for the noble Lord to answer that accusation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am quite ready to say that that accusation is quite without foundation.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should like to comment, as a full-time working director in the City and a former director of Kleinwort Benson, although not at the time when these events occurred. Does the Minister not accept that the Statement is totally inadequate and will be seen in the City as very depressing? In the City there is considerable confusion about what is now proper behaviour and what is not proper behaviour. The Government must give a firm lead and not leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. We want the Government to state their conclusions very firmly to the City in order to give a lead.
Perhaps I may make a second, more general, point about the circumstances in which this matter arose. These people were able to perpetrate the deception because of the circumstances which now exist in the City in which advisers take on clients they have not met before and, in particular, the present rules for takeovers enable a takeover to operate very rapidly, especially in the case of a cash takeover. That is what happened in this case. I do not wish to defend the advisers, but they certainly had very little time to discover a great deal about the individuals concerned. Should there not be a further review of the takeover rules and code with a view to tightening up the rules?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if changes are to be made to the takeover rules that is a matter for the Takeover Panel, which has received a copy of the report and can make whatever changes it considers appropriate.
Concerning the noble Lord's first point, I believe that professional advisers, whether they be merchant bankers or solicitors, have a duty to ascertain that the undertakings that their clients give are properly substantiated. If they are not in a position to make the necessary verification they should find means to ensure that they do so.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it is quite clear from the report and from the Statement flowing from the report that
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, on a point of order, is there no one who can protect the business of the day? This is not the business of the day. If we are to have a debate let us have a debate, but a Statement should not dislodge the business of the day.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the rule is 20 minutes. If my noble friend is very brief my noble friend the Minister will be able to reply. If he is less than brief the Minister will not be able to reply.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the report and the Statement flowing from the report make it absolutely plain that deceit was practised deliberately with the firm purpose of acquiring a controlling interest in a major British company? I fail to understand why it is not in the public interest that the holders of the shares should be compelled to divest themselves of the interest in those shares, just as the prosecuting authority ordered in another case.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if my noble friend will sit down now my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a very brief reply.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dealt with the question of the possible disqualification of the directors concerned in an earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and others and I have nothing to add.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords,—
Noble Lords: Next business!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip if he is interpreting the recommendations of the Procedure Committee as a firm rule rather than as a recommendation? Will he therefore in future always close down debate on a Statement at the end of 20 minutes after the reply has been made to the Front Benches?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. That is the agreement of the Procedure Committee and the leaders and Whips.

NHS: Pressures on Staff
6.20 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to call attention to the pressures on the staff of the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have for almost two decades been closely associated with the Confederation of Health Service Employees. In consequence, I have become pretty well known by
1220
and have known very well the other great national health organisations representing practically all staff. The list is quite formidable. I have been approached by the College of Speech Therapists, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors Association, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Midwives, all of whose members are experiencing grave pressure together with tension and anxiety which in some cases is bringing about a collapse among staff.
All the leaders of those great organisations within our National Health Service have echoed and agree with the words of the General Secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, Mr. Hector McKenzie, when he said that, after 40 years of successful operation, it would be complacent and foolish to believe that the National Health Service would not benefit from some form of reform. Improvements must always be sought for the efficiency and effectiveness of health care and the effectiveness of the service itself. That approach has been accepted by all the organisations that I have mentioned, so it is not just a silly, stupid, anti-government attitude. If they were not concerned about the stress experienced by their members and the tension under which their members work, they would not be worth their salt.
The Confederation of Health Service Employees covers nurses, midwives, ambulance personnel, all ancillary staff, mental health nursing staff and other ward personnel. Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care recommends that there should be a Minister for community care, but the White Paper Caring for People does not say that. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate will tell us why there is no Minister for community care and why—this is a serious point—the plight of young district nurses in relation to post-operation responsibilities is now becoming exceeding difficult.
The Confederation of Health Service Employees welcomes that part of the White Paper which establishes clear responsibility for all people requiring care and support, but it is impossible to fulfil that obligation without sufficient funds. The Confederation simply says therefore "Give us the tools. We have the inspiration and we shall do the job".
The Royal College of Nursing and the Confederation of Health Service Employees believe that poor medical equipment is still extant, that there is inadequate overtime compensation for nurses and—I find this point very moving—that there is a lack of support for nurses in their other capacity as mothers. I hope that that point will be considered.
The Royal College of Nursing set up a working group to consider the issues concerning our nurses in the National Health Service. It found that certain key areas lead to increased pressures on nursing staff. The Royal College is also perturbed at the fact that patient throughput has drastically increased. In consequence, according to the Royal College of

1221
Nursing, deaths and discharges have increased from 5,400,000 in 1979 to 6·5 million in 1988–89. Many patients are therefore in hospital for a shorter time and are sometimes pushed out almost as ill as they came in in order to fit in with the Government's scheme of abolishing care and compassion and of saving money. That great Christian ideal of the National Health Sevice is now under attack from the Administration. The RSM says that that places great demands and increases pressures on nurses. The more difficult things and more poignant things they have to do increases the pressure. The RSM also says that, as patients leave hospital more quickly due to a desire to increase throughput, in consequence stress on community care becomes very heavy.
It is very distressing to have to read something which we can perhaps never understand. A young nurse or doctor may have been looking after a patient in hospital after an operation. That is where the work of the nurse is fundamental; but, because of that policy, the patient may be turned out and may then die. The Royal College of Nursing and the Confederation of Health Service Employees tell me that that is a most shameful effect in this day and age and in this country. When the person who operated on the patient and the person who nursed and comforted him realise that he is dead, it has an effect on the young person whom we call a British nurse.
The Royal College also believes that recruitment and training under that system is in jepoardy, yet every 1 per cent. reduction in the wastage of qualified nursing staff would save the National Health Service over £100 million a year. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will note that point. Many qualified nurses leave the job. They do not want to be nurses any more. They are saddened by and fed up with their sufferings. If we can stop 1 per cent. resigning, that will save £100 million a year. I beg that the voices of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and of the Royal College of Nursing should be heeded.
I now turn to the difficult question of the opting out of hospitals in accordance with the Government's two-part strategy to commercialise the National Health Service. The internal market competition plus the existence of independent suppliers will create havoc. All the great organisations believe that the proposal is undemocratic. It reduces patient choice and quality of care. Our National Health Service will no longer be a national service. How many people in each hospital will decide whether to go outside the NHS? The general public have a right to know who will make the decision when a hospital decides to go outside the NHS. The great organisations as well as ordinary people claim that they have a right to know who will make those decisions.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that there is no question of a self-governing hospital acting outside the NHS? It will not move outside the NHS. Just because the noble Lord said it three times does not mean to say
1222
that it is true. It is not true. Those hospitals will stay within the National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said. I now have to decide between what he has just said and what the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said. And there is the recent episode in Guy's Hospital. Perhaps it may help if I read out a statement made by Professor Harry Keen of Guy's Hospital, which was widely reported.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: No, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: What is wrong with being Professor Harry Keen?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, Professor Keen has been a life-long member of the Labour Party and has communist connections and he is therefore very much opposed to these changes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I have been in Parliament for a quarter of a century and that is the most distasteful and disgusting statement that I have ever heard. If anyone in my party were to say, "He has been a member of the Tory Party" it would be a shameful thing to say. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been elected to any office in this parliament but I have never heard any noble Lord say to me that something said is invalid because he is a Member of the Labour Party or the SDP or a Liberal—a member of any party. I have not heard that said before in a very long time.
Let me go on to make my point. It was reported that there was secret junketing at luxury hotels in London. To speed NHS hospitals—and let me say it slowly—to opt out of local authority control (I do not expect an answer from the Minister immediately although I expect the matter to be investigated) at a cost of £20,000 per meeting without knowledge of hospital staff or doctors involved. The Government refused to publish any agenda, minutes or costs involved.
I want to know who did the organising for that junketing. This has infuriated distinguished members of the medical profession, like Professor Harry Keen, who is also chairman of the NHS Support Federation and a consultant at Guy's Hospital. Is it an offence to be chairman of the NHS Support Federation? Is it an offence to be a member of the Labour Party and be a consultant at Guy's Hospital? Thank God! This is not yet a communist country. I am bound to say that all this is somewhat redolent of government inspired hints of some form of corruption or at least sharp practice.
I ask the Government to investigate exactly how such things happened? Are they in point of fact truthful and accurate, as I have stated them? There is enough evidence, I submit, that they are worthy of investigation. In opting out, I believe that there will be an agonising choice. Who will be responsible for the staff? Who will be responsible for the cash? Who will be answerable if there is a shortage of both when that opting out takes place?

1223
If, after opting out, there is no profit, will the hospital be closed down? Will there be competition to win business? Will those hospitals specialise in rich patients and compete for business? There will be a danger of cutting the umbilical cord between professional staff at all levels, management and the Government. Will Whitley Council agreements be abandoned? Despite the great professional service to staff and patients, it would be a sad day if the organsiations could not work together under the principles of the Whitley Council. Can universal and equal care always be available when needed? That is another fundamental principle.
I also believe that there is a danger in the two-tier system. Those hospitals which cannot opt out will become cheap and nasty. Will desperation, pain, illness, fear of illness and worry be allowed to work their way through our National Health Service and into the homes of many ordinary people? I believe that there is a very serious risk of jettisoning the superb organisation that we have for consultation between members of staff and officials in the National Health Service and indeed members of the Government.
Many people say to me that what they find remarkable, if not distasteful, is that so much of this conversation does not go on under the auspices of Mr. Kenneth Clarke in the Department of Health. It all goes on in 10 Downing Street. We want to know why.
The BMA claims to have evidence of enormous opposition to the government reforms of the National Health Service. I do not for one moment believe that every single member of the British Medical Association is a member of a political party, let alone a member of the Conservative or Tory Party. I know them too well. They are too much involved in their great medical association which is world renowned. It conducted a poll in which 71 per cent. of those asked showed disapproval of the Government's attitude to the National Health Service and to their White Papers. The chairman of the British Medical Council, Dr. John Marks—who may be a bad person in some people's eyes but I do not believe that he is—said that the Government should recognise that those untried ideas were very unpopular. That is a moderate statement. He simply wants to know whether the Government will recognise or test how these things are making people unhappy.
Like COHSE and the BMA the Royal College of Psychiatrists say that Working for Patients is an admirable and superb document, but that its interpretation is causing stress and strain. There are doubts about the practicability. It was devised in Downing Street and not at the Department of Health. There is a dangerous deregulation of NHS hospitals. The Royal College of Psychiatrists say that training and research is ignored. Last July it met Mr. Clarke who said that very little could be done but that brochures would be issued. As the Royal College says: man cannot live by brochures alone. It is of the opinion that psychiatric patients need extra care and to enjoy extra protection from the Mental Health Act Commission and the Health Advisory Service.
1224
For the mentally ill the national development board together with the present existing arrangements under the Mental Health Act must work together and be assisted financially. Local authorities do not provide "out of hour" services. That contravenes the code of practice of the Mental Health Act. There is also a need for sheltered housing.
Another organisation with which I have had a great deal of contact is the Health Visitors' Association. It consists of very remarkable people who are devoted—just as are our surgeons, doctors and midwives—to serving our National Health Service. They are concerned at the reductions in staff levels, which result in the threat of health visitors' services being closed. In January this year Greenwich Health Authority suspended all routine health visiting services. The health authorities are not recruiting staff; rather, they are trimming back health visiting services. That is causing great strain and stress among the members of the Health Visitors' Association. Their heavy workloads are increasing, as is what they term burn-out, which results in high staff turnover. They also believe that there is a danger of this act, which is being encouraged by government and some local authorities, being a breach of professional conduct. They want these matters to be looked at. I do not think that that is a great deal to ask the Minister. I hope that he will look into these questions.
The Government want doctors and nurses to be able to cost every single service which they provide right down to the last bedpan. The doctors and nurses say that that is what the Government really want, and that it is a hopeless task to undertake. They want hospitals to be run by a board of directors. They want to get rid of national agreements on pay and conditions of staff. I believe that that would be an absurdity. All the organisations believe it also.
The Government want to create an internal market in which hospitals sell their services to health authorities. People working in the National Health Service believe that that is the last thing that is wanted. Members of all the professions who devote their lives and skills to the NHS realise, as do their patients, that silent pain evokes no response. For that reason they are speaking up now and asking for attention.
Those great organisations make no massive demands. They say merely that they are apprehensive, and they speak with great experience and speak fairly. However, they and I are afraid that we could be witnessing the evaporation of our civilised sense of compassion. That sense of compassion was the envy of the world when Aneurin Bevan created the National Health Service. I hope that it will always be the envy of the world and that other countries will follow. When the British undertake something of such calibre—as in the creation of the NHS—not only does it uplift the spirits of the British people but it becomes an example to all mankind.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, when commenting on the problems which continually beset the National Health Service, members of my

1225
profession are all too often accused of purveying unjustifiable doom and gloom. That is so especially when discussing the recurring financial problems and the seemingly insurmountable difficulties associated with the unremitting pressures upon the staff of the service—the topic which is the theme of our debate.
Whether any of those problems will be alleviated by the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is a matter of opinion but the Bill is soon to be debated in your Lordships' House. It would not be proper to consider its detailed proposals today. However, while it contains many provisions which I would warmly welcome, there are others about which I have substantial reservations.
I am one of the many in this country who gladly acknowledge the outstanding achievements of the NHS, especially in the field of emergency care. It is a system of health care delivery operating alongside an expanding private health care system with which it can, if both are properly managed, develop a healthy partnership of mutual benefit. The NHS system is one which I personally prefer to that which exists in many other countries which I have visited and worked in, including especially the United States of America. I visit that country regularly and there is no doubt that, while many aspects of its health care system are superb, many are at present in total disarray. I also fully acknowledge that Her Majesty's Government are now devoting more financial resources to the NHS than did any of their predecessors and that more patients are being treated.
Why is it then that health authorities throughout the country are facing substantial financial deficits in the current financial year which they see no prospect of recouping, even within the increased financial allocation recently announced for the coming year? In consequence authorities such as those in Newcastle upon Tyne and our near neighbour at St. Thomas's Hospital—to quote but two of the many examples—have been compelled to announce substantial bed closures with an inevitable consequential decline in patient care and in the clinical teaching facilities available to the doctors and nurses of tomorrow. And why is it that there are still junior hospital doctors throughout the country who are contracted to work unacceptably long hours, some still involving one-in-two rotas?
The first question is easily answered. Many noble Lords will believe that I am simply repeating, parrot-like, views which have been constantly expressed over many years by members of my profession to governments of all political persuasions. But the evidence is irrefutable: despite its rapidly escalating costs the service has for many years been, I fear, chronically under-funded. It gives wonderful value for money but when we spend only 6 per cent. of our gross national product on health—the figure is quite unacceptable—compared, for example, with about 9 per cent. in France and Germany and 12 per cent. in the United States, it is not surprising that the service is unable to meet the increasing demands and public expectations imposed upon it.
1226
Report after report from the Royal colleges and faculties, which have examined the need for patient services and increased staffing in a wide range of specialities in medicine, have identified serious shortages of consultant posts and of the facilities which burgeoning developments in medical science require and which our patients may justly feel that they deserve. Of course, no developed country, however wealthy it may be and whatever its economic success, can ever hope to provide a fully comprehensive health service offering openly all that medicine and medical science can provide completely free of charge and funded entirely from direct taxation.
But when in this country one enumerates just a few of the remarkable developments in patient care which modern medical science has wrought in a few years—including, for example, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging; kidney, lung, liver and heart transplantation; joint replacement; the crushing of gallstones and kidney stones without surgery; the increasingly effective chemotherapy of many forms of cancer; and the use of DNA recombinant technology in the diagnosis and prevention of inherited disease, all of which are complex, time-consuming and very expensive—it is not surprising that, faced with those competing demands, many health authorities, recognising as they must the need to define priorities when allocating resources, are bewildered, even bemused, by the necessity of having to make painful choices between so many worthy alternatives.
One must also add to that every-growing list the needs of a rapidly growing cohort of elderly people, imposing increasing demands upon the service in our hospitals and in the community; the obvious need to improve the facilities necessary in order to offer screening programmes for cancer prevention and for the care and rehabilitation of handicapped and disabled people; and the very reasonable expectations of the public, some of which are being increasingly reinforced by the threat of legal action if the facilities requested are withheld. They all impose increasing demands upon the service and its staff which cannot at present be met.
I should like to quote only a few examples and first mention my speciality. In the UK there are 178 consultant neurologists practically all of whom carry a totally unacceptable workload of clinical care and responsibility. That is one-twentieth the number of consultant neurologists per unit of the population available in the United States. Even Finland, with a population of 4·5 million, has 400 neurologists. A similar pattern exists in neuro-surgery and in innumerable other specialities in the UK.
In many parts of the country the number of, for instance, cytologists, cyto-geneticists and medical laboratory scientific officers available to examine cervical smears or to help in the pre-natal diagnosis of Down's syndrome, to mention only two examples, are inadequate to cope with the workload.
Of course the list is endless and I accept that the solution is not at all easy to find, especially when staff in all grades, and recently medical secretaries, are being lost to the service in increasing numbers

1227
as a result of the infinitely greater financial rewards they can command in the private sector.
In the face of such a situation it was somewhat less than helpful to read a few days ago that, if he was quoted correctly, the Secretary of State suggested that this year over-spending by health authorities has been due to mismanagement. In fact, financial allocations have failed to supplement fully nationally agreed salary increases for all grades of staff or to take full account of inflationary price increases. Repeatedly, health authorities have been told to find the shortfall from so-called efficiency savings, just as they have so often been told to find the much-needed funding for additional consultant posts, all too few in number, from within their existing resources. And, of course, the unremitting pressures upon junior medical staff in our hospitals simply cannot be relieved by any trick of administrative sleight of hand when the clinical work is there to be done and ongoing responsibility for patient care must be shouldered.
Of course, the problem could be met if the number of junior medical staff could be increased to share the load or if, above all, consultant numbers could be increased so substantially that a greater share of the on-call and emergency duty could be assumed by consultants rather than their juniors. We must all acknowledge that the ability to work long hours when necessary and to offer continuity of clinical care to sick people is an essential part of the training and experience of young doctors. However, such prolonged periods of unremitting responsibility must not occur too frequently and must be compensated by adequate periods of rest and relaxation if powers of concentration and working efficiency in the face of all the arduous demands of modern medicine are to be maintained.
The problem cannot be solved by increasing the numbers of registrars and senior registrars. For as long as overall consultant numbers in the service are unfortunately constrained in the face of increasing demand through financial stringency and lack of facilities, registrars must be reasonably assured of being able to succeed eventually to a consultant vacancy.
Recent surveys and my own personal experience have clearly demonstrated that NHS consultants are for the most part working much longer hours than the hours for which they are contracted. If their numbers were very substantially increased and the facilities were available for them to carry out the work which they have been trained to do, I know that they would willingly do what they could to reduce the hours being worked by their juniors. An increase in the number of registrars being trained to fill the increased consultant vacancies then available would follow with further sharing of the clinical load.
Therefore, whatever the outcome of our forthcoming debates on the NHS Bill, I am afraid that in the end it comes down to a question of money. We need many more consultants as well as staff in non-medical grades in our NHS. Health authorities need to be able to plan ahead with an assurance from central government that nationally agreed salary increases will be fully supplemented,
1228
as will the inflationary price increases for food and supplies.
In my view it is essential that some of the increased financial allocations, for which I recognise fully that the Secretary of State has had to fight very hard should be made available to fund much needed new developments instead of being used simply to plug the yawning gaps which some previous chronic underfunding has created. A new baseline or starting point is, I believe, necessary.
I know full well how bitterly the Treasury is opposed to any form of earmarking of income from taxes, but how I wish that we could have an index-linked income-related health tax to establish a much firmer financial infrastructure for our service. I believe that, if fully informed, the British public, who are deeply concerned about the NHS, might well accept that. Can we not find a means of revitalising the technique of funding, both in the short term and long term, our much-loved National Health Service in order to relieve the pressures which for many years the staff have shouldered cheerfully and willingly? I fear that the signs of growing frustration leading all too often to the resignation or early retirement of invaluable members of staff are all too readily evident at present.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, two subjects have been debated in your Lordships' House on frequent occasions over the past decade or so. One is the National Health Service and the other is transport. I do not believe that your Lordships' House need make any apologies for that because they are both vital subjects.
The wording of this Motion poses a number of difficulties because I venture to suggest that ever since 1948 when the National Health Service came into being there have been pressures on it. Admittedly today we are treating some 50 million people under our National Health Service, and when tourists come here that number is frequently increased. Therefore, I believe that when we consider this Motion we must put those figures into perspective.
We have here two problems: diagnosis and cure. It is not difficult to diagnose pressures on staff in the National Health Service. It is not difficult to diagnose pressures in many walks of life nowadays. Cure is much harder. There are pleas for more money to be injected into the National Health Service. I do not quarrel with that but I believe it is fair to point out that more money is now being injected into the National Health Service than at any other time and more patients are being treated. The real problem is where that money is going. That is one of the problems which we shall debate when the legislation on the White Paper is before your Lordships' House in the next few months. I do not propose this evening to embark upon a discussion on the White Paper. I believe that that is for much closer discussion and scrutiny which your Lordships' House will have a duty on all sides to give to that White Paper.
In the 31 years which I have spent in your Lordships' House I shudder to think how many

1229
Royal Commissions, Blue Papers and Yellow Papers there have been on the health service, chaired by very distinguished and well-meaning people. The real tragedy is that, under all governments, not a great deal always emanates from that. I believe it is fair to say that in 1990 all parties are committed to the National Health Services. I do not believe that there can be any argument about that. Like most noble Lords, I have family concerned with the National Health Service. My youngest daughter is a staff nurse and I had an uncle who was secretary of Kingston Hospital when the National Health Service came into being. I am the president of the friends of our local hospital in Surrey. In fact, I should have been at a meeting there this afternoon but I felt that this debate was more important.
I was interested in the observations which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made about Finland because that is a country of which I have some parliamentary knowledge, and I am involved in non-financial business there. I have visited no fewer than five hospitals in Finland: two in Helsinki, one in Tampere, one in Rovaniemi, and one in Kemijärvi. I was with a parliamentary delegation to Kemijärvi. We asked about certain pressures there. There were some 35,000 people on the waiting lists. There was a 12-month waiting list for a hernia because there is a big paper mill nearby. There are the usual problems of a place which is 300 or 400 miles from the capital city as regards referrals. Requests are made for referrals to Rovaniemi but in fact cases are referred to Helsinki.
I have been to Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. I always make it my duty, if I can, to visit a hospital in those countries to see what happens and to try to talk over some of the problems and pressures they have. I believe it is true to say that there is not a country in the world where there are not pressures on the health service. There are staff shortages, nursing shortages and, not so much in the cities but in the rural areas, shortages of doctors because everybody likes to gravitate to the capital city.
I do not believe that that problem is necessarily confined to this country. However, turning to this country, I recently visited one of the leading London teaching hospitals in the company of the head of the anaesthesia department of that hospital. We found some disturbing factors there. The dialysis unit is threatened with partial closure because it cannot obtain trained staff. There is a shortage of technicians—I think that is the correct word—for the operating theatres and operating lists have had to be cut. Those are some of the problems experienced by a London teaching hospital. In the district hospitals the situation is more serious. Again, the diagnosis is easy; the solution is much more difficult.
I should like to put to my noble friend the Minister a question of which I have given notice; it specifically concerns teaching hospitals. The cost of housing in London and the South East is very high—that remark may be a masterpiece of simplicity. However, housing costs are a positive disincentive to finding staff, particularly those who are married with young children. Perhaps the Government could look
1230
seriously into this problem, because I believe that waiting lists could be cut if staff could be found. It is not an easy matter. There are professions other than the health service which have similar problems.
Health is vital. I believe it is absolutely essential that something is done to prevent the shortage of trained technicians in, for example, kidney dialysis units. I speak with some experience because three years ago I had my gall bladder removed, under the health service, in my local district hospital. I was in hospital for nine days. At the same time my brother had a kidney transplant in Glasgow Royal Infirmary. He was in hospital for seven days. Those in this House who are doctors will know full well how long we would have been in hospital 10 years ago. We therefore have to see in proportion the considerable advance in techniques in medical treatment, the many more people being treated and the pressures which are put on the doctors, technicians and nurses as a result of the need to master new equipment. That is where the pressures lie, and they will lie there under any government.
It is very unfortunate that the health service has become embroiled in the cockpit of party politics. I have always felt that. It is inevitable, but it is sad because one party can vie with another as to the number of hospitals it will build and how many nurses it will recruit, but the old lady waiting for her hip replacement operation will not thank a Labour Government, a Conservative Government or any other government if politicians squabble. We are all to blame.
It is all too easy to diagnose pressures and analyse why they exist. One only needs to walk round a hospital to recognise them, let alone work in it or be a patient. Last year there was a television series concerning two hospitals in Portsmouth which showed the enormous strains under which the junior doctors worked. I hope that the review of junior doctors' working hours is carried out rapidly. Again, it is not an easy problem to solve. It is easy to diagnose, but not so easy to cure. However, it is a matter of urgency.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that the cures are not easy, but unless something is done with regard to waiting lists and recruiting suitable staff for these hospitals the problems will escalate.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I rise to speak as one of the National Health Service hospital patients who has not yet died, despite the harrowing conditions so graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. I say to the noble Lord at once that I experienced those conditions and will return to them in a moment.
It is the first time in my experience in a debate such as this that I have found more speakers below the line on the speakers' list than above it. There are reasons for that. In this Chamber we have debated the National Health Service so often recently that noble Lords are reluctant—and rightly so in my opinion—to rise and repeat the same points over again. I share that reluctance and shall try not to err in that direction.

1231
That dilemma should not be regarded as implying any criticism of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has been indefatigable in raising the problems of National Health Service staff, particularly nursing staff, but we are now asked to look at the problems of all staff. They all have problems and all work under intense pressure. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, implied, in the early years the National Health Service only kept going because of the dedication and devotion to duty of its staff, who were under intense pressures in those days. However, times have changed. I suspect that dedication to duty alone is no longer an adequate motivation for the maintenance of the service as we would wish to see it.
I do not intend to say anything about the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, save that uncertainty about its provisions has been and is being demoralising to all staff, particularly as many of them do not have much say in how the provisions of the Bill are to be implemented. For example, the decision as to whether a hospital is to opt for self-governing status rests almost wholly with senior consultants. They are probably the people who know best, but the outcome of a decision to opt out or stay in is, in my opinion, likely to be very much better if all staff play some part in the decision process.
As many noble Lords know, I recently spent some time in one of our major teaching hospitals, the Manchester Royal Infirmary, where I was trained and in which I had a carcinoma removed—successfully, I hope—and treatment for a neuralgic condition, which condition has left me with a minor speech defect, in respect of which I crave noble Lords' indulgence.
The Manchester Royal Infirmary has no choice but to opt for self-governing status. That is my opinion. I may be wrong; I have been wrong before. I was wrong when I said to your Lordships three years ago that the best way to improve morale in the National Health Service was once again to appoint a single Minister of Cabinet rank to be responsible for the health service and nothing else. We now have one, but morale has not gone up; it has gone down. I have been wrong before and I may be wrong this time.
The Manchester Royal Infirmary—a hospital with a wonderful history—has produced some outstanding people; Sir Geoffrey Jefferson, Sir Harry Platt, the late Lord Platt, and many people who have made a major contribution to medicine. However, the hospital at the moment looks like a battlefield. The old and dilapidated hospital is being demolished while the new one is erected within it. Because of staff shortages and other difficulties all sorts of odd devices are employed to get by. For example, they have things called "week-day wards". I was in one. It is a ward where everybody is sent home on Friday, if they are fit to be sent home, and then brought back on Monday. If they are not fit to go home they are put in another ward for the weekend—a ward where no one knows anything about them at all. I
1232
was left on my own in splended isolation with no one within 100 yards of me.
I was not receiving preferential treatment. I do not believe that I ever do receive it. Indeed, it might be useful if I told your Lordships of my wife's experience many years ago when she attended a National Health Service hospital for a minor operation. She was in a National Health Service bed. I was a Member in another place at the time. A battleaxe of a hospital sister told my wife, "Mrs. Winstanley, it is no good expecting special privileges because your husband is an MP". Quite rightly my wife said, "I would not dream of asking for them". About two hours later the same battleaxe of a sister came to my wife and said. "Oh, Mrs. Winstanley, I did not know that your husband was a doctor. We are putting you in a side ward". Surely that says something about the pecking order in the National Health Service!
My experiences in hospital have left me with the impression that all staff are under intense pressure and that morale might be better if so-called junior staff had a little more say in what is happening now and what will happen under the Bill when it becomes an Act. We have that extraordinary example of a ward being emptied at the weekend, with patients being put into another ward. The nurses loathed it. I am not suggesting that it could be avoided. That hospital, as I said, is in a terrible situation. I believe that it could be restored to a different situation but—and this is my personal opinion—it will need to opt for self-governing status. That is an argument for another occasion.
I return specifically to staff. We have spent much time in your Lordships' House debating the Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—the Junior Hospital Doctors (Regulation of Hours) Bill. A fat lot of good that did us, or indeed the junior doctors. Frankly, the situation is unchanged though I understand that there is hope on the horizon. I am told that a conference is to be held for all interested parties sometime before Easter. I believe that that conference has been announced by Mrs. Bottomley. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will be able to say a little more about the conference and whether we may hope for any solution.
I recall the late Lord Trafford saying not long ago in this House that there was no reason for junior hospital doctors to work these absurd hours and if they did the fault lay with the consultants. Lord Trafford was wrong. The consultants could help but the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is absolutely right that there are not enough consultants. Unless we have more, that problem of ever-lengthening junior hospital doctors' hours will remain with us virtually for all time.
When the noble Baroness gives the House some news on that aspect perhaps she can also say something about the present situation in regard to the recruitment of hospital social workers. These are very important people indeed. I remember raising the matter in this House with one of the predecessors of the noble Baroness, when hospital social workers were not being recruited because of a dispute between the Department of Health and the various

1233
local authority associations regarding an agreement about sharing of costs. Where are we now in that regard? Unless we recruit and retain sufficient hospital social workers there is no doubt at all in my mind that the burdens on the citizens advice bureaux, which we debated earlier today, will be doubled. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to say something about that.
I now turn to a group of workers that is too frequently overlooked; but not overlooked by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I am delighted to say. I refer to hospital clerical staff and medical secretaries. Many are so overworked and underpaid that they leave. When staff are pushed almost to breaking point—perhaps it would be more apt to say leaving point—surely the time has come to take action.
The problems within the National Health Service in regard to secretarial services are little publicised but are of great concern. The market for secretaries must be as close to a perfect market as any, but with the NHS offering salaries between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. below the commercial equivalent it is hardly surprising that the service finds it hard to recruit and retain competent staff for long. Newly trained secretaries may stay for six months or so, until they have enough experience to command much higher salaries elsewhere. Large amounts of money are wasted on continuous advertising for staff.
More regularly, posts are simply not filled. Some organisations in the NHS scrape by by using up to 80 per cent. of temporary secretaries. An NHS salary intended to pay for 36 hours of secretarial work each week is, however, sufficient only to pay a temporary secretary for 20 hours. The result is either massive overspend on budgets, and therefore cuts in clinical services, or a secretarial staff that is far too small to carry out the demands made on it. That is coupled with much more highly paid staff, such as consultants, having to hand write letters and carry out other duties which should be done by the secretaries they do not have. If general practitioners cannot get letters from consultants about patients whom they have referred to the consultants, then general practice will be in great difficulties. That situation must be remedied.
Having mentioned general practice, perhaps I should say a few more words about it before I sit down. My wife is presently suffering from shingles. Your Lordships will gather that my family is a heavy burden on the National Health Service at the moment. Hard luck; I have done enough for the service in the past. I am not revealing any improper clinical details or breaching professional confidentialities because my wife is not my patient. The general practitioner whom I called in—a very able chap who was a trainee with me a long time ago when he first started—examined my wife and confirmed my diagnosis. He prescribed some extremely expensive tablets. When I looked at the cost of them I thought that if I had shingles I would rather have the money than the tablets.
I asked him how he justified prescribing such tablets. He did so by saying that, as I knew—I had not forgotten—one of the dangers of shingles is the
1234
development of what is called post-herpetic neuralgia. It is a condition which can continue for years afterwards. It is hoped that treatment early enough with these anti-viral preparations will substantially reduce the incidence of post-herpetic neuralgia. If so, it will save the National Health Service a great deal of money, but the prescriptions are expensive.
It is intolerable that in the future general practitioners will have to wrestle with ambiguities of that nature; working out how to balance the benefits between one course of action and another. Again, that is an area in general practice where there is a great deal of uncertainty. The general practitioner who treated my wife said to me, "Tell your pals in the House of Lords that there are three kinds of general practitioner: those who have just come in and wish they had not; those who have been in for years and are now getting out; and all those in the middle who have no idea what to do".
There is a decline in morale among general practitioners, partly because of uncertainty about the way the new deal is to be carried out. It is a pity there has to be so much uncertainty. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, well knows that before the new Bill there were provisions to deal adequately with extravagant prescribing. They existed. They were never used properly and never enforced. We do not need this new mechanism of budgets.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, they cost a lot, too.
Lord Winstanley: And they cost a lot, my Lords, as the noble Lord said. That is another aspect that must be considered.
I conclude by saying that all people who work in the National Health Service are under intense pressure. They always will be. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, is absolutely right—at the end of the day it comes down to money. Not enough is being spent. Every week we are told that more money is being spent and I believe that, but it is immediately apparent from looking at some of the old hospitals that not enough money is being spent. The Government cannot get away from that. Do not ask me where they will get the money, but they must get it somewhere.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lord Molloy for introducing the debate. He is a great campaigner for the National Health Service and he should receive the credit that he deserves.
I also want to refer to other speeches. I should like to say a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who said he has been in this House for 31 years. His service to the NHS has been over a longer period than that. It is quite remarkable that whenever your Lordships are debating health the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, is with us. I pay my tribute to him as I do to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. It is courageous of him to be back after the treatment that he has had. We are glad to see him well again. He is much better than he thinks he is. He owes a great deal to the National Health Service and he is a dedicated supporter of it.

1235
I wish to say a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Walton, because he is a new boy among us. I believe it was a very wise decision to bring him to your Lordships' House. He is a very distinguished neurologist who is known throughout the world. From the moment that he took his place here he showed that his concern is to put his experience at the disposal of your Lordships on every occasion when he can and when we need it—and long may it be so.
I partly said that because I wish I could say the same for the noble Lord, Lord McColl. When he made his maiden speech, I had the opportunity of congratulating and welcoming him and saying that I thought he would add enormously to our debates if he were here and able to enlighten them with his experience. In the past two debates he has intervened without making a speech. It may be that he regrets doing that, but I believe that the House regrets it even more. I told the noble Lord that I was going to make these remarks in his absence. I plead with him to put his experience, knowledge and wit at the disposal of your Lordships by a considered presentation. It cannot be a considered presentation if one lambasts a colleague by referring to his supposed political origins. That is not a quality which we expect in your Lordships' House.
As has been said, this debate is not about the Bill, though a good deal of reference has been made to it. I wish to follow up one or two of those references before coming to the main subject. It will not be long before you Lordships will be occupied with debates on this extremely important Bill. Whether or not an action was effective before the courts, I find it very unfortunate that before the Bill has been debated in your Lordships' House even for one day, preparations are being made to impose it on the National Health Service, on the professions that work in it and on the public who benefit from the service. That is before the Bill has had parliamentary consideration.
My noble friend referred to what he called secret junketings in NHS hotels. I shall not go into the details of that. However, I find it very distasteful that people who are not part of the National Health Service gather together in conferences, sometimes in hospitals or hotels—certainly at large expense—planning what is going to happen when proposals which have not yet reached your Lordships' House are carried through. That is wrong and it is showing a gross disrespect to Parliament and our system of debates.
It is true that the Bill is before the other place and that it will get here, but as each day goes by more decisions are being taking by groups of people who do not want their names known. They are known as non-executive helpers and people who have been chosen to run opted-out hospitals when the Bill is fully implemented. These measures have not yet been approved and they are opposed by many people in the country. We saw the opinion polls published only two days ago. A Gallup poll based on scientific evidence showed that the public are even more opposed to the Government proposals than when its views were last sought. That opposition is affecting
1236
morale in the health service and it is part of the condition under which people are now working.
It is leading to dissent and not just to uncertainty as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Dissent is being shown by colleagues who oppose each other, and there has been an example of this in a brief and unfortunate intervention earlier in this debate. Morale is very low and that is partly because of all the uncertainty and the feeling that views are not being considered but pushed aside while decisions are taken in offices and elsewhere. It is not a question of sandwiches in smoke-filled rooms, but decisions taking place in pretty plush hotels.
My noble friend Lord Walton referred to some of the conditions. He referred to junior hospital doctors and to the tremendous pressure under which they work. I am glad that he did so. He also referred to the shortage of consultants. Speaking from my own experience, I agree with him. Consultants are working under very difficult conditions, and they are often working very much longer hours than they are paid to do. We owe an enormous debt of appreciation to all those in the National Health Service. I refer to the doctors and the nurses who provide about one-half of all those who work within the service. In addition, I refer to the professions allied to medicine such as the occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech therapists, radiographers and chiropodists besides all the others who play such a vital role in the National Health Service.
I have been looking at the evidence put forward to the review body in support of the pay claim for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and other professions allied to medicine. It is clear that there was worry about the staff turnover. Paragraph 23 of the evidence shows that the turnover rates in 1987–88 ranged from 10·6 per cent. in radiography, to 19·5 per cent. in physiotherapy. Those figures relate to each year. I know of the tremendous pressure to which occupational therapists are subjected. They are now operating at roughly 20 per cent. below their establishment figure because not enough training provisions have been approved by the Government. The independent report prepared by a commission of inquiry headed by Louis Blom-Cooper said that in its view there needed to be an 80 per cent. expansion in occupational therapy in order that it may fulfil its roles in hospitals, with the local authorities and in the community. All of the bodies in the supplementary professions are working under very hard conditions.
My noble friend referred to poor conditions in health service premises. That is part of the evidence submitted by the Royal College of Nursing. Most health service premises are old and rundown buildings. Approximately 81 per cent. of NHS buildings in England were built before 1918. Poor maintenance of NHS property has become endemic throughout the United Kingdom.
A report prepared by the National Audit Office and published in March 1988 states that it is evident that the backlog of maintenance remains a serious problem. It is estimated that £2 billion will be required to clear the backlog of maintenance just in

1237
England. The report criticises the DHSS for having very little centrally-held information as to the present state of NHS property. The evidence refers to poor medical equipment and that much of it in NHS hospitals is dangerously outdated. There is also reference to the lack of childcare facilities with too few creches in NHS offices or childcare facilities for older children after school or during school holidays.
When we say that we want the nurses with their experience to return to the hospitals, the problem is that the conditions under which they would return are grossly inadequate. The nurses with their experience and skills will not return to the NHS unless conditions for them are very much better.
The professions supplementary to medicine are concerned about the importance of pay in connection with recruitment and retention. The staff side said that action must be taken to ensure that the professions remain competitive in the labour market and that this action must include further substantial pay increases. We are seeing skilled people trained by the health service going to other better paid jobs. We saw during the five month ambulance dispute enormous sympathy in the country for ambulance workers. The Government constantly said that they had to keep their pay down to the 6·5 per cent. awarded to other health service workers.
Another of our Sunday newspapers published a report last weekend which showed that Britain's top chairmen and chief executives had awarded themselves salary increases of nearly 28 per cent. over the past year—almost four times the rate of inflation. The report said that a survey of 250 leading companies carried out for the Sunday Times by P-E International management consultants showed that in the year to the end of January the highest paid executive in each of the 250 companies averaged £221,000 a year or 27·8 per cent. above the previous year's level. The report gave one or two examples, including Members of your Lordships' House, whom I shall not mention in their absence.
The staff side said in its evidence to Sir James Cleminson that it had never claimed that better pay was the only factor in recruitment and retention. It recognised the importance of non-pay related benefits, particularly if the substantial number of qualified staff not working in the NHS were to be attracted back. The staff side gave several examples: the opportunity for part-time work, the possibility of part-time staff retaining their grade skill levels; the opportunity for retraining. It concluded that the most immediate need was a substantial uplift in salary levels. If the Government are to pursue a policy which requires of those who work in the National Health Service great restraint on their demands for a higher share and a share at least as high as inflation, we must expect them to give a lead to the country in the private sector as well. Poor working conditions are relevant to the problems faced by health service workers.
The Minister should take seriously the views expressed by health service workers up and down the country. I return to my first point. The problem concerns not just their working conditions. It is not
1238
simply money, although at the end of the financial year wards and beds may have to close because of under-funding. What is important to them is that their views should be listened to. Nothing is more important in the National Health Service than that those who work in a dedicated way for it know that their work is appreciated not only in terms of the pay they receive but by their views being listened to. I have never known a time since the National Health Service was created when the views of those who work for the service were more obviously rejected—not just not accepted but rejected.
The Government are heading for grave problems if they carry on thinking that they can run a National Health Service on the basis of policies which are not accepted by the vast majority of those working in the service. Each time I have the opportunity, I say to the Government, "For heaven's sake, think again". Otherwise they will create not only worse problems for the health service but, as they seem to be doing, worse problems for themselves. Last weekend I was in central Staffordshire campaigning for the mid-Staffordshire by-election. Although on the doorstep all kinds of other issues such as the poll tax were raised, the health service was still the number one issue in people's minds from a long-term point of view. If the Government take any action to undermine the principles of the National Health Service, they will live to regret it-I do not know whether they will live to regret it, but they certainly will regret it.
7.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to debate this topic because, despite some of the allegations, we believe that we have a record second to none. This is proved by the fact that we now have more doctors than ever before, more nurses than ever before, and, most importantly, a higher proportion of people involved in direct patient care. I say straight away—and in saying this I take seriously the views of health service workers—that I acknowledge that there are pressures on staff. Indeed, there are bound to be in any large organisation. The National Health Service after all employs nearly 1 million staff and has gross expenditure this year of more than £26 billion. It is therefore no exception to this rule. However, we should not necessarily assume that all pressures are a bad thing. They can offer a stimulus to the achievement of greater efficiency and effectiveness. I believe the cash limit to be a discipline of this kind.
The Government's role is to create the overall climate in which adverse pressures can be avoided wherever possible. That is what we have been doing. This year's spending on the National Health Service is more than 38 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1988–98. Next year this figure will rise to 46 per cent. and we shall be spending more than £29 billion, some 12.75 per cent. of all planned government expenditure. Spending in 1990–91 will therefore be some £3 billion higher than this year, more than 6 per cent. higher in real terms.

1239
While on the subject of health service funding, I feel sure that we shall almost inevitably always be in a position in which we could do more to keep pace with improved technology and techniques and the need for modern facilities and equipment. I hope that our health service progresses in such a way that we are always running after and, it is to be hoped, catching up. But the additional funds the Government have provided are intended to be sufficient to allow services to be increased by more than would be needed simply to keep pace with the growing numbers of elderly people, a point specifically referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. The question whether this is enough assumes that the demand for health care is a fixed figure that can be measured. That clearly is nonsense. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head as well. What is important, however, is that the extra funds provided show the priority the Government have given to health service spending within public spending generally.
In connection with allegations of service cuts due to underfunding, health authorities have higher allocations in cash terms than in 1988–89. Some managers have perhaps not been effective under the current system in controlling costs and planning increases in patient care. This demonstrates the need for the reforms proposed in the White Paper Working for Patients. The reforms will enable managers to match more closely increases in resources with improvements in services.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the point, has she any comment to make on the morality of proceeding to implement proposals that have not even been debated in your Lordships' House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the National Health Service trusts. I should tell him that I shall be dealing with them shortly.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for acknowledging the need for change in his opening remarks. Obviously organisational change always brings with it a certain element of pressure. However, if the changes represent much-needed improvements I believe that the price is worth paying.
The National Health Service and Community Care Bill is currently being considered in another place and no doubt your Lordships will shortly have an opportunity to debate it, assuming that it completes its passage there. The Bill provides for the basis of the new arrangements which are intended to be in place by April 1991.
In implementing our proposals we are aiming for a steady, purposeful, evolutionary period of change during which we all shall, it is to be hoped, learn the practical lessons of experience. To make sure that the improvements are made in the most effective manner we are funding and promoting a great deal of development work within the National Health Service to identify the best ways of putting our plans into operation.
1240
I should point out that the funding and promoting of some of the development work which is taking place is something which has been urged upon us by representatives of the medical profession who wish to have some projects in order to plan the proposals carefully. I can assure your Lordships that the implementation costs will not be at the expense of patient care. This year we have made available £80 million for arrangements which could lead to implementation and next year the additional expenditure will be of the order of £300 million. However, in saying that, I should like to emphasise that the need to have an evolutionary system with practical experience is the criterion in making these arrangements.
The current structures have served us well in the past but, as many people recognise, they are becoming increasingly out of date. Change is essential if the NHS is to be prepared to face the ever more insistent demands of medical progress and demography. I am confident that health service staff will wish to grasp the new opportunities the Government's plans will present—opportunities to have a much greater say in the management of services and the decision-making process. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that staff should be able to exert more influence. I believe that as a result of our proposals they will be able to exert more influence than ever before in the way in which National Health Service resources are used at local level.
Our plans will end the nonsense by which those clinical teams which should provide the most sought after services are unable to secure the necessary resources to operate to full effect. Why should a popular surgeon have to stop operating in the last few months of the financial year because he has been too sucessful and therefore used up his budget? Success, not failure, will be rewarded in the future. Such changes can only inspire all staff to aim to provide the very highest quality of service for patients and thus enhance their job satisfaction. The Government and National Health Service staff have one overwhelming objective—that is, to give the very best standard of service to all patients, a service which upholds the very finest traditions of the NHS and, above all, puts patients first.
While on the subject of the proposals, and in order to remove some of the uncertainty complained of, I should like to make it absolutely clear, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that we have no intention of privatising the National Health Service. National Health Service trusts will be an integral part of the service and of the local health authority's provision. I find it most strange that the court proceedings concerning Professor Harry Keen were mentioned. They made it absolutely clear that the Government were in no way abusing their constitutional rights in making the kind of preparations to which I have already referred.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene at this point. I do not understand how she can say that what is proposed is not designed to privatise. I say that

1241
because paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the community care Bill reads:
"According to the nature of its functions, an NHS trust may make accommodation or services or both available for patients who give undertakings … to pay, in respect of the accommodation or services (or both) such charges as the trust may determine".
In other words, they can sell all of it. Surely that is what privatisation is.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reason we are not in any way privatising by introducing the concept of National Health Service trusts is that those units of the health service which apply for that status will do so on the basis that they continue to receive their funding from government. The flexibility which will allow them to have a certain number of private beds in no way suggests that it will be the end of the National Health Service provision for those units. The Government have already made much-needed changes in the structure of the National Health Service workforce. Perhaps I should point out at this stage that we shall shortly have plenty of opportunity to debate the Government's National Health Service proposals.
I return to the subject of this debate. Between 1979 and 1988, as I have already said, the numbers of direct care staff increased by 15·7 per cent. while support staff were reduced by 14·4 per cent. We believe that that is an important trend. I am also very conscious of the need to improve the education and training of staff. In that respect I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Auckland and with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. A number of initiatives have already been undertaken in this connection; for example, the health care assistant initiative which was announced in January.
HCAs will work in support of professional staff and for the first time they will receive nationally recognised vocational qualifications. We envisage that they will undertake some of the more routine tasks currently being carried out by the professionals. This will have the advantage of releasing professional staff to devote more time to the particular activities for which they have been specifically trained, while at the same time improving the job content and consequently the job satisfaction of those working in support roles. We also have the Project 2000 plans to meet nursing care needs in both institutional and community settings and help to reduce the high wastage of nurses both during and after training.
In relation to nurses I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the pay of nurses and midwives has increased by 43 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The total number of nursing and midwifery staff increased by 13·2 per cent. between 1979 and 1988 and since August 1988 we have been running a recruitment campaign to attract suitably qualified and motivated individuals to the career opportunities offered by nursing.
As regards junior doctors' hours, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that the Government remain committed to their long-term objective of an average of 72 hours per week. My honourable friend the Minister of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, reminded us, is pursuing the subject
1242
with all the parties concerned. I can assure the noble Lord that we are hopeful of a successful outcome in the matter. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that consultant expansion has been over 2 per cent. in 1986–88 alone. I refer to the scheme to fund 100 new consultant posts at £50,000 per post. The first two tranches of these appointments have already been made and we believe that this will help in the fight to cut waiting lists.
An organisation of the sheer size of the National Health Service will inevitably experience some recruitment and retention difficulties. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, say that pay is not the only factor in this respect. Nevertheless the Government believe that they can help to reduce these difficulties concerning pay by breaking away from rigid central bargaining in favour of greater local pay determination. We want local managers to be able to use pay as a recruitment and retention tool. The White Paper envisages that National Health Service trusts will have freedom to depart from national pay arrangements, but they will not be forced to do so. We are aiming to build sufficient flexibility into the mainstream National Health Service system to enable it to operate alongside National Health Service trusts. Indeed some trusts may decide simply to follow the national agreements, provided that they have been made sufficiently flexible.
A number of agreements with flexibility provisions have already been introduced. There are relatively new arrangements giving local discretion to supplement the pay of administrative and clerical staff by up to 30 per cent. in Thames regions and 20 per cent. elsewhere. We shall be monitoring the effect of this change. In 1989 some 7,000 nurses and midwives outside London received supplements under a pilot scheme for flexible pay. That scheme is to be continued for 1990 and extended to nurses and midwives in London. Other staff such as senior managers can be paid additional amounts where there are recruitment and retention difficulties. We aim to extend the concept of pay flexibility to other staff groups during 1990–91 so that local managers have much greater scope to manage their affairs effectively.
I believe that local management needs to be increasingly imaginative in the way it responds to the varying requirements of existing and potential employees. There is a decreasing number of young people coming on to the labour market and the demand for skilled employees will become acute as the National Health Service finds itself in direct competition both with other UK employers and with major employers in the rest of the European Community. Our plans must take account of the fact that almost 80 per cent. of the National Health Service workforce is female.
I would say that the National Health Service management executive encourages health authorities to adopt and implement equal opportunity policies covering not only women and people from ethnic minorities but other disadvantaged groups including disabled people. The Government have for a number of years been encouraging more open employment practices in order to secure, retain and encourage

1243
scarce, skilled staff back to work. These practices include the availability of flexible working arrangements such as part-time working, job sharing, flexi-time and the establishment of locally determined retainer or career break schemes. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, to that.
On specific points, my noble friend Lord Auckland, raised a problem concerning technicians. A new pay and grading structure for technicians was agreed in September 1989 and health authorities are currently assigning staff to those new grades. These new arrangements can be applied flexibly to meet the needs of management and staff. As regards housing, a scheme is available through Nationwide Anglia which helps National Health Service staff to obtain a mortgage and get on to the housing ladder.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised the problem of medical secretaries, They, like other administrative and clerical staff, can be paid supplements in the way I have already mentioned. The noble Lord also raised the question of GPs' prescribing budgets and morale among GPs. There is no question of GPs being unable to prescribe medicines which they consider to be clinically necessary. It is however unsatisfactory that prescribing patterns of GPs vary so widely across the country. The Government believe that doctors whose patterns of prescribing are unsatisfactory should be brought up to the practice of the best. This will be accomplished by peer review.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, asked why there was no Minister for community care. I point out to him that no change is planned in this respect because in the Department of Health we already have a Minister with responsibility for community care—the Minister of State.
In my view there are bound to be pressures when a large organisation such as the National Health Service is changing. The Government are doing their utmost to ensure that changes are smooth and orderly. We have made greatly increased funding available, while giving local managers greater freedom in pay and conditions of service matters and are giving every encouragement to managers to adopt flexible employment practices which are consistent with equal opportunities principles. We shall continue to take steps to make it possible for National Health Service staff to deliver an even better quality of service to patients.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, has she anything at all to say in response to my question about the appointment of hospital social workers and the dispute about that between the Department of Health and the local authority associations? Has that now been resolved?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I am not aware of the problem. Therefore if the noble Lord is agreeable, I shall write to him.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly say that I have received a note from the noble Lord,
1244
Lord McColl, asking us to excuse his interruption, in terminology which conforms to the highest standards of the House.
I thank the noble Baroness for her full reply to the debate, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ennals and all those who have participated in the debate. I make the plea that there should be greater consultation with all the staff of the National Health Service. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Abortion (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.57 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
The Bill had received an unimpeded progress through your Lordships' House so far. This is a unique occasion because 23 years ago this autumn your Lordships' House passed the principal Abortion Act 1967. That Act has never been amended. No amending Bill has come from the House of Commons during those 23 years and we generated only one of our own, to which we refused a Second Reading. Never, in all that time, has any Bill on abortion reached this advanced stage in your Lordships' House. So this is something of an occasion.
The history of abortion is a very troubled one. We must bear in mind that the Abortion Act 1967 was the first amendment to the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This Bill has received far less criticism in your Lordships' House than it has received outside. It has had a pretty rough time in the hands of critics outside the House. I beg leave to place a few matters on the record for the benefit of all concerned in order to remove some of the misapprehension and misunderstandings about the Bill.
The Bill was never intended to be a stalking horse or a diversion. It was a piece of business of its own, based on serious business carried out by a Select Committee of this House. The House appeared to think by common consent that it was better that abortion should be kept away from the Embryology Bill and that, if it were to make progress, it could do so under a separate Bill. That is really what has happened. However, that means that we have forgone the opportunity which we believed we had, and still have, of putting abortion proposals in the Embryology Bill on Report. However, by common consent the House has decided, rightly in my view, to do it this way.
It is as yet uncertain where this Bill is going. It is certainly not going to the House of Commons as part of the Embryology Bill. However, I hope that it will stand on the threshold of the House of Commons when the Chamber tries to find its own solution to the recent years of frustration that have arisen in consideration of the subject of abortion.
There are only two principal matters in this Bill and one of them is to remove from the ambit of the abortion law the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. When the principal Act was passed in 1967 it was

1245
almost an afterthought that there existed an Act passed in 1929 which dealt with child destruction. It seemed to be suitable that the provisions of that Act should remain in force and be part of the general conspectus of the change in the abortion law. That turned out to be a serious mistake because it meant that a doctor carrying out a perfectly lawful abortion under the Abortion Act could be exposed to prosecution under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. That fear has been something of a bugbear to the medical profession for years past.
When this Bill came before your Lordships' House two noble Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, both expressed the view that by taking the Infant Life (Preservation) Act out of the ambit of the abortion law we were opening the way to a wider flow of late abortions because there was no checkpoint at 28 weeks. They believed that we had swept away the barrier that stood in the way of late abortions and that we were giving free progress to more late abortions. That was a serious misunderstanding. We all deplore the absence from our debates on this matter of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on account of illness. The noble and learned Lord felt that it was important to put on the record, for the benefit of critical noble Lords, the real position. However, we had such a short Committee stage and a formal Report stage that opportunities have not occurred before of putting on the record the true position as regards the effect of Clause 5 of the Bill which concerns the disengagement from abortion of the provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
I have for the sake of better accuracy obtained a copy of the legal opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I stick to my brief for a minute or two. On the question of late abortions, save in three exceptional circumstances, my Bill reduces the maximum time limit from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. In the case of Group 2 abortions—that is where there is a risk to the pregnant woman's health—which accounted for 163,000 out of 183,000 abortions in England and Wales in 1988, the maximum gestational age comes down from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. That is referred to in Clause 1(2A)(a).
In the case of Group 3 abortions, that is where there is a risk to siblings, which accounted for 18,000 abortions in 1988, the maximum gestational age is reduced to 24 weeks. That is referred to in Clause 1(1A)(b).
There are only three exceptional cases in which, if my Bill becomes law, a pregnant woman faces no restrictions as regards gestational limit. The three cases are, first, where an abortion is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life. That is the case under the existing law. The second is where the termination is essential to prevent serious damage, and not mere risk, to the pregnant woman's health. That is the exception referred to in Clause 1(2A)(a) of the Bill. The third case is where serious abnormality of the fetus is involved. In those three exceptional cases the Bill proposes no time limit on abortion. We think that a time limit would be an injustice to the women concerned. In short an
1246
abortion that is necessary to save the life of the mother has no gestational limit under any Act of Parliament. There is no gestational limit in that case under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, the Offences against the Person Act or the Abortion Act. There is no gestational time limit in this Bill where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Abortion is for the benefit of women. The interest of the life of the mother comes first.
As regards serious fetal abnormality, that is brought into the no-limit case in the case of a child being so seriously abnormal, if it went to full term, as to be severely handicapped. As regards criminal liability, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act is disapplied by my Bill only in the case of doctors who terminate a pregnancy in strict accordance with the law. If a doctor carried out an abortion after week 24, save in one of the three exceptional circumstances mentioned above, he would unquestionably be liable to prosecution and a custodial sentence under the terms of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and/or the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. That is the considered opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on the effect of this Bill. Therefore there should be no anxieties about the Bill widening the avenue of later abortions. We are imposing at 24 weeks much stricter discipline for lawful abortions.
There remains the question of the 24-week period of gestation which is the lynch-pin of the new proposals. Is that period low enough? The answer to that is, yes it is. To make it lower would incur serious problems of injustice, distress and, I think, social and personal harm.
It is suggested in some quarters that the 24 weeks should be 18 weeks. If it were 18 weeks there is not the slightest doubt that some thousands of cases which would qualify for abortion now and under this Bill would not qualify under that much more stringent condition. That would harm many marginal cases of acute distress.
The opinion of gynaecologists has been tested in this matter. Some 75 per cent. of gynaecologists are against a limit of less than 24 weeks. Only 3 per cent. were in favour of a lower limit. All representative opinion—professional, social and, I understand, the Government themselves—is of the view that the end of the 24th week is the right point at which to fix the transfer from the milder to the more severe discipline for qualification for an abortion.
What difference will that make? Those who have criticised the Bill say that it will make so little difference that it is hardly worth while. They say that the numbers who will have abortions under this Bill are likely to be very small because they are already small. There were only 29 abortions after the 24th week in the whole of 1988. The figure for 1989 is likely to be smaller still.
A combination of administration and co-ordination of medical policy and the control of the Government over the licensing conditions of the private clinics have all combined to anticipate the Bill to a very large extent. The Bill is not intended to worsen the conditions for abortion and does not set out to reduce the number. It is an attempt to put abortion into a sounder statutory framework so that

1247
people know better where they stand and the conditions for obtaining an abortion are well understood in the law itself.
The Royal College of Physicians has stressed the harm that would be done if the gestational limit were reduced from 24 weeks to a lower limit where the pre-natal diagnoses are difficult to complete before the 22nd or 23rd week. The college makes it clear in a report published last September that it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to complete all the pre-natal diagnoses which are necessary in many cases of prospective abortion before the end of the 20th week or thereabouts. Therefore we cannot look for any substantial reduction in the gestational limit if we are to talk sensibly about the future of abortion.
Noble Lords should bear in mind that 90 per cent. of all abortions take place before the 19th week. There is no intention to challenge the principles of the 1967 Act or to slash the figures for the sake of giving the impression that the number of abortions can be dramatically reduced.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, in Committee only the other day said how horrible it was that Britain was the abortion capital of Europe. There are no grounds for saying that. It used to be said by critics years ago that this was the abortion capital of the world. The number of foreign women coming to this country for abortions a few years ago exceeded 55,000. The number is now down to 15,500. A third of those come from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the other two-thirds from France and Spain. That is the limit of the number of women coming to this country for abortions at present.
We should also bear in mind that while we have been experimenting with the Abortion Act 1967 and priding ourselves that we were offering a model to other countries, other countries have been undertaking abortion reforms themselves. A new publication has just been issued which any critic of our abortion laws should read. It was published in February 1990 under the auspices of the Department of Health and compiled by Dr. Jennifer Gunning. It deals with embryology research and abortion in a large number of other countries and includes figures up to 1984.
The astonishing fact revealed by the report is that in Italy—where it was necessary to fight the Vatican, governments were divided on the matter, Ministers resigned, and referenda and elections were held—eventually after a long struggle a fairly liberal law was introduced. With what result? Italy now has the highest ratio of abortions in Europe. In terms of the number of abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age, Italy has a ratio of 19 per 1,000; Denmark, 18·4; Norway, 15·9; Sweden, 17·7; the United States—before the Supreme Court made rather a mess of abortion law in that country—27 per 1,000. The total number of abortions in Italy was 227,000 in 1988. In the number of abortions, we fall below Australia, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden and the United States. Below us are the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands.
1248
Therefore it is a cruel libel to say that we are the abortion capital of Europe. I hope that those points can be placed on the record and fully appreciated elsewhere.
What of the future? If we were to follow what is happening in Europe, then in this country we should provide abortion on demand up to 12 weeks without question except on consultation with a medical practitioner. That is the pattern in Europe today. We find it in Austria, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway and Sweden. All have the right of abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. On that basis it is possible to apply much greater pressure in the case of later abortions. If we are to have a change in our system I believe that it will have to go that way. The right-to-choose movement, which is a strong and growing movement in Britain, would try to move in that direction. I hope that in another place, where they will be considering this matter, they will realise that anything other than harmony with the rest of Europe is likely to find little support among our European partners.
That is the end of my story and I am grateful to noble Lords for staying to listen to it. In moving the Third Reading I can only hope that there is something in the Bill and the various matters to which I referred in connection with it that will find acceptance in another place and perhaps eventually be the choice of the other place for the solution for the time being of the controversy over abortion in our country. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, since I took quite a part in the Bill in Committee, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to make a few points. First, reverting to my speech on the Queen's Speech, I emphasised that Britain was the largest contributor to late abortions. If one takes late abortions and not total abortions, the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would be justified. I said then, and I reiterate now, that I believe that the Continental system is basically more honest—abortion on demand up to an early period in pregnancy and then stringent control for abortion thereafter under exceptional conditions only.
I do not myself condone abortion, but, as a legislator, I must help to regulate it. In helping to regulate it and in improving our law, I do not in the least lend myself to the belief that abortion is an acceptable practice for social reasons.
Finally, I was misquoted in Hansard by noting that "any honourable Member in another place may", etc. The word "not" crept in as a misprint after "may". I noticed it too late to have it corrected at the printers, but I am assured that the bound copy will contain the correction. However, if not, for the record, I should like to confess myself at fault in that matter.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words if only as a comment on the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury,

1249
about late abortions in this country. I entirely agree with him that late abortions are extremely undesirable. No one wishes to have them at all. One of the reasons for the numbers of late abortions in this country, low as they are, is that we perform the late abortions that are supposed to be clinically necessary for those who cannot find them in other parts of Europe and come here instead. That may be the reason and is not an unrespectable reason at all.
At the same time I should like to tell the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that I valued his attempt in Committee to provide a compromise for the future—something which might make the Houghton-Brightman package more acceptable to both Houses of Parliament. However, I fully understood why the Government declined to undertake the onerous task which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, proposed to place on successive Home Secretaries. I much admired his effort, as I believe did other noble Lords.
I should like to say a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and commend his amazing clarity of mind and courage in bringing forward this issue so importantly as he has done both for this House and for another place.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, secondly, I should like to say a few words about the Brightman Committee and associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and say how sorry we are that he is seriously ill. He would otherwise be here and be playing an important part in today's proceedings.
The Brightman Report will be seen by posterity as a great parliamentary paper—indeed, in the great class of social papers which we now associate with the name of the Earl of Shaftesbury in the last century. It was an amazingly painstaking effort in scrupulously considering all the relevant legislation and expert medical and social evidence. The committee then produced immaculate recommendations.
I should also like to say—it is appropriate to do sr on the Third Reading of the Bill—how much I admire the efforts of the Leader of the House and of the Chief Whip who responded, as one would have expected, to the widespread wishes of the House, expressed from all quarters of the House, that the subject of the Bill and the subject of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill should be kept entirely separate. I do not dare to enter into the mysteries concerning the arts of leadership and subtle whipping by which that end was achieved, but it has been achieved to the great benefit of the consideration of both subjects in this House. The business managers of the House deserve the highest congratulations for having achieved that. One can only hope that another place will be able to follow the example of this House, but one must not begin to speculate on what may take place there.
1250
I should like to cast my mind back to the proceedings in 1967. The Bill that was then passed—the important Abortion Bill—happens to be known as the Steel Bill because it was sponsored by a Private Member of that name in another place. However, the Steel Bill had been considered in two previous Sessions in the House of Lords, so when it eventually came to this House, the House was considering abortion for the thrid time. The Steel Bill effectively took up the Abortion Bill as it left this House in the preceding Session, so Sir David Steel, as he now is, had the benefit of having a Bill which has been hammered out in at least two Sessions in this House. It was therefore ready-made for him to introduce when he was successful in the ballot. In that respect the House took the lead and was the legislative pioneer in the abortion proceedings in Parliament.
I maintain that it is right that, in 1990, this House should also be the pioneer in revising that legislation. We owe it to the meticulous consideration and careful recommendations of the Brightman Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for having translated the Brightman Committee's recommendations into legislative form—neither more nor less, I believe I am right in saying. The Bill therefore has the powerful backing of that great state paper which will be known to posterity as the Brightman Committee Report.
I can only say that I very much hope that the House of Commons will follow in 1990 the example set by this House, as it did in 1967. We gave a clear lead then; we give a clear lead now. The Houghton Bill is the equivalent of the Silkin Bill which was taken up by Sir David Steel in the Session which ended in 1967. It is up to another place, one way or another—we cannot dictate its proceedings—to do what it did in 1967, and we shall welcome it if it produces as good a result in our terms in 1990 as it produced in 1967. With that, I wish the best of good fortune to the Bill in another place.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I too should like to say a few words to congratulate my noble friend on his achievement in piloting the Bill through the House. He is not only a doughty fighter for his convictions, he is a tactician par excellence. He has lost none of his shrewdness—sometimes perhaps even his guile—which was the hallmark of his political career in another place, and is so here. I hope that it is not Houghton's last Bill, although I am not calling for another Houghton Bill on the same subject because I want this one to stand. I suspect that he has a long way to go yet, and as long as he sticks to his guns he will certainly have my support.
His Bill to amend the Infant Life Preservation Bill is designed to lower the gestational limit of viability from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. If carried into the law of the land, it will, as he said, be the first legislative change in this field since 1967. Many others have attempted it, but they have all failed.
It would be absurd if those in another place who want to lower the time from 28 weeks do not support this Bill, and if they want to go lower than 24 weeks

1251
to use this Bill as an instrument on which to secure further concessions. I would certainly not accept any further concessions, but this is the Bill on which the issue should be debated.
As has been said, my noble friend has made proposals in this Bill which are entirely in accordance with the recommendations of the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Like other noble Lords, I want to say how sad I am that the noble and learned Lord is not here and to know that he is seriously ill.
In this House we have reason to be grateful to my noble friend because his Bill was the basis on which it was decided to keep separate the arguments about abortion and the arguments about embryological research. It seemed to me greatly to improve the quality of the debate in your Lordships' House which we have heard over several weeks and days. It has been of a very high standard and we owe it to my noble friend because his Bill was the basis of agreement. I hope that his lead will be followed in another place.
If opponents of abortion here have accepted the wisdom of separation, why should not the opponents of abortion in another place as well? Let me repeat my thanks to my noble friend and endorse his plea to another place to give this Bill a Second Reading and thus maintain the separation of these issues. I support a Third Reading for this Bill and hope that when it goes to another place it will receive due consideration.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I rise very briefly to wish this Bill a fair wind, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the distinction with which he has played the part of William Webb Ellis. I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the distinction with which she has combined discharging her personal conscience and her official duties. It cannot have been an easy task. It has been an outstanding example of the ability to distinguish between the person and the office.
This Bill seems to me to be a fit successor to bring the 1967 Bill of my right honourable friend Sir David Steel up to date with the progress of medical research. It has stirred a great deal of passion, as I am sure we all know from our postbags. It raises the question of the functions of the law in a divided society. In a divided society the law cannot possibly prohibit everything that somebody thinks is wrong or it will prohibit everything under the sun.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, saying, "I do not condone abortion but as a legislator I must help to regulate it", was taking a good liberal position because, where there is a sharp division of opinion such as this, the law cannot please everybody. It must also take account of the principle, "Never give an order which is not going to be obeyed". If the law sets out to prohibit some things which a great many people think are perfectly right, the law will get into trouble and in the end will be led into disrepute. The real advantage of the liberal position is that it does not force anybody to do it who thinks it is wrong and it allows to do it those who think it is right.
1252
So the law, perfectly correctly, is able to remain neutral as it should do. That is the best way to allow everybody in the country to follow their conscience. I hope that another place will look on this Bill with favour. I agree with all that has been said about the distinction of the debate on it. I wish the Bill well.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I said during Second Reading. The Government's role in proceedings on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is to provide an impartial assessment of the practical effects of the Bill and to provide advice and whatever information may help the House to reach a decision. As I also said at Second Reading, like their predecessors this Government are neutral on the ethical issues of abortion.
During the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Henley reminded noble Lords that proposals for changes in the law on abortion have traditionally been matters for private Members to introduce for decision on a free vote. It must be right that in such a very sensitive area individual Members of both Houses, including Ministers who have their own personal views on the matter, should be able to exercise their own independent judgments, reaching decisions and voting as their conscience dictates. This is an issue on which the Government's position must be one of neutrality.
I believe that in his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, may have given the impression that the Government nevertheless have a view on the subject. I should like to explain the position.
When it became clear in 1985 that the consensus view of the relevant professional bodies about the point at which a fetus could be said to be viable had changed in the light of medical and scientific developments to 24 weeks' gestation, the Department of Health—or DHSS as it then was—made it a condition of approval for the few private sector clinics licensed to carry out abortions over 20 weeks that no abortions were carried out over 24 weeks' gestation. In addition, it took steps to ensure that the latest professional view on this matter was drawn to the attention of clinicians working in both the private sector and in the National Health Service. We have seen a very significant reduction in recent years in the number of very late abortions over 24 weeks. Only 22 were carried out in England and Wales in 1988, the last year for which figures are available and none after the 27th week.
It was in the light of that expert view, which the same professional bodies reaffirmed in 1987, that the Government gave their support to the proposition that the gestational age at which a fetus is presumed to be viable should be reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks under the Infant Life Preservation Act. That remains the Government's position. Such a change would be in line with current medical advice and clinical practice.
There can be no advantage in my repeating the background to this issue and the legal arguments which I advanced at Second Reading. I believe that it remains only for me to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his kind personal remarks and to thank

1253
the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for his remarks about my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip.
The strong feelings and views which have been so well expressed in your Lordships' House during consideration of this Bill will add much to future discussion on this important issue of conscience. Your Lordships' views and conclusions have made a valuable and positive contribution to that future debate.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.

  TRAUMA CENTRE EVALUATION
  TRAUMA CENTRE EVALUATION
  BRITISH CITIZENS RESIDENT ABROAD: RECIPROCAL BENEFITS
  BRITISH CITIZENS RESIDENT ABROAD: RECIPROCAL BENEFITS
  NORTH SEA CONFERENCE: UK ACTION PLAN
  NORTH SEA CONFERENCE: UK ACTION PLAN