Sitting of 15 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 (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 20 March at Seven o'clock.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 22 March.

    HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

    PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 20 March at Seven o'clock.
    Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 12 Bills have blocking motions, with the leave of the House, I shall put them together.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a second time on Thursday 22 March.

    ADELPHI ESTATE BILL ( By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [27 February],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 22 March.

    EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL ( By Order)
    CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
    HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL ( By Order)
    CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    ECOFIN
    Mr. Coleman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proceedings of the most recent meeting of ECOFIN.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I represented the United Kingdom at the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers on 12 March. The main topics discussed included the implications of German economic and monetary union, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the revision of the financial perspective, the problem of fraud against the Community budget and the report of the European Court of Auditors for 1988.
    Mr. Coleman: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he tell us how he intends to persuade our European partners to locate the new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London particularly with such a grudging attitude about Europe on the part of the United Kingdom—for example, our reluctance over the social charter and the exchange rate mechanism? Can he tell us what powers of persuasion he has?
    Mr. Ryder: Our case is irresistible. It is so irresistible that we have produced the excellent brochure that I have with me. I shall be more than happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy. Over lunch last Monday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to raise the matter as part of the lunchtime agenda. The case for bringing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to London is clear. More than 520 foreign banks are already located in London. It is Europe's financial centre, and the centre of the Eurobond market, and we do more banking work with eastern Europe than any other banking capital in Europe. I hope that I have the hon. Gentleman's support and the support of the entire House in trying to get the EBRD to London.
    Mr. Soames: In my hon. Friend's distinguished contribution at the ECOFIN meeting, did he have the opportunity to tell his colleagues on that body of the substantial support in industry in this country for full British membership of the European monetary system?
    Mr. Ryder: The conditions for Britain's entry to the exchange rate mechanism were clearly spelt out at the Madrid summit last summer. As many people have already said, the question is not whether we should enter the ERM, but when.
    Mr. Hoyle: If the case is so overwhelming, will the Minister explain what will be said about the deficit on invisible earnings? For the first time since those figures have been recorded, they are in deficit——
    Mr. Ryder indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hoyle: The Minister may shake his head—does he deny that the figures are in deficit? If he wants to deny it, he should get up and say so. Will he tell us what this incompetent and inept Government will do to remedy this sad state of affairs?
    Mr. Ryder: This question relates to ECOFIN. That matter was not discussed last Monday at the ECOFIN meeting.

    Manufacturing Productivity
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth during the 1980s of manufacturing productivity in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other major industrial countries.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The average annual growth of output per person employed in United Kingdom manufacturing industry between 1980 and 1988 was 5·3 per cent., compared to 3·4 per cent. for the other Group of Seven economies.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that unemployment in the east midlands has fallen by 20 per cent. in the past year? Is he further aware that employment in manufacturing has increased by 18,000 since 1983? What are the figures for manufacturing output? Have they increased under this Government? How do they compare with the figures under the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Lamont: Manufacturing output has increased. Manufacturing productivity has been a remarkable success story. It has grown faster in this country than in any other G7 country, including Japan and the United States. It has grown at twice the rate of the 1970s and it is higher than it was in the 1960s. That helps to explain the remarkable success of industry in my hon. Friend's constituency and in neighbouring areas.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Chief Secretary accept this, the last of my pre-Budget recommendations: that the 25 per cent. capital allowance for plant and machinery is hopelessly inadequate, given the level of inflation and the value of capital equipment, which deteriorates over the first year of its life? That level is not an investment incentive; it is an investment disincentive. Will the Chief Secretary seek to remedy it?
    Mr. Lamont: I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I note what he describes as a late Budget representation, although it seems to be a little wide of the original question.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for productivity to increase there must be more investment in manufacturing and research and development? Is he aware that in east Yorkshire and Hull an enormous amount of development is taking place? In my constituency, BP has just finished a new acetic acid plant
    652
    costing £250 million and has announced plans for a research laboratory, which will employ over 200 scientists and high-paid technicians.
    Mr. Lamont: I am pleased to hear the good news from my hon. Friend's constituency. He is right that productivity is related to investment. However, it is related not to investment alone but also to good management and good industrial relations, which have improved remarkably.

    Inflation
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have zero inflation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I shall set out my forecast for inflation next week.
    Mr. Steinberg: The fact is that the Government have no chance of getting inflation down to zero per cent., even though that was the stated aim of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will not fall significantly from the present rate of inflation. Many of my constituents are suffering great hardship because of the Chancellor's and the Government's policies. Many of them are facing hardship because of increases——
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the House, the hon. Gentleman should ask a single question.
    Mr. Steinberg: Inflation has been fuelled by high interest rates, high rents, high gas and water prices and the dreaded poll tax.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is about enough.
    Mr. Steinberg rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not at all fair to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues for him to ask several questions.
    Mr. Major: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was trying to talk out Question Time. The reality is that without utilising our present interest rate policy there will be no chance of bringing down the rate of inflation to a level that is tolerable for most people. To that end we shall continue to sustain monetary policy. It is important that we do so for economic and social reasons. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the community charge. It is perfectly true that the dramatic burst of spending by local government will raise the retail prices index, but much of that comes from local authorities of which the hon. Gentleman approves.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the way in which, to date, he has borne down on inflation? Does he agree that it will be far more difficult in future to resist the demands of those, from every section of the community, who recommend and enjoy inflation, and who will look to him for a major relaxation of credit before the next general election?
    Mr. Major: I share with my hon. Friend the belief that it is vital to take whatever action is necessary to bring inflation down.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Chancellor aware that all three local authorities in the Mid-Staffordshire constituency—two of which are Conservative—have set poll tax levels

    653
    —[Interruption.] I have selected a constituency in which the Conservative party has a 14,000 majority. Surely that is perfectly fair. The three authorities have set levels significantly higher than the previous rate bills and far higher than the Government's ludicrous guidelines. Do not those examples and others throughout the land show clearly that the Secretary of State for the Environment was perfectly correct when he said that the poll tax would have a devastating impact on the retail prices index? Does the Chancellor agree with his colleague?
    Mr. Major: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was uncharacteristically unreasonable in omitting from the beginning of his question the fact that the Labour county council covering that area has dramatically increased its expenditure. He also did not mention, for example, the quite astonishing and unreasonable community charge of more than £600 to be set by Labour-controlled Lambeth.
    Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House what the rate of inflation was before 1979? Does he agree that if the Labour policy about which we know was implemented, we should have hyperinflation and a run on sterling?
    Mr. Major: There is no doubt that Labour's policy would cause a run on sterling—and we have yet to find out precisely what Labour's policy will be in individual aspects. The Labour Government's inflation record speaks for itself. Their best month was still higher than our worst.

    Income Tax
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has recently received any representations about the relationship between incentives to work and the level of income tax.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about income tax.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does not the incentive effect of lowering direct taxes more than offset any loss to the Treasury because it increases the general buoyancy of the economy? Will he apply that logic to women who may wish to go out to work and who would be encouraged to do so if they were allowed to offset some of the costs for help in the home or with children?
    Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor heard that late pre-Budget representation. All that I can do is to refer my hon. Friend to my answer to a similar question in the previous Question Time.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Surely a better answer for the Financial Secretary to give to his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) would have been to say that the Government's tax policies are specifically designed to advantage the well-off rather than the generality of the community. If he had wanted to give his hon. Friend an alternative answer, he could have said that the parliamentary Labour party was absolutely right and that next Tuesday, the Government would abolish the tax on workplace nurseries.
    Mr. Lilley: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question a little more fully by referring to the past and not to the future. The previous Labour Government had tax rates of
    654
    83 per cent. on the rich, but only 30,000 people paid them. Now that we have reduced the rates to 40 per cent. at the same level of income, 190,000 people pay them. People in the top 5 per cent. of incomes are paying 30 per cent. of the total income tax burden against only 24 per cent. at the end of the Labour regime. If anything, we have soaked the rich to everyone's satisfaction.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one person's tax relief is another person's tax bill? Introducing a new tax relief erodes the tax base. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, concentrate on the Government's long-term objective of reducing the standard rate of tax and thereby helping all taxpayers?
    Mr. Lilley: I recognise my hon. Friend's point, which continues a fruitful discussion that we had at a recent Adjournment debate. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the House settle down please? It is very difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.

    Mortgage Interest
    Mrs. Wise: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of mortgage interest paid by owner-occupiers for 1988; and what is the comparable amount in 1989.
    Mr. Major: The total of interest payments depends both on interest rates and the amount of mortgages outstanding. Of the growth from £22·1 billion in 1988 to £32·4 billion in 1989 nearly half was due to the increase in the stock of mortgages.
    Mrs. Wise: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that the squeeze on home owners has put more than 400,000 of them into some form of arrears, and that the position of many of them and of the poorest will be worsened when the poll tax comes in? What does he intend to do to relieve that burden of debt?
    Mr. Major: As the hon. Lady will know, the vast majority of borrowers are still keeping up with their mortgage payments, and I expect that to continue to be the case. Borrowers in serious difficulties account for less than 1 per cent. of the total number of borrowers.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the fact that for years and years the Opposition steadfastly opposed the sale of council houses, that even now Labour councils put obstacles in the way of people who want to buy their council houses and that under this Government there has been a record rise in home ownership, does not concern for the plight of the home owner sound rather odd coming from the lips of Opposition Members?
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is correct in his observations, in particular that owner-occupation has risen dramatically. The demand for it continues and it will continue to rise.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Chancellor recognise that the only way to get interest rates down without pushing inflation up is to combine membership of the exchange rate mechanism with a tighter fiscal stance? Since the Labour party is not prepared to do that, why does not he give it a try on Tuesday?
    Mr. Major: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice, but he will understand that I have no intention of responding to it now.
    Mr. Conway: Does my right hon. Friend think that those who now have a mortgage, who may want a different house, or those who aspire to have a mortgage, would benefit if we were to embrace the policy to freeze new mortgages advocated by the Opposition's environment spokesman, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)?
    Mr. Major: What is certainly true is that the Opposition's policies would create a mortgage queue, which would help no one who wishes to become a home owner.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Chancellor realise that many home owners who are struggling not to fall into arrears will find his complacency deeply worrying? Has he taken no notice at all of the recent Policy Studies Institute report, which suggests that about 1 million people are in serious housing debt, especially as that report was published before the most recent mortgage and rent increases?
    Mr. Major: The hon. Lady misjudges me if she thinks that I am complacent or unconcerned about the issue, but the reality is that only a relatively small number of borrowers are in difficulty. When that occurs, I hope that they will take the advice of their lender, whether a bank or building society, and I hope that, wherever possible, that lender will enable them to meet their mortgage payments by extending the mortgage. That is frequently the position. It has been in the past and I expect that it will be so in the future. But there is no doubt whatever that a premature move to bring down interest rates would not be to the benefit of the economy, would not assist us in bringing down inflation and would not assist mortgage holders either.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Notwithstanding the necessity to maintain a tight monetary policy, I remind my right hon. Friend that many families in outer London face acute hardship because of great difficulty in keeping up with their mortgage payments and the rising cost of commuter fares. In his forthcoming Budget, will he ensure that he does not rely on monetary policy alone to restrain inflation? His predecessor's obsession with monetary policy was very damaging.
    Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend knows, he will receive the answer to that question within a few days.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 8 Mr. Cunliffe?
    Question No. 9. Mr. John P. Smith? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]
    Question No. 10. Mr. Randall?
    Mr. Skinner: They are all in Staffordshire.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always a help to the Chair if hon. Members who cannot be here to ask their questions inform the Chair.

    Non-oil GDP
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-oil gross domestic product, non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions represented in (a) 1978–79 and (b) 1989–90.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions amounted to 34·1 per cent. of non-oil GDP in 1978–79 and 37·1 per cent. in 1988–89, the latest available year.
    Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister admit that under the Tories, tax take has increased as a proportion of GDP? Will he further admit that the Tory claim to have reduced taxes is entirely bogus, given that the Government have reduced taxes only for the rich and increased them for the rest of us? Does the Minister think that the poll tax will help to reduce the overall burden of tax?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that if the Labour party were to choose to fight the next general election on which party would deliver tax cuts, we know who would win it. The hon. Gentleman is not on a good point, when the Labour party has voted against every tax cut that the Government have ever made. Is reducing the rate of income tax from 33p in the pound to 25p in the pound a tax cut or not? If we had simply carried on with the tax regime that we inherited, with the same rates, bands and allowances, and adjusted them for inflation, a married man on average earnings would be paying nearly £20 a week more. That is the tax burden that we had under the Labour party.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the virtuous circle brought about by the Government's low tax policies has meant more growth, more incentive and therefore a higher tax take for the Treasury? Does he further agree that, should the Labour party have the opportunity, unlikely as it seems, to put its policy of higher taxes, a wealth tax and an investment tax into operation, that would damage the good of the economy and therefore that increased tax take?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right, and the truth of what he says is shown in the rise in average living standards, which have gone up by nearly one third for the man on average earnings in the past 10 years, in contrast to the stagnation in living standards under the Labour party. In addition to the tax burden, the Labour Government also had a debt burden, which could not be financed out of taxes because the tax rates were penally high, so they had to finance borrowing out of inflation, which lowered living standards.
    Dr. Marek: The Chief Secretary is adept at talking about tax cuts, but he talks only about income tax, when the total tax take has increased under the 11 years of this Government. As a result, total tax as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was when the Labour party was in office. If the Tory party is not to be permanently saddled with the tag of being the tax, tax and tax again party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. The tax, tax and tax again party. Will the Chief Secretary give an estimate of when the tax level that existed under the Labour Government will come about as a result of the Tory Government's policies?
    Mr. Lamont: That is a little bit like being lectured on celibacy by Mae West.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has had it straight from those on the Opposition Front Bench that their policies, if they were elected, would be to put up the rate of tax, reduce the tax revenue to the Exchequer, and plunge the country back into the depths from which we rescued it in 1979?
    Mr. Lamont: That is absolutely right. If we had a borrowing requirement burden similar to that which we had under the previous Labour Government, that alone would be the equivalent of 14p on income tax.

    Mortgages
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the monthly payment on an average mortgage in July 1988; and what was the comparable figure in February 1990.
    Mr. Lilley: The figures are £128·63 and £190·31.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Minister share my concern about the clear connection between the huge increases in mortgage repayment figures and in homelessness? Is he aware that in Yorkshire and Humberside, during the 10 years of the present Government, homelessness has increased by 860 per cent? What are the Government doing to get to grips with the appalling human consequences of a high interest rate policy?
    Mr. Lilley: We all recognise that high interest rates mean that families have to cut spending on other things for the time being. The level of repossessions in the past year was below that for the previous four years.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that rising interest rates are an international phenomenon from which we cannot insulate ourselves? Does he further agree that a policy of increasing public expenditure as practised by Labour councils and advocated by the Labour Front Bench team would lead only to higher interest rates?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. No Labour Government to which Opposition Members could point—let alone a Conservative Government—have succeeded in reducing inflation without a period of high interest rates.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Financial Secretary must be aware that millions of families are facing mortgage bills that are £100 more than they were two years ago. In Mid-Staffordshire, the average is £50 extra a month. It is no comfort to such families to be told that it is an international phenomenom. When will the Financial Secretary and the Government end the exclusive reliance on interest rates as a mechanism for taking demand out of the economy?
    Mr. Lilley: I recognise the difficulties of people with high interest burdens. We should remember, however, that under this Government living standards for the average family with two children and on average earnings have increased by 32 per cent. more than inflation. The index takes account of mortgage interest payments. Under the Labour Government, the increase was only 1 per cent.

    Valuation Offices
    Mr. Key: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are currently employed in Inland Revenue valuation offices.
    Mr. Lilley: There are 5,748 staff currently employed in the Inland Revenue valuation offices.
    Mr. Key: Given the many appeals against business revaluations in my constituency and throughout rural
    658
    England, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the valuation offices can cope with the increase in revaluations and appeals effectively and to the advantage of the taxpayer?
    Mr. Lilley: We are confident that the burden of revaluations and appeals will be met by the valuation offices. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has a problem with the local valuation office that is due to close in Salisbury. I assure him, however, that his constituents will be served satisfactorily from Swindon and Southampton.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Inland Revenue is being swindled out of £1 million a day by employers who are taking insurance contributions and not passing them over to the relevant authorities? Is he further aware that if the Government used as many inspectors to follow those employers as they do to hound one-parent families out of their DSS benefit, they would retrieve much-needed money for the Exchequer?
    Mr. Lilley: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the responsibility of the valuation offices. I rather thought that he would ask whether the valuation offices would be able to cope with revaluing everybody's house every year according to its rising capital value if a roof tax were imposed. I have to tell him that they would not be able to cope, and nor would the British people.
    Mr. Roger King: My hon. Friend took my supplementary question out of my mouth with his latter comments. As the point bears repeating, will he estimate how many people it would require to value every property in every street to implement a roof tax?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend clearly has powers of telepathy. I am grateful to him for prompting me. I assure him that it would need armies of valuation officers to revalue everyone's house every year to impose an ever-rising roof tax on them. It would put taxation through the roof.

    Confederation of British Industry
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to next meet the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry; and whether the current level of interest rates will be on the agenda.
    Mr. Ryder: My right hon. Friend will be addressing the CBI's annual dinner on 17 May.
    Mr. Duffy: As now is the time—or so the House has been led to believe—when the economy will begin to turn the corner, inflation will be brought under control and interest rates will begin to edge downwards, what prospects will the Chancellor of the Exchequer offer to the CBI at the dinner in May? Will it still be a story of "Great Expectations" or will he own up, at long last, to "Bleak House"?
    Mr. Ryder: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has the pleasure of dining with the CBI in May, he will be able to remind it that in the 1980s we had low inflation compared with the 1970s. The highest rate of inflation under this Government is lower than the best achieved by Labour—[Interruption.] The underlying strength of the British economy is as great as that of most other countries in the western world. Investment has been increasing by 40 per cent. in the past three years. Profitability has hit record

    659
    levels. Manufacturing productivity in Britain in the 1980s has been higher than for 20 or 30 years—[Interruption.] Moreover, the British growth rate in the 1980s is far higher than in the 1970s, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There seems to be a carnival atmosphere. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Confederation of British Industry has enjoyed a period of sustained growth—the longest since the second world war—and a longer period of sustained and increasing profits than at any time since the second world war? Does he further agree that wages are a much more important factor in arriving at costs than the cost of borrowing money will ever be?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is right to say that the 1980s have been a period of great economic success, not least in Scotland. He is also right to warn against high unit labour costs. Those high costs prevent Britain from becoming even more prosperous and prevent employers from taking on more people at their places of work.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's policy on interest rates.
    Mr. Ryder: Fifteen per cent. interest rates are tightening demand.
    Mr. Turner: Will the Chancellor confirm that his team is at the top of the OECD inflation table entirely because the right hon. Gentleman keeps scoring own goals through his high interest rate policy?
    Mr. Ryder: To be fair to him, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been well briefed for this question. Britain is not top of the OECD inflation league by a long chalk. Many other countries in Europe have higher inflation rates than Britain, as do others in the OECD.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my hon. Friend agree that one factor in this complex consideration is that if we were to join the exchange rate mechanism, interest rates would become a much more important element in combating inflation than they are ever at the moment?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is trying to entice me crown an incredibly attractive path, but I shall resist the temptation. As he knows, the question is not when—[Interruption.]—not whether, but when we shall join the ERM. He also knows that we shall pursue the conditions set out at the Madrid summit last summer. As soon as those conditions have been met, we shall enter the ERM.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware that, as a result of high interest rates, many home owners are considering remortgaging packages, which may appear to them to be attractive. Is he aware of a difficulty here? At present home owners get tax relief on that part of the mortgage with which they acquired their property and on home improvements, provided that they were carried out before 1988. Is he aware that if they remortgage they lose out on tax relief on that part which involves the home
    660
    improvements scheme? That is a very important consideration. Will the Minister make a statement or, if he wishes to reflect on it, will he write to me?
    Mr. Ryder: I shall certainly pass on the hon. Member's Budget recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: high mortgage rates cause a great deal of anxiety to people with mortgages, particularly young married couples. As soon as we can get inflation on a sustained downward path, interest rates and mortgages will follow.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the short-term pain of high interest rates is preferable to the long-term pain of inflation—£1,000 in 1960 had a purchasing power of only £160 in 1980? Does he agree that we must never allow that to happen again?
    Mr. Ryder: We must never allow it to happen again, but it will if the Labour party ever gets a chance or a sniff of office. Their record in the 1960s and the 1970s showed that they do not care at all about high inflation and how it affects people with mortgages and savings. The rates of interest and of inflation in the 1970s were a particular problem to elderly people with savings. It is to them that the Labour party would mete out its policies if it ever won office again.

    OECD
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which OECD countries have, by latest estimates, trade deficits that are bigger as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ryder: Information on the current account deficit in the United Kingdom is contained in the Central Statistical Office's latest balance of payments press release of 13 March 1990, and on United Kingdom gross domestic product in the CSO's national accounts press release of 21 December 1989. Figures for each of the other OECD countries are published by OECD in the December 1989 issue of "Economic Outlook".
    Mr. Madden: Cutting through all that verbiage, is not the reality that Britain's trade deficit is the largest in Europe and that this is a shameful record for the Government's economic policies over the past 11 years? Does the Minister remember that the former Chancellor, the unlamented right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), used to pooh-pooh the trade deficit by saying that it could be financed by invisible trade? What is the Government's excuse for the present shameful trade deficit?
    Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman refers to Britain's trade deficit. Many other countries in the western world have a trade deficit, including the United States, Italy, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Australia. The truth is that the British trade deficit is improving; the volume of manufacturing exports was up by 11 per cent. last year and the CBI believes that there will be further improvement in the months ahead. The hon. Gentleman is even gloomier than normal.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend speculate on the effect on Britain's trade performance if the Government were to support every inflationary wage

    661
    demand in sight, increase income tax and increase corporation tax—all policies supported by the Labour party?
    Mr. Ryder: To be fair to the Labour party, I am not sure whether it supports those policies. The Labour party has refused to say what its policies are. We have opinions from the Labour party, but no policies.
    Mr. Boateng: We are used to the excuses of the Economic Secretary and this Government for our failures in relation to visible earnings. Will the hon. Gentleman give us what will no doubt become the usual excuse for our failure to secure a satisfactory position in relation to invisible earnings? Why do we, for the first time since the Napoleonic war, have a deficit in our invisible earnings? Is it because the right hon. Lady and her Government have succeeded in doing to our country's economy what Napoleon never did—destroy it?
    Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman reads the press releases, he will find that during the past year invisibles have been erratic, but we hope that their performance will improve this year. The hon. Gentleman should read the details of the press releases from the CSO rather more carefully than, I fancy, he has to date.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that, day in and day out in this House, we are subjected to the Opposition rubbishing British industry? Is not the truth of the matter that the industrial base of this nation is as strong as ever, and that we are importing goods so that we may value-add to them and sell them at a profit? This nation is outstripping the rest of Europe in production and in the creation of jobs. Why do the Opposition keep rubbishing our industry?
    Mr. Ryder: The short answer is that my hon. Friend speaks for Britain, and the Labour party does not.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of Mr. Jacques Delors, president of the European Commission, in rejecting the proposals for new labour laws as part of the social charter of the European Community? Does not that show that she was right in being the first to speak up against these damaging proposals, despite the fact that they were being put forward so enthusiastically by the Labour party and its Socialist allies? Is not it a shame that—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Butterfill: Is not it a shame that when this was first reported in the national newspapers the comment that my right hon. Friend was "isolated" made the front page, whereas now the item makes only page 11?
    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in being grateful that greater realism and common sense are coming into Brussels. It would be quite absurd to create a common market and then to tie it up with bureaucracy and Socialism. With regard to our sometimes being isolated, as we were in respect of the social charter, I should say that we got the right result then, and many people who criticised us at the time are now taking our view. So we were right.
    Mr. Hattersley: Following the tragic events in Iraq earlier today, may I make it clear that the Opposition will support the Government in taking the strongest possible action, consistent with international law, in response to the barbaric execution of Mr. Farzad Bazoft? We are, of course, aware of the importance of doing all that we can to protect Mrs. Daphne Parish and Mr. Ian Richter. The Government, by their actions as well as their words—[Interruption.] Some of us regard this as a grave matter. As I am sure the Prime Minister agrees, the Government, by their actions as well as their words, must express the sense of outrage that is felt throughout the country.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very grave and serious matter. The Iraqi Government's action is an act of barbarism which is deeply repugnant to all civilised people. We extend our sympathy to Mr. Bazoft's family and colleagues. I agree that we must consider Mrs. Parish, who is still in prison in Iraq, as well as Mr. Richter, on whose behalf we have made many representations. The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement after questions, so I think that further details should be left until then.
    Mr. Malins: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Malins: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment at the decision of the Irish Supreme Court to release two IRA terrorists? Does she further agree that that could damage the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that the action is an unjustified attack and slur on the Northern Irish prison service?
    The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The suggestion that anyone extradited to Northern Ireland would be maltreated is grossly offensive and totally unjustified. The Northern Irish prison service is run by dedicated and courageous people who do a very difficult job. I fear that such a judgment may encourage terrorists to the view that they will probably find a safe haven in the Republic of Ireland, and that is very serious.
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Prime Minister know that she recently scored 66 per cent. in a popularity poll in Lithuania—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have the rest of the question, please?
    Dr. Thomas: Will she reciprocate that affection by declaring her support for the right of the Lithuanian people to negotiate their independence and their return to full statehood?
    The Prime Minister: I am very pleased to hear the news that the hon. Gentleman has given to the House. Those people, along with many others, are fighting Socialism. They know the poverty of Socialism and they are trying to get rid of it. The matter must now be taken up in discussion with President Gorbachev. I hope that the outcome will be satisfactory to everyone.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's determination to keep their spending under control is one factor that keeps public investment flooding into this country? Since the last thing that we want is to call in the International Monetary Fund to bail us out again, as happened under Labour, will she reaffirm that she intends to stick to her courageous line?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we get a great deal of inward investment from Germany, Japan and other investors because they know that the Government will continue to pursue sound economic polices, to have the right industrial law, to resist nationalisation, to privatise more industries and to have lower taxes than we have had at any time since before the war. All those things are vital to investors and to the prosperity of the country.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Prime Minister reconsider her reply at Question Time on Tuesday that not paying the poll tax is anti-democratic and a bad example to set to all young people? Does not she realise that 42·5 per cent., or over 205,000, of the people in Glasgow, are not paying the poll tax, and that they and the millions who are about to join them in England and Wales are deeply insulted by her remarks, because it is for their children and their families that those who can't pay won't pay? I and others on this side of the Chamber are proud to stand alongside those people in Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: Deliberately to disobey a law, properly passed through all its stages in Parliament, is thoroughly anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law, and leads to all the acts of dictatorship against which the House stands firmly. I repeat what I said: it is anti-democratic and against the rule of law. It sets a bad example to children and young people and should never be propounded from the House.
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cash: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the Labour-controlled county council in Staffordshire, which runs the education of that county, has produced results showing that 11 per cent. of all who leave school do so without educational qualifications? Should not the people
    664
    of Staffordshire closely examine the way that that county council runs its affairs, to ensure that it gets the retribution that it deserves in the forthcoming election?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Whether in central, county council or district council government, we all have a duty to obtain the best value for money, whether it is the community charge or taxpayers' money. High-spending councils often do not get the best value for money in education or other services. Our community charge plans will enable people to scrutinise their local councils more competently to ensure that their money is well spent and to take action if it is not, and if the community charge is too high. Our education reforms will give parents more say in the education of their children and enable them to see how well they are doing. That is thoroughly to be recommended.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: Last week the Prime Minister told me that home repossessions were one third of I per cent. Has not the Council of Mortgage Lenders said that the number of people who are six to 12 months in arrears has risen by 29 per cent., and that 500,000 families are now two to six months in arrears? Are not the Government's high interest rate policies to blame, and will they do anything about it in next week's Budget? Should not new home buyers have been warned that they are home owners only on borrowed time?
    The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, 99·2 per cent. of people are able to pay their mortgages in the normal way. Of course, some are in difficulty. If they are in difficulty with building societies, in most cases the building societies will extend the mortgage or make other arrangements to enable them to pay. That is frequently done. Frequently the value of the asset for which they are receiving the mortgage has increased considerably since they first took out the mortgage.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that industry in the north-west has undergone a resurgency since she took office? Unemployment has fallen substantially, not least in my constituency of Lancaster, where it fell by 0·4 per cent. in the past month alone.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Industry is far stronger now. Restrictive practices have gone, the rate of investment in industry is higher and exports are increasing. Today's news from the unemployment front is that there are now more jobs than ever before: nearly 27 million. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. On the day that the unemployment figures were announced, Opposition Members used to be the first to get up to ask about them. But they never ask about them now, because we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. We have created more jobs than they have, and that tells its own story.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday, 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Prime Minister join the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation and independent consultants in denouncing the wickedly dishonest advertising and overselling of personal pensions? Already, over 1 million people are likely to be worse off because they have been misled, taken the Government bribe and left SERPS. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that when the time is right for those cheated 1 million to return to SERPS, there will be a full-blooded Government advertising campaign to inform them of the truth?
    The Prime Minister: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's premise and the language in which he expressed it. People are perfectly free to take out personal pensions. They take a burden off SERPS, which is why they receive a certain amount from it when setting up pensions. Many people have exercised their choice. I recognise that choice is anathema to Socialism, which is why Socialism will be rejected in this part of Europe as it has been in eastern Europe.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Prime Minister aware that the privatised British Telecom is charging people £80 in certain areas before it will install a telephone? Does she think that that is a good advertisement for the privatised system, remembering that people do not get the £80 back until they have paid four consecutive bills? That is a disgrace. Does she agree that things were better when BT was public?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady looks at the record of British Telecom since it has been privatised she will find that it is giving a much better service. Because of the regulatory regime, it has not been able to increase its prices by anything like the rate of inflation, so in real terms prices have gone down since privatisation. That is good news for all telephone users.

Mr. Farzad Bazoft (Execution)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about Mr. Bazoft.
The Iraqis executed Mr. Farzad Bazoft this morning. Her Majesty's consul-general visited him early this morning.
I can recall no recent case in which such a strong and unanimous view was expressed across the world in favour of clemency. That view has been ignored. The House will wish to express its total revulsion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At a time when the international scene shows many signs of hope and humanity, we have been reminded that there are still regimes capable of a pitiless disregard for human rights.
I have instructed our ambassador to return home. We are suspending all planned ministerial visits.
We are stopping the training of Iraqis on Ministry of Defence courses. Students on these courses will return to Iraq without completing their courses.
We shall seek support from the Twelve and from our friends and allies in condemning Iraq's action.
I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I extend to Mr. Bazoft's family our deep sympathies on this tragic outcome. We shall continue to work for the release of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Ian Richter from their harsh sentences in Iraq.
We made a strenuous and prolonged effort by many means to save Mr. Bazoft's life. The comments that we have made have throughout been measured and reasonable. By their action, the Iraqi authorities have blackened the name of Iraq across the world.
Mr. George Robertson: We on this side of the House join the Foreign Secretary in the sense of shock and anger that he has expressed about the execution of Mr. Farzad Bazoft and we join in his condolences to Mr. Bazoft's family.
The whole House of Commons stands united in condemning this act of unspeakable brutality, an act which displayed a ruthless contempt for justice, for humanity and for united world opinion. This is not only a crime against one man who this morning was so callously put to death, but represents a real threat to every other person who may go to Iraq.
It is also right at this time to remember the indefensible gaol sentences passed on Mrs. Daphne Parish and Mr. Ian Richter, and we must continue all efforts to have them freed.
We offer the Government our full support in the action that they are taking, and we welcome the intention of involving our European partners in seeking further ways of putting pressure on Iraq.
Does the Foreign Secretary think that here in Britain he should now ask the Iraqi ambassador immediately to go home, as a clear indication of the disgust of the British people at what has happened? Should not we carefully reconsider the extensive trade credits that we offer Iraq, and cancel all trade missions from this country to Iraq? Today's execution was an act of calculated violence by a bloodstained dictatorship which will delay any chance of the Iraqis' return to the civilised world community.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has handled the matter. We have considered the three specific extra points that he made. He suggested that we should send home the Iraqi ambassador. I do not want to take steps that might lead to the permanent exclusion of our embassy staff from Baghdad. We have more than 2,000 British subjects there and, like the Opposition, we are thinking in particular of Mr. Richter and Mrs. Parish, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
We have already considered the matter of credit. We must take into account that economic measures in which we would not be joined by others will not alter the stance of the Iraqi Government, and might do more harm than good. The hon. Member also mentioned trade missions. Such a mission was due to leave today from the Birmingham chamber of commerce. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has withdrawn support and subsidy from the mission. I understand that the Birmingham chamber of commerce has also withdrawn its support.
Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his measured response to this outrage and the actions of this monstrous regime is exactly right in the circumstances? Will he also accept that, while others may urge that sanctions through trade or a complete break of diplomatic relations might express their justifiable feelings of outrage, such measures would be less effective and might end up doing no harm to Iraq and damaging this country more? Will he work hard with our Community partners to ensure that the combined effort and power of the European community is directed to bringing to bear on the Baghdad regime the lesson that it has offended the civilised rules of humanity and international order?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to those Foreign Ministers and others, including the Secretary-General of the United Nations and many others, who have intervened to urge clemency in the past few days. I agree with my right hon. Friend's comments. I shall have an opportunity the day after tomorrow at the meeting of EC and Gulf Ministers in Muscat to drive home the point that he made.
Sir David Steel:: We on this Bench fully endorse the Foreign Secretary's sentiments. Would not it be wise to remind ourselves that Mr. Bazoft was a journalist who was in the process of investigating the apparent deaths of hundreds of Iraqi people in an explosion? This secretive and revolting regime has an appalling human rights record towards its own people. In consultation with European partners, will the Foreign Secretary go beyond seeking their condemnation and ask them collectively to consider whether Iraq is suitable as a normal trading partner to which we give credit facilities?
Mr. Hurd: I will certainly discuss the matter with them. In honesty, I do not think that that line of thought is likely to make much progress. The right hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Mr. Bazoft was a journalist. He said in court that he was acting as a journalist and nothing more on the occasion when he was arrested. In the last hours of his life, he repeated that account to the consul-general.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is a duty on each and every hon. Member of the House to express his revulsion at this atrocity? Will he further accept my confident assertion that those from this Parliament attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in two weeks' time will wish to express their sentiments in that regard directly to Iraqi parliamentarians?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: I think that that would be an excellent contribution.
Mr. Jim Sillars: May I join in the expressions of revulsion? Having heard the Iraqi ambassador on the radio earlier today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put it clearly on record that any confession extracted by Saddam Hussein's regime will carry no validity anywhere in the world?
Let me also take the right hon. Gentleman up on the question of continued extended credits. Are not they an expression of normal relations between states? Is not it the case that we cannot continue to have normal relations with Iraq under the present circumstances? Should not we withdraw the credits as an expression of this state's particular revulsion?
Mr. Hurd: I have expressed our revulsion, in which every hon. Member shares. But in going on to consider economic measures such as the hon. Gentleman proposes—it is perfectly natural that he should make such a proposal this afternoon—it is also right that the whole House should think through their consequences. Would such economic measures remove the regime? Obviously not. Would they in any way affect its policies? I have to tell the House that in my judgment they would not. Would they do more harm than good to Britain? I think it possible that they would. Those are the considerations that the House must carry in its mind before it judges these matters.
Sir Dennis Walters: Does my right hon. Friend accept the widespread support for the statement that he has made? Will he note that some of us who spend a great deal of time trying to work for better relations between this country and Arab countries share his sense of shock and disappointment? I believe that it is right not to break diplomatic relations, because that would not help British interests or Mrs. Parish, who is in gaol in Iraq. At the same time, we should recognise that Arab countries such as Jordan and Egypt, and the PLO, did their best to prevent this horrid act from taking place.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His comments coming from a long-standing and sincere friend of the Arab world, will carry particular weight. I am certainly grateful to the three Arab leaders whom he mentioned, who certainly did their best to avert this disaster.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Foreign Secretary said, did he not, that soldiers from Iraq—members of the armed forces training here—would be sent home. I understand that it is also normal for policemen to be training at the various academies of the police forces in this country. Will the Foreign Secretary ask the Home Office to see whether policemen are here as
670
well and ensure that they, too, are sent home, because it is their job to carry out the law that we in the House so strongly oppose?
Mr. Hurd: I shall look into the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary aware that six Conservative Members were in Iraq when Mr. Bazoft was arrested last September and we went to see the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq about the case of Mr. Ian Richter. When the deputy Prime Minister referred during those discussions to a political prisoner in our own gaols, we pointed out that the man in question was in prison for murder. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no deals with Iraq to exchange prisoners, and that this country does not interfere in our criminal justice system?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. I have unfortunately had occasion to explain this to Iraq off and on for about eight years of my ministerial career. It is certainly true that the Iraqis hope, from time to time, to make such deals. We have had to explain—in various personal cases of great difficulty, in which the Government and the whole House felt for the people in prison in Iraq—that we are not going to trade our justice in that way.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I will call two more hon. Members from each side; then we must move on to business questions.
Dr. David Owen: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this callous and brutal act tramples on the values of a free and international press and reminds us that Iraq has used gas not only against its own citizens but against Iran and that it continues to manufacture gas? Should not it now be on the conscience of the world to take action on that country's dismal record on the whole question of poisonous gas?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman knows about poisonous gas and about human rights, and he will know that we have been among the foremost in urging precisely that.
Mr. Michael Latham: Although the House will wish to accept the judgment of my right hon. Friend about the action he has taken, will he confirm that the return of our ambassador to this country could be prolonged? If we are not going to take action to remove any Iraqi staff from this country, no normal relations should take place with them until the people concerned are released from their country.
Mr. Hurd: We shall judge the length of time that it would be sensible to keep Her Majesty's ambassador here. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's main point.
Mr. George Galloway: The Iraqi regime has besmirched the name of its people by the judicial murder this morning—as any state which commits judicial murder does. Will the Secretary of State accept that the House in general welcomes the cautious approach that he has taken in response——
Mr. Tony Banks: No.
Mr. Galloway: My hon. Friend says no, but the truth is that caution has been absent from much of the rhetoric since last week, and in my view that has been extremely damaging. People who know that part of the world have listened with a sense of increasing gloom to the gunboats being started up and the sabres dusted down in certain quarters. That is entirely counter-productive, and a man has paid for it with his life.
Mr. Hurd: I hope that the hon. Member will agree that what has been said, not just by Ministers but by hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the subject on several occasions during the past week, has been measured. Anything less would have fallen well below what was required of the subject we were discussing.
Mr. Tony Banks: What about the morality?
Mr. Hurd: Neither the Government nor the Opposition are responsible for what appears in parts of the media, and I am not in a position to comment on that. I think that our stance, and what hon. Members have said, was the least that could have been expected upon such occasions, and I do not think that we have anything to regret. I have tried to use measured words, which I think express the deep disgust that we all feel.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his measured and balanced statement this afternoon will be widely welcomed? While it is obviously essential that that barbaric act should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, we also have to think of the interests of Ian Richter, Daphne Parish and the 2,000 Britons who work in Baghdad. Can my right hon. Friend deny the rumours that are apparently being put about that Mr. Bazoft was a member of special branch?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I welcome the opportunity to comment on the rumours that are circulating. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that Mr. Bazoft telephoned the Metropolitan police on four occasions—once in 1987, twice in 1988 and once last year—as a member of the public offering information on subjects that were unconnected with Iraq. He had no contact with special branch, and the police did not consider the information he gave was worth pursuing but his calls were logged in accordance with routine procedure. There were no further contacts, and there were no further meetings. None of that seems relevant to this morning's tragedy.

Business of the House
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY I9 MARCH—Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill.
Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
TUESDAY 20 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement. European Community documents relevant to the Budget debate will be shown in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 21 MARCH AND THURSDAY 22 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 23 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 26 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
Tuesday 20 March: Relevant European Community documents

(a) 9487/89

Annual Economic Report 1989–90

(b) Unnumbered

Final version of Annual Economic Report as adopted by the Council

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xxxviii (1988–89), para 2

(b) HC 11-ix ( 1989–90), para 2

Dr. John Cunningham: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet had time to reach a conclusion about the requests from all parties in the House for a debate on the Harrods-House of Fraser scandal? Is not it inadequate to leave the matter as it was left—dealt with in a brief statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who seemed to dismiss this disgraceful episode in an offhand and inadequate manner?
Is not it in the interests of everyone in Parliament, including the Government, and of the reputation of industry and our financial institutions, that the matter should be properly discussed and debated in Parliament? I emphasise that requests for a debate came from hon. Members in all parts of the House. The Government have had time to consider the matter. I hope that we can have an early and positive response so that the House can hold an essential debate.
Why are the Government delaying debates on important poll tax orders? Has the Patronage Secretary seen the petition on the Order Paper from the impeccably Conservative Berkshire county council drawing attention to the unfair treatment of Tory boroughs such as Wandsworth and Westminster by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Since even Tory Berkshire county council is now calling for the Government's revenue support grant decisions to be reconsidered, and since the Prime Minister remains—almost alone, but nevertheless remains—convinced that the poll tax is a good idea, why are the Government so reluctant to allow time to debate those matters?
Mr. Renton: There is no question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry being, as the hon. Gentleman put it, offhand in his attitude towards the House of Fraser report. He made a statement and answered questions about it last week in the House.

673
Hon. Members will be aware that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is looking into the Department's investigative powers under the Companies Act 1989 and the Financial Services Act 1986. My right hon. Friend will be submitting an additional memorandum to the Committee on the merger policy and company law issues arising from the House of Fraser report.
I cannot hold out the prospect of a debate in the immediate future, although there will be debates throughout next week on the Budget statement. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is being discussed through the usual channels.
On the question of the community charge, it is correct that the House has had a number of opportunities in recent weeks to debate matters relating to it. I cannot promise a specific date, but I shall certainly pass on the views that the shadow Leader of the House has expressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. To add a rider, I hope that, during that debate, we shall have an opportunity to debate the position of the 31 Labour Members who have made plain their opposition to paying the community charge and who are thus clearly committing themselves to illegality.
I see that one of those Members, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), has now resigned the Labour Whip. I wonder when the other 30 will do so, and whether, if they do not, the shadow Leader of the Opposition will put his foot where his mouth is and withdraw the Whip from those 30 Labour Members of Parliament.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the business immediately after this is guillotined and that it is to be followed by opposed private business, with further business after that. I ask hon. Members please to ask one question. If they could hold their questions until next week, that would be even better.
Mr Graham Riddick: When are we likely to have a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on which local authorities will be community charge-capped? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that local council budgets will, on average, increase this year by well over 30 per cent? Is it not clear that some local councils, particularly Labour councils, are taking the opportunity of the changeover to the new system of local government finance to set unnecessarily high community charge levels? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must cap those authorities?
Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is becoming increasingly clear that it costs a lot more to live in a Labour-controlled local authority than in a Conservative-controlled local authority. Labour counties are setting an average precept that is £82 above the standard spending assessment, as compared with £26 in Conservative counties. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that we shall not hesitate to cap authorities that insist on budgeting excessively, and that we shall force them to cut their spending plans.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Next week?
Mr. Renton: No, it will not be next week. I cannot speculate on the operation or timetable of any capping scheme, but it is being considered carefully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. James Wallace: The Patronage Secretary is no doubt aware of the concern in the highlands and islands of Scotland about the apparent withdrawal of European regional development fund funding, following the announcement this week. Does he agree that the claim and counter-claim between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Commissioner Millan is doing nothing to resolve that confusion or to dispel the concern? Will the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the House next week and make a statement to clarify the situation and to say what the Government are doing to ensure that important regional development funding comes to the highlands and islands after 1992?
Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Because of the pressure of business next week, I cannot promise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be in the House to make the statement next week, but I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's views to him.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend initiate an investigation so that some explanation can be given of how an hon. Member of this House, together with others, can hold a press conference in this House urging a breach of a law that was passed by this House? The public might think that this is a madhouse, with respect.
Mr. Renton: And indeed, as my hon. Friend might have said, the hon. Member in question, who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber, was photographed with members of the Militant anti-community charge protesters. That was disgraceful—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax."] The anti-community charge protesters. That was a disgraceful abuse of the premises of this House. I hope that the hon. Member in question will speak for himself in any forthcoming debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Patronage Secretary had a chance to read Professor Grieve's report on homelessness? Is he aware that its indentification of the cause of homelessness is the Government's withdrawal of massive funds from local authorities, thus preventing them from building any homes? Is he aware that it is a scandal that in London——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware of it, but is the question about business next week?
Mr. Banks: Precisely. I want to know whether the Patronage Secretary is aware of the crisis of homelessness in London and elsewhere and whether we shall have an urgent debate on homelessness, because the country demands to know what the Government are going to do about this obscenity.
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has a great capacity for getting very excited. He will know very well that we have recently made a grant of £1 million to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux specifically to look into the growth of homelessness. The hon. Gentleman and I might find common cause in believing

675
that it is the break-up of families that leads most of all to the increase in homelessness. That is a worrying matter in today's society.
Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the debate on 18 January on the previous community charge report, at column 427, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said specifically that there would be a debate on the transitional relief scheme in January? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why there was no debate in January or in February? Will he give a clear undertaking that this extremely important report, in which the assumptions for the community charge are grossly underestimated, at the expense of our constituents, will be debated?
Mr. Renton: I think that my right hon. Friend may be incorrect in saying that the specific commitment was to a debate in January. However, I am aware of the question of a debate on transitional relief. I cannot promise a specific date, but I shall pass on my right hon. Friend's concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will bear them very much in mind.
Mr. William Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the decision in the Dublin Supreme Court on 1 March, which demanded that there was a "legal imperative" on the Dublin Government always to seek a united Ireland? In the light of that, can we have an early debate, as the consequences of that judgment showed through in the judgment on extradition this week?
If we had that early debate, Unionist Members could explain to the House and to the Government exactly what the consequences of those judgments are, especially since last night, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) made it very clear that he did not have the slightest idea what the consequences were.
Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he is being somewhat unjust to my hon. Friend and a little precipitate, since last night's Adjournment debate dealt specifically with that important constitutional case.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local government planning procedures, so that I can bring before the House the new practice of Labour-controlled Ealing council of charging people £10 a sheet for information relating to planning applications, and the fact that a constituent of mine had to pay £142·50 for copies of planning applications relating to the conversion of one small house in Northolt? That should be brought before the House, since corruption appears to be involved.
Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend is always extremely assiduous in bringing to the House his concerns about his constituency and, most particularly, about the extravagances of Ealing council. I hope that his council will take careful note of the remarks that he has just made.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As the appalling and murderous activities of the Isreaeli forces continue in the occupied Arab territories, when will the House be able
676
to debate that specific issue without having to try to pursue it, submerged as it usually is, in the broader range of a general foreign affairs debate?
Mr. Renton: I know well, from the days when I was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Gentleman's concern about all middle eastern issues, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli issue. There have been a number of foreign affairs debates in the House recently, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's points, particularly on the Palestinian issue.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulties that we faced on Tuesday night about residential homes for elderly people underline the great problem that Britain faces of an aging population—problems which will extend to the end of the century and into the next one? As many difficult points need to be addressed, would not it be to the great advantage of the House to have a debate in the not-too-far distant future on how Britain will cope with a developing aging population?
Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend is right. That is a matter of great concern and the problem will get worse in the decade ahead. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made it clear during the debate on Tuesday night that he recognised the concerns that had been expressed, for example, on income support for those in residential homes, and said that he would make a thorough assessment of the position and look carefully at the levels and structure of income support limits for future upratings. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise such matters in the forthcoming debates on Report and Third Reading of the Social Security Bill.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Patronage Secretary aware that I admire his and the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for insisting that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members take action against those of our colleagues who intend to break the law? In view of that enthusiasm, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement next week explaining to the House what action she intends to take against those of her hon. Friends who are reported to have broken the law—or does that principle apply only to Opposition Members?
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's question is not clear. We have recently had a debate about the position of hon. Members in relation to the Register of Members' Interests. I am not otherwise aware of any hon Members to whom the hon. Gentleman might be referring.
Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a prayer has been tabled by myself and others against the substantial increase in the cost of firearms licences? Will my right hon. Friend find time in the not-too-distant future to debate that matter?
Mr. Renton: I note my hon. Friend's remarks, and I know of his interest in the subject. There was new legislation on firearms last year. The question whether there should be a debate on these matters is perhaps best left to a discussion through the usual channels, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.
Mr. Ron Brown: Since a constituent of mine, Mr. Roger Randall, is having grave difficulty in bringing in his wife from Manila, will the right hon. Gentleman have this matter investigated, or can we have an early debate about his circumstances and those of many people who suffer from the racist attitude that is prevalent in the Government and many embassies?
Mr. Renton: I wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which I find insulting. Having been a Minister with responsibility for immigration at the Home Office for two and a half years, I know full well how careful are the Home Office and the immigration department, which will also resent the hon. Gentleman's remarks, to see that the immigration controls that they operate are free and fair and not racist.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he should discuss the case of his constituent who wishes to bring in his wife from Manila with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or with the immigration and nationality department at Croydon. I hope that he will, on second thoughts, withdraw his divisive remarks.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: The introduction of the community charge has thrown up one anomaly for married couples. Will my right hon. Friend give time as soon as possible to a debate on the fact that, in the year in which independent taxation for married women is introduced, married women upon whom the community charge is levied as individuals do not qualify for capital disregard for rebate purposes? It is logical, fair and just that they should so qualify. Could we have a debate as soon as possible, especially as this would be of interest to so many pensioner couples who save for their retirement?
Mr. Renton: I note the important point raised by my hon. Friend. Even if there is not soon time for a specific debate on that subject, she could find an opportunity to raise it when the House debates the Budget statement next week.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a statement next week on progress in the sale of the skill centres? No doubt the Chief Whip will recall that, when a statement was made, the House was told that the valuable land on which many of the skill centres stand would be subject to leasing arrangements. Is the Chief Whip aware that these will now be given to Astra Training Services Ltd. a curious company which seems to be run by civil servants. Is it not time that the Government came clean to the House and exposed the nefarious arrangement by which valuable assets are being given away to the private sector?
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman often sees nefarious arrangements where other people see perfectly ordinary and straightforward arrangements. I shall pass on his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the hon. Gentleman might find an opportunity to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: Millions of people are concerned about animal welfare. Because of the recent, almost weekly, reports about the despicable
678
treatment of captive wild animals by money-grubbing organisations such as Chipperfield, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on animal welfare?
Mr. Renton: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. Animal welfare rightly touches the hearts of all of us. I cannot promise a debate next week, but I shall see that my hon. Friend's remarks are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Patronage Secretary will have heard the question asked earlier this afternoon about early retirement. He may recognise that there is a growing volume of evidence in favour of early retirement. Can we have a debate on that subject soon, and will the right hon. Gentleman invite the Prime Minister to attend, so that she might take the advice that she might be given on that occasion?
Mr. Renton: I had the feeling that the hon. Gentleman was planning to take early retirement, either enforced or otherwise, at the next general election. We shall see whether there are any opportunities. If he wishes to discuss his case, perhaps he should raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Toby Jessel: On the Budget statement, is it within our terms of reference to discuss the effect on the economy of the excellent weather this year, which has enabled people to turn down their heating and save on their heating costs, thereby reducing their cost of living, but which cannot be measured within the cost of living index, thereby exalting the real cost of living?
Mr. Renton: Much as I should like to claim credit for warm weather as part of Conservative policy, I am riot wholly certain that Opposition Members would allow me to do so. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his inventive and ingenious mind, will find a suitable opportunity to raise the matter, perhaps on the day devoted to the economy during the Budget debate.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the revulsion felt in the United Kingdom, which was expressed on both sides of the House during the exchanges over the killing in Iraq, would the Patronage Secretary arrange as soon as possible another statement to update us next week on what action will be taken by Britain? Is he aware that, in questioning on any such statement, many of us would wish to dispute the misguided view that has been advanced by one or two hon. Members, again on both sides of the House, that there was misrepresentation? We believe that the spotlight that the British media turned on the repression and denial of human rights in Iraq was fully justified. The full responsibility for the murder which has taken place is with the hangman in Baghdad.
Mr. Renton: Of course I share—every Member of the House will share—the hon. Gentleman's feeling of revulsion at the execution. I point out to him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just made a statement on the matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that one of our prime concerns now must be the welfare, and, one hopes, the eventual release, of the British people who are still in captivity in Iraq, particularly Ian Richter and Mrs. Parish. That is an aspect which my right hon. Friend must keep in mind before he comes to the House again to make a statement.
Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motions 696 and 715? Can we have an early opportunity to debate these motions?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that only one of those motions may be printed in Hansard.
Mr. Walker: May we have an opportunity to debate early-day motion 696 at an early date?
That this House notes that the Right honourable Member for Islwyn may have missed more than one boat on Friday 9th March, when his party in Scotland at their conference in Dunoon failed to accept his leadership and voted to support motions on proportional representation and on unilateral disarmament; and further notes this North-South divide is made worse by the Scottish Labour Party proposals for the roof tax and the rating of farm buildings, farmland and woodland, and the compulsory purchase of estates and holiday homes, all of which have not as yet been embraced by the Labour Party in England.
The motion concerns
"roof tax and the rating of farm buildings, farmland and woodland, and the compulsory purchase of estates and holiday homes"
in Scotland. These are measures which apply to Scotland only, thus creating a north-south divide. The proposals have not yet been embraced by the Labour party in England. It is important that we Scots have an early opportunity to debate measures that are designed to affect only Scotland.
Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It would be useful if my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, when he is back from his important visit abroad, could find time for such a debate. It would be useful if the debate embraced roof tax in Scotland and the Scottish Labour party's attitude to defence, given that it has voted to continue unilateral disarmament, which is clearly an embarrassment to the Labour leadership. It shows that its new multilateral policy, especially in Scotland, is only, dare one say, sporran deep.
Mr. Harry Cohen: As the Government fiddled the poll tax grant in favour of Westminster and Wandsworth for crude party-political purposes and forced residents in boroughs such as the one in my constituency, Waltham Forest, to subsidise Tory Wandsworth, can we have an early debate on the matter so that I can ask for our money back?
Mr. Renton: I notice that the hon. Gentleman's charge in Leyton has been fixed at £438, which seems to be very high. That is doubtless due to Labour extravagance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as an active representative of his constituents, will do all that he can to persuade the Labour council to reduce the charge in future years by implementing more prudent spending policies.
Mr. James Cran: Could my right hon. Friend find some time to discuss the Baxter report, dealing with the levels of radiation to which the work force is exposed in non-nuclear industries, which is the important feature? The report suggests that the present permitted levels are far too high. The House has a long and honourable record of considering health and safety matters that apply to the work force. A debate on the report would be yet another opportunity to demonstrate exactly that.
Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I must say to him also, not next week. However, I shall do my best to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is well aware of his remarks.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Patronage Secretary consider the case for an early debate on the crisis in the Scottish fishing industry? When I tackled the Leader of the House on this subject two weeks ago, he seemed to hold out the prospect of such a debate. However, since then, via the vehicle of a written answer, the Government have announced measures that intensify the crisis facing Scottish fishermen and fish processors. Those processing workers are among the lowest paid industrial workers in the country. When will we have a debate to discuss the measures that are needed to stabilise that vital industry in its hour of need?
Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I remember that he did indeed raise this matter at business questions two weeks ago. I understand that fishermen are facing a difficult year, but claims of a crisis in the fishing industry are not supported by the facts. Fishermen are benefiting from rising prices, which have helped to offset reduced catches. However, I shall, of course bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give a more positive and serious response to the question asked earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), relating to the almost fraudulent inadequacy of the transitional relief scheme for the community charge? It really is inadequate. A debate should be held in the House before the community charge is implemented.
I refer especially to my constituency of Macclesfield, which is a well-run Conservative authority, but which is having to return a community charge of £428, as against Wandsworth's charge of just £148. That is dishonest and wrong to my constituents.
Mr. Renton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is using his best endeavours to ensure that the local authority in his constituency is doing its utmost to bring down the level of its expenditure——
Mr. Winterton: It has done.
Mr. Renton:—and the level of revenue raising that it is planning. The question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) related specifically to the timing of a debate on transitional relief. As I said to him, and I repeat to my hon. Friend, I cannot promise a specific debate, but I shall certainly pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who I am sure will try to accommodate my right hon. and hon. Friends at an early opportunity.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Patronage Secretary make urgent arrangements for a debate on Members' Interests, relating especially to members of Select Committees? I make that request following yesterday's request from the Select Committee on Defence to the Select Committee on Members' interests, asking for that Committee to consider the rules, practices and

681
conventions relating to members of Select Committees, including the Chairs of Select Committees, who hold interests that are relevant to the terms of reference of those Committees. Such a debate would be extremely helpful and would—I hope—dispel the rumours that are circulating in the House, that at least three Chairs of Select Committees hold such interests.
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and knows the procedures to be followed on these matters. If he has points to make or thoughts to be followed, he should direct them to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, where I am sure they will be carefully looked at in accordance with the proper procedure.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Patronage Secretary aware that, when we have a debate on the poll tax and the transitional provisions, as requested by his right hon. and hon. Friends, it will become increasingly apparent that, if all the local authorities in Britain, including Derbyshire, Cheshire and all the rest, received the same kind of relief—82p in the pound—that Wandsworth has received, every single local authority in Britain would have a poll tax of less than £200 per head? [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]—If we got 82p in the pound in Derbyshire, as opposed to the 38p——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Those are arguments that might be made if we had such a debate.
Mr. Skinner: Yes. It is a very important argument——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman hear what I said about the pressure on time today?
Mr. Skinner: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Will he please ask a question about the business for next week?
Mr. Skinner: So will the Patronage Secretary bear in mind that those figures would show that every local authority in Britain would have a poll tax of less than £200? If it is right for Wandsworth and for Lady Porter's Westminster, it should be right for the rest of the local authorities.
Mr. Renton: The community charge in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents shows once again the extravagance of Labour councils. Bolsover, I see, has a community charge of £353; North-East Derbyshire has one of £420. This proves once again that those who live in Labour authorities will find themselves paying a lot more than those who live in Conservative authorities.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Patronage Secretary noted the repeated requests that I have made for a debate on wages in the Refreshment Department in the House of Commons? Is he aware that, because of the low wages being paid by Parliament to its own employees in that Department, there are now a large number of vacancies? Many people will not work here because they can earn far more working in other establishments in London. What does the Patronage Secretary think about these matters? Does he show the same indifference as the Leader of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That has little to do with business questions; the hon. Gentleman must ask for a debate next week.
Mr. Renton: I did indeed listen to the hon. Gentleman raise this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House last week. He then received a very full answer from my right hon. and learned Friend, and I do not think that there is anything that I can add to what the hon. Member has already been told.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The standard spending assessment for North-East Derbyshire, for the district alone, is 17p in the pound. That is why the figure is so high, as mentioned by the Patronage Secretary. Can we have a debate on the poll tax's wider implications, the democratic and constitutional implications of the operation of the poll tax, when, for instance, masses of people are missing from electoral registers—in England, 90,000 or so since the last register, and masses of people in the major cities in Scotland?
The biggest constitutional scandal that we face in this country concerns what is happening to the electoral register and the manipulations taking place in the country. In Finchley, the franchise is being fiddled by 5 per cent. of the people being missing from the electoral register.
Mr. Renton: I must point out to the hon. Member that I do not think that the words "democratic and constitutional" should play any part in his remarks to the House. He is a member of the non-payment compaign against the community charge; therefore, he is encouraging people to take both non-democratic and non-constitutional action. I think that he should reverse that stance before he addresses such remarks to the House.
Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not like what was said, but I will take points of order in a minute.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving early time for a debate on a vicious attack on my agent, Joanna Trapman, who is recovering from a major operation? She was assualted in our constituency offices by 60 left-wing activists. Could we also consider, in the course of a debate, the encouragement that those activists are getting from 30 Opposition Members?
Mr. Renton: The whole House will sympathise, and I am very sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says. I hope that he will carry the best wishes of the House to his agent and that she will recover very quickly from the attack.
Sir Peter Emergy: May I ask my right hon. Friend to nudge the memory of the Leader of the House next week on the assurance that he has given about a debate on European legislation and the Select Committee on Procedure's report on dealing with legislation? This is a matter of considerable importance to the House. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of wish to have a debate and I urge that, if it is not to be next week, we may have assurances next week that it will be soon after Easter.
Mr. Renton: My right hon. and learned Friend, who is very assiduous in these matters, will no doubt read Hansard very soon after returning from representing Her Majesty the Queen at presidential inaugurations in both Brazil and Chile. He is very concerned to improve procedures in the House for the scrutiny of European legislation, as my hon. Friend knows, and he will read my hon. Friend's comments with great care.

Points of Order
4.24 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Patronage Secretary deliberately attacked me in response to the question that I asked, claiming that I was part of some mass non-payment campaign advocating that people should not pay. That is not my position. I believe that the measures within the legislation are draconian and would present great problems to people who did not pay. I will not pay, on exactly the grounds presented about the democratic and constitutional nature of the measure. As an elected representative of the people, I believe that I have a moral duty to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: This is exactly what happens when we get non-points of order of that kind.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. Gentleman like to advise Government Members which labour laws we should ignore?
Sir John Stanley: In response to my business question to the Patronage Secretary, in which I stated that Hansard contained a clear commitment by the Secretary of State for the Environment that there would be an early debate on the transitional relief scheme audit, the Patronage Secretary said that I might have misunderstood my right hon. Friend. On 18 January, my right hon. Friend said:
"It will not be debated until we consider the transitional relief scheme orders later this month."—[Official Report, 18 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 427]
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to change his position on that undertaking about a debate, is it not the well-established practice that he should forthwith come to the House and make a statement clarifying his position?
Mr. Speaker: I think that is a matter for the Patronage Secretary to report to the Leader of the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  TERM AND QUARTER DAYS (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Bill Walker presented a Bill to regulate, in relation to Scotland, the dates of Whitsunday, Martinmas, Candlemas and Lammas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read a First time and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Transport (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day

  National Health Service and Community Care Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Minister, I remind the House that this is a three-hour debate.
  4.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This Bill stands for everything that the Labour party cannot stand. It stands for choice for patients. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) agrees with me on both points.
  Mr. John Maxton: No.
  Mr. Forsyth: It stands for greater freedom, flexibility and responsibility for general practitioners and for individual hospitals. It stands for a shift away from centralisation and bureaucracy in the NHS—the centralisation and bureaucracy with which the Labour party is so closely identified when in government and in opposition. It stands, too, for a partnership between the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary organisations for strengthened management and accountability and for standards and quality of care. The Government have set out to build a patients' charter, and this Bill sees us well on the way to achieving that.
  Throughout the passage of the Bill, the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) had nothing constructive to say on the future direction and organisation of the Health Service. They relied on a campaign fostering misinformation, suspicion and anxiety among patients, instead of putting forward constructive arguments and an alternative proposal. Their entire campaign was based on myths. The first of these myths was that indicative budgets would mean that the patients would not get the drugs that they needed. I see that at least one hon. Gentleman still subscribes to that ridiculous view.
  Last year, in the nine months between the publication of the White Paper in January and the meeting of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State with the BMA, we saw in general practitioners' surgeries up and down the country irresponsible leaflets from the BMA and others, and we heard speeches from Labour Members arguing that patients would not be able to get the drugs that they needed. To the credit of the BMA, at a meeting with my right hon. Friend on 27 September it said that it now accepted that, in fact, patients would be able to get the medicines that they required. So far as I am aware, that is not the view of the Opposition. I hope that they will make it clear today that the Labour party now accepts that patients will be able to get the drugs they desire as a result of indicative budgets being introduced.
  Mr. James Couchman: A fair amount of misconception arose because of the reference in the White Paper to
  "placing downward pressure on expenditure on drugs".

  685
  Might it not have been better to have said, "downward pressure on the growth of expenditure on drugs"?
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend makes his own point. He must be aware that, for example, through prescribing generic equivalents it is possible to bring downward pressure on expenditure without affecting the quality of patient care.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: We would accept the Minister's assurance that patients will not lose because of cash-limited drug budgets if he had accepted our new clause, which merely sought to write into the Bill the guarantee that he is trying to give us. Guarantees given in the House are worth nothing; they need to be written into legislation. If the Minister means what he says, why did he call on his hon. Friends to vote down our amendment?
  Mr. Forsyth: In Committee I pressed the hon. Lady to say whether she supported the existing system for controlling GP prescribing. She did not seem to recognise that there is in place a system based on peer review and that there are appropriate penalties for doctors who overprescribe. She should recognise that there is nothing different about indicative budgets. If the hon. Lady is still arguing that there is a risk to patients, she is out of line not only with this side of the House but with the BMA and with doctors themselves, and is becoming increasingly isolated as she peddles these myths.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have here a copy of a letter, dated 27 February, which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) sent to all local medical committees. First, I question whether it was in order because it was a circulated letter and I do not think that the rules of the House allow circulated letters to be printed on House of Commons notepaper—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are always keen to be in order, yet we know how often they misuse the facilities of the House. The first thing the hon. Lady said in her letter to medical committees was:
  "GPs' drug budgets will be cash limited."
  Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a hon. Member feels that another hon. Member has infringed the rules of the House in the way that he has used the stationery, there is a proper procedure for that to be reported. That has not been undertaken. Therefore, is it in order for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to castigate my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether it is alleged that this was an individual letter or a circular. If there has been an infringement of the rules, it is a matter for the Services Committee.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I referred the matter to you on a previous occasion, when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did precisely that. It is a circular letter and I shall be happy to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Privileges.
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is right to focus attention on the arguments of the Opposition. Everyone, including the BMA, accepts that indicative budgets will not result in patients not being able to get the drugs which they require.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: I am not giving way. I have already given way generously on that point.
  The next myth that has been peddled by Opposition Members is that GPs who become fund holders will run out of money and will turn away expensive patients. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peckham smiles and takes pleasure repeating it. That myth has caused needless anxiety to thousands of patients and elderly people who are in great distress. It is totally without foundation. It was made clear in Committee that GPs who become fund holders will have made available to them funds to take account of the nature of their patients and of their past expenditure.
  If GPs exceed their budgets, patient care will not be threatened or diminished. I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will now acknowledge that. As became clear in Committee, the worst that could happen to a fund holder who had exceeded his budget would be that he could no longer be a fund holder. He would then revert to the status quo.
  Ms. Harman: The Minister knows that Opposition Members are worried about cash limits on GP budget holding because they fear that patients will not necessarily get the treatment, drugs and the tests that they need. The doctor will not just be thinking about patients and their clinical needs; he will be looking over his shoulder at his budget. If the Minister wants us to accept the guarantee that he has given in the House, why did Conservative Members speak and vote against our new clause, which would have added that guarantee to the Bill?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady continues to repeat her accusation, despite the clear evidence of the facts. The facts are that a GP's budget will be determined by his past expenditure and the profile of his patients. If a OP exceeds his budget, patient care will not in any way be threatened or diminished. The hon. Lady also argued that no GP was interested in the scheme, and that it was a crackpot scheme that had been invented by people who were out of touch—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Robin Cook rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I will happily give way to the hon. Lady. who can reject—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. For the moment the Minister has the floor.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I will give way to the hon. Lady when I have made my point, and she can reject the point when she knows what it is. I can tell by the way that the hon. Member for Livingston is jumping up and down that we are beginning to draw blood.
  The hon. Gentleman is just as guilty. He has associated himself with the view that the proposals in the White Paper are not supported by the medical profession, and both he and the hon. Lady have made speech after speech saying that the Government are out of touch with the profession. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State answered a parliamentary question on the subject yesterday. His answer showed that almost 900 GP

  687
  practices are impressed enough with the scheme to want to take matters further and to ensure that their patients have the possible benefits from the scheme.
  Ms. Harman: The position remains that there is no support among GPs for the concept of fund-holding practices. I accept the Secretary of State's assertion that many GPs have put their names forward to become fund holders. However, that is because they are choosing between the lesser of two evils. They regard fund holding as the only way to escape from the restrictions on their right to referral, which will clamp down on them if they do not become fund holders.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady refutes one myth by embarking on the next. She accepts that nearly 900 GPs are queueing up—even before the Bill has been enacted—to become fund holders or budget holders. They are doing so because they recognise the benefits for their patients and the opportunities for their practices. The hon. Member for Livingston completely misread the demand for the proposals, and also for self-governing hospitals.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that GPs who have shown an interest have come forward voluntarily—that is certainly the case in my constituency—because they believe that what is proposed is in the best interests of their patients and their practices?
  Mr. Forsyth: That is right, and in my hon. Friend's constituency there is a proposal from a hospital to become an NHS trust. We now have twice as many proposals in Scotland as the target we set when the White Paper was published.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Although the Minister talks about the number of GPs who are in favour of the scheme, is he aware that GPs are queueing up in my area to throw money in the till to take the Secretary of State to court to prevent him from implementing these proposals?
  Mr. Forsyth: GPs who put their money in that direction, because they believed that my right hon. and learned Friend was acting improperly, were not only proved wrong in that respect, because they lost their action, but have throughout been proved wrong in their opposition to our proposals.
  The third myth that we had in Committee from the hon. Member for Peckham and her hon. Friends was that GPs would no longer be able to send patients to hospitals which were, in their judgment, required to meet those patients' clinical needs. In trying to rescue her position on the previous myth, the hon. Member for Peckham repeated the third myth about GPs not being able to send patients where they thought they should be treated.
  That assertion is completely and utterly untrue. We made the position clear in Committee on many occasions, as we have throughout the period since the White Paper was published. In view of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will now withdraw from the position that she has taken all along. General practitioners will be able to send their patients to the hospitals where they believe that their clinical requirements require them to be sent. I say that without qualification. That has been made clear throughout our debates on the Bill and it is wholly
  688
  irresponsible of the hon. Member for Peckham to continue to go about the country repeating statements that are, frankly, not true.
  Ms. Harman: If the Minister would have us accept that patients and their GPs will retain the choice that they now have—to decide where patients should be referred in the patients' best clinical interests—why did the Government refuse to accept our amendment which would have written into the Bill a provision saying that, irrespective of the NHS contract system, patients may go where they and their GPs choose, rather than on the basis of some contract based on some previous pattern of referral?
  Mr. Forsyth: I hope that people throughout the country are listening to what the hon. Lady is saying because on three major issues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—about which she and her party have caused anxiety throughout the country, the only justification that she offers for her position, in the face of the assurances that she has been given, is to say, in effect, "If that is the case, why did you not accept our new clause?" That new clause was not needed as part of the Bill and it was no excuse for the campaign that the hon. Lady has waged throughout the country.
  Ms. Harman: Now answer my question.
  Mr. Forsyth: My answer is that the Opposition new clause was not necessary. It would not have been desirable to write on the face of the Bill the rules for referral when those rules should clearly be left to the judgment of medical practitioners according to their individual patients' needs.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister says that there is no need to write the assurance that he is giving into the Bill because referrals will be decided locally in the process of negotiation. How on earth can the Minister expect the House to accept his assurance that any GP will be allowed to refer any patient to any hospital of his choice when he just said that that can be done only subject to local negotiation in relation to local rules?
  Mr. Forsyth: I credit the hon. Gentleman with some understanding of the Government's proposals. He knows well that a GP's referrals will be based on a contract which will be negotiated either by the GP himself, where he is a budget holder, or by the health board. He also knows that if a GP wished to send a patient to a hospital where there was no contract, he would be able to do so if it was an emergency case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—in the absence of a contract. If it was not an emergency case, there would be time to negotiate a contract.
  The key issue is whether the GP would be able to send the patient to the hospital of his choice, and the answer is yes. It is totally irresponsible of the hon. Member for Livingston to go round the country telling people that that is not the case when it is.
  Mr. Cook: The Minister did not answer my question simply by saying that the answer was no. Consider two cases, first that of a patient who wishes to go to a particular hospital where his fund-holding GP has not placed a

  689
  contract and where that GP is not prepared, and does not have the money in his budget, to place a contract. How does that patient get into that hospital?
  Consider, secondly, the many GPs—still a wide majority who have not applied for fund-holding practice budgets—whose district health authorities have not negotiated contracts for the hospitals to which they wish to refer their patients. There may be time, with a non-emergency cases, to take that step. But what do they do if the district health authority says, "No, thank you very much, but we have spent our allocation for the year and we do not propose to negotiate a fresh contract. You will have to send your patient to a hospital where we have placed a contract"? What happens to freedom of choice then?
  Mr. Forsyth: Freedom of choice continues to be exercised by the GP. The hon. Gentleman knows well that a contingency fund is made available to meet exactly the example of his second case. In his first example, he was asking not about doctor choice but about patient choice. The key point is that where a doctor believes that a patient should be referred to a hospital, wherever it is in the United Kingdom, whether or not a contract exists, arrangements can be made for that choice to be exercised and for the patient's needs to be met.
  Ms. Harman: The Minister will live to regret saying that.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady says that I shall live to regret that, as though I had just annunciated some new doctrine. My right hon. and learned Friend has been saying it all over the country for months. The fact that we arrive at the Third Reading of the Bill and a Labour Front-Bench spokesperson is still learning that is indicative of the poverty of opposition that we have enjoyed during the passage of the measure.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: The argument of hon. Members for Peckham and for Livingston that GPs would not refer patients to where they thought were the best hospitals for them is an insult to the medical profession. Not only are GPs under a moral obligation to do what is best for their patients; they are under an ethical and legal obligation to do so, and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.
  We have heard a number of other myths from the Opposition. We had the myth that self-governing hospitals or NHS trusts would withdraw key services. The hon. Member for Peckham has been telling people all over the country that they will no longer be able to get maternity services—that self-governing hospitals will not wish to run such services because they would not be profitable.
  The hon. Lady knows well, after more than 109 hours in Committee, that the NHS trusts will operate under contract to the health boards or health authorities, that those authorities in those contracts will specify the range and quality of service to be provided and that the hospitals will need to provide those services if they are to see their resources.
  It is totally irresponsible of Opposition spokespersons to go round peddling such myths, saying that people will lose local services, when the effect of NHS trusts will be that the quality of services will be defined for the first time and hospitals will be held to account for delivering them.
  Ms. Harman rose——
  Mr. Forsyth: I have been very generous.
  Ms. Harman: It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to say that he has been generous when much of his opening speech has been spent attacking our assertions.
  The White Paper acknowledged that under the NHS contract system, district health authorities would he able to place contracts outside their districts and require patients to travel to those hospitals for treatment. That is why, in the White Paper, the concept of core services—services to which patients should have guaranteed local access—emerged. But that concept of core services did not find its way into the Bill, and the Government rejected an Opposition new clause which would have inserted in the Bill the promises made by the Government in the White Paper.
  Nothing in the Bill guarantees local access to vital facilities such as maternity and child health care and services for the elderly and mentally ill. There is nothing in the Bill to stop district health authorities requiring people in their areas to travel to obtain those services.
  Mr. Forsyth: I despair. If we had put in the Bill everything that is needed to reject every accusation made by the hon. Lady, it would run to 600 clauses rather than 60. She talks about core services. In Committee, one of the few Opposition Members who played a constructive role was the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). What is a core service in his constituency might not be a core service in a hospital in the middle of a city. It would be ludicrous to try to define core services in legislation. The health authorities will be responsible for the contract and for defining core services.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I just express relief that we are not on television at the moment? What does the Minister have against me?
  Mr. Forsyth: I could tell the hon. Gentleman, but if did the hon. Member for Peckham might insist that I put it in the Bill. I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to have such a permanent monument.
  The truth is that Opposition Members understand the argument and support us. They support us on quality of care, efficiency of the delivery of care, more information for consultants and GPs, further devolution of management to hospital and unit level, flexible accounting systems to reflect clinical-led doctor-patient choice and medical audits.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Rubbish.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says rubbish. He implies that the Opposition does not support us on those things. I have here a document produced by the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who cannot be with us today. It is entitled "Working for Patients—A Critique." It is published by the Labour party in Scotland. Under a section entitled "What's Good in the White Paper" and under the heading "Quality of Care", it says:
  "This has largely been taken from Labour's White Paper."
  Under the heading "Efficiency in the Delivery of Care", it says:
  "Yet again this is taken from Labour's White Paper."
  Under the heading "More Information Available to Consultants and General Practitioners", it says:

  691
  "We welcome this, because it will improve services."
  Under "Further Devolution of Management to Hospital and Unit Level", it says, surprisingly:
  "This should be done and is being done already within the current structure. We would issue hospitals with their own budgets, but only WITHIN health boards. Savings should go back to the health board".
  The difference between us and the Opposition is that although we both believe in devolving budgets the Government believe that the budgets and savings should remain at local level so that those who provide care can use them effectively.
  Under the heading, "A Flexible Accounting System to Reflect Clinical Led Doctor/Patient Choice", the document says:
  "We support money following patients."
  That is not what the hon. Member for Peckham told us in Committee.
  Ms. Harman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: No.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must insist on reading out the Labour party's policy document because it is so sensible. Under the heading "Audit", it says:
  "Again taken from Labour's White Paper. Why has it taken the Government so long to be interested in this?"
  I know that the Labour party in Scotland is unilateralist on defence, but I had no idea that its position extended to supporting the provisions in the Bill.
  Ms. Harman: We support money following the patient. The problem is that in the Bill the patient will follow the money because the patient will go where the contract is. If we had a system of fund allocation that recognised where patients were treated and compensated the hospital that treated them, it would be one thing. But the patients will not be able to go to a hospital unless a contract has been placed there. Where is medical audit in the Bill?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that if the hon. Lady had a word with the hon. Member for Livingston, the Front-Bench spokesman on health, or the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, they would be able to explain the position.
  The biggest threat to the NHS would be the election of a Labour Government. The Labour Government cut, cut and cut. They cut nurses' pay and they cut capital spending by a third. They closed one hospital every week and cut expenditure on the Health Service from 5 per cent.——
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: No. I have given way generously.
  Mr. Clarke: How much longer?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman complains that I am taking too much time.
  Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister's remarks were based on the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk,
  692
  East (Mr. Ewing) the other day. My hon. Friend produced information which showed that what the Minister said was a complete distortion. Will he withdraw it now?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but it is a good opportunity for me to remind the House that a Third Reading deals with what is contained in the Bill. I hope that hon. Members—[Interruption.] Order. I call both sides to order. I hope that from now on hon. Members will debate precisely what is in the proposed legislation.
  Mr. Forsyth: I realise that it is a painful experience to describe Labour's record but I accept your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall return to the substance of the Bill.
  In contrast to what appears to be the Opposition's position, the purpose of the Bill was set out clearly in the foreground to "Working For Patients" by the Prime Minister. She spelt out in one short sentence the key thinking behind our proposals. She said:
  "The National Health Service will continue to be available to all, regardless of income, and to be financed mainly out of general taxation."
  We are building a National Health Service on that principle. It will be more responsive to patients' needs by devolving decision making to local level, to general practitioners, to NHS trusts, and to district, region and health board level, where appropriate. We shall direct resources to where a patient's need is met. I am delighted that the hon. Lady now says that she supports the money following the patient.
  We shall end the efficiency trap in which doctors and units that provided a good service ran up against the barriers of their budgets. The money did not come in on the backs of the patients. The position at present is that the patient follows the money and that is why the reforms are necessary. We are building a streamlined management in the NHS because we believe that a better-run Health Service can better care for the sick. We are emphasising quality of service through our proposals on audit and guidance on matters such as waiting areas, appointment areas and choice of consultants.
  In our proposals on care in the community, we are ensuring that there are clear lines of responsibility and a system of funding which enables the many elderly people who wish to remain in their own homes to do so. We shall end the perverse system of funding that makes putting people into residential care a more attractive option for many local authorities.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the Minister outline what action the Government have taken in the Bill to develop alternatives to institutional care? It is all right to say that the Bill ends the perverse incentive to institutional care, but what alternatives are there for vast numbers of elderly people? The Government are doing nothing about developing alternatives or genuine community care.
  Mr. Forsyth: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He must recognise that the changes that we propose end the incentive for local authorities to recommend a residential placement where care and support, perhaps through home help or other provision, could have enabled an elderly person to remain at home. That is a fundamental change which will bring considerable benefit to many thousands of elderly people.

  693
  The Labour party emerges from our proceedings on the Bill as a party with nothing new to offer the Health Service. It has shown itself wedded to the vested interests of the trade unions. It has no vision of what the National Health Service should strive for during the 1990s, and the opposition that we have had has been a catalogue of political drum-beating, with no coherent strategy on the table.
  Our record is one of success, dedication and commitment to the National Health Service, its staff and its patients. That is why we can take our reforms forward confident in the knowledge that we can translate words into actions.
  Under this Government, more resources have been made available to the National Health Service than ever before in its history. We have more doctors and nurses, and a record number of patients are being treated. We have a record of which to be proud. The Bill will ensure that our success and commitment can be built upon during the rest of the decade.
  The Bill deserves the support of the House in the interests of millions of patients throughout the United Kingdom. It is the charter for patients that we promised when we published the White Paper. It is a charter for choice, quality and freedom for the patient, and I commend it to the House.
  5 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: The Minister is right: we have emerged from the earlier stages of the Bill into this Third Reading debate. I do not have the exact poll figures before me, but it is worth noting that, back in December last year, the Labour party was about 9·5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in the lead. We are now 21 per cent. in the lead in the United Kingdom as a whole; and in the area in which the Minister has an interest as chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland our lead is 31 per cent. and rising, despite all his efforts. After the Prime Minister's disastrous visit to Scotland last weekend, we can assume that our lead will soon be considerably greater.
  The Minister made a disgraceful speech. It had nothing to do with the Bill. He spent the whole time talking about what the Labour party had said and what the Labour party was doing and made no reference to the Bill. Moreover, he took some 35 minutes to do that, although he and his colleagues have imposed an unnecessary and unwanted timetable upon our Third Reading debate under which discussion is limited to only three hours. I know that many of my hon. Friends, and some Conservative Members who still have reservations about the Bill, want to make some comments on it, and I shall therefore try to keep my remarks brief.
  First, let me place on record my thanks, and the thanks of all Labour Members and of the vast majority of the British people—who have the highest regard for the National Health Service and believe that this Bill will damage it—to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has led the opposition to the Bill. He has ensured that the issues have been placed eloquently, clearly, constructively and forcefully before both the House and the general public, and the general public believe my hon. Friend much more readily than they believe the Secretary of State.
  I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman), for Monklands, West (Mr.
  694
  Clarke) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for their assistance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) for his work as Whip on the Committee. I also thank all those organisations representing the medical profession, patients, local authorities and the broad spectrum of medical care in Britain, which oppose the Bill and which have briefed us so usefully.
  I shall leave the community care aspects of the Bill largely to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West because it is probably now acknowledged that he is one of the greatest experts on the matter in the country.
  In his Second Reading speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston made clear our fundamental opposition to the Bill. Nothing that has happened since then—in Committee or on Report—has lessened that opposition. If anything, we are now more worried about the future of the Health Service than we were before. Despite our opposition in principle to the Government's proposals, we attempted in Committee to amend the Bill sensibly and by rational argument.
  We attempted to look into what the Minister has described as the "myths". We claimed that there was a hidden agenda and we tried through amendments to give the Government an opportunity to dispel those so-called myths. In the end, all our arguments, and all the arguments of those representing doctors, nurses and other medical workers, carers and patients, were rejected. The Government rejected all our amendments. The only amendments that they considered with any sympathy were those tabled by Right-wing ideologues on their Back Benches, who were trying to persuade them that they were not going nearly far enough to privatise the Health Service in Scotland.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way to a Right-wing ideologue.
  Mr. Maxton: I would hardly describe the hon. Gentleman as a Right-wing ideologue, although there are one or two of them present today.
  The Minister today did what he and his colleagues have done throughout the Bill's passage, and uttered a lot of honeyed, hypocritical words about choice and improving the service. The Government know that the National Health Service is the most popular public body in the country. They know that they cannot openly express their real views on it—particularly the real views of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—or openly reform it as they would if they were following their natural ideological bent. They know that to do so would be electorally disastrous. Thus, they hide their true intent behind sweet words and devious legislation.
  But the people of Britain do not believe them. At least a small part of their present low-standing in the opinion polls—as I said, they are 21 per cent. behind Labour—is due to the fact that the public know what their true intentions are.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the same thing will happen to Labour's lead in the opinion polls now as happened in 1984–85 and in 1982, when the public see——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. Mr. Maxton.
  Mr. Maxton: I think that I agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, with The Guardian, if I may briefly——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. What is good for one side is good for the other. The House should come back to the Bill.
  Mr. Maxton: I shall, of course, accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The Secretary of State has said that the Bill represents the most major reform of the National Health Service since its inception. He is right. The Bill is designed to create a structure for the Health Service which will allow the Government to push it ever faster towards the sort of profit-led care that is prevalent in the United States, in which they believe, despite all their sweet words. We shall have hospitals managed as separate units, health authorities forced to operate market structures, general practitioners operating their own budgets and others working with indicative budgets. When we tabled amendments to dispel all those so-called myths, the Minister would accept none of them.
  All that will fragment the Health Service and mean that each part of the service will be forced to work financially separately from the others. Of itself, the Bill does not give us the commercial system that the Tories instinctively want, but taken with the financial restraints that the Government are imposing on the system, it will create an atmosphere in which sections of the public will accept the gradual erosion of a universal Health Service that is free at the point of use. Let me give two examples. In February last year, the Secretary of State said that his proposals for opt-out hospitals would encourage local pride in our hospitals and give the local people more ability to take the big decisions in their own part of the service. Those were fine words, but when the Bill was printed it merely said:
  "The Secretary of State may by order establish … National Health Service trusts."
  Both for England and Wales and for Scotland, we tabled amendments in Committee and on Report that were designed to give employees, patients and local people the right to decide, or to be consulted, on the future of their hospital. Not one of those amendments was accepted. The Bill remains unchanged, and legally the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland may force hospitals to opt out, with no consultation and against the wishes of the majority of people in their area.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman is following the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and supporting his allegation by saying that we did not take amendments in the Bill, as if that gives it some sort of credibility. His hon. Friend is a lawyer, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is; however, I am sure that he is an experienced parliamentarian, and realises that legislation is necessary to give a Government and a Secretary of State legal powers which they otherwise lack. One does not write political slogans all over legislation or answer political allegations made by the Opposition. Because some unnecessary amendment was thrown out, that is not a basis for inventing all kinds of groundless allegations and for saying that they are sustained because they are not contained in the law.
  Mr. Maxton: That was a remarkable intervention by the Secretary of State. It was an intervention by an English
  696
  lawyer, but in Scotland what is carried out is in the Bill and has to be in it. If it is not, the Bill has no statutory or legal standing.
  Mr. Clarke: That is not true.
  Mr. Maxton: It is true. If the Secretary of State does not understand Scottish law, that is a great pity.
  Whatever assurances the Secretary of State has given, and whatever he may say, the simple fact is that we now have no idea what will happen in Scotland about possible opting out. I shall give a Scottish example.
  A new hospital is being built in Ayr. The consultants who work in the hospital were called to a meeting—they did not ask for it—by the general manager of the Ayrshire and Arran health board. They were dragooned by him, or it was strongly suggested that they might like, to write to the Scottish Office to seek futher information about National Health Service trust status for that hospital. The vast majority of them have made it quite clear that they were opposed to the whole concept of opting out. Only six of them were in favour and that was because they had been given a clear hint—I do not know whether it was by the Scottish Office or by the general manager—that, if they did opt out, the second phase of the hospital was likely to be built more quickly than if they remained within the National Health Service.
  There is certainly now a rumour circulating in the area that consultants at the hospital have expressed support for opting out. I think it was late yesterday morning when the junior Minister from the Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), said that four hospitals in Scotland have expressed an interest in opting out. He refused to name them. Perhaps he can tell us now whether Ayr hospital is one of them. I give the Minister the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: A number of hospitals are in discussions with the Scottish Office. A number of consultants and others have expressed an interest in self-governing status.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: They had their arms twisted.
  Mr. Forsyth: They have expressed an interest. They come to the Scottish Office and say that they want to find out more about the proposals and whether they will benefit their patients. It is perfectly reasonable for them to do so. However, they expect us to maintain confidentiality.
  It is wholly irresponsible for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to go around telling tales of the kind that he has just related to the House. Frankly, they are mischievous. He knows that we are not in a position to respond without breaking our undertaking to maintain confidentiality. It is another example of myth and mischief-making and has nothing to do with any argument of principle about the Bill.
  There are people, for example at the Royal Scottish National hospital, who see a benefit in these trusts.
  Mr. Maxton: The length of that speech was ridiculous. I take it that the answer to my question about the hospital in Ayr was yes. The Minister could have said that more quickly than he did.
  Yes, that hospital is one of the four that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I have just described the circumstances. The Minister said that he has to maintain

  697
  confidentiality. Does that mean that people in Ayr and the people that that hospital will serve are not entitled to know that it is considering opting out?
  What does that have to do with consultation? What does it have to do with local people taking decisions in their own area and being able to decide what happens in their own hospitals? The Minister is prepared to keep all those things under his hat.
  I do not want to take up the same amount of time as the Under-Secretary of State, so I shall move on. It is claimed that the reforms will create patients' choice, because the patients will take the money with them—we are in favour of that if there is any money to take—to buy whatever services they require from the GP or the hospital. The Government claim that they will provide the money, as they do at present, but for how long? As they restrict budgets and control expenditure, they will force GPs into fund-holding status and force hospitals to opt out.
  Patients who require expensive, lengthy treatment may find that the GPs or the hospitals say that they are sorry, they would like to treat them but that the health board cannot pay sufficient money for their services. They will say, "If you care to top it up yourself, we can help you." People who can afford to pay will pay out of their own pockets or take out insurance policies. Those who cannot afford to pay will be forced to accept second-rate health care.
  The Government believe that, ultimately, choice depends upon the resources available. At no stage of the Bill's consideration would they give any guarantee about improving or even maintaining resources for the NHS.
  The NHS is not inefficient, as the Government constantly claim. There are no more massive savings to be made by so-called efficiency improvements. It is already underfunded. It now has a structure that will allow the Government to exploit the fears of sick people and to make them accept a commercially driven health service—whatever their denials, that is on the hidden agenda of the Bill. The present structure of the NHS does not allow for such a development but the new structure will.
  The Bill, taken together with the Government's drive to privatise services—from cleaners, laundry services and catering to pharmacies, medical records, laboratory services and radiography—make it obvious what road the Government are taking the Health Service down by devious means.
  The British public are on our side on this matter. They want a Health Service that does not depend on income—one which will provide equal service to all, whether rich or poor. Every opinion poll bears that out. The public have rumbled the Government's true intention in the Bill. If they insist on going ahead, they will pay the political price that they so richly deserve. We shall continue to oppose the Bill by all legitimate means. I ask my hon. Friends, hon. Members from other Opposition parties and those Conservative Members who have expressed concern during the passage of the Bill to join me in voting against giving the Bill a Third Reading.
  5.17 pm
  Sir David Price: At this late stage I shall, for the first time, make a few comments on the Bill. When the House was debating Second Reading I was, as the Scottish say, "No weel"—I was in bed with the 'flu and could not take part.
  698
  I read the Hansard report of the Second Reading debate carefully and I detected a common criticism in many of the speeches, to the effect that my right hon. Friends were wrong to put together in the same Bill the implementation of the recent White Paper, "Caring for People" and the reforms in the management of the NHS. I reject that criticism and I welcome the fact that reform of the NHS and reform in care in the community have been brought together in the same Bill.
  My reason is simple. In the real world—not the world of parliamentary debates—health care is a complete spectrum. It goes from the person's home through various degrees of hospital treatment, to the acute ward and back again. For example, schizophrenics suffer many degrees of disability. Even people with AIDS have episodic conditions that require them to go into an acute ward, to come out and to be cared for in the community. Therefore, it is right that we should consider the whole spectrum.
  Both the White Papers on which the Bill is based concentrated on
  "the organisation and management of all direct patient care services".
  That is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's description, not mine. That concentration is reflected in the Bill.
  The most important factors in any consideration of the future of health care are these. First, we must assess the trend in the demand for services. Secondly, we must calculate, as best we can, the various options by means of which those demands can best be met. The Select Committee has drawn attention to the gap, which I believe is growing, between rising demand and rising resources. My right hon. and learned Friend has scolded the Committee on numerous occasions for doing so. However, we are merely doing what any market researcher would do—or, to put it in military terms, time spent on reconnaissance is never time wasted.
  The Select Committee has also drawn attention to the importance of better information about the outcome of health care. In that, I suggest, may lie one way of achieving a more productive use of the large resources that are now devoted to health care.
  The Government argue, in my judgment perfectly reasonably, that if existing resources can be used more effectively, the need for additional resources becomes less urgent. Their method of achieving that desirable end is through the establishment of what, in the jargon, we call an internal market within a wholly, or nearly wholly, publicly financed Health Service.
  That is an entirely novel concept. It has not been attempted anywhere else in the world. Therefore, no one can say with confidence that it will work; nor, conversely, can anyone say with confidence that it will not work. That is why the Select Committee took a cautious view of the Government's proposals. Nothing that has happened throughout the passage of the Bill—I have read most of the Committee proceedings—has led me to drop the caution that the Select Committee felt collectively—
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: If it is impossible to say with confidence that the internal market will or will not work, ought we to interfere with the massive range of services that the hon. Gentleman has so clearly identified are provided for community care, right through to hospital

  699
  services? Ought we to interfere if we cannot be sure that such interference will not be to the detriment of such important services?
  Sir David Price: That is a fair point. That is why the Select Committee recommended in various reports before the Bill was introduced that trials should take place. That remains my view. When the Bill is implemented, in practice my right hon. and learned Friend will be conducting trials. Hospitals that opt for trust status will be volunteers. Furthermore, doctors who decide to opt for budgets will again be volunteers. It may not be the planned trial that I would personally like, but it will nevertheless be a trial by volunteers. The problem is that statisticians will tell us that it is not a random sample. However, there is far more of a trial element in the proposals than is recognised outside Parliament.
  If we face a resource problem over the future of the National Health Service, I believe that we face an even greater resource problem over care in the community. On a number of occasions throughout this Parliament I have tried to draw attention to the great unsatisfied need out there for care in the community. The need is far greater than is generally realised. We are given some guidance on that by the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the disabled. Far more people are crying out for help than is recognised in any official statistics. I intend to quote from evidence that was given to the Select Committee two weeks ago by the Alzheimer's Disease Society. I could, however, give 50 or 100 more examples of a similar nature. The society's evidence stated:
  "The Alzheimer's Disease Society believes the White Paper"—
  upon which the Bill is based—
  "fails overtly to recognise the scale, growth and awareness factors that are going to drive increased demand for improved provision in the next ten years for people suffering from dementia (Alzheimer's disease being the most common form), let alone their carers, mostly family members, husbands, wives, sons or daughters. The Society estimates the pressure on carers is going to increase by a factor of four."
  I leave the House to reflect upon the consequences of that estimate.
  That takes me logically to the funding problems arising out of care in the community policies. They are dealt with in parts III and IV of the Bill. With this debate in mind, the Select Committee published an urgent report entitled, "Community Care: Funding for Local Authorities." I commend it to the House. For reasons of brevity, I shall not take the House through the report. However, I draw its attention to two of our comments. In the introduction we said:
  "Sir Roy Griffiths has pointed out one major difference between his proposals for the future of community care and those set out in the Government's White Paper:
  'I had provided a purposeful, effective and economic four-wheel vehicle, but the White Paper has redesigned it as a three-wheeler, leaving out the fourth wheel of ring-fenced funding'."
  The ring-fenced funding issue is one that we must continue to pursue. In our report to the House we also said:
  "Almost all the evidence we have received expresses regret, or dismay, that the Government has not decided to 'ring-fence' local authorities' resources for community care."
  Every written submission that we have received has been along the same lines.
  700
  I hope that the Government will think again about this major problem of ring fencing. It does not require an additional amendment to the Bill; it can be done administratively. In view of the difficulties that the Government are experiencing over local government finance, I urge them to welcome our proposals and embrace them. I hope that they will do just that.
  5.26 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: The people of Wales will be disappointed with and angry about the Bill. They will be disappointed because they will regard it as a missed opportunity to do much for the National Health Service that could have been done right now. It is a missed opportunity, in that it will lead to an experiment instead of to solid policies that would improve the NHS as it stands.
  I do not defend all National Health Service practices; I am sure that many other hon. Members have sat at night, as I have done, in miserable hospital waiting rooms. I have been unable to receive service when my children needed it. However, the NHS has come to be seen as part of our heritage—as something that is indivisible from our definition of a civilised society.
  People are angry about the Bill. Their anger is reflected in the political polls. They believe that the Bill poses a real threat to that part of their heritage. They believe that it threatens the whole basis of the NHS: that, when somebody is ill or requires treatment, he receives it free of charge and that the treatment he receives is the best that is available at the time, wherever he needs it.
  My constituents, and the constituents of many right hon. and hon. Members, see hospitals falling apart before their very eyes. They do not believe that the Bill will result in waiting lists disappearing overnight, or even within years. They see no end to the Government's terrible tendency throughout the last 10 years to depend on the goodwill of hospital personnel and of people outside hospitals to spend their spare time on the streets collecting for vital pieces of diagnostic machinery and other machinery that is used for treatment—machinery that cannot be bought because of the shambles of this Government's administration of the NHS. People want to know what the Bill will do about it.
  I believe that the Bill will do nothing. The weasel words it contains will try to encourage the staff of hospitals not to do what they should be doing—improving their own standards of excellence and practice—but to be out in the streets as part-time charity workers trying to raise money for vital pieces of equipment. That is not good enough and it will be reflected at the next general election—indeed, I hope that it will be reflected in a couple of week's time.
  When patients go to hospitals after the Bill becomes law, will they find that there is a different reception for them when they go into the out-patients' or casualty departments? I am afraid that they will be met by the same junior doctors who have probably been awake for so long on duty that they cannot diagnose the condition of their own socks, let alone the condition of someone else's heart.
  People will ask how the Bill will affect the position of patients who have been turned out from long-term care facilities. I and others have seen such people wandering the streets because there is not sufficient back-up resources or finance to look after them when they have been turned out. What will the Bill do about that? I cannot see that it will do anything.
  Ms. Primarolo: As I mentioned earlier, I am a member of a district health authority. In preparation for the Bill, and to improve its corporate image, Bristol and Western district health authority is to spend £7,000 on new uniforms for the reception area of the hospital. That may not be a huge amount, but it is a lot of money when it comes to the closure of beds or wards. We can expect glitter, but no service.
  Dr. Howells: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Just two weeks ago, I spent long hours at the side of the bed of my two-year-old son. I had plenty of time, as did every other parent in the ward, to contemplate the peeling paintwork on the walls, the antiquated cots and the cracked windows. That is the condition of hospitals in my constituency, which is by no means exceptional.
  I and many other parents have had such a chance to contemplate what we see around us and such contemplation is good for increasing awareness of what is needed and what is not needed. We do not require glitter or corporate images. That £7,000 could have been used to purchase paint for the parents' waiting area. Currently, the nurses chip in to buy paint for it and they do the painting themselves because there is no money for it in the hospital budget. What will the Bill do about that? It will do nothing.
  When one spends time in hospital, it is interesting to talk to the staff and to the consultants, who are beginning to understand the "hidden agenda" of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) described it. I know what the hidden agenda is. It is a screenplay that will impose on the House at some future date a hefty Bill called the Privatisation of the National Health Service Bill.
  All the signs of that hidden agenda can be seen in the Bill. Let us look at the words—"trusts", "fund-holding practices", "originating capital debt", and "indicative budgets". The contracts between general practitioners and hospital trusts start to resemble the arrangements that Sainsbury might make for purchasing a slightly battered carcase of meat from a wholesaler or a case of hazelnut yogurt that requires some salmonella-infected pots to be removed.
  Patients are not commodities, and people do not regard themselves as the financial part of an equation that can be worked out by accountants. The NHS was not created for that and that is not why it has been run since. People in Wales have rejected those ideas time and time again in every election and by-election. I am sure that the people of the rest of the country will do the same.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Morris: Once again, I must declare an interest as I am married to a general practitioner and I act as an adviser to two pharmaceutical companies.
  It does not give me great pleasure to make this speech, because I recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my hon. Friends the Minister for Health and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health are motivated by a desire to improve patient care; I want to put that on record. The sad thing is that the Bill will not achieve that aim. If its objective were to produce a dramatic improvement in the financial management of the National Health Service, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee I should give
  702
  it three cheers. However, it represents an attempt to create an internal market driven by a decision to cash-limit the whole of the NHS, and that is a big change. Medical appraisal will no longer be the key determinant. Once the Bill reaches the statute book, cost and not patient need will be the driving issue. That is why I oppose the Bill in principle.
  If the Bill had resulted in a level playing field with some in-built mechanism whereby wage costs were automatically funded by the Treasury, progress would have been made. However, when I looked at the Bill, I related it to the most recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General—report No. 566, which was produced in July 1989. In paragraph 5 on page 1, the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
  "Health authorities have faced uncertainties concerning pay levels which are decided at national level and price increases, which have tended to be greater than the average for the economy".
  That rather blows a hole in my right hon. Friend's recent statement that price increases in the NHS did not have to include an allowance for mortgage interest increases. We must remember that any report from the Comptroller and Auditor General has to be agreed by the Department responsible, so that report must have been agreed by the Department of Health.
  At a sitting of the Public Accounts Committee, I asked the chief executive of the National Health Service whether he was constrained by cash limits. The answer was yes. I asked the Treasury whether it was likely that the difference between the allowance for wage cost increases of about 5 per cent. and the actual cost of nationally agreed settlements would be made up by the Treasury and the answer was no.
  Against such a financial background one has to ask specifically why, at almost every turn, the key people who can make people well again—the doctors—are treated with such disdain. It is a foolhardy person who ignores the advice of the royal colleges. I hope that their advice will not be ignored in the other place. No patient will be made better by 4,000 new accountants; they are more likely to be made better by 400 new consultants.
  I hope that the regulations that will ensue from the Bill will ensure that at the very least—my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not have the chance to make this point yesterday—there is proper medical representation as of right at every tier of authority. I also hope that the medical advisory committees will be extended to cover all health authorities and National Health Service trusts, because that is a key issue.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), raised the question of indicative drug budgets. Given that the Government have shifted their position, why on earth is clause 18 still in the Bill? The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme controls the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry and prescribing analyses and costs are being used on a trial basis by a number of family practitioner committees, available as a control mechanism to help GPs with prescribing difficulties.
  I am not convinced about cash limits on prescriptions. I have asked many times what will happen when all the GPs in a region overspend. Where will the money come from ? Will it come from some other aspect of patient care or out of the Government's contingency budget? In a

  703
  telling intervention the other evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) gave a concrete example of a hospital, with licensed medicine only on partial release, being restricted because the North West Thames health authority had said so. Similar cases have been reported in the press. The reality is that there are constraints on prescribing and the Government must get their act together and ensure that that does not happen on the ground. It is no good saying that it does not, because it is happening at the moment.
  Why do we not learn from the experience of countries such as the United States where much research covering 47 states, not just some minor town, shows that restricted formularies lead to more money being spent on hospital care? If people do not use modern medicines, more people go into hospital care. For my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to say that generic medicine is just the same shows a degree of ignorance that is not right in a Minister of the Crown in this important area.
  This is the fourth reorganisation of the NHS since I have been a Member of the House, but Ministers have failed to understand that they must take the people with them if they are to make changes which will affect the largest employer in Europe. They may have to argue, discuss and take difficult decisions but, as sure as anything, they must take the people with them. It is outstanding that the great majority of employees in the NHS at any level are not in favour of the changes.
  The opportunity in the Bill for devolution to a lower tier is greatly to be welcomed. We all have a district general hospital crying out for some independence, but instead we have the NHS trust, some transatlantic concept. I do not know how many hospitals will take that up. At first there were 350. That figure dropped to 120 and it now stands at around 80. My guess is that we shall be lucky to have 50. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said, we had a skewed sample. How much better it would have been to start with a properly structured sample so that we could have had a reasonable test market to see whether the proposal worked; if it did, it could have been extended.
  The Bill is full of dangerous precedents. It is full of the bureaucracy that the Public Accounts Committee has grown to question. I have been reading the contracts for health services, and they are only the beginning. I have spent 10 years on the Public Accounts Committee trying to get rid of this sort of stuff. I have clearly failed dismally. One aspect of the Bill that could be welcomed is medical audit. The other evening some hon. Members raised the question of quality of care, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State seemed to respond. That should be written into the Bill. I do not agree with the Opposition's suggestion that there should be a committee which will meet only twice a year. Such quality control should take place all the time. However, I think we are all at one on the importance of the quality of care and I hope that that will be written into the Bill in another place.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I do not want my hon. Friend to conclude and suffer in agony for the rest of the short debate in the belief that our intention is to cash-limit the NHS, in particular at national, regional FPC and individual doctor level. My right hon. and learned Friend
  704
  the Secretary of State made that clear in Committee, on which my hon. Friend did not serve. But for the avoidance of doubt I repeat that there is no intention to cash-limit the family Health Service in the sense that drugs and prescriptions are part of that service. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that. I appreciate his powerful arguments, which are largely a repeat of what he said on Second Reading, but I hope that he will accept my assurance on behalf of the Government on that narrow point.
  Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he has clarified the point, but I shall have to consider carefully what he said.
  We did not discuss amendment No. 118 on the medical practices committee on Report. Why on earth do we have to upset the medical practices system which has worked perfectly well for years? Everybody is satisfied with it, but now we are to have some sort of subjective assessment which will turn it upside down.
  The Bill does not destroy the NHS, and anyone who suggests that it does is way off beam, but it does not enhance it. Millions of hours will be spent as a result of it, but, sadly, waiting lists continue to grow. We all know—it is better that we say it—that in the next few weeks and months more wards will be closed. Things will not get easier. Every survey shows the grave disquiet felt by the public.
  It cannot be right that the House has to keep producing early-day motions to save the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital for women or the Mount Vernon skin graft hospital. It cannot be right to have Jimmy Savile charging round the country trying to save Stoke Mandeville hospital. Just down the road from here we have the world's leading hospital, the Maudsley, yet there too there are cuts. That is a crazy way to go on. I hope that all that will be considered in another place.
  We get our health care pretty cheap in Britain, at about 6·1 per cent. of GNP. It is the most cost-efficient health service among 18 industrial nations. The Bill will be good news for accountants and lawyers, but I sincerely question how it will benefit patients. I remain unconvinced, so I shall oppose it.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: We have had some excellent contributions so far. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said that the Bill will not destroy the NHS. But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) that it is a paving measure that will move us towards American-style private health care. Conservative Members may not understand that, but the people do. They can see the real agenda and they know what they want to avoid.
  I want to concentrate on the forgotten part of the Bill—community care. That is an afterthought. I thought that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would sit down without mentioning it. That has happened before and I thought that it would happen again. But he referred to it in passing, so I could not say that he did not.
  The Government have had 10 years to develop a strategy for community care, but the Bill is a major disappointment. It is a missed opportunity. The more one looks at the events of this week and in Committee, the more one can see that the legislation is full of holes. It will be only a matter of time before we have inquiries and

  705
  recommendations, which will make us get down to looking at the issues that the Opposition and some Conservative Members have pointed out during the Bill's passage.
  The main feature of the Bill is the way in which the Government have put their free market ideology before what is needed in the development of community care. The Government talk about their wish to establish a flourishing independent sector but also about the avoidance of unnecessary institutional care. It is clear from all the evidence that those principles are contradictory, because the private sector is interested in one thing only—the provision of institutional care, as that is where the money can be made. The Bill financially discriminates against directly provided local authority care, and that will add to the problem and further stimulate the private sector. At the same time, the Government expect the local authority to provide for the many people rejected by the private sector because they need levels of care that the private sector will not provide, or they cannot afford to pay the price for which the private sector asks.
  Is a market model appropriate to community care? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd has, on a number of occasions, asked whether a market model is appropriate for the provision of health care. I reject a market model in the caring of vulnerable, elderly, handicapped and dependent people, because it is a licence for exploitation. As we have said on several occasions, the type of provision that the Government are prepared to fund, through what was previously open-ended income support, is unplanned provision, ill-thought-out provision, in mansions and large houses. The bulk of provision on the south-east coastal belt does not reflect the needs of our society. It is unplanned. It is there because there are empty bed-and-breakfast establishments for substantial parts of the year. People think that they can make some money by shunting in people who require community care. That is all wrong and the Bill should have tackled that problem.
  Provision is aimed only at institutional care. There is no attempt to develop alternatives by the private sector. Businesses do not see any means of making money in that way.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no programme for rehabilitation of severely disabled people who no longer need acute care in hospitals and no proper provision for the funding of their care in the community? In Tower Hamlets, at least 10 severely disabled people who are ready to leave hospital and live at home cannot do so because such care would cost about £40,000 a year each. There is constant conflict as to who will pay for that—the Health Service or the social services. There are demarcation disputes about who will do the nursing jobs.
  One young ex-service man of 28, who is completely disabled from the neck down, has been found a flat, which has been empty since last June. Conflicts such as those that I have described are preventing him from leaving hospital and now the housing department is saying that it cannot keep the flat for him any longer. I am sure that my hon. Friend will know of many such cases. The policy has not been thought out, and provision has not been properly made. The money is not there and many people have to remain in hospital occupying beds when that is no longer necessary and they could live happy lives in the community, if that were done properly.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend has made a clear and eloquent case. Such cases are not confined to her constituency. Every hon. Member who takes an interest in what is happening in his area is aware of such cases. The problem that we have to get over is the Government's tunnel vision about what is needed by elderly and handicapped people. Through that tunnel vision, they see only the institutional model, so people such as the young man whom my hon. Friend described are pointed in one direction only. The cards are stacked against any alternative to that person being in an institution or hospital care. We have to get away from that.
  Mr. Rowe: I am listening with great attention, as I always do, to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Will he agree on two points? First, the thrust of the Bill is to provide an assessment and a care manager, the purpose of which is to keep people out of institutional care. Secondly, in many authorities, mine included, the thrust of the development over the past 10 years has been to diminish residential care as a priority placement.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman is most consistent, because he has made that point in interventions in my speeches at least four times during the passage of the legislation, and I shall make the same response. An assessment by a social worker, or whoever, is based on what is available. My criticism of the Bill is that it encourages the provision of only institutional care, rather than preventive, domiciliary care. That is my central concern.
  In Committee, the Opposition made the point, several times, that the worst practice is rewarded by the market model system developed by the Government. The larger the home, the more profitable the venture, and the more people who can be packed in, the more money will be made. Home owners will agree with that. I have already referred to the new nursery home in my constituency, with 100 beds. That is not a home. I should not want to live somewhere with 100 beds, The people setting up the home told me that they had that many beds because they could make economies of scale—the more one gets in, the more money one makes. That is wrong. It is not in the interests of the people whom we should be representing.
  Mr. Allen McKay: This is a growing problem. My local authority has received six planning applications for extensions of existing homes or the building of new ones. Those places will have between 80 and 100 beds. They are not homes: they are institutions.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right. He knows the sort of homes that we are talking about. We are going back 20 or 30 years, to the workhouse environment where people were packed in. We should be sensitive to people's needs.
  The crux of the matter is a point that I have tried to raise on several occasions and that will be understood by my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee. It is whether caring for profit in such circumstances is morally right. Are we happy about attracting into provision of care for the elderly and handicapped organisations such as Stakis plc, a hotels, leisure and property group, or Kunick plc, an amusement arcade group? What relevance have amusement arcades to the

  707
  care of handicapped people? What expertise in caring for demented and senile individuals, who may be doubly incontinent, have such people?
  Buckingham International, a disco and leisure company, is now to move into the private care market. Are those the people whom we want to be caring for our mothers and grandmothers—dependants and the vulnerable? Are those the companies that we want to attract to a welfare state based on a market model? Ladbroke now has over 1,000 beds in caring provision. Boddingtons and Vaux Breweries are also moving into this sector. What relevance do breweries have to caring for the handicapped and elderly? Univent Ltd. has become well known for its practices. When residents in its homes go into hospital, it clears out their possessions, shoves them in a cellar and gives the bed to somebody else. That is the practice that the Government are encouraging with this market model. Is that appropriate?
  Mr. Dennis Turner: In the midst of the changes in residential care, when we have to be ever more careful and conscious of the accommodation being made available and the people and organisations that lie behind it, where is the ethic responsibility of social services within the Bill, or the resources that will be necessary for them to do the policing of the new major administrative roles? We know that the Government have made no provision for resources for the new personnel who will be needed, so they will not be policed. The authority in my constituency has estimated that when the Bill is enacted it will need £2 million to £3 million to do the job in the way in which the Government say it should be done. It knows, however, that that will not be possible. As we know that there will be a lack of resources, we should tell the people now what the real position will be. People will not receive the services that they need and social service departments will lose out.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend has an excellent track record in local government and speaks with experience of the problems that are being faced at the grass roots. He is right to say that the resources will not be available to enable authorities to provide the services that are needed. Resources must be concentrated on the alternatives to institutional care. In that respect, the Government have tunnel vision.
  The White Paper referred to enabling individuals to have choice and the Government have claimed that the advent of private care homes has given people choice. I do not know how many hon. Members have spoken to their constituents to learn what choice means. It means that now and in future, where there is a vacancy in a home, one person will take the vacancy. That is the reality of the present choice.
  If there were real choice, there would be the option of not going into a home. People would be able to remain in the community. They would be able to remain in their own homes where they have lived all their lives. They would be able to stay in their own communities. They would not have to be shunted into an institution miles away from their families and friends. Instead, the Government have hammered alternative care and options to the institution, which means living in large groups miles away from families and friends. They have hammered the home help
  708
  and meals-on-wheels services, sheltered housing and every real attempt to keep people out of institutional care. As a result, the market has been stimulated. That was the aim behind the Government's policy.
  What should the Bill have done? It should have provided for genuine community care, developing options to the institution that were based on a real choice, which would enable people to stay where they have always lived. The Bill should have introduced planning and the co-ordination of community care to replace the shambles and ragbag that exists between different Government Departments and departments at local level.
  We need a community care Minister. There is no reference to such a Minister in the Bill. The establishment of such an office is a policy commitment of the Labour party. I am proud to say that that will shortly be Government policy in this place. A legal duty should be placed on local authorities—this idea was resisted by the Government in Committee—to develop options to institutional care. I return to the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe): we must ensure that social workers make genuine assessments and not those that are restricted by what is available in the way of institutional homes. Assessments should be based on what is available in a person's community, to keep him or her out of an institutional home and in his or her own home as a member of the community.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: As I understand it, my hon. Friend is saying that a home care service should be provided, not merely a home help service. He is advocating the development of skills through the home help service, with opportunities for training and retraining.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Member, but he is attempting to divert the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) from the provisions that are set out in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wakefield will speak to the Bill.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has read my mind completely. He said exactly what I intended to say.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has read the mind of the hon. Member for Wakefield. That means that the hon. Member for Wakefield does not have to repeat what his colleague said.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I want to see the development of options to the model that we have been promised by the Government. It is a conservative model of what we have had for far too long. Other countries have developed options. They do not believe that when a person reaches a certain age or has a certain degree of incapacity he or she must leave the family home and go into an institution.
  We must have more sheltered housing. We need very sheltered housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has described the domiciliary support that is needed. There should be support seven days a week in a person's own home if that is needed. Why should not the person to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) referred have that sort of support? In many instances it would be cheaper for the public purse to provide it instead of shunting such people into an institution. We should be thinking of transforming

  709
  residential care into a completely different model. We should facilitate community care and stop incarcerating people.
  The Government have ducked the challenge of having a completely different vision of community care. They have failed to meet the challenge of keeping people in the community. We should look to future provision and ensure that community care means care in the community, not away from it. On that basis, the Government have failed completely.
  6.6 pm
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who has an enviable knowledge of the community care part of the Bill. I begin by saying that I support the Bill and the concept behind it, which is to open all the facilities in the National Health Service to all the patients within it. Such a concept is long overdue. It will enable a measure of choice to be introduced in the care of patients. The patient will be able to choose whether he is cared for locally or at a distance, and that will have a bearing on the time that he may be asked to wait for an operation. That choice should have been there all along.
  I must, however, chide my Front Bench colleagues. They keep telling me that the Bill is a patients' charter. It may be that I am sensitive because I helped to produce a patients' charter, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) kindly reminded us last night, with the Association of Community Health Councils. A patients' charter can be produced only by patients and patients' organisations. The best that the Bill can do is be a patients' charter produced by a Government who think that they know what patients want. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that what the patient wants and what he gets may be rather different things.
  I regret that to some extent CHCs have been downgraded as a result of the Bill. We have not put an institution in their place that will speak for patients as I think the voice of the patient should be heard. I hope to return to that subject in later debates.
  In the end, what is the Bill about? It is about better service for the patient or it is about nothing. It is about better care from the general practitioner, and an extension of the service that the GP can offer his patient. It is about better hospital care, more consultants in the NHS and making better use of resources. Some may say that if I make such a statement I imply that the Health Service is of a poor standard. It is not. I know that the NHS is a political hot potato that we like to kick around in the Chamber, but the NHS is doing a superbly good job. I can say so because, as I think everybody knows, I am dependent on the Health Service for my life. I declare my interest: I am a kidney dialysis patient. I receive kidney dialysis three times a week through the NHS. I am the president of a kidney patients' charity. I have, therefore, considerable experience of the Health Service.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) telling us about the hospital in which his son, sadly, is being treated. He referred to broken windows, peeling wallpaper and so on, and he placed the blame for that on the Government. I have been in many NHS hospitals, and some are good and some are bad. Some are well decorated and some are not. It amounts to good management or bad management. In some instances those
  710
  who run a hospital notice such things and in others they do not. We are all guilty because we often find that we live in shabbier surroundings than we imagined when we compare those circumstances with others elsewhere. Lei us not imagine that the Government decide whether a ward is painted or whether someone hangs pictures and makes the place more attractive for patients. Very often such matters are for the people who run our hospitals.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not give way because time is short and I know that others wish to contribute to the debate.
  I am sorry that the Government do not appear to want to follow through my next point. If we are to decide whether our hospitals are coming up to the standard that we expect, we must consider whether there should be a separate hospitals inspectorate. Although it may be a bureaucratic concept that may not find favour on the Treasury Bench at the moment, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give it a little more thought. Perhaps a third body, such as the Health Advisory Society, which looks at mental hospitals, could be applied to the overall realm of the National Health Service and might help to raise standards and to identify the sort of problems that some of us notice when we go round hospitals and wonder why they are not as we would wish them to be.
  If the Bill is about treating patients, in the end it is also about creating a form of accountability for the resources used to treat patients. Therefore, I welcome the idea of clinical audit and the fact that the Audit Commission is to have a say. By definition, all resources in the National Health Service are precious. It is a demand-led service, where the demand is infinite. If the demand is infinite, clearly the resources available to us will always be limited. No hon. Member should imagine that somebody somewhere in this or any other political party will he able to find all the resources that the Health Service will need one day. They will not. I have heard the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) say just that. Whichever Government are in office, they will have to impose some limits on the resources that are available.
  The important point, which I believe the Bill addresses, is getting the most out of resources and making all those who spend the resources conscious of the fact that they are spending something precious. Therefore, I welcome the cash-limiting of the drugs budgets. That must be right. I also welcome hospital trusts, and budget-holding practices. I welcome anything that makes those who are spending public money ask themselves whether they are getting the most from the money that they are spending. No practitioner, no matter what he is doing, who handles public money can divorce himself from the cost of the treatment that he intends to provide. Of couse, the cost is not, and should not be, the dominant consideration, but it must play a part.
  As I have said, resources are the one thing that must be treated as what they are—precious gold. They must be used as prudently and as economically as possible, so that the greatest number of people can benefit from them. To that extent, the concept that now appears to have all-party support—although I did not know that until this evening—of the money travelling with the patient is of the greatest significance. If the money travels with the patient, that

  711
  means that the money goes with the treatment. That has the corollary that once the Bill becomes law, a patient who goes outside his region for treatment will take the resources with him, out of the district. That must introduce a new thinking into the minds of district health authorities.
  Perhaps the House will allow me to illustrate what I am trying to say in terms of kidney dialysis facilities. In the United Kingdom, we have 1·2 kidney dialysis units per 1 million of population, whereas in the Federal Republic of Germany there are 5·8 such units; in France there are 4·1; in Italy there are seven; and in Spain there are five units per I million of population. Even in the German Democratic Republic, there are 3·5 units. The fact that those countries have more centres per 1 million of population also discloses that they also have more kidney specialists for their populations. Because of the small number of centres in this country, many patients must travel long distances. Plenty of Health Service studies show that both acceptance of new patients and treatment rates are inversely proportional to the distance of the patient's home from the treatment facility.
  A renal consultant has written to me stating that the ethos of the Bill
  "may promote change … One would expect that a District exporting all its (valuable) renal patients might wonder why it does not keep those patients and treat them for itself. In addition, the District might also look at the cost of ambulance services required for shipping patients to the remote centre"——
  that is the kidney dialysis centre—
  "and decide that these charges could be turned into a clear saving. It is thus possible that a certain number of patients would between them generate sufficient funds to establish a new Unit and pay for a new Consultant Nephrologist.
  I am hearing from the patient organisations that British patients would prefer to be treated in small centres where relationships with individual doctors and nurses are maintained rather than in vast centres where they are lost in anonymity."
  I suggest that as a result of the Bill that renal consultant's hopes will become a reality. I admit that that is a small example, but it underlines the potential of the Bill. Therefore, for that reason as well as for the others that I have given, I shall support the Bill on Third Reading. However, I add just one caveat. Perhaps it was a good idea to take the Health Service and the community care elements together in the same Bill, although I am one of those who believe that they should have been in two different Bills. But I am still worried about the co-ordination between health and community care. I believe that we shall have to return to that subject and I shall look forward to suggestions made in another place which may return to us as an amendment at some future date.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Over the past decade—and longer—this has been a Government of reforming zeal on so many fronts. Much of that zeal has been well placed, such as the sale of council houses and the encouragement of democracy in trade unionism. However, the zealotry has now begun to blind common sense, not least in relation to the National Health Service. Ten years in office can cocoon a Government from reality.
  712
  To paraphrase the earlier critical speech from the Government Back Benches, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) pointed out what is manifestly the case, yet the public are not behind the Bill one iota. At times the Government would do well to remember the Churchillian dictum of trusting the people. They may well find that, when the people next have an opportunity to give a national verdict on the Government's continuing reforming thrust, not least in relation to health and welfare services, they will lose badly, but deservedly.
  My fundamental objection to the Bill is its lack of intellectual honesty. There are two reasons why the Government have felt it necessary to introduce a Bill to reform the National Health Service. The first is straightforward: the Health Service is both big and bureaucratic. It is the biggest civilian employer in western Europe. Anything like that is bound to attract the disdain of a Government such as this, who do not like to respond to, or to have to deal with, any group in society that can wield the kind of power that the National Health Service can.
  Secondly, and derived from that, the Bill is a response to political frustration. After 10 years of being told that the Government are spending more, employing more, treating more and building more, the public do not believe them. From the evidence in their own communities, the public do not believe the rhetoric of Ministers at the Dispatch Box. Largely out of the sense of frustration, the Prime Minister insisted on a political and legislative response. She split the Department of Health from the Department of Social Security, downgrading the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. She then dismissed him and brought back the previous Minister for Health, who has had to pull together this ill-assorted ragbag of ideas and try to present it as a coherent political philosophy when, in its basic analysis, it is not, because it is a response to political rather than patient needs.
  My principal objection to the Bill is that it seeks to impose on the main providers of health care a costly and untried administrative structure, which is designed in the first instance not to improve health care or to increase the resources given to health care, but to impose a sense of structured competition in a totally inappropriate form and setting. In so doing, Ministers have made it clear that they do not have sufficient regard for the professionals who are the Health Service or, indeed, for the patients who are dependent upon it. If they had, they would have built in throughout the Bill far more consultation and far more guaranteed representation for both those groups. At every stage at which these arguments have been raised—at times they have not just been Opposition arguments but have been supported by Government Back Benchers—they have been resisted throughout the Committee stage and the truncated Report stage in the last few days. I shall touch very briefly on a few of the issues that arise.
  The National Health Service contracts will remove clinical responsibility from doctors. They will remove the proper voice in health care that I believe patients should have—I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir Michael McNair-Wilson), who has done so much in this field—and at the end of the day they will hand over final control and major decisions to administrators. That will create monopolies, which I suggest will add to costs.
  Self-governing trusts will break the link between the community and the hospital, undermine planning in terms

  713
  of both health care and staffing, and force people to travel for treatment that they should rightly expect in their locality, not least in rural areas, without giving them or the staff any direct democratic say in the decisions.
  General practitioner budgets, particularly in the light of the new GP contract, can only undermine the essence of the relationship between patient and doctor, which has been one of the greatest strengths of the NHS and is the interface—horrible word—between the vast bulk of the population and the family doctor service.
  I agree with Government Back-Benchers that the Government have refused to write in a guarantee that drug budgets will never be used to reduce expenditure on drugs. The Minister gave some assurances at the Dispatch Box on this matter, but they do not appear in the Bill.
  The Minister makes a face. I know the reason that the Secretary of State enunciated why they have been unwilling to write things in at certain times, but let us go beyond that on this question of drug budgets. This was a major opportunity to take a significant step forward down the line of generic substitution, of looking at patent life in a European Community context with a view to a better deal for the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry, which, at a time when our balance of trade is disappearing over the cliff, is one of the major net contributors to British exports. But, unfortunately, the Government have not chosen to go sufficiently down that road. This is an extremely sad missed opportunity.
  On health authority membership, the Government announced earlier this week a shake-up in the membership of health authorities throughout England and Wales. It was a disgraceful announcement in terms of the number of people with proven links to the Conservative party—we have been over this before in the course of the Bill—and business backgrounds. I do not object to business backgrounds, but all too often the criterion for appointment, or, more important, the criterion for not reappointing somebody who has served on a health authority, is, first and foremost, their political orientation rather than their professional commitment to a good National Health Service.
  Mr. McCartney: The position is that a majority of the members of our health authority do not live in, work in or belong to the community for which they are the authority. After this Bill is passed and local authority representation is removed, there will be a majority of people on that body who do not live or work in or have any connection with the community to which they are appointed.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is a serious and genuine complaint, which has been repeated in many other parts of the country. I can only say, given the difference in geography and demography between our two parts of the country, that I hope it does not begin to happen in the Scottish Highlands, because it would be farcical to have somebody sitting in Glasgow on the Highlands health board.
  Mr. McCartney: A modern-day Highland clearance.
  Mr. Kennedy: That is one way of putting it.
  On the question of medical teaching—sadly, we were not able to come back to an all-party amendment on this matter on Report—there is, as the Minister knows, continuing concern and anxiety, particularly for the big teaching hospitals attached to and aligned with some of
  714
  our great universities, about the role of those who are both in the academic sector and aligned or attached to the National Health Service. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals has expressed particular concern about this. Given the educational lobby in another place, this is a matter on which the Government will be subjected to significant scrutiny, and I hope that there will be constructive amendment at that stage in the Bill.
  I come to medical practice committees. The hon. Member for Northampton, South had some caustic remarks to make about this and I quite agree with him that it is gratuitous and unnecessary to take powers to reduce the number of doctors, if necessary by imposing directions on the MPCs. In particular, it will be disadvantageous to both the inner cities and the rural areas. It is striking at one of the real success stories in the British Health Service since 1947, which is the growth in the number of general practitioners and the expansion of the family doctor service in accessible areas in every community.
  Rural dispensing committees are also abolished—a decision made by the House with hardly any discussion, which is not at all a good way to go about legislation.
  Coming, finally, to the community care section. while the principles behind it are welcome, even though the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming over the Rubicon, not least where local authority input is concerned, and only after excessive delay, there is no provision, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), the distinguished Vice-Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services, made clear, for ring fencing, an essential concept of the Griffiths report. There are no national standards.
  The provision for the funding of residential homes is known by all—indeed, at one stage earlier this week, for a few magic moments, by a majority of the House—-to be inadequate. There is no proper provision for carers and, in the context of one of the admittedly more minor amendments that was moved last night, no proper protection yet for residents in homes of four people or fewer through their being subject to proper scrutiny by the inspectorate. Within Scotland, there are no moves to introduce a proper inspectorate.
  This Bill has been a response to political pressure. It has been born out of governmental frustration rather than a genuine, formative effort to improve the National Health Service. It did not feature as a manifesto commitment I think that the Government are wildly out of touch with so much connected with this measure, and that they will reap the return from that at the ballot box in the next election.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I felt very privileged to take part in the work of the Committee that considered this Bill because I believe that it is one of the most important Bills going through the House in this Parliament, in the essential sense that it will have an enormous impact on the welfare and, indeed, the lives of our constituents.
  I paid great attention to the Report stage and it is now clear to the House, and will be clear to the country, that the essential political difference between the parties in this House on the Bill is extremely simple. On the one side, the Government have decided that, after 40 years, it would be sensible to introduce a number of radical reforms into the

  715
  NHS, not merely or even largely to improve the efficiency of the service, although improving value for money becomes ever more important the more money is allocated to the NHS and the greater the share of the Government's budget and of national income is absorbed by the NHS. But it is also necessary to get rid of some of the major perversities that have emerged within the operations of the NHS. Those perversities have, for example, led to a number of hospital managers having an incentive to reduce the throughput of their hospitals and to local authorities feeling that there is an incentive to dump people into institutional care as a first, rather than a last, resort.
  One of the great human benefits of this Bill will be that, for the first time, an attempt will be made to assess individual needs and, wherever possible, to support people in their own homes rather than consign them to institutional care, however dedicated and competent that care may be. The Government believe that it is now possible to introduce into the National Health Service a greater measure of patient choice and to make the system fundamentally more responsive to patient needs and demands.
  The Opposition's position has been equally clear. Throughout the discussion on this Bill, in Committee and on Report, the Opposition have opposed, almost in every particular, any change in the 1948 structure—as though it were a crime even to touch that structure, and as though that structure represented a sacred totem. Perhaps to certain hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies of the Opposition it is a sacred totem. To a visitor unfamiliar with the British political debate it might seem that such blind defence of the NHS reflected a very large measure of satisfaction with the workings of the service. Of course, we know that nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout this Parliament the Opposition have subjected us to an endless litany of complaints about its operation. How does the Labour party explain this fundamental contradiction—on the one side, defence of the NHS in its present form, and on the other, the most serious, and often vituperative, complaints against its operation?
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: In respect of the complaints against the NHS, we say to the Government quite simply, "Fund it properly."
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned funding. That is precisely how the Labour party, at least during the first two years of this Parliament, attempted to reconcile the contradiction to which I have drawn attention. We all remember how, in 1987, 1988 and 1989, we continually heard from the Opposition the suggestion that there was nothing wrong with the NHS except that it needed more money—as though throwing more money at it would solve its problems. Over the past two years something very interesting has happened. In 1988 Opposition leaders were regularly calling for the expenditure of another £1 billion or another £2 billion on the service—some Opposition Members seem to like multiplying round figures. In fact, the Government have come forward with £3 billion, £4 billion and £5 billion more.
  Mr. Chris Mullin rose——
  Mr. Davies: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I have observed—I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is about to intervene will show that I am right—that recently the Opposition have ceased their attempts to outbid the Government in respect of financial plans for the NHS.
  Mr. Mullin: It is not just the Opposition who have been saying that the Health Service is underfunded. According to the local Tory newspaper in Sunderland, the chairman of the Northern regional health authority, who was appointed by the Government, said last week:
  "Fundamentally we are underfunded consistently. It is absolutely frustrating to feel so useless."
  The person who made that comment is not a supporter of the Labour party.
  Mr. Davies: Had the Government accepted the funding arrangements that the Labour party suggested for the NHS two years ago, the service would be funded at a lower rate today than is actually the case. The increase in expenditure on the service has been considerably greater than was demanded by the Opposition only two years ago.
  Throughout the Committee stage and Report stage debates I listened with great attention, but entirely in vain, for the slightest suggestion by Opposition Members that if, by mischance, they were to come to power they would spend more on the NHS than the Government are planning to spend. I will give way to any hon. Member who is prepared to give a specific commitment to spend on the NHS more than the Government are currently planning to spend. I notice that not a single Opposition Member—least of all, the hon. Member for Monklands. West (Mr. Clarke)—is attempting to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, or mine with a view to answering that challenge.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) drew attention to the ruse by which the Labour party attempts to cover the contradiction in its attitude towards the NHS. That party gives the impression that, somehow, it will come up with more money than the Government have provided. That notion has been exploded, and, against this background, the Labour party's opposition to every element of the reforms being suggested by the Government is fundamentally mindless.
  Mr. Frank Field: If even half of the hon. Gentleman's assertions are true, it must be galling for him. He is telling us how much the Government are spending on the NHS, but no one outside believes him. It is absurd to try to get the Opposition to outbid the Government on the question of funding arrangements. This Bill is about the delivery of health care. Our stance is that the Health Service has been a tremendous success story. Let us set the proportion of GNP spent on the Health Service against mortality and morbidity rates. Britain gets a good deal, and the electorate understands that. Surely it would be sensible to ask in what ways we can improve the service. Instead, what we have is a pig-headed decision that certain schemes, without even having been tried out, are to be introduced on a massive scale. I am therefore grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I hope that many people outside are listening, because the more he says, the fewer there will be who think that the Health Service is safe in his and his hon. Friends' hands.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of important points which I am only too pleased to address. I am glad that he, too, has come to the conclusion

  717
  that it would be pointless to conduct this debate on the basis of the two sides trying to outbid each other in terms of promised NHS expenditure. That would indeed be futile. I believe that the Labour party's commitments have lost all credibility. Nevertheless. I repeat that there is a fundamental contradiction between the Opposition's defence of the NHS in its present form and their continuing complaints about the workings of the service. The only answer that the Opposition can give is to say that the problem is one of funding and that they are in a special position to resolve that problem. Now that the Labour party has dropped the claim that it will spend more money on the NHS, that means of reconciling the contradiction falls away. Thus is exposed the hollowness of the arguments that we have heard throughout this debate.
  I have the highest regard for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I hope that, before we next have a debate on Health Service matters, he will spend a little time in the Library. I urge him in particular to look at the OECD figures on life expectancy and infant mortality of which, obviously, he is unaware. In 1948, when the National Health Service was introduced, this country was in the OECD's top quartile for life expectancy, for men and women, and in the bottom quartile for infant mortality. We are now in one of the two most unfavourable quartiles in respect of both. That is a serious relative deterioration in the general health of the British population. I say "relative" because, in absolute terms, the health of the population has improved greatly.
  Mr. Frank Field: It is slightly barmy to make such comparisons. In the period after the second world war much of Europe was starving. Therefore, we would expect that to show up, particularly in the infant mortality figures. It is not comparing like with like to compare us with the rest of Europe in that period and then at present.
  Mr. Davies: It is a good rule that one should attempt to display elementary familiarity with figures before one quotes them in the House.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the startling discrepancy in expectation of life within quite a small region? For example, the expectation of life in the north-west as a whole is well below the national average, whereas in Lancaster it is above the national average because we run our affairs properly. That is one of the fallacies of the National Health Service. There are enormous discrepancies even between adjoining districts. That is one problem which the Bill will address and cure.
  Mr. Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend on health achievements in her constituency.
  I welcome the Bill not because it enshrines some useful reforms but because the Government have resisted the temptation to replace one monolithic, global, systematic structure, introduced in 1948 and apparently valid for all time, with another monolithic, global, systematic structure, also apparently valid for all time. The Government have adopted an extremely pragmatic approach and have introduced a number of radical but specific reforms into a structure that continues to enshrine the basic principles of the NHS.
  The Government have not been afraid to look round the world and to learn from foreign experience when it had something to teach us. To a certain extent, the
  718
  fund-holding practice concept owes something to the system of health management organisations in the United States. Clearly, the introduction of self-governing hospitals will produce a structure more akin to that in continental countries such as France and Germany.
  The Government have also learnt from analyses over many years of the experience of the NHS. Elements of the Bill reflect some of the thinking of Professor Enthoven in his famous report and reflect his concept of an internal market. They also reflect much of the thinking which that report inspired.
  The Bill brings in useful and vital reforms. I have already mentioned some. If their operation is properly monitored and controlled, they should provide a basis for continuing uprating of the National Health Service. That is vital because we cannot legislate for the NHS once and for all and then forget about it for the next 40 years. It deserves, and will receive, detailed continuing attention. The Government did a good day's work for the country when they introduced the Bill, and I am proud to support it.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The debate has demonstrated graphically the ideological gulf between the Government and the Opposition. Unfortunately, the Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), used the debate simply as debating practice. It seemed as though he wanted to earn brownie points from his friends on the Front Bench rather than tell us about the merits or demerits of the measure. I contrast that speech—34 minutes of doing nothing other than baiting the Labour party—with the compassionate speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). He and I share a background from which we can say that the National Health Service is part of our heritage. We are conscious that the Bill will undermine the philosophy upon which the Health Service was founded.
  One reason why the hon. Member for Stirling refused to give way to Opposition Members was that he forgot to tell the House that, despite the fact that the Government have introduced a number of sweeteners to persuade doctors to accept budgets, we still get letters from the British Medical Association telling us that the proposals for budgets are flawed. The BMA also tells us that support for the Bill, even among Conservative voters, is declining dramatically and that a majority of Conservative voters do not believe the Government's rhetoric.
  In Committee I was concerned about the way in which Ministers defended the principle of setting up NHS trusts. The Government referred to them as centres of excellence. None of us wants any hospital to be other than a centre of excellence. If hospitals are compared, and one is regarded as a centre of excellence, it must mean that the others are not. We are worried because the principle enshrined in the Bill will create two tiers of hospitals. The hospitals which become trusts will become centrepieces of the Government's new philosophy, while other hospitals will be starved of cash.
  The desperate shortages in key services and key personnel within the Health Service have not yet been addressed on Third Reading. There is a shortage of physiotherapists, clinicians, speech therapists, occupational therapists, community psychiatric nurses and pharmacists. The position in speech therapy is disgraceful.

  719
  Speech therapists are paid less than almost every other similar profession. Speech therapists are despondent because, after four, five or six years of training, they have no proper career structure and their work is not properly valued by the Government, because they are grossly underpaid.
  In recent months I have spoken to speech therapists who are so disgruntled about their pay that they are changing profession and becoming teachers. How can that be in the interests of the Health Service? Teachers are underpaid, yet speech therapists are moving to that profession. I urge the Government to do something about rates of pay for speech therapists. Many health authorities are in a Catch 22 position. Even if they had the cash to employ more speech therapists, not enough people are going into training. I urge the Government to consider that.
  On the NHS side of the Bill, the philosophy of contracting within the new Health Service after 1991 will be meaningless in rural areas. Even if NHS trusts are established, there will be no opportunity for a meaningful relationship between a hospital and the provision of services by contract. By their very nature, hospitals in rural areas are monopolistic. There cannot be competition between them. The provisions on the setting up of NHS trusts are irrelevant to the people of Wales.
  I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I wish to touch briefly on community care. Although I welcome in principle the provision transferring assessment procedures to local authorities, I am concerned whether there will be proper funding for the service.
  I commend to the House the words of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) who is the Vice-Chairman of the Social Services Select Committee. He quoted from Sir Roy Griffiths's report on ring fencing. I would also like to quote from the social services inspectorate report on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The summary of the report says of funding:
  "The lack of resources made available by Central Government (despite provision for the Act being made in recent Rate Support Grant settlements) was a reason given by a number of SSDs to explain why they had allocated little, or not as much as they would have liked, to the operation of the Act."
  That must be a case for ring fencing. Although the Government have made general provision, under the rate support grant, for allocation of funds, local authorities have found themselves constrained and have failed to send the resources where they should have gone—to implement the 1986 Act. The only answer to that is ring fencing.
  I appreciate the point made by the Minister in Committee about the danger of eroding the independence of social services departments and local authorities in how they allocate their funds. However, the other cases are unanswerable. The rate support grant system means that local authorities will have to prioritise their spending. I urge the Government to think again to ensure that the grants for social services departments are ring-fenced for community care.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Unlike the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), I do not believe that the genesis of the Bill came from the desk of some Right-wing ideologue in the Adam Smith Institute.
  Mr. Robin Cook: You know them all.
  Mr. Leigh: I do not know them all. With my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I wrote a booklet for the No Turning Back group. We were the first to talk about the principle of money following the patient. That was not the genesis of the Bill: that lies in the creation of the National Health Service.
  No one doubts the sincerity of the Labour party's defence of the NHS. It views the NHS as a monument to Socialism—and there are precious few left. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his seat. I remember him saying that he wished that the wartime spirit could return. Actually, the creation of the NHS was less the work of the Attlee Government than that of the wartime coalition and the Beveridge report.
  I say that the genesis of the Bill lies in those days, and not in the work of some ideologue, because the NHS badly needs reforming and modernisation.
  Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I will not give way; I have only two or three minutes.
  The principle of the NHS is based on a highly centralised structure, which was common in those days in all our nationalised industries and, indeed, in Government Departments. That structure has developed into the regional and district health authorities that we know so well, and it is now creaking at the joints. I suspect that, if we were now faced with a Labour Government, they would be implementing many of the reforms that we are discussing today. No one who looked into a crystal ball in 1979 would have believed that, 10 years later, a Conservative Government would be spending £28 billion on the NHS—more than they spend on defence. No one would have believed it possible that we would now be treating 30,000 more patients every week than 10 years ago. However, those are the facts.
  This debate is not about ideology, but about balancing priorities with resources. The Bill is—I hope the phrase is appropriate—a fundamentally and gradualist and Fabian measure. It is not a radical privatising measure, by any stretch of the imagination. Let us look at the core elements of the Bill—for instance, indicative drug budgets. The genesis of that proposal lies in the cash limits that the last Labour Government placed on health authorities, but these are not even cash limits. Is it unreasonable for the House—the guardian of the £28 billion that we give on behalf of our constituents to the providers of the NHS—to insist on accountability and cost control? That is the essence of indicative drug budgets.
  Nor do I think it unreasonable for us to seek to modernise the NHS by bringing more choice and accountability down to the grass roots and away from the centralised structures to which I have referred. That is the basis of self-governing hospitals and of fund-holding practices. There is nothing radical in the Bill, in the sense

  721
  of NHS privatisation. The Bill will introduce a more businesslike approach, but it is not about making the NHS into a business.
  I regret the phrase "internal market", because it sets the alarm bells ringing on the Opposition Benches. We were not talking about an internal market; in a sense, that is a contradiction in terms. We were talking about providing a better service for the public. The Bill will achieve that, and that is why I will support it tonight.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has confirmed my conviction that all Conservative Members who made serious speeches either had strong reservations about the Bill or—in at least in one case—opposed it.
  In a telling withering speech, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris)—who was interrupted by several hon. Members who had not even heard the speech—gave an analysis of the Bill that I considered profound. He said that the Government have failed to take the people with them: surely that is self-evident. It is one of the problems that we have in trying to ensure a reasonable debate on the Bill.
  The Bill is the baby—many would say the folly—of the Secretary of State for Health. We attempted in Committee—whatever he has said since—to be constructive and helpful, and to offer alternatives. However, none of our amendments was accepted. That is not surprising because of the self-imposed infallibility of the Secretary of State, which is—so far as I know—shared only by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). However, we in Scotland understand that aberration, even if we do not agree with it.
  The Secretary of State's obsession is not surprising. After all, he told The Independent on 25 September 1989:
  "I have been spectacularly more successful than any of my predecessors."
  When a Gallup poll commissioned by the British Medical Association suggested——
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Read on.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I will be even fairer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by quoting what he told The Daily Telegraph——
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose——
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I will not give way to the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland spoke for 34 minutes, and would not give way to me. My speech is much shorter. I am being fair to the Secretary of State by quoting what he said to The Daily Telegraph so that we fully understand his approach to these matters. When a Gallup poll commissioned by the BMA suggested that only 15 per cent. of all voters approved of the Government's proposals, the Secretary of State said:
  "That poll shows that three out of four people are mistaken."
  I will now reluctantly give way to the Secretary of State, but it will be the last time, in view of the limitation that the Government have imposed on me as well as on other hon. Members.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is free to criticise my views, but he should not take half-sentences to attribute ridiculous allusions to me. On his first point, he
  722
  knows that I said that I had been more spectacularly successful than any of my predecessors in achieving increased spending on the National Health Service out of the Treasury. That is factually correct. I did not make other generalised boasts, as the hon. Gentleman made it sound.
  On the second matter, the hon. Gentleman knows that I explained that poll by saying that it measured the success of the BMA in misleading the public and therefore leading to so many members of the public being mistaken. I do not object to the hon. Gentleman attacking my views fairly, but using half sentences in such a ridiculous fashion does not help anybody.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The House will respect my view that the injury time that the Secretary of State has taken might be deducted from the Minister when he replies to the debate. I have no desire to distort the views of the Secretary of State. Why should I? Last night, despite his fine words, there was massive support for our modest new clause. But he persuaded enough of his troops to oppose it and to support him after what had been a squalid response on his part.
  There are no positive measures in the Bill to deal not just with the crisis in the NHS, which hon. Members in all parts of the House have identified, but with the enormous problem of community care, to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred in some detail. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) was right to draw attention to the Government's disgraceful approach to the non-implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
  If the Government really believe in community care, they have the basis on which to work, and in that respect they need not listen only to me. The Department's inspectorate produced a devastating report about non-implementation and the Government's disgraceful role in that lethargy. I invite the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland 10 try to defend themselves against what is said in that report about their lethargy. Despite the Government's fine words, there is nothing in the Bill for carers. The Government regard care as a commodity; carers are part of the market philosophy which we are supposed to support.
  Our debates in Committee confirmed that we are confronted by a Government who will not listen. Not only will they not listen to hon. Members, but they will not even take note of what was said in the Griffiths report. It is not surprising that we said little about community care in Committee and in this restricted debate on the Floor of the House. After the Griffiths report was submitted, the Government held on to it for 20 months before commenting. Then they tried to find every way possible round the report's central recommendations.
  Although the lack of debate about Griffiths and community care is no accident, we are still left with the problems of community care—of people leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals and going into non-existent community care, of the trenchant criticisms of the Audit Commission, of the reality of people who must live in cardboard homes with cardboard hopes. Faced with those problems, the Secretary of State is like a man caught between washing and wringing his hands and offering no positive response. My hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made that clear in their remarks.

  723
  We invited the Secretary of State to address the important issues involved in community care, to which Griffiths and others referred, and to do so on a level playing field. We met with no success, even though the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims to be committed to the mixed economy.
  Between the statutory and independent sectors, all the advantages are going to the private sector. If anybody doubted that, proof came in the debate on income support. With income support and housing benefit denied to local authorities, the Government—although they say that they understand the problem—are so dogmatic, even on that issue, that they will not take on board the will of the House.
  A few hours after that debate and the House taking its decision, some of us saw on television the Secretary of State for Social Security. I admit that it was a confusing time and that he did not appreciate why such a strong rebellion had taken place. Like many, I found his interview unusual and I did not understand what he said. Indeed, I got the feeling when the interviewer asked
  "Mr. Newton, how are you going to respond to this decision?"
  that not even Isaac Newton could have understood what the Secretary of State was trying to tell us.
  The issues that have been raised on community care are absolutely clear, even though the Government pretend that they are not. The case for ring fencing—for earmarking funds—is overwhelming, and it is shameful of the Government not to have accepted that view. In their rejection of the mixed economy in a real sense and in their attitude to proper provision for local authorities, the Government are influenced overwhelmingly by dogma, as we have witnessed in other areas of Conservative legislation. We saw it with the social fund, and the difficulties that local authorities, voluntary organisations and others are facing with the social fund apply to the Bill.
  That is why it is not surprising that the voluntary organisations are reminding us that the Government are declining to accept their responsibilities. The Spastics Society, the YMCA and the Salvation Army tell us that they are bursting at the seams because the Government, having failed to accept their responsibilities, are leaving it to the wider community—to charities and others, everybody but themselves—and are adopting a mean-minded approach which the British people find thoroughly unacceptable.
  We have in the measure not one but four Bills. We have had one on health and community care for England and Wales, and likewise one for Scotland. Nobody can pretend that there was adequate consultation or that the views of the people of those nations were taken into account by the Government before bringing their proposals forward. When Conservative Members objected even to the short debates initiated by my Scottish and Welsh hon. Friends, English Members who were fair-minded enough to listen to those debates found that they were constructive, and they confirmed that more time should have been provided for discussion of the Scottish and Welsh issues raised by the Bill.
  The opinion polls show that the Bill has little support among the people. That applies to the provisions on opting out, to what the Government have said about the role of junior doctors and to cash limits for drugs——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is none.
  Mr. Clarke: If there is none, why is that not written into the Bill? The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have been at their most unconvincing on that point, when they have pretended that on those matters the British public have been misled and that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), brilliant though he has been, has persuaded 55 million people about something. If the Government really believe what they have been saying, why have they not been prepared to write it into the Bill? I shall tell the House why.
  One of the most compelling speeches that I have heard in our ridiculously restricted debates was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) yesterday. He referred to the debate in July 1946 when Aneurin Bevan, introducing the concept of the National Health Service into the House, said:
  "Quite frankly, I do not believe that they ever intended to have a universal health service."—[Official Report, 26 July 1946; Vol. 426, c. 467.]
  Those words are just as true in 1990 as they were in 1946, and the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends know it.
  There is a colossal division of opinion about the NHS. There is a great gap between the Government and the Opposition, as Opposition Members have said both in Committee and today. In fairness to several Conservative Members, it is clear that many of them do not go along with the Bill either. I only hope that they will join us in the Division Lobby tonight. But the battle will go on beyond that. It must go on because we are committed to keeping, improving and expanding the National Health Service as Nye Bevan saw it. We wish to introduce real community care supported by the community, not based on the "community couldn't care less" attitude and the prospect of community neglect which we find unacceptable.
  There is another aspect to that difference of philosophy. The Prime Minister has said:
  "Let our children grow tall—and some grow taller than others."
  The Bill is a continuation of that logic. It is the catechism of inequality—let our people grow old and some will be better cared for than others; let our people go sick and some will have better provision than others; let people develop disabilities and some will be supported and some not; let people care for their elderly or sick relatives and we shall ignore them.
  We are sending to another place a Bill which has been inadequately debated and the subject of the minimum consultation which amounted to a sham. It is a mean-minded Bill which is fatally flawed, unworthy of the House, and repugnant to the vast mass of the British people. In asking the House to oppose Third Reading, the Opposition send a clear signal to all the people of Britain that the forthcoming Labour Government will remove this shabby measure from the statute book with the speed and urgency that its miserable contents invite.
  7.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Bill was introduced into the House on 7 December last year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It has had some three and a half months of detailed debate and scrutiny. On behalf of the Government, I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have made constructive comments during the passage of the Bill. I

  725
  particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) for their powerful speeches in support of the Bill on Third Reading.
  The Bill is based on five key principles. It might be helpful to run over them. First, it is based above all on the need to provide better patient care. The patient comes first and last. [HON. MEMBERS: "Last."] No, the patient comes first and last.
  Secondly, the NHS will continue to be financed under the Conservative Government by the taxpayer and it will he largely free at the point of delivery. It will remain a universal Health Service. The myth repeated again tonight by the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) that there is a hidden agenda and that we intend to privatise the Health Service is not true. The Health Service will remain a national service, financed from public funds and available to all. The public do not want the NHS to be privatised and they will not be given a privatised NHS.
  We have heard nonsense about hospitals opting out of the NHS for three and a half months. It is not true. We are delegating greater authority to hospitals, and hospitals to be known as NHS trusts—indeed, units other than hospitals—will have greater freedom to operate but will remain in the NHS.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who is here, made a powerful speech on Second Reading and again tonight. We all respect his views. He is in a minority. (HON. MEMBERS: "Is he?"] We shall see whether he is in a minority. His argument that the family practitioner service is to be cash-limited is simply not true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have given him an assurance on many occasions that the drug service will not be cash-limited, neither at doctor, family practitioner, regional nor national level. I repeat that assurance.
  In 1990–91 the family practitioner service is forecast to grow in cash terms by almost 13 per cent. That reflects the fact that there are pressures each year for more and better drugs, which cost more in real terms. It is not our intention to cut the drug budget in real terms—it will continue to grow. But we intend to bring downward pressure on the rate of growth of the drug budget. I believe that many doctors will agree that clinical responsibility can and should march side by side with doctors accepting financial responsibility. It is no longer reasonable to argue that, whether they work in general practice or the hospital service, doctors should have no account of the costs of the service. It is unrealistic.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Freeman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be brief, because of the limitation on time.
  Mr. Morris: I am conscious of the limitation on time. Before this Bill leaves the House of Commons and, therefore, before the Minister concludes his speech, can we have a definitive statement of the Government's attitude to the plight of poor, vulnerable and elderly people in residential homes who face eviction? The Minister will recall that new clause 1 on that subject was carried with all-party support. Can he at least, before concluding the
  726
  debate, give an assurance that there will be no evictions? Can he also make a statement on the Government's attitude to the whole issue?
  Mr. Freeman: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. The House has voted and declared its position clearly on the matter. He will know that it is a prime responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He said clearly at the Dispatch Box that he understood the feelings of the House. In due course and at the right time and place he will lay before the House and develop the thoughts that he outlined during that debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was absolutely right about the third principle behind the Bill, which is better value for money. In response to a seated intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield. Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), he said that improving the quality of the NHS is not only about more money. The Government have provided more money. It is about managing resources better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Hon. Members may groan but it is absolutely true. Many countries around the world envy the National Health Service because it provides good value for money—it is an excellent service—but we are interested in and admire the steps that we are taking to get even better value for money.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said that the National Health Service "is not inefficient". I hope that he is not burying his head in the sand and saying that no measures to improve the efficiency of the National Health Service are appropriate; of course they are. We need to get better value for money from the £30 billion of resources that we put in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said.
  The fourth principle is that we need to provide—and will provide—greater choice for patients, not only in the selection of their general practitioners but in elective surgery and in the hospital to which they go which may not be their own local hospital. The agreement and approval of the patient is required before he travels to another hospital, but it is humane and sensible to offer him the chance to do so because that will reduce waiting times for others at hospitals which are not so fortunate. That is a sensible measure, which will improve the quality of care.
  Moreover, we are offering choice for the elderly—real choice this time. That is something about which the hon. Member for Wakefield and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) have expressed concern. I shall come later to my hon. Friend's point about ring-fencing. We shall be offering real choice to the frail elderly rather than simply the choice of going into residential care. We intend them to have a real choice between staying at home with proper domiciliary care and going into residential care.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised an important point about ring fencing, which was not addressed at length in the debate. He raised the matter on Second Reading and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues carefully considered his arguments. In fairness, there are two important arguments against ring fencing in relation to the care of the frail elderly and the mentally handicapped that my hon. Friend did not address. First, there is no evidence that personal social services depts are in any way faring badly in relation to other local government departments in

  727
  terms of the relative share of resources that is available to them. There is no evidence that money is being diverted into other activities.
  Secondly, if we pursued my hon. Friend's argument to its logical conclusion, all aspects of expenditure by social services departments would have to be ring-fenced. That would be a complete denial of the responsibility and flexibility that we have awarded to local authorities.
  Sir David Price rose——
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way; I am just about to conclude my remarks.
  We believe strongly that flexibility in local authorities should be preserved.
  The fifth and last general principle concerns the delegation of authority in the National Health Service. That is what lies behind our proposals. We are talking about delegation not to, but from, the Secretary of State—to the National Health Service trusts, to general practice fund holders and to smaller, more businesslike district health authorities. We have great confidence in the staff who work in the Health Service, of whom there are almost I million. That is why we propose to delegate greater authority to them.
  We have heard almost no constructive suggestions from the Opposition about reforming the National Health Service. The solution of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is simply to throw more cash at it. The only two commitments that I can find in the Labour party's election manifesto are to the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering, which would cost £100 million, and to steps that would lead inevitably to the abolition of private medicine and income generation in the Health Service, which would cost a further £100 million. The first consequence of the hon. Gentleman's appointment as Secretary of State for Health—which will not happen—would be the loss of £200 million, or £1 million on average per district health authority. As for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that we should have activity budgets, it is not well thought out. The Labour party has not explained where the money is coming from to fund greater activity in hospitals. But our proposals for money to follow patients are well thought out.
  We are confident that at the next general election, the only poll that counts, the public will realise that our reforms—-which will have been in place for two years in the case of the general contract and one year in the case of the reforms themselves—have worked and are beneficial. Not only is the National Health Service safe in our hands; it will become a better National Health Service in our hands. I invite the whole House, especially my hon. Friends, to support the Bill.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: There is scant time left, but the House ought to have a definitive statement from the Government about their attitude to an amendment—new clause 1—that was supported on both sides of the House, the case for which was brilliantly argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The proposal had all-party support. Before
  728
  the conclusion of the debate, can we at least have the plain assurance that no elderly person will be evicted from residential care simply because he or she lacks money?
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the resolution [14 March].
  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 215.

  Division No. 131]

  [7. 26 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Allason, Rupert

  Durant, Tony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Eggar, Tim

  Amess, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Farr, Sir John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Favell, Tony

  Baldry, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forman, Nigel

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forth, Eric

  Benyon, W.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gorst, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gregory, Conal

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

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grist, Ian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ground, Patrick

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grylls, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Butler, Chris

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayes, Jerry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irvine, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  729

  Jackson, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Janman, Tim

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jessel, Toby

  Portillo, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rathbone, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Riddick, Graham

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rost, Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knowles, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knox, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lang, Ian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Latham, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speed, Keith

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Madel, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mellor, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thorne, Neil

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trippier, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Neubert, Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Norris, Steve

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wells, Bowen

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Paice, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wilshire, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Pawsey, James

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  730

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Allen, Graham

  George, Bruce

  Alton, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Donald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gould, Bryan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Graham, Thomas

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Battle, John

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Beckett, Margaret

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Beith, A. J.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bell, Stuart

  Henderson, Doug

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boateng, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bradley, Keith

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Ingram, Adam

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Janner, Greville

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clay, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clelland, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cohen, Harry

  Lamond, James

  Coleman, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Leighton, Ron

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lewis, Terry

  Cousins, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cox, Tom

  Livsey, Richard

  Crowther, Stan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cryer, Bob

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McFall, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Doran, Frank

  Maclennan, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Madden, Max

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  Flannery, Martin

  Michael, Alun

  Flynn, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Foster, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foulkes, George

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Galloway, George

  Morley, Elliot

  731

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Murphy, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Nellist, Dave

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Brien, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stott, Roger

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Strang, Gavin

  Patchett, Terry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Prescott, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wallace, James

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Walley, Joan

  Radice, Giles

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Redmond, Martin

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Richardson, Jo

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robertson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Salmond, Alex

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Short, Clare

  Sillars, Jim

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is essentially a Government measure. It is a public measure. It is part of Government policy to privatise the ports of the land.
  The Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who is in his place now, has made various statements to the effect that the Government cannot find time to put these privatisation measures through the House properly. He has therefore urged companies or authorities such as the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to use the private route. Similar statements were made by the previous Secretary of State for Transport. Two years ago, he urged the docks, including Tees and Hartlepool, to take the private route. That was confirmed by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
  My submission to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that this should not be private business. Lord Graham made the same point earlier in the week in another place. He said that the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill that was before the other place should not be dealt with in this way. We believe that it is an abuse by the Executive of the legislature and that by means of private business the Executive are endeavouring to implement Government business.
  Sir Michael Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the procedure is absolutely correct in this instance. My hon. Friends——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It would be more appropriate for the Chair to rule on whether the procedure is appropriate.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for having given notice that he intended to raise the point. Mr. Speaker has considered the matter. He is satisfied that the Bill is proper to be proceeded with as a private Bill, since it is concerned with the regulation of an authority that was established by means of a private Act. If hon. Members consider that it is undesirable for the change of status of the authority to be brought about in this way, their appropriate course is to vote against the measure.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  When the Tees Navigation Act was passed in 1808, the position was slightly different from what it is today. There was a clear and essential need to establish an effective management body to help the traders on Teesside to develop their foreign and domestic trade. However, ever since 1808 there has been state regulation of the port.
  It is interesting to note from a historical point of view that the people who were originally entrusted by law in 1808 with looking after the well-being of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's predecessor were the 44 burgesses who were riparian owners of the land on either side of the river. In this age of feminine equality, it is

  733
  interesting to note that four of the 44 were ladies. That shows that, in the north-east, we were ahead of the game then, as we are ahead of the game now.
  The parallel with the present is relevant. The trade prospects for this community, and for the north-east as a whole, are being restricted. This fresh initiative will sweep away the legislative shackles which are restricting the development of trade.
  The docks under the control of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority have changed beyond all recognition, but the legal restrictions on its activities are essentially the same as they have been for 180 years. The movement of goods through the European market is now dominated by the requirement of manufacturers and customers for door-to-door, time-definite deliveries. Port facilities are no longer gateways between home and foreign markets but links in a continuous transport chain within a single worldwide market. Ports cannot stand still in the face of change.
  The Bill will change the status of the authority to that of a normal commercial enterprise and will release it from the constraints of "trust" status. Only then can our third largest port compete effectively in the modern world of a single European market.
  Trust ports are a peculiarly British concept. They are to be found only in this country. They have developed by virtue of circumstances rather than as a result of any express policy or planned development. The ports of Tees and Hartlepool together handle between 30 million and 40 million tonnes of goods each year—mainly oil, ore, cars, steel, forest products and containers. They form the third largest port undertaking in the United Kingdom, coming only after London and Sullom Voe, and employ 828 people.
  At present, the authority is allowed to use its money only to maintain the ports. It could, if it wished, gold-plate the cranes on the quayside. It has enough money to do so. In his Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) described the authority as being run in an exemplary fashion, with an impressive record by any standards. Despite that commercial success, within its present limitations the law prevents it from expanding. The port has the potential to become a driving force for commercial expansion in the north-east, creating new wealth and new jobs.
  Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman emphasised the fact that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority can invest only in port-related activities or in port development. However, in 1984–85, the port authority did not feel that it was bound by the alleged restriction and invested in property, finance, aviation, air travel, timber importing, transport, display signs, storage, security fencing and engineering. If the restrictions are as tight as the hon. Gentleman says, why is it that, only five years ago, the port authority could invest in such a wide range of products?
  Mr. Holt: The reason is that the authority has a wise and good management. The law as it stands at the moment says:
  "Powers are exercisable only for the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of the harbour and the facilities afforded therein or in connection therewith and for the reclamation of land."
  Mr. Cook: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the port authority broke the law?
  Mr. Holt: I am saying that, within that constraint, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority properly invested money in areas that were within that definition If it wanted to open a fish and chip shop to sell the excellent fish of Whitby, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), it would not be allowed to do so under the current legislation. It wants to expand and grow. It does not wish to be held back by the 1808 and subsequent legislative restrictions that have been placed upon it.
  The port has the potential to become a driving force for commercial expansion in the north-east of England as a whole, creating new wealth and new jobs. I find it strange—indeed, perverse and bizarre—that Opposition Members are seeking to stifle the opportunity that is presented by the Bill. The authority currently has cash reserves of nearly £30 million and last year made a profit on trading of over £10 million, despite the Labour party's efforts to encourage a damaging strike.
  The authority is simply not allowed to utilise its money effectively, and yet—within sight of the authority's land—there are development projects and even an enterprise zone in which the authority would dearly love to invest, if only it were allowed to do so. Teesside is at the forefront of the Government's urban regeneration policies. All of us from that area will vouch for that.
  Over recent years, THPA has contributed to the success of most of the Teesside development corporation's flagship schemes and it is now time for it to be allowed to invest in other projects. The success of schemes such as the Hartlepool marina and the Tees offshore base, which are joint ventures with the Teesside development corporation, testify to the active role that the authority is waiting 143 play in regenerating the area that I and my colleagues have the honour to represent in the House. The restrictions of trust status are an absurd anachronism which cannot be allowed to continue.
  Last year, the Government freed the port industry from the burden of the dock labour scheme—not before time, as I shall hear from many of my colleagues. That has done much to put United Kingdom ports on an equal footing with their continental competitors, but much more still needs to be done. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is determined to capitalise on the new opportunities provided by the single European market and by the expansion in world trade. It has today announced the creation of two new companies to spearhead its expansion drive in the north-east: THPA Distribution and Services Ltd. and THPA Developments Ltd.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much imported coal will come up the river once the port gets on the go?
  Mr. Holt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of coal comes into the port now for the British steel industry on Teesside. I understand that, beyond that, there are no plans for the importation of coal.
  The creation of the new companies is one of the first practical steps towards creating new wealth and jobs in the north-east, but their success depends on the authoritiy being able to cast off the straitjacket of trust status now so that full preparations for 1992 and beyond can proceed immediately. That can be achieved only—I repeat, only—by the Bill.

  735
  The implications of the Bill will be widespread for the region. Under the twin curses of the dock labour scheme and trust status, the number of people employed by the authority has declined steadily and will continue to do so until the authority is given the freedom to expand, reversing the trend of many years by employing more and more people in a wider range of jobs. The new jobs will not only come directly from the port itself. The increased investment in the area and the injection of many millions of pounds into the local economy will have a knock-on effect, creating a host of jobs in the construction, transport, leisure and other industries.
  The Labour party has tried to peddle the myth that reconstitution will deprive the local community of a say in how the port is run. Let me explode that myth now. The port is not owned by a company, by the local authority or by the Government, so it is accountable to nobody except its board. That board is appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport from people who have particular areas of expertise, but who are not appointed as representatives of the local people.
  The port is not accountable financially or otherwise to the Secretary of State—indeed, it is not accountable to anyone else. The board can make decisions and it is accountable to no one. After the Bill has been passed, the plc will be responsible to its shareholders. The authority has deliberately chosen a method of issuing the shares of the new company that will ensure that the local community has a major stake in it. It guarantees that the shares will go to the staff and to local pension funds, and I am sure that the trustees of the Cleveland county council pension fund will see the wisdom of investing in this good thing, and will do so as soon as they can.
  Mr. Neville Trotter: Is my hon. Friend aware that business in the north-east is very much behind his proposal that the future success of the port is vital to the interests of the north-east and that there is a strong feeling of support from north-east business for the Bill? Does he further agree that one of the traditional weaknesses of the north-east has been the lack of commercial headquarters? By means of the Bill, will he not create a further commercial headquarters which can show success in other directions as well as the success that it has already shown in managing the port?
  Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He of all people from the north-east of England has a wide knowledge of industry and commerce. He is constantly in touch with all the people in the region—[Interruption.]—who are responsible not just for shouting from the other side, but for creating wealth and jobs, and giving other people the opportunity to earn a living. My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the whole of the north-east of England, except a few Opposition morons—most of whom are sitting in the Chamber this evening—is waiting for the Bill to be passed.
  The authority's commitment to Teesside needs no emphasis by me, but is confirmed by the inclusion in the Bill of every statutory safeguard that is contained in present legislation for the port, the users and the region. The Bill, as I have said, is supported by everyone in the area who recognises the great potential of a reconstituted
  736
  port in the private sector. Over 100 of my hon. Friends have put their names to an early-day motion backing the Bill, which is almost unique.
  The leader of the county of Cleveland's Conservative group has described it as
  "an initiative which will benefit the people of Cleveland greatly"
  and as
  "an opportunity to generate wealth and create much needed employment".
  That support has been echoed by all the leading local Conservatives in Cleveland, as well as by the Confederation of British Industry regionally and nationally. Although he obviously cannot take a view on a private Bill, I hope that later this evening my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping will confirm that the Government's policy is still that commercial enterprises fare best in the private sector.
  In an area that hon. Members of all parties recognise needs more self-generated investment to build on the high level of investment already provided by the Government and the private sector, there exists a commercially successful organisation which is bursting at the seams with potential investment for the region.
  Mr. John Prescott: You were supposed to have said that with emphasis.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Holt: I am quite happy for Opposition morons to make as much noise as they like. They have no logical arguments and they have not put many questions to me.
  There exists a commercially very successful organisation—[Interruption.] Ridicule is no comment; it is merely the means by which Opposition Members show their ignorance of what is happening in the north-east of England. The Bill will rid the authority of the disablement of trust status, allowing it to expand and, at the same time, it will give the local community a major stake in one of the greatest assets of Teesside—its port. I am sure that such widespread support will be reflected by hon. Members. It is essential for the development of commerce and jobs in the north-east that hon. Members allow the Bill to go forward to receive the detailed scrutiny of a Select Committee. I ask the House please to support it for the good of Cleveland, the north-east of England and Britain as a whole.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: More than 25 years ago I took an interest in what was happening in the ports on the Tees and in the bay in which Hartlepool is located. I can recall vividly our many vexing and taxing debates on the Bill that set up the first estuarial authority in England. The Bill inculcated disgust in the minds of many people because at that time the port of Hartlepool was suffering the consequences of a deep depression. We suspected that the proposals that were to become the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966 would leave Hartlepool defenceless.
  We debated in the Grand hotel in Hartlepool—not that we needed any sustenance. The challenge was there and we accepted that certain interests were involved. There was an arrogant presumption that those in positions of authority in the port world knew far better than any elected Member of Parliament what was best for the area. Unfortunately, the converse is always true. An elected Member has an

  737
  obligation to look at the broad background of matters of concern to the people whom he or she represents. The authority officials do not have that remit. They are there to make the port work and, if they are good at their job, they are outstandingly essential. The two roles are complementary. The elected Member represents the broader background of issues and interests and the port officials who seek to run the port at a profit have the specialist professionalism. Those are highly interesting roles in the development of any business or public utility, industry or agency that is accountable to the Government.
  I distrusted the Bill because it did not appear to contain an undertaking to keep the port of Hartlepool alive. Rather, it suggested the repeal of legislation that protected the port. I had to come here as a new Member and, for the first time, sit among experienced Members and say, "I object." That was great fun. It worked magic. The Bill just went back. I did not realise that the Chairman of Ways and Means had powers to bring it back quickly. The Bill stayed its course and the Parliamentary Commissioner was awfully decent about it. Then I introduced a clause to protect Hartlepool. But I am not so green now. My naivety and lack of experience then was accompanied by a spot of good fortune, but this time I bring to the House a considerable amount of experience.
  Why, when the argument for an estuarial authority was so good 25 years ago, do we want to change it now? The Rochdale report made a number of excellent recommendations that benefited British ports. The port that I represented was saved and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has gone from success to success and has been blessed with good management, despite the oddballs. There are a couple there now, but they are of no account in the end because, like all of us. they come and go and serve their time in the middle.
  Did someone sit down one bright morning in Queen's square, Middlesbrough and say to himself, "I think we should go in for privatisation"? I do not think anyone did that. The Minister said, "It's time you did some good thinking and got rid of the old-fashioned dock labour scheme.- We thought that we were fighting for a principle. We thought that we should keep the scheme since it had done the dockers a reasonably good turn in their time. It got them over the transitional period of depression that scars the working lives of people in our ports and in our industries.
  But some of us forgot that the first stepping stone to privatisation was the pre-emption of something else. The Government have a policy on privatisation. I happen to be a senior Chairman in the House. I notice that one of my colleagues has now left the Chamber. I hope that he will not return because we do not want his vote tonight.
  The Government's administrative wheels are a little clogged up and they have introduced three private Bills as test cases. I suspect that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is an agent provocateur for the Government. One or two of those involved may be on the list of the good and the great and a couple of knighthoods might come along in a few years' time. I do not object to that as a means of rewarding people for services done, but it is nice to mention it.
  Why privatisation? The port is highly profitable. It has between £20 million and £30 million in cash floating around. It has about £60 million worth of assets. Its capital returns are running at about 18 per cent. The volume of traffic is as outstanding as the hon. Member for
  738
  Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said. We do not quarrel about small matters of fact like that, only about a change of approach. Some talk about political philosophy, but I prefer to talk about good common sense.
  Why should a highly successful trust authority want to venture into the questionable waters of privatisation? The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that everybody wanted this change. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is here, although he comes from a place somewhat foreign to our Teesside. Still, we are pleased to see him back in the country, interfering in our little local matters.
  The local authority, the county council, Hartlepool council and other district councils do not agree with the port authority. I have here a letter signed by Mr. D. B. Winney, the director of ABBA Shipping Limited, Union dock, Hartlepool. He says in his letter, which was published in a newspaper:
  "The Port Authority have, in recent years, in any case not felt bound by the alleged restriction of being an 'estuary-wide port organisation' because in 1984–85, they invested funds in companies, some of which were well outside Cleveland County, who were involved in property, finance, aviation, air travel, timber importing, transport, display signs, storage, security fencing and engineering."
  That is what Tees and Hartlepool port authority is doing now, under the Act. The authority has not rebutted that accusation and it takes a great interest in such newspaper articles.
  That poses a question: what is it that the port authority cannot do in the private sector because of the restrictions of the Act? Hon. Members are briefed on debates, and if any hon. Member can tell me that he has been advised by the port authority that it is not true that it has engaged in these private ventures, I shall come to the House and apologise because I will have been misled by a respectable employer.
  Mr. Frank Cook: That is very fair.
  Mr. Leadbitter: It is fair.
  I have another question: why are we going through this arduous task, this highly expensive exercise, of a private Bill? In December 1989, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, he had an Adjournment debate on this subject. He referred to the Rochdale report, which recommended, wisely, that, with the unfolding of the new port system for the principal estuarial ports, and the linking of the ports, it would be helpful if Ministers were given the power to amend, by affirmative resolution, in such a manner as to meet the changing wishes of port authorities.
  If an hon. Member who has argued for saving a port that he represents and concluded that the exercise was worth it because of the formation of the first estuarial authority in the 1966 Act, then finds that the port authority has invested—I presume wisely—in a number of different economic sectors, why should he support this expensive business of doing something on the pretext that those activities cannot be carried out? If the authority can invest in aviation, signposting and all the rest of it, where else does it want to invest?
  Mr. Holt: Like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) in his Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) uses, cleverly, words such as "suggested"—the committee under Rochdale "suggested" changes. There is no evidence of those suggestions being implemented.
  Mr. Leadbitter: No, but if Governments have the will, they have all the facilities available to them to do just that. I have spent much of my time in the House of Commons chairing Committees considering statutory instruments. I find orders coming to the House late at night when nearly everyone has gone so that they go through easily. Any Minister or Secretary of State can have his way through a variety of ways and means. I do not argue with that, but I argue that Tees and Hartlepool port authority has introduced an expensive measure to enable it to do something that it is doing already.
  Mr. Winney has something interesting to say about the Bill. He says:
  "The most ominous part of the proposed Bill being published is in Part III, paragraph 12, which allows the current members of the authority to transfer en bloc to the new Trust (or holding company) being set up to continue the undertaking.
  These people will then be able to continue in perpetuity, appointing the chairman of their choice and replacing members who leave the authority with their own nominees. Their power will be absolute.
  Under schedule 2, paragraph 9, they will be able to fix their own remuneration".
  That is not an inconsiderable advantage. I know of one man who hopes to God that his industry will be privatised next year, because he has found that his fellow chairmen are getting more money as they are free to make up their own pay slip.
  Mr. Winney continues:
  "Finally, under Part III, section 14 (4) 'The Trust may … provide for one or more employees' share schemes to be established in respect of the holding company: and any such scheme may provide for the transfer of the shares without consideration.'
  In other words, the reserves will be released not 'for the good of Teesside' but for the good of past, present and future"
  members of the authority. A corollary of that point is that other people will benefit. As Mr. Winney says, chairmen can be appointed for life. There will be a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" attitude. The old golf club pals will be at it and they will make their own appointments. It is happening now.
  Under article 3 of the Tees and Hartlepool Ports Authority Constitution Revision Order 1978 the local authority is able to appoint not fewer than two and not more than three people from a local panel on to the board. However, under article 3(5)(a), the Secretary of State can also appoint people—I fail to recall the exact number—who have knowledge of planning and the environment. Under that provision, people must be appointed who have special local knowledge.
  We are talking about a highly successful port authority. With one or two exceptions, the management team is outstanding. It is co-operative. We are faced with a privatisation proposal that would lead to a transfer of all liabilities and assets. There would be a holding company, and the appointments to the board would be bound to be different from those that are currently and statutorily laid down.
  Traditionally there has been a close working relationship between local authorities, which have been given powers by the House to represent the broad and general interests of the public, especially in areas where there is access to ports. There has been a link between the people and port authorities, and that has led to a great deal of pride and good will. When we have something good, it does not make sense to say, "We shall let it all go now. We
  740
  shall cut all the links and ties. We shall no longer have people on the board who have knowledge of planning and the environment."
  I am the Chairman of the Committee that is considering the Environmental Protection Bill, and the port authority has a considerable part to play in what is taking place in that Committee. We are trying to find how best to co-operate and work with the port authority and attempting also to inject into the management operations of the authority, within its land boundaries and outside them, environmental standards that will ease the minds of many people in the area.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: The link between Teesside and the structure of the board is important. Under the Bill, the consortium of shareholders that will take over the ownership of the undertaking will be drawn from management, employees of the board, port authority pensioners, pension funds of the port authority, local authorities and port users. Accordingly, the link with the local community will be as strong as ever. Surely the board will reflect the share ownership.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Some links are firm and others are tenuous. Some so-called links are formed because it is thought that it is nice to be courteous and to have that sort of relationship. I am saying that the links will be broken.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: I understand the proposition that pension funds, employees and management would be involved, but there is nothing to prevent shares from being sold. In two, three, four or five years' time, the ownership of the port authority could be in the hands of London, Brighton, Swansea, Inverness or even Tokyo. That will not help the port authority.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It demonstrates the seriousness of what we are seeking to do.
  If I were to say to the port authority officials, "For God's sake think again", no harm would be done to the growing economy and prosperity that we all want in the north-east. We are talking about something that affects us all in the north-east; it is not merely a Tees and Hartlepool matter. But would any harm be done if we took the route set out in the Bill? Some might say no. They might say, "Let us get on to the adventurous road of challenge and responsibility." That is what Professor Tawney might say. Those people must understand that there is a terrifying risk.
  I have seen some greedy people since I became a Member of this place. They make me sick. One example is the Guinness affair. Let us not think that something of that sort could not happen following the privatisation of the port authority. The Lonrho management and the Al Fayed brothers insult each other as though they have no human decency. They do not have the guts to sue for libel. They reflect greed and enormous wealth.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leadbitter: I shall complete this part of my argument and then allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I am getting into form and when I do so I stick out my chin. I am prepared to take what then ensues because hon. Members have a right to come back at me.

  741
  Those who have studied the City scandals and the way in which takeover rules have been broken will understand what I am saying. In the area which I have represented for over a quarter of a century there has been an outstanding record of good management and growing success.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I listened carefully to the way in which the hon. Gentleman began his remarks. I was pleased when he paid fulsome tribute to the management of the port authority. I am attracted to the debate because I represent a port authority—Weymouth—and I have talked to that authority's management. I am encouraged by what it said and by the profitability of its operation. I should like a private company to be developed in the north-east, for which I have love and affection. I look to the future in the hope that such a company could expand its operations in the same way, perhaps, as Associated British Ports. The management services of a port such as the one that I represent—not investment services—would demonstrate that the north-south divide is not a one-way street of bringing expertise from the north-east to the south. The future should see us developing land bridges and taking advantage of all the opportunities offered by the Bill, which comes before us in advance of the Government's thoughts of putting out all the trust ports——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.
  Mr. Bruce: It is an intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Bruce: Surely Opposition Members are trying to deny opportunities to an excellent management team.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I have always believed—I am not alone in my belief—that confrontation in the economy is unwise. Private enterprise, freedom of movement, laissez-faire and public accountability are all complementary. Many areas of our so-called private sector industry have been delighted over the years by the assistance of large publicly owned utilities. How many of our private enterprise companies have lived off the backs of the steel industry, the coal industry and British Rail? I stand for a balance between private enterprise and public accountability. I do not believe that dogma—on any side—is good for debate in the House.
  The Tees and Hartlepool port authority has been successful. It has invested in other companies, and in private companies. It has not done that for fun—it has done so to get a return on its investments. Where something is successful like that, there is no point in saying, "Look, you will get a little bit more, boys, if you privatise yourselves as well."
  The House should know that the marina in Hartlepool has been initiated by the Teesside development corporation. I was the first public figure in Hartlepool to suggest a marina. I shall tell the House why it was not started then. So many people crawled along to the public coffers—so-called "high-risk entrepreneurs"—that it never got off the ground. However, a marina has now been started. There is a working relationship between the Teesside development corporation and a company called Lovell. Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shares in the Teesside development corporation. It is like the
  742
  Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. In my view, that holy trinity is working to some benefit. There is a composite of a trust company, a private company and the Teesside development corporation, all working well together.
  Mr. Devlin: I am sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman again, but I am a little confused. I thought that I heard him say that the THPA has shares in the Teesside development corporation. Surely that is not possible because the Teesside development corporation was set up under legislation as a body corporate by statute. It does not have shares.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I do not think that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. Perhaps he will say that again.
  Mr. Devlin: I may he mistaken about what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I thought that he said that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority had shares in the Teesside development corporation. The TDC is a body created by statute and does not have shares. I am wondering whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Perhaps I should correct that. In fact, I think that the TDC has shares in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I have seen the share list somewhere, but I shall write to the THPA if I have made a mistake.
  Mr. Devlin: I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct on that point either. As I understand it, the THPA does not have any shares at the moment.
  Mr. Leadbitter: That is a matter for me to clear up, but I have seen the document somewhere.
  Mr. Bell: As my hon. Friend says, the question about shareholdings will be rectified or verified later. However, is it not a fact that Tees and Hartlepool port authority is involved in a tripartite development venture, the Hartlepool marina, involving the Teesside development corporation and the Lovell partnership?
  Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, that is the position.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was right to intervene. If an hon. Member has not got something quite right in the debate, he will seek to put it right in the proper manner later.
  Mr. Frank Cook: To ensure that we get a balanced view of the nitpicking that is taking place, will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that one of the major petitioners against the Bill was Teesside development corporation? Therefore, the relationship that we have been trying to put to bed during the past five minutes is not quite as cosy as one might be led to believe by some of our friends on the Government Benches—and I use that expression advisedly.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I shall pick up my point about risks. From experience, I believe that it will be a risk to divest the THPA of its assets, which will be transferred. When a holding company is in place and a shareholding applied for, I have no doubt that if the financial interests exist there will be a takeover. If there was a takeover, what would happen to the interests in the north-east which currently benefit from the THPA as constituted at present? It is more likely than not that any large company which takes over the THPA will have its headquarters elsewhere. That will be our first problem.

  743
  Secondly, the shares would reflect a certain amount of public reaction. Some people would have a handsome windfall. We have seen that happen in some of the recent privatisations, of which water is a good example—[Interruption.] Conservative Members need not say that that does not happen because the French took over some of our water companies.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: One of the biggest windfalls, and one of the Government's first privatisations in the early 1980s, was from Associated British Ports. Within 24 hours of trading, the price of its shares was phenomenally higher than the price at which the Government sold them. Ever since, the Government have considered ports to be a lucrative area from which they and their friends can make money when they are privatised.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, indeed.
  Should those things come about, we must consider all the consequences that flow from takeovers, such as the power and greed and all the damage that is done to the areas that the harbours serve—in this case, to the Hartlepool and Tees area.
  Let us consider my constituency. Through the actions of Hartlepool district council, we have spent about £2 million on land improvements, repairs, changes to facilities and, in some cases, to operations in the THPA area. That shows the close concern and working relationship exercised by Hartlepool district council, when representing its people. Such a working relationship would not exist in the circumstances that I have described, if the risks of privatisation falter in the end.
  What are the benefits of the proposals? There is no doubt that the chief executive's salary will jump up in double quick time, and that will flow right through the organisation. Those concerned will be rubbing their hands with glee and trotting off on holidays abroad. Instead of travelling economy class, they will travel first class.
  Mr. Holt: That is cheap stuff.
  Mr. Leadbitter: That is what will happen——
  Mr. Holt rose——
  Mr. Leadbitter: I shall give way in a moment.
  I hope hon. Members will not take exception to this point. I should like to know the chairman of a former public body that is privatised whose salary did not jump up to three or four times its original level. That is what will happen here. It will be passed by the board and public representatives will not be there. Incidentally, Conservative Members should not assume that public representatives are redundant in privatisations. There is already an 18 per cent.—or thereabouts—capital return on investments. There is already a high turnover, and the organisation is a commercial success. Other disadvantages always follow from such circumstances. The company would not accept the same kind of social, economic and environmental responsibilities as it does now as a trust port. It would be all a question of return for the shareholders; everything else would take second, third, fourth and fifth places.
  Mr. Holt: I could not let the hon. Gentleman's rather nasty remarks against the chief executive of the port
  744
  authority go by without asking him if, before making those attacks, he took the trouble to meet the chief executive and his board to discuss their private Bill and put his objections to them. I might tell him that, at present, they can set their own salaries and decide to travel first class. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to consider quite carefully the remarks that he has just made against very distinguished business men in the north-east of England.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have thought out very carefully what I have said. More than that, I have behind me not only sufficient knowledge but the great advantage of a lot of experience. Incidentally, in this House, experience is far more important than intellect, and it is something that the hon. Gentleman is desperately short of.
  Mr. Bell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is at present a salaries committee, as I understand it, that looks at salaries on the Tees and Hartlepool port authority? Did my hon. Friend hear any whisper from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that there would be a salaries committee once this authority was privatised?
  Mr Leadbitter: I think that that has been noted.
  I cannot understand why there should be any objection to what is a common cause and something with which nobody disagrees. I put it to the House: does any hon. Member know of any chairman of any public body that has been privatised who has not had his salary increased within months by three and sometimes four times? That is a hard fact of life.
  I turn now to another disadvantage. A company called Shell is tripping around the coast of Scotland with little boats—30,000-tonners, 20,000-tonners—tipping off coal in ports where it feels that vigilant, elected Members of Parliament cannot find it out, and there has been a row about it in Scotland. I happen to be a senior member of the Select Committee on Energy and we have been notified of what is happening. Shell is moving that coal at a loss to itself, while the coal mines in Scotland have been brought to the point of litigation because they cannot get contracts from the South of Scotland electricity board.
  Does any hon. Member think that, once the importers of coal have got the market, prices will stay low? Of course they will not. The innocents of private enterprise seem to presume that those of us who have different concepts of economic behaviour are completely naive. Once they get hold of the market in Scotland, we shall have Scottish miners out of work, redundant and another charge on the economy. We shall have to ask ourselves who on earth forgot to do the costings of all this. The public have lost and Shell and the people who import the coal have gained.
  We heard earlier something about there being no plans in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority for the provision of installations for the importation of coal. That is nonsense, utter rubbish.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Poppycock, bunkum and balderdash.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. "Poppycock" is an expression that I hope not to have to hear too often in the House. I hope that hon. Members will take the trouble to consult Chambers dictionary to see the definition of "poppycock". Mr. Leadbitter.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would remind you that even in your elevated position you have to bear in mind that, when the Prime Minister of the day refers to "poppycock, bunkum and balderdash" when challenged about her tenure of No. 10, we have to accept it in the House. It does not matter to me; I do not believe a word she says.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot sit here arguing with the hon. Gentleman. I have ruled that I hope not to have to hear "poppycock" too often in the House. Mr. Leadbitter.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for Bolsover; his timing is perfect. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course I accept your ruling. Naturally, we are kith and kin in this business and therefore we have to accept, should accept and want to accept your rulings.
  So that is the position in Scotland. To suggest, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh did, I think, that there are no plans for coal importation installations in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority area is just not true. People in National Power, for instance, would not agree with the hon. Gentleman there. Certainly, I know from a letter that I have seen that even the words "feasibility study" are a bit naughty. Some people who write to Members of Parliament must consider that we are illiterate, or at least gullible. It is an indication of their arrogance when they write letters about feasibility studies.
  The fact is that the port authority is contemplating, and, in my view, planning for, that extra trade, which it knows is there and which it will not turn down. The members know that, because it will not have the social and economic responsibilities that I have tried to describe, they will be able to get this done much more quickly if the authority is privatised. At least we shall have a reasonable amount of public representation on the board to hold their hand if we can get the sense of our argument over to them.
  In recent years, and more particularly since the miners' strike, people have been sitting at dinner tables in the City and talking in terms of the reduction of the coal input into the power programme. From about 70 million tonnes—that in itself was a drop—we are down to about 60 million tonnes. That means that the Coal Board and the Government, and those others who want to keep nice and pally with them, will seek to pick up this part of the market, and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is one of two major ports that have been pinpointed. I think that, in the case of Teesside, they are thinking in terms of 5 million tonnes or thereabouts.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: That 5 million tonnes is the equivalent of at least two collieries in the Durham area.
  Mr. Leadbitter: One also has to consider the dramatic number of closures, almost without exception without any time frame, to allow those communities to work out some form of industrial regeneration in the area. Whole communities are beaten up. That is the only way to describe the situation. As a result of political ignorance, whole communities are being beaten up by people who do not care, so long as it is going to be good for them. When the coal industry loses to that extent, the importers and the consumers find that the benefits disappear overnight. As in
  746
  the case of loss leader sales, once the market has been secured, prices will go up. The competition will have gone from the industry.
  We have to be quite frank about what is in the minds of the people who have put this privatisation measure before the House. It is not just a question of extra profits. Any reasonable man would be happy with the success of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. There are other matters behind the scenes.
  Mr. Devlin: There is no evidence whatever to justify the hon. Gentleman's allegations. At present, there is a facility at Teesport that handles 3 million tonnes of coal a year from different countries around the world. This includes British coal, and it is going to British Steel. In addition, 250,000 to 500,000 tonnes go to other users through the port. There has been no plan whatever to expand that facility. The Labour party has no evidence to support its allegations, despite the fact that, in respect of every port-related piece of private legislation, it has produced coal-mining MPs who have made the same claim. The matter is getting completely out of hand.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I quote from a press report of 29 March 1988:
  "The River Tees will become Britain's coal import centre if a dramatic plan by port chiefs gets off the ground.
  British Steel's giant Teesside terminal already handles the world's biggest ships, bringing cheap open cast coal from across the world to feed Redcar's hungry blastfurnace.
  But now Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority is looking at building a huge 'common-user' coal terminal."
  Mr. Devlin: Which paper?
  Mr. Leadbitter: It does not matter which paper. I want to get this on the record. The port authority may rebut it, if it can.[Laughter.] There is no point in the hon. Gentleman sniggering and laughing. We are used to a high standard of debate here. Let the hon. Gentleman enjoy the sedentary position and keep his lip buttoned.
  Mr. Barron: I want to point out to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that both the chief executive officer and the commercial director of the authority are on record—in local papers that I assume those hon. Members do not read—as having said that, having received the results of the feasibility study, they are pressing ahead in conjunction with National Power. If I get an opportunity, I shall speak about this matter at a later stage.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The newspaper report from which I was quoting continues:
  "The THPA has commissioned leading independent shipping and energy consultants Lev Sychrava Associates for a feasibility study into transforming the 300-acre former Shell Teesport refinery site into a coal-importing complex.
  Lev Sychrava, director of research and development with Lambert Brothers Shipping before going freelance, says the plan has a lot going for it.
  The Tees site would be a good location to develop such a terminal, he said."
  People do not commission a feasibility study of that kind without an objective. Indeed, nothing of this nature can be done properly without consultants and advisers. The suggestion that there is no plan in the minds of the board members is—I will not use the word to which you objected, Mr. Deputy Speaker—unreasonable.
  I have no doubt that other hon. Members who catch your eye, Sir, including the hon. Member for Stockton,

  747
  South (Mr. Devlin), will make other points. I hope that those who intend to vote tonight for privatisation realise that they will not be able to give a guarantee, either to people in this House or within their own hearts, that in future there will be the same success, the same momentum, as has been experienced under the port authority for the past 25 years.
  I had doubts about the Hartlepool port being kept within the estuary authority statutory arrangements, but I see in this Bill no guarantee that the port will be preserved. I have noted with interest, of course, that the port's trading area has diminished over the years. I have noted with pleasure the development of the marina, although that has yet to come to fruition. How can I feel certain, however, that, under privatisation, the Hartlepool port will be allowed to exist?
  Under privatisation, I would have no defence. The authority might decide that, for one reason or another, it was not commercial or economic to keep the port open. It might be like British Rail. When British Rail wants to close a line, it gives information about the worst days, just as the meteorological office issues information only about the days when it is pouring. These chaps might have all sorts of peculiar ways of leading us to believe that the port at Hartlepool should close. Even if Tees and Hartlepool port authority wrote to me in big gold letters, "Ted Leadbitter, the port of Hartlepool will remain. Please be satisfied," I would say that those words were not worth anything. Tees and Hartlepool port authority cannot give anyone an undertaking about what a privatised industry will do.
  I oppose the Bill, because my constituency interest is pertinent and real. Already, 70 men have been bought off. Some of my dockers were bought off. The authority said that they were getting too much money and it replaced them with people on about £8,000 a year. We know the tricks. So there will be no guarantees from the port authority, no satisfaction for the people whom I represent and plenty of worry for the miners. While there might be flash-in-the-pan prosperity for some of them, in the jungle of private enterprise that will not last. When the call goes out, they will be swallowed up and their jobs will have gone. I wish that they had listened to the common sense that seems always to prevail on this side of the House.
  8.59 pm
  The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I think the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has finished. It may be for the convenience of the House if at this stage I make a brief statement on the Government's views on the Bill.
  As I explained in the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on 1 December, trust ports are slightly odd bodies. They are independent. They are not accountable to anyone. Their powers and sources of finance are limited. But they have to compete with ports run by companies like Associated British Ports and Felixstowe, which have the flexibility and accountability that the trust ports lack. It has long been in the Government's mind that it would be desirable if at least the main commercial trust ports could be converted into companies. Changing the status of a trust port in that way needs primary legislation, but the Government have not been able to find room in their programme for the
  748
  appropriate legislation. That was why, as has been mentioned already, about a year ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), when he was Secretary of State for Transport, encouraged trust ports which saw benefits in turning themselves into companies to bring forward their own private Bills.
  It is still our intention to bring forward Government legislation on trust ports at the earliest convenient opportunity. But given the pressure on the legislative programme, private legislation is the only way by which these ports can quickly be converted into fully fledged private sector enterprises. However, I stress one point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) explained, the Bill will not alter at all the statutory responsibilities and powers of Tees and Hartlepool port authority under its existing private legislation. That legislation will be carried forward and will apply lock, stock and barrel to the proposed new successor company. That successor company will still be a harbour authority. It will be subject, just as the port authority is today, to those provisions of public legislation which apply to harbour authorities generally. I emphasise that there will be no loss or reduction in existing powers or obligations. That is a very important point, and the House should not be under any misapprehension. The position is exactly the same as when Associated British Ports was privatised.
  The Government support the principle underlying the Bill. Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shown welcome initiative. So has Clyde port authority, which has brought a similar Bill before Parliament. But both Bills have raised some difficult issues for the Government, which in the public interest we have had to consider with some care.
  A parallel could be drawn between a trust port and the trustee savings banks before they were privatised. It is indeed a close parallel. We share the opinion that trust ports, like trustee savings banks, have no explicit owners. They can therefore be said to be owned by the state, as distinct from the Government. So it is for Parliament to decide, taking into account any views expressed by the Government, not only whether a trust port should be allowed to turn itself into a company but who should get the proceeds from the sale of the shares in that company.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Do the Government know how many imports will come into the country over the next three or four years through these ports?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure that that is an appropriate point at this stage of the Bill, but there has been a vast change in how the ports operate. They have taken advantage of freedoms given to them by the House over the years.
  Mr. Campbell: The Government support the Bill. They are changing legislation which covers fuel imports, but it is being done by a private Bill. The Government are changing their energy policy completely.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot accept that point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who speaks on behalf of the promoters——
  Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree——
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand aright? Is a Back-Bencher speaking on behalf of a Minister at the Dispatch Box in answer to an intervention?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Minister has the floor, but he has given way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that importation is on one side of the coin and exportation on the other? Are we not putting out more cars—built by Nissan—through the Tees than the Opposition ever thought we could?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is an important part of the development of ports, and one that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has caught on to, very successfully—as I said in the 1 December Adjournment debate in answer to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.
  There is a further consideration. Many trust ports are different from the TSB in one respect. That applies to, among others, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Unlike the TSB, it has received Government support in the form of grants to purchase and improve its assets. Admittedly it is a long time since such grants were paid to the THPA, and the amounts were small; but the grants were paid about 20 years ago towards investment projects in the port, and some of those assets are still in use. There is a general rule that, when assets acquired or improved by a non-Exchequer body with the aid of Government grants are disposed of, an appropriate proportion of the proceeds should go to the Exchequer. The Public Accounts Committee rightly attaches great importance to that.
  If the Bill were amended to provide expressly for a share of the proceeds of the sale of the assets to go to the Exchequer, it could cease to be a private Bill. There would then be the problem of accommodating it within the Government's legislative programme, to which I have already referred. The Government are considering the best means of securing an appropriate share for the Exchequer from the proceeds of the sale of the port authority, and of other similar ports. One of a number of options that we are considering is to include a provision in the Finance Bill.
  I therefore recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading. It is a slightly unusual private Bill, to match the slightly unusual nature of the trust ports themselves. A number of questions arise—the hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised some in his Adjournment debate on 1 December—but I suggest that it would be appropriate for the Select Committee to consider them, and to report back to the House. It will have the opportunity to hear evidence from, and to question, the promoters and the petitioners in detail.
  For those reasons, I shall be supporting the Bill later tonight.
  Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the debate began I put to your predecessor in the Chair a specific point of order of which I had given him notice. That was to the effect that this Bill is not a private Bill, but a public Bill, because it is Government policy and the Government had clearly shown that it was their policy, although they did not have time to include it in their legislative programme. They therefore obliged, or persuaded, Tees and Hartlepool port authority to take a private route. Let me quote a specific Hansard response on
  750
  12 February 1990 by the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). The hon. Gentleman asked
  "the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the trust ports."
  The Under-Secretary replied:
  "We believe that there are advantages in the main commercial trust ports being transformed into companies. So far we have not been able to make room ourselves for the legislation needed to bring about such a change. Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure what the point of order is for me that the hon. Member is raising. I was expecting to call him, but at this stage I am not sure what the point of order is for the Chair. Perhaps he will explain that to me.
  Mr. Bell: I shall do that immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having completed the short quotation, which concludes:
  "Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees and Hartlepool port authorities have promoted their own private measures".—[Official Report, 12 February 1990; Vol. 167, c.106.]
  When I raised this point of order earlier, I was given a response from the Chair, which I fully accept and do not challenge. I was told that the matter had been looked into by the appropriate authorities of the House, which had reached the conclusion that this was an appropriate private Bill.
  We have since heard a Minister of the Crown say from the Dispatch Box openly and frankly that this is Government policy, that the Government are looking to privatise some 50 trust ports, that they do not have time to do so in their legislative programme and that they have therefore opted for the private route.
  Was the Chair, or were the authorities of the House, aware of that when this was considered to be an appropriate private Bill? The Under-Secretary said that there were financial considerations attached to the Bill. He made a specific reference to grant money that had been given to Tees and Hartlepool port authority about 20 years ago. He said, in addition, that there would be a financial consideration because the Treasury, as a matter of principle, wished to realise not only the grant money but any benefits that had accrued as a result of that grant money. He said that the Public Accounts Committee had made the same statement. So he said clearly that financial provisions, which were not there before, attached to the Bill. He made a clear admission on the Floor of the House that it is Government policy. My question for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is whether this is a hybrid Bill, and whether the Chair was aware of that Government statement of policy before it gave its earlier ruling.
  Mr. Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does it relate to the same point?
  Mr. Devlin: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of order that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) just raised fell into two parts. The second part was expressly ruled on by your predecessor in the Chair earlier this evening, having received notice from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough of all the points that he just made. May I ask you, therefore, whether you will respond to only the first part of the point of order—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall respond to all points of order. I assure the hon. Member that the Chair is indivisible. This matter was considered extremely carefully. We had notice of it before the debate began.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will know the ruling that was given by my predecessor in the Chair—I have it in front of me—and nothing that I have heard from the Dispatch Box in any way alters the ruling that was given at that time. The hon. Member will know well that if he feels that this is not a proper measure to be a private Bill, he can vote against it should there be a Division at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), to leave the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was speaking to a point of order about the legitimacy of continuing with the measure on the Floor of the House? In other words, he did not remain in the Chamber to hear the points that my hon. Friend was making and the ruling that was given by the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am relieved that the responsibilities of the Chair do not extend to the movement of hon. Members in and out of the Chamber.
  9.13 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: I am speaking for the Opposition, it having been made clear that there is a Government line on the issue. It may be appropriate, therefore, for the Opposition to state their position. While we in no way question the decision given in the ruling by the Chair, the words used by the Minister tonight have obviously thrown doubt into the minds of my hon. Friends about whether this is, in fact, a genuine private Bill.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) described the trust ports as a peculiarly British institution. I remind the House that the basis of the trust ports is that they either reinvest any surpluses achieved between operating costs and expenditure or they use those surpluses to reduce charges. I should have thought that that was a highly commendable practice and that it would be of regret to most hon. Members that British business over the years has not been keen to reinvest its profits in its own locality. Many of the trust ports have been highly successful in attracting new businesses and bolstering employment in areas hard hit by unemployment. Tees and Hartlepool is no exception to that.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On my hon. Friend's point about reducing charges, is she aware that D. B. Winney, who was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), said in his letter, which was published:
  "The reason for the massive level of its reserves is simply that, in its monopoly position as sole authority on the Tees and at Hartlepool, it has been able over 24 years, to levy dues on goods and for conservancy at any price it chose to fix."?
  Mr. Winney went on to say that, if there had been competition for customers who had installations on the river at Seal Sands to turn to, it would have been quite a different matter. The easy way for the port to solve its problems of having massive reserves would have been to release its reserves and reduce its charges, thereby giving industry the benefit of lower charges on the Tees.
  Ms. Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. Clearly that is a way forward. Certainly it would be a way to avoid the danger of gold-plated cranes on the docks.
  It is not surprising that the trust ports, as authorities with some public accountability and, indeed, responsibility, should have attracted the attention of the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) reminded the House, in 1988 trust ports became the subject of a Government consultation on privatisation. The Bill appears to be an attempt to substitute that and to pre-empt possible Government legislation. Although, undoubtedly, we would not be happy to see such Government legislation introduced, at least it would be an honest response to the position, which would give us the opportunity to debate the wider issues of conservancy and safety, which are pertinent to privatisation.
  The Bill simply opens the way for loss of local control and local investment, possibly loss of jobs and the potential for asset-stripping. It is significant that the local authorities and unions, such as the Transport and General Workers Union—I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by that union—oppose the Bill, fearing the example of privatisation in other spheres.
  The proceeds from privatising the port could be considerable. It is interesting that the Minister has described the degree of Government interest in the matter, through which they hope that moneys might be returned to the Exchequer.
  Who will be in control of the port authority after privatisation?
  Mr. Holt: The shareholders.
  Ms. Ruddock: Indeed, the shareholders. It is obvious that a takeover of the holding company could result in control moving out of the area entirely. The Bill will create a different structure from the present one. At present, the Secretary of State can include in it not less than two and no more than three members from a panel of local authority nominees. I suggest that that gives some local accountability.
  In addition, the Secretary of State is required in appointing all members of the authority to have regard to relevant experience in planning and environmental matters affecting the area of the harbour. He must also have regard to the desirability of including members who are familiar with the area served by the authority. All that will be lost.
  The authority has shown that it can act commercially, in a commercial environment, under the present arrangements. That has been evidenced by the successful operation of the port and the high level of profitability achieved. I understand that at present the port is largely run by people who live and work in the area, including councillors, and it is therefore operated in the interests of the locality as well as those of the wider economy.
  The Bill does nothing to ensure that the importance of the port to the local economy will continue to be sufficiently recognised. It is obvious to us that open public subscription for shares in the holding company may provide windfall benefit to those who have hitherto not been involved with the port and its locality in any way. It is our view that there is not sufficient reason to dissolve the authority and set up the new company proposed in the Bill.

  753
  Nothing that has been said to the House suggests that the present powers are too restrictive; indeed, the port's economic success and expansion over the years give the lie to that suggestion. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh boasted that this was the third largest port undertaking in the United Kingdom——
  Mr. Holt: So it is.
  Ms. Ruddock: I have every reason to believe that that boast is correct, but that gives the lie to the claim that the authority is constrained by its present structure. No matter what constraints the hon. Gentleman may believe exist at the moment, there is no requirement or justification for the fundamental constitutional change that the Bill would effect, which we believe would be to the detriment of the port authority and its dealings with the local community and to the detriment of the local economy.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I support the Bill. It is appropriate that we should have another private Bill to promote the navigation of the Tees. The original navigation Act was promoted by the Tees Navigation Company as a private Bill in 1808. That Bill was succeeded by a further private Bill, which set up the Tees Conservancy Commission in 1852. After that came the Bill to which we have already referred, which became the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966. That Act introduced the Hartlepool facilities of the British Transport Docks Board.
  This is a Bill initiated by Teesside people for the benefit of Teesside people. It will mean that there will be a major investing authority based in Teesside for the future. At present, the powers of the board are extremely restricted. Under part III of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966, the authority shall have powers
  "to take such steps from time to time as they may consider necessary for the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of the harbour and the facilities afforded therein and in connection therewith, and for the reclamation of land."
  Section 12(2) says:
  "For those purposes, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Authority may—improve maintain, regulate, manage, mark and light the harbour and, subject to the provisions of this Act, provide port facilities therein, and acquire, carry on and improve any undertaking … affording or intended to afford accommodation or facilities for the transport, loading, unloading, receiving, forwarding, or warehousing of goods".
  We have been asked who sat down in Queen's square and thought one bright sunny day that it would be a good idea to privatise the port? Surely the point is that the nature of the port has changed a great deal since 1966. That was what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was asked about.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Where were you in 1966?
  Mr. Devlin: At that stage, I was at school. Being a young hon. Member, I am only 30, and I cannot say that at the age of seven I was paying much attention to the navigation of the Tees.
  However, returning to what I wanted to say, which is more important, between 1966 and 1976 there were major land reclamation works. Thousands of acres of land have been brought into use for petrochemical, chemical, steel and port facilities. As a result of that investment, the Tees
  754
  and Hartlepool port authority is now promoting itself as the European chemical centre on Teesside. There has been no shortage of investment by the port authority.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On the one hand the hon. Member says that there are restrictions and that the port cannot do anything, and on the other he says that it is investing in all sorts of things left, right and centre and doing so much. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He has to make up his mind: is it restricted or not?
  Mr. Devlin: As usual, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has missed the point. The activities and areas in which the port authority can invest are extremely limited. His hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, whom I am answering, asked earlier why it was necessary for the powers of the port authority to be changed now. The reason is that, since 1966, the port authority has carried out all its functions to the best of its abilities, vet the authority will be left with a large amount of cash which it cannot invest in any further port facilities on Teesside. The authority has reclaimed thousands of acres of land and it has built petrochemical and steel complexes and wharves, and it has promoted the chemical centre on Teesside, but it is getting to the point where there is little more it can do.
  The position has changed recently because of the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The status of the port authority is no longer protected as it was formerly. It is not realistic for Opposition Members to say that, because the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has a monopoly over the navigation of the Tees, it is a monopoly and that it is uncompetitive, as hon. Members have said about fees. The fees charged by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority are extremely competitive. They have to be, because the port has to compete with ports all around the coasts of Britain, many of which have been privatised. It has to compete with a lean, mean and hungry Associated British Ports, and it cannot sit by the River Tees and say that it does not have to pay attention to anyone else.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Devlin: I have given way to the hon. Member for Stockton, North and I do not intend to give way to him again—he can make his own speech—but I shall give way to the other hon. Members in due course.
  Where does the Tees and Hartlepool port authority go from here? It is in a competitive world. The only way that it can survive in the long term is by introducing an integrated transport facility which must not be limited to the borders of the River Tees.
  In the past 150 years, as hon. Members know, ports have developed and become bigger. The port on the River Tees was originally at the town of Yarm in my constituency. When ships became too big, the port moved to Stockton, which became a great boat building centre. With the introduction of metal shipbuilding and iron ships to the River Tees, the port moved downriver to Middlesbrough.
  The Bill marks the point at which the port is now constrained within a narrow area at the mouth of the River Tees and at Hartlepool. It wishes to expand beyond that limit and to expand the facilities and activities on Teesside.
  Since we are all reading from press cuttings this evening, I shall quote from the Evening Gazette of 9 January 1990.
  Mr. Cook: We are all doing some reading tonight.
  Mr. Devlin: Yes.
  The article says:
  "Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority chiefs have their eye on spreading their wings in the 1990s. They see the P & O group as a possible model"
  in its bid to become a private company because
  "P & O owned Ferrymasters, the cargo shipping firm … and transport firms on the continent as well as the UK. We are in the transport game. One of the strengths of the future is having an interest in several links in the transport chain,' said Mr. Britton."
  That is why the Bill is so important. There are now cash reserves sitting in the bank belonging to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority amounting to £30 million, and each year those cash reserves are growing. There is extreme competition from private, formerly non-scheme ports. There is also the very important matter of the future of employment on Teesside.
  Job opportunities in the port have contracted over a number of years because of the operation of the dock labour scheme. After abolition, the port authority slimmed down its operation in order to match European productivity levels. It is now in a position to expand a whole range of its facilities and activities, but it is unable to do so. Recently, 28 jobs were on offer and 700 people wanted them.
  The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is confined by the objectives that are set out in the 1966 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh said that we live in changing times. There are immense investment opportunities on Teesside is a result of the activities of the Teesside development corporation and the Tyne and Wear development corporation. It is only right that where there is an overlap between the functions of the port and the Teesside development corporation, which has taken over planning powers in respect of some of the land that belonged to the port authority, they should work together. They have worked together, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, at Hartlepool marina, at the Teesside offshore base and in Stockton.
  The result of that co-operation is that the Tees port authority believes that there is a range of investment opportunities throughout Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Iangbaurgh and the north-east in general—even up to Newcastle—in which it would like to invest. However, it is constrained by the objectives in the Act.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, North tried to be clever earlier in the debate when he referred to a range of investments which, he said, were outwith the objectives set out in the Act. The port authority is no longer involved in many of the activities that he mentioned.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that it was involved in those activities?
  Mr. Devlin: No, I do not. However, those activities were directly related to the port and its activities and fell into category B, which I read out at the beginning of my speech.
  At the moment, 37 million tonnes of goods come into and go out of the port every year. It made a profit last year of £9·246 million. That profit is accumulating. There is a fantastic return on capital of 17·6 per cent. What will happen to all that money if the port remains a trust port? It will not be used. It is a wasted opportunity for the people of Teesside to have on their doorsteps a cash-rich
  756
  authority that is unable to spend money on a variety of projects within its area, although it could and should do so.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this private Bill has been introduced so that 5 million tonnes can be brought up the river? It would also mean the closure of Hartlepool coalfield, which would lead to at least 6,000 miners losing their jobs.
  Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) for raising the matter of coal. When I challenged the hon. Member for Hartlepool earlier on that matter, he read out a document which he then refused to show me when I came across the Floor to ask him. From which newspaper did it come? When the hon. Gentleman read it out, he said that it was a press release, yet I could see from where I was sitting that it was a press cutting. He did not say from which journal it had been drawn. I took advice on this point this afternoon from the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I was assured—I have no reason to doubt its word—that it had no plans at present to expand the port in any way.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: At present.
  Mr. Devlin: The hon. Gentleman shouts at me. I shall be perfectly frank. A feasibility study was carried out by PowerGen on Chatham and Teesside. No decision was made as a result of that study. It is only right that such feasibility studies should be undertaken. Opposition Members see the Bill as a vehicle for bringing in more coal on the River Tees. The authority can do that already. Powers already exist for coal to be brought in on the River Tees. As I said earlier, a considerable amount of coal is already imported from Australia, Canada and other countries to British Steel on Teesside and at present 30 million tonnes are coming in. That point has already gone by the by.
  No provision in the Bill will bring further coal on to the River Tees. The discussion is pointless, because whether the port is in the private sector or continues as a trust will make no difference to the import of coal. The hon. Member for Hartlepool raised the question of the Shell depot being used. That depot is widely recognised by anyone who knows anything about the Tees port as the daftest place on the entire river to bring in coal.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I was looking at "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" and I came across a charming young photograph of the hon. Gentleman. The first thing that hit me was that he has a majority of 774, which explained why he must now be losing some sleep. The hon. Gentleman's biographical details described him as interested in regional development.
  I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that nobody believes that the port authority does not want to use the Bill to import massive amounts of coal. It is part and parcel of the Government's policy for the privatisation of the coal industry—that is not a problem now, because they will not win the next election—to be able to import 40 million tonnes, so that they can close down all the peripheral coalfields and privatise the central coal belt. It is all part of that plan.
  The hon. Gentleman admits, rightly, that he is young and inexperienced. Opposition Members—who in my case

  757
  are a little bit older, although not a lot older—have considerable experience of the deviousness of this Government. We know what they are up to.
  Mr. Devlin: That has nothing to do with the Bill. I am so interested in the development of my region that I want it to have a major facility that can move goods in and out of the north of England at a competitive cost, organise transport throughout the European Community and the north of England, and that can create thousands of jobs in doing so.
  Opposition Members are ignoring that. They are interested not in new opportunities, but in old opportunities. All we ever hear about from them is the old, traditional industries and the way things were done 100 years ago. The Bill is about the future of our region, the transport infrastructure, jobs and the prosperity of the people of the north-east. I will not sit here and listen to any Scotsman telling me what should or should not be brought in on the River Tees. I shall leave that to people who know what they are talking about and to business men who are ready to make decisions.
  Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity.
  The Bill will enable the port authority to own and invest in property throughout the region but outside the port area. It is in a good position to spot and to exploit the many exciting investment opportunities that exist in the north of England and that is entirely due to the work of the Teesside development corporation and the Tyne and Wear development corporation.
  Following the attacks made on the port authority by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), Port News, the journal of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, said:
  "Every opportunity to invest in port facilities in Teesside has been taken up and will continue to be so. But trade goes where the major transport operator goes, not where the port goes, and if THPA wishes to develop, it must develop as a transport operator."
  Investment in that new undertaking will be securely in the hands of Teessiders. There is no question that the aspersions cast by the hon. Member for Hartlepool will come to fruition. The shares will be so dispersed among the people and the pension funds of Teesside that it will simply not be possible for a major operator to acquire the lot in one fell swoop. That must be the sort of safeguard which will protect the future of the port and to which the hon. Gentleman referred when he talked about the 1966 Act.
  The investment will be securely in the hands of Teessiders. It will be there for the benefit of local people and it will ensure the continued commercial success of Great Britain Ltd. I urge the House to support the Bill.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I listened with great interest to the incandescent way in which he made his points. Earlier this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we had the remarkable spectacle of the hon. Member for Stockton, North crossing the Floor of the House. I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Stockton, North did what?
  Mr. Bell: I apologise. My gaze was fixed on the hon. Member for Stockton, South.
  We had the interesting spectacle of the hon. Member for Stockton, South crossing the Floor of the House. He came and sat on the Opposition Benches. My recollection of constitutional history is that when an hon. Member crosses the Floor of the House he should make a speech so that we can hear why he did so. However, your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that we should not use the word "poppycock" too often in the Chamber, so it would not be appropriate to ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on why he crossed the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) says from a sedentary position, he got lost. He got lost in the debate and in the brief that he was reading.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) in his place. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that we could not get a fish and chip shop in the Tees and Hartlepool development area from which to buy the excellent fish from Whitby. According to the hon. Member for Stockton, South, property development is the major aim of privatisation, so we can look forward to the day when the first property development of the newly constituted body is a fish and chip shop to accommodate the hon. Member for Scarborough. We shall all live in hope.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South made our points for us. He told us how successful the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was. If that is so, why does it have to be privatised? If it is so successful that it has about £30 million in cash in the bank, why must it be privatised? We have not had an answer to that point.
  We heard at great length from the hon. Member for Stockton, South about the proposed shareholding of the newly privatised company. It was significant that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh did not mention what the shareholding would be. It was left to the hon. Member for Stockton, South who, with a briefing note, gave us these proposals. The last I heard of this was that the port authority had no idea how it would privatise the company, and to whom the shares would belong. I was told that it had appointed chartered accountants, in the shape of Peat, Marwick, McLintock to advise it. If we understand what the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, it is that the port authority has received advice but not passed it on to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, because he did not say anything about it.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South made great play of the fact that there is already a terminal for coal on Teesside. He mentioned the 2 millon tonnes coming into British Steel and other users of coal in the area. He did not say something that has been forcefully said from the Opposition Benches: that what is being proposed is a common use terminal, to which coal can be imported on spec and kept in a depot until it is sent anywhere in the country, north or south. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) said, the Durham coal field has at least 12,000 employees, and two pits the size of Horden colliery closed recently. We can get no assurance about whether there will be a common use coal terminal.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that my Adjournment debate was an attack on the Tees and

  759
  Hartlepool port authority. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh rightly said that I praised the authority, which put the matter into perspective.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that everyone in the area supported the privatisation of the port authority. I have here a letter from a distinguished solicitor on Teesside who said:
  "In my lifetime, this Authority has been regarded as a semi public Authority which although it is autonomous in many respects it was set up for the benefit of the area. Many people must now be concerned that what has been a public body is endeavouring to 'privatise itself'. From the point of view of the people working for the concern it may well be a good thing if it comes off but whether it will be for the public benefit is quite another question."
  Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman say that that solicitor was a Labour county councillor?
  Mr. Bell: I can say quite emphatically that the solicitor who wrote this letter, whom I have never met, is neither a politician, nor a member of the county council or of any political party. His name is a matter for him. I am simply responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. I have the letter here. It is in my file, but I have not asked the solicitor whether I can give his name on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Devlin: I shall be interested to know what authority a solicitor, who wishes to remain unnamed, and who has some thoughts on the matter, can add to the progress of the debate. I can produce letters from barristers, solicitors and business men who think that the privatisation is a jolly good thing. I have not bothered to read them all out because they have no locus in the debate.
  Mr. Bell: The locus is that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh said in an intervention that the measure had the support of everyone in Teesside. He may have added the proviso that anyone with any sense would support it. I am refuting that categorically by quoting a letter written by a solicitor. I have not spoken to him about the letter and he has not told me that he wishes to remain unnamed. As a member of the public, he is entitled to express his view through a Member of this place on the Floor of the House.
  I shall refer briefly to some of the other comments of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. He said on two occasions that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are morons. It is interesting that he used that expression, which I presume is fully parliamentary because nothing was said to suggest that it was otherwise. The hon. Gentleman then said that I cleverly introduced a point in my Adjournment debate. It seems that, on the one hand, one can be a moron and, on the other, clever. The two terms, if I may use a legal expression, are mutually exclusive. It seems that the hon. Gentleman wished to get his own back on me for calling him a "Champagne Charlie" not long ago. I used that description because he had authorised and sponsored a function within the House for Conservative Members to persuade them to support the Bill.
  Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman said that the soiree was for Conservative Members. He and all his hon. Friends were invited, and none of them had the courtesy to attend.
  Mr. Bell: Ideology must be sparse in the Conservative party if Conservative Back-Bench Members have to be invited to drink champagne in the House to encourage
  760
  them to support an ideological commitment to privatisation. After 10 years in office, it may be that privatisation is no longer the mode with the Tory party. Why did the hon. Gentleman have to bring along champagne to persuade his hon. Friends to support the Bill tonight?
  Mr. Leadbitter: Do I understand that the champagne party took place? I received an invitation and I asked how much it would cost. The public relations people in London referred the matter to the THPA but I still did not receive an answer. I was genuinely worried about the Bill coming into the House. I was also worried that free drink and some biscuits and cheese, or whatever, were on offer. Was my hon. Friend told what the cost of the freebie was?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh was right to say that I was invited to the party. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Cook) was not. No Labour Member attended the function. That shows that there is still principle within the Opposition, if there is not among Conservative Members.
  Mr. Alan Meale: I am worried because during debates on a previous privatisation of our ports there were suggestions about champagne and smoked salmon being made available so that Conservative Members could nip out of the Chamber to drink and eat at their leisure free of charge. Perhaps you will give some thought to the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a view to determining whether such practices by those who are engaged in the privatisation of our ports are correct in parliamentary terms.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us continue with the debate. That issue has nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were about to answer the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield on my behalf. He has made the valid point that we are concerned about the use of facilities within the House in an effort to influence Members of this place on how they should vote.
  As this point has been raised, I shall quote from my statement to the press, which reads:
  "Richard Holt is inviting a host of Champagne Charlies in order to gain support for the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority. It is a common and often condemned Tory practice to wine and dine those they seek to influence when Bills are before Parliament. Labour MPs will boycott the function and hold it up for the ridicule and contempt that it deserves."
  That answers the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. I congratulate the hon. Member for Langbaurgh because when I described him as a "Champagne Charlie", he came back to say that he was an orange juice addict.
  Mr. Frank Cook: If it is acceptable for the promoters of the Bill to seek support from the payroll vote by offering champagne suppers in the House with the odd touch of sherbet, perhaps it would be equally fair for Opposition Members to seek to force a vote on each of the Estimates tonight, in which case there will be about seven votes, which will keep Conservative Members here until about midnight.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a point that had not occurred to me until now. The so-called payroll vote may be wheeled in at some time this evening

  761
  to assist the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. Without in any way challenging the earlier ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have two points to make about that. First, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh categorically stated that the Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), cannot take a view on the Bill. Those are the very words that he used. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary of State then took an extremely clear view, which we can all read in tomorrow's Hansard. The view that he has expressed many times is that, in the offing, in some form or another, is the privatisation of nearly 50 ports, ranging from London and Dover to small fishing harbours. Apparently, that is what the Government are considering. Transport Ministers are studying whether legislation is needed to pave the way for trust ports, which handle nearly half the country's seaborne cargo trade and a lot of passenger traffic, to be converted into private companies. Therefore, the Government's position is clear.
  I quoted earlier from what the Under-Secretary is reported as saying in Hansard. I now refer to a press statement, which reads:
  "Last week in a House of Common's debate Shipping Minister Patrick McLoughlin made clear his support for converting trust ports into commercial companies. A spokesman for the Department of Transport confirmed that ministers were 'looking at options', but indicated that it would be a struggle to find the immediate time for the necessary enabling legislation."
  We have had several accounts suggesting that this is a Government measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has made it clear that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh was flatly contradicted by the Under-Secretary. It is probably a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
  Secondly, the former Secretary of State for Transport was in the House earlier this evening. If we refer back to press comments, we are left in no doubt that it was the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who instigated this Bill. That is made clear from a speech that was reported on 11 March 1988 in a local newspaper, which reads:
  "Private eyes focus on us".
  The article clearly states:
  "Transport Secretary Paul Channon caused some ripples on the Tees when he raised the spectre of privatisation this week. Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority chief executive John Hackney was in London to hear Mr. Channon say that Britain's 74 publicly owned ports are prima facie candidates for going into private hands."
  The THPA did not leave the matter there, at simply listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. A further press cutting of 5 April 1988 said:
  "Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority is seeking clarification on why the Government has asked for its views on ports going private. At present the THPA is an independent body, with board members drawn from local industry, local councils and the TUC."
  So we come again to one of the central points of the Bill—whether there is any local accountability. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that there was no accountability at all to the local community. Yet we see clearly that Tees and Hartlepool port authority, while an independent body, had board members drawn from local industry, local councils and the TUC. It is therefore clear that this is a Government-inspired, Government-instigated and Government-backed Bill. We shall see as we go on, in Committee and out of Committee, just how much support the Government give to the Bill.
  762
  I fully accept the Government's commitment to privatisation. I do not accept that the Executive ought to use the legislature for their own purposes. I made very clear my own view of privatisation as a Government measure in a speech that I made on the Budget in 1988, when I said that from the point of view of the Conservative party
  "The concept of privatisation is legitimate. It was an ideological commitment that the Conservative party made at the time of the 1979 general election."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1027.]
  Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend introduces a study of the concept of privatisation, but is it not a fact that privatisation as we normally understand it suggests that people pay money in order to acquire property? In this instance it will be quite different. People will be paying money for shares that will be going into a company which will then become their property. So they will be putting money into their own bank. Is not that exactly the same as if I were to sell my hon. Friend my house for £100,000, guaranteeing him that the £100,000 would be in my house when he came to occupy it?
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said that any fool can sell a company at half price, and we have seen over the years, under the Government's privatisation scheme, a consistent underselling of shares in companies being privatised. Then we have seen those shares move into pension funds and banks, again to the detriment of the community.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, made the point that the shares would stay within the community, but he could not guarantee that. He can no more give us a guarantee than Mr. Tiny Rowland could receive a guarantee from Mr. Fayed. When Mr. Rowland arranged for Mr. Fayed to buy the shares in House of Fraser, he suddenly discovered that Mr. Fayed not only held those shares but had bought others and become the majority shareholder. We can see clearly that, once shares are in the public domain, we do not know and cannot tell where they will end up. One thing that we know, and we have seen it in the sale of public assets over the past few years, is that the City of London ends up with the shares.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Does my hon. Friend feel that many of those shares will be bought in the area, which will be affected by not just this change, but the subsequent change that will lead to the mass importation of coal into the area? So will people in places such as Keir Hardie Terrace, Shotton colliery, which is nearby, or Easington, where my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was born, be the prime candidates, as they get kicked out of their jobs, to pick up those shares so that they have a rake-off from this development? I doubt whether anything such as that will occur.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, whitch brings me back to the speech by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, when he made the point about those who lose their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) pointed out that about 70 jobs in Hartlepool had been lost and that those who had stayed in the industry had had to take pay cuts. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh talked about the twin curses of trust ports and the dock labour scheme. We have seen the nefarious

  763
  effects of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, in the shape of a reduced labour force, both on the Tees and in Hartlepool, and a reduction in salaries. My hon. Friend has a valid point. What will people be able to do? Will they be able to buy shares at half price and, possibly, sell them to the City of London? Will the City then decide the appropriate investment policy for Tees and Hartlepool?
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Suppose that local people acquire shares and, after a year or two, sell them to others with a particular industrial interest, such as the importation of coal. In those circumstances, control of the port would ultimately be in the hands of people who had only one thing in mind—the importation of coal. Or it might be radioactive waste or a whole range of other things. That would be a monopoly. It is what happened in the old days. The port that is shared by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) was owned by the coal owners. It was they who determined what should happen. That is exactly what could happen in this situation.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Some of us remember Mr. Eric Varley, who at one time was Secretary of State for Energy in a Labour Government. Mr. Varley left to become chairman of Coalite. But Coalite was taken over, and Mr. Varley is no longer doing that job. What will happen to the Tees and Hartlepool assets if asset strippers move in? It would not be necessary, in order to secure control, to buy 51 per cent. of the company; a controlling interest could be secured by acquiring something like 29 per cent.
  We are talking about the swinging '90s, but what will happen after that—or perhaps even during the '90s—if people, having acquired a controlling interest, decide that there are richer pickings elsewhere in the country or on the continent? They might decide that they would be better off if they had their headquarters in Brussels. Where are the guarantees? Once a company is privatised, once it becomes a company in the public domain, once its shares are being traded in the City of London, no one can tell where the shares will end up. No one can tell who might make share raids. No one can tell what course the company will take. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) said, it might even go into a business such as nuclear waste or the importation of coal, and the House could do absolutely nothing to stop it. In the context of this legislation, there is no such thing as a golden share. The Government have no power to prevent any of the things that we know could happen.
  I want to come now to some of the more important points that were made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at the moment. He said that, in the past, the investments of Tees and Hartlepool were all related to ports or port authority work. He was quite specific. If he thinks again and looks at the facts, he may come to regret that statement. Tees and Hartlepool invested in Tac Display Co. Ltd. On 13 January 1986 a document was prepared for the chairman and members of Tees and Hartlepool port authority, explaining
  "Tac Display Co. Ltd., a privately owned company based on North Shields, whose business is the design and manufacture of shop display units".
  764
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South said very clearly that the company invested only in port-related projects. That is not the case.
  Mr. Frank Cook: In Cleveland.
  Mr. Bell: Yes, in Cleveland, which is our esteemed county.
  The business of this company was the design and manufacture of shop display units. It had five divisions. It had a jewellery display manufacturing division. I should like the hon. Member for Stockton, South to tell me what that has to do with a port authority. It had a retail display manufacturing division. The hon. Member for Stockton, South might like to tell us what that has to do with a port authority. It had a shop fitting division. The hon. Member for Stockton, South might like to tell us what that has to do—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us have been here since the beginning of the debate. We have been paying great attention and participating in the exchanges. Some hon. Members are doing neither; in fact, they are causing great disturbance to those of us who want to continue our interest in the Bill. I ask you to take them to task.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Perhaps those hon. Members will have regard to what has just been said.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for the intervention of my hon. Friend.
  I was analysing an investment of Tees and Hartlepool port authority—Tac Display Co. Ltd. It also had a manufacturing of vacuum forming and joinery division. Again the hon. Member for Stockton, South, who has just returned to the House, might like to tell us what that has to do with a port authority. Earlier the hon. Gentleman made a categorical statement that the investments of Tees and Hartlepool port authority over the past few years were related entirely to port matters. Therefore, he might like to tell me what that division has to do with port investment.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: What is happening elsewhere in the House is interesting. The hon. Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) are having a discussion. One is the sponsor of the Bill and the other was the sponsor of the Associated British Ports legislation that allowed millions of tonnes of coal to be brought into the country. This is a similar measure. It is designed to try to kill off the north-east coalfield, just as the other legislation was designed to kill off the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire coalfield.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right in his reference to a relationship between the Associated British Ports Bill and this Bill. It is a copycat Bill. It would not be before the House if Tees and Hartlepool did not want to follow the route taken by Associated British Ports. The Bill has a similar design and concept. It will affect the mining industry in Durham and in Yorkshire. As I develop my theme, I shall show that there is no way that the hon. Member for Stockton, South can wriggle out of the fact that there is potential for a common use coal terminal on Teesside.
  Mr. Devlin: I thought that I answered that when I made my speech. It does not matter whether the port is in the private sector. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's description of the Bill. It is not a copycat Bill. The legislation sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was to extend the port of Immingham——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be unwise for us to have a rerun of the Associated British Ports (No 2) Bill. That has nothing to do with Tees and Hartlepool.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have preferred the hon. Member for Stockton, South, who made a categorical statement about the port authority investing only in port-related matters, to respond to the fact that the authority has invested in TAC Display Co. Ltd., which has five divisions—a jewellery display manufacturing division, a retail display manufacturing division, a shop fitting division, a vacuum forming and joinery division and a design division. I shall give way if he wants to recant what he said earlier, or rephrase it. As he does not want to do so, I shall continue.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I am astonished that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) should be so surprised at the lack of consistency in the statements made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). After all, he did a 180-degree turn on northern arts between 28 November and 13 March; he got it totally wrong on the poll tax; and the other evening he voted in one Division and then did not bother to vote in the next.
  Mr. Bell: It is appropriate for my hon. Friend to refer to the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am simply responding to his earlier statement that all the investments of Tees and Hartlepool port authority were port-related. Let me refer again to the investment in TAC Display Co. Ltd. Let me quote from an interesting and revealing document circulated to the chairman and members of the THPA:
  "The question must be asked as to why should the Authority invest in a company which has performed so poorly over the last two years? The first point is that there has been a marked turnround over the past few months, output has increased, productivity has improved, and a loss at the end of October of £12,000 has more than been offset by profits in November and December and it is realistically expected that the projected profit will be in the region of £20,000. The company is very highly geared and therefore any equity investment will reduce the high cost of financing which has reduced its ability to grow, and probably the most important feature is that management has now got control over the company and is exercising financial disciplines with the assistance of a regional manager of a major bank."
  It was so successful that it lost £150,000. We are hearing so much tonight about the need to pass this privatising measure because the port cannot invest in other companies.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh phrased his argument very cleverly. At no time did he say that any of the investments made in the 1980s were illegal, or ultra vires the company; at no time did he seek to address the question whether powers already existed for the THPA to do everything that it has done for several years. The Under-Secretary is listening carefully and attentively——
  Mr. Harry Barnes: In fact, the Minister is listening to his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). There is a three-way connection: the
  766
  Minister, who represents a constituency in west Derbyshire, with which masses of ports are associated, is tied in with the Bill. We are discussing a Government measure tonight.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It has arrested the attention of the Under-Secretary, who is now listening with great attention. His predecessor as shipping Minister, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was fully apprised of the facts about the THPA's investment in TAC Display Co. Ltd.
  The Minister's predecessor was written to by the predecessor of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth, who wrote expressing anxiety about the investment. The Minister's answer was significant. He made it clear that investment in a company such as TAC Display Co. Ltd. was entirely a matter for the authority. He said—in a ministerial letter—
  "As I understand it, the Authority has the statutory power to make such an investment."
  If the statutory power exists for a private authority or the trust port to invest in jewellery, in retail display manufacturing, in shop fittings, in a vacuum forming and joinery division, and in design work, and if the Minister of the Crown says that the investment is in order, why are we here tonight? Why is it necessary for us to go through he process of this debate, to have to listen to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh and the Minister, whose remarks, to his credit, were all about privatisation, a subject to which we had referred earlier?
  Mr. Leadbitter: I, too, brought to the attention of the House the list to which my hon. Friend is referring, and I reached the same conclusion as he. It is important for my hon. Friend to impress on the House the fact that that list of activities poses an important question. If the authority can undertake all those activities under present legislation, what does privatisation have to offer? It seems that nothing new could be undertaken, so we are left wondering whether there is a reason for the measure other than privatisation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has not told us that reason.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: A hidden agenda?
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend says, from a sedentary position, that there might be a hidden agenda. After some months of public debate, we have not been able to get to the real hidden agenda.
  I explained that the company lost £150,000. A liquidator was appointed in August 1986, and one is left wondering what happened to that £150,000. Did it represent a dead loss to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, which provided an independent report to the board of that authority prior to the investment being made, how and why did the investment go wrong and why did the authority get involved in it in the first place?
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that all the investments of that authority at that time were port-related. There was a company named Mercury Maintenance Ltd., which proved to be another fine investment by the authority. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh was right to say that, in an Adjournment debate, I praised the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, but my praise was for its programme for disabled workers. We are now considering the financial side of the authority, where a different picture emerges.

  767
  Mercury Maintenance Ltd. changed its name to Hercules Security Fabrications Ltd. The authority invested £30 in that company, but a loan of £136,000 was given. The directors in September 1986 were Mr. John Hackney, who is the present chief executive, and Mr. John Tholen,' who was the former chief executive. The company was found to be hopelessly insolvent as at November 1987.
  The authority invested in another company, in accordance with the powers that it has had since 1966. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was instrumental in incorporating the Hartlepool port into the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, and credit is due to him for his efforts in that matter many years ago.
  There was a £25,000 investment in LPC Elements Ltd. by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority in December 1985. The director remained unchanged, Mr. John Hackney and Mr. John Tholen. According to the company's accounts, it lost £10,534 as at 1988.
  We come to Casair Aviation and an investment of £5,000, with £25,000 given by way of mortgage for an aircraft. Again, the directors were as previously. In other words, Tees and Hartlepool port authority board members find themselves on boards of companies in which they have invested. Casair was hopelessly insolvent when it was finally bought out by Northern Aviation Limited, but the accounts were not to hand.
  Another company in which Tees and Hartlepool port authority has invested in accordance with its powers under the 1966 Act is called Boldpath. It was given a loan of £510,000. The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that the authority wanted to become a property developer on Teesside or in the north. He said that it could not develop into property because it did not have the powers. But Boldpath is a property company in which the authority invested in September 1986. Against a company with capital of £100, the authority lent £510,000. It is not surprising that, when we ask for statements from the authority about the variety of its investments, we do not find them in the balance sheets or its public accounts and we cannot elicit specific information on each company in any statement.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) back in his place, no doubt hot from the 1922 Committee Thursday night meeting. Another company in which the authority invested in accordance with its powers was Quality Pipework Services. What does the hon. Member for Stockton, South think that Quality Pipeworks Services has to do with a port authority? The authority invested £40,000 in that company and lent it £80,000. Again, the directors were Mr. John Tholen and Mr. John Hackney, the former and present chief executives. That investment was so good for Tees and Hartlepool that it got its investment back at the price it paid for it.
  Why should we stop at one, two, three or four companies? Let us examine the entire record of the authority as it relates to its bid for privatisation. What about Storefreight, a company in which the authority invested £100,000? Again, the directors were Mr. John Hackney and Mr. John Tholen. It was the only investment out of ten which turned out to be profitable.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I am so interested in the information that my hon. Friend is imparting to the House that I
  768
  should like him to clarify whether the investments took place when Mr. Tholen was acting as chief executive or after he departed.
  Mr. Bell: All the investments that I have before me were made in 1986. Hercules Security Fabrication was a £30 investment in 1986–87. All the investments were probably made at about the time when Mr. Tholen was chief executive, but Mr. John Hackney, the present chief executive, became a member of the board of all the companies to which I referred.
  Storefreight, in which £100,000 was invested, is now a profitable company because it is now 100 per cent. owned by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. It is the only company to be found in the public accounts. When we ask questions about other investments, we are told to wait until the new accounts are published next month. Perhaps as a result of the intervention tonight on the Floor of the House there will be a modification in the accounts.
  I wish to put some questions to the sponsor of the Bill and his ally, the hon. Member for Stockton, South. How can the House allow the privatisation of a company which, when it had the power to do so, invested so badly and unwisely? We do not know how much it has cost the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, but it runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. We cannot obtain an answer to that question.
  Mr. Meale: The information that my hon. Friend imparts to the House is rather alarming. He has read out details of companies involved in marinas, development agencies and fabrication plants. Is he sure that they are the only companies involved? Perhaps we should not proceed any further until we get more details of all the companies in which investments have been made.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks. I have kept to the very end of my observations on financing another company of which no one has ever heard. I have spoken to three directors of the company who have never heard of it. It is Mountjoy Finance. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, with his great City contacts, has heard of Mountjoy Finance. What are we to make of that company? According to a report submitted to me on 24 January this year, the company was incorporated on 14 February 1986. Its principal activity was the making of long-term loans.
  Again, the hon. Member for Stockton, South may be able to tell me whether the making of long-term loans is a port-related activity. The company's assets are fixed at £350,000. Its current assets are set at £50,013. Its current liabilities are £500,000 and its net worth is £13.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I am staggered to hear that information, especially bearing in mind my hon. Friend's statement that he has spoken to three nominated directors of the company who did not know that they were directors. Did I hear aright, or have I got my wires crossed?
  Mr. Bell: No. I specifically asked three directors of the company, one of whom is no longer a director, whether they had ever heard of Mountjoy Finance, and they all answered that they had not.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Can that be legal?
  Mr. Bell: It may be prudent for me to ignore my hon. Friend's sedentary intervention.

  769
  Let us talk about the net worth of Mountjoy Finance—£13. That is the net worth of a company that can give long-term loans. That £13 represents 13 ordinary shares of £1 each, allotted and fully paid. The company's authorised capital is 100 ordinary shares of £1 each. For the benefit of the House, let me give the names of the shareholders. Northern Investors Company Ltd, Centro house, 3 Cloth market, Newcastle upon Tyne, has three £1 shares. Ferguson Industrial Holdings, Appleby Castle, Cumbria has four ordinary shares. Melville Street Investments (Edinburgh) Ltd., 4 Melville street, Edinburgh, has four ordinary shares. Then, to and behold, at the bottom comes Tees and Hartlepool port authority, Queen's square, Middlesbrough, which has two £1 shares in the company.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Do I understand from that list that the only Cleveland interest in the shares was that of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority?
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right. According to the information on record at Companies house, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, with its two shares, is the only Cleveland company involved.
  I can go further. The investment is not listed in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's annual report to which I referred earlier, and one of the four directors of the finance house—if I may call it that—is Mr. John Proctor Hackney, of 50 The Holme, Great Broughton, Middlesbrough, who is listed as finance director but who is now the chief executive of Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Mr. Hackney was appointed a director of the company on 30 May 1989.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does my hon Friend think that the Daily Mirror should campaign for a public inquiry into this matter?
  Mr. Bell: I will simply say, modestly and prudently, that Mr. Arthur Scargill is a much-maligned man when one studies the details of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's financial statements.
  The financial status report to which I refer—lest there be any doubt about this, I have the official documents with me—prepared on 24 January 1990 stated that the directors have relied upon the exemptions for individual accounts under sections 247 to 249 of the Companies Act 1985. That allows the company to file only a modified balance sheet and a limited number of notes instead of full accounts. The company qualified for this exemption, as it is classed as a small company within the meaning of the Companies Act.
  The comments on the financial status report are revealing and show that the company is run at a break-even point, receiving and paying £48,073—worth of interest a year. It is interesting to note that they receive and pay the same amount of interest.
  The principal lenders—now we get to the heart of the matter, the reason why the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is investing in a company for £2—are the shareholders. They have extended £350,000 of long-term finance to the company. As the company is in the hands of its shareholders, and only has a small £13 paid-up share capital, this is what the financial status report says:
  "we would advise you to seek a parental guarantee if you are considering extending this company a line of credit."
  That is with £13 cash in bank on the balance sheet as of 30 September 1987. Here we have it: a £2 investment; a
  770
  £350,000 loan; one is warned to seek a parental guarantee before extending the company a line of credit; and again £13 in share capital in the bank.
  According to the financial statement of 30 September 1988,
  "The company's activity is the making of long term loans. The directors consider that the result for the year is satisfactory."
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh looks somewhat disconsolate. He has not listed a single investment by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority during the past—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Opposition Members and some Conservative Members—to be fair—have waited patiently here all night listening to the debate. Many more Opposition Members wish to participate in the debate but we cannot hear a word because of the rabble standing over there. Can they be brought to order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps those hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will talk quietly.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
  Mr. Holt rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the Division.
  Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that I shall take it after the Division.
  The House having divided: Ayes 126, Noes 29.

  Division No. 132]

  [10.37 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amess, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carttiss, Michael

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

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayes, Jerry

  771

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Holt, Richard

  Portillo, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Irvine, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Janman, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lang, Ian

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lilley, Peter

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lord, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thorne, Neil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tracey, Richard

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Mellor, David

  Walden, George

  Mills, Iain

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waller, Gary

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wilshire, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Norris, Steve

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Mr. Tim Devlin and Mr. William Hague.

  Page, Richard

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Barron, Kevin

  Lamond, James

  Beith, A. J.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Meale, Alan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Nellist, Dave

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cummings, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Ruddock, Joan

  Dixon, Don

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Doran, Frank

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Fisher, Mark

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  George, Bruce

  Gordon, Mildred

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Haynes, Frank

  Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Stuart Bell.

  Home Robertson, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order. One arises from your refusal to allow a point of order during the Division. The point of order that I wanted to raise during the Division was on whether you would think again about accepting the closure motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is proving my point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to dispute the judgment of the Chair on whether to accept a closure motion. The Chair accepted it, it is then for the House to make a decision. That is what happened and that was in order.
  Mr. Barnes rose——
  Mr. Bell rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled on the point of order. If hon. Members have a different point of order, I shall take it. We must now proceed to a Division on Second Reading.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 26.

  Division No. 133]

  [10.51 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Janman, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Knapman, Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Knowles, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lilley, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Lord, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bowis, John

  Maclean, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Mans, Keith

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Mills, Iain

  Burns, Simon

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Neale, Gerrard

  Butterfill, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Cash, William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Page, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Patnick, Irvine

  Churchill, Mr

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Portillo, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Riddick, Graham

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Ryder, Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Durant, Tony

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Fallon, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Stevens, Lewis

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Gale, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Gill, Christopher

  Summerson, Hugo

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Thorne, Neil

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Tracey, Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Trotter, Neville

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Walden, George

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

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Waller, Gary

  Harris, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Hayes, Jerry

  Wilshire, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Holt, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Mr. Tim Devlin and Mr. William Hague.

  Irvine, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  NOES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dixon, Don

  Barron, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cummings, John

  Lamond, James

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  773

  Nellist, Dave

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Prescott, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed.
  Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling in any way, but would it be in order if, through you, I put it on the record, for the information of the Secretary of State for Transport, that I shall be calling for a formal Department of Trade and Industry investigation into the affairs of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and into the financial shenanigans that I have revealed tonight on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to page 366 of "Erskine May", relating to an hon. Member raising a point of order during a Division, only when a question of order arises during a Division may a Member speak seated and covered. That implies that there is a procedure for raising a point of order during a Division and, like many other hon. Members, I have used that procedure in the past.
  My point of order is whether I should have been prevented from raising a point of order during the Division. This relates to the point of order that has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I had been attempting to raise another point of order, which it is now too late to raise, about the nature of the Division that was then taking place, given the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, which I feel should lead to a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry, and affects our procedure in relation to this legislation.
  Although I feel aggrieved about it, I accept that that has now passed. My point of order relates to whether, by that precedent, hon. Members will be refused the right to raise points of order during a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No new precedent has been created. This matter is at the discretion of the Chair. Depending on the circumstances, it is usual for the Chair
  774
  to take a point of order during a Division if it relates directly to the conduct of the Division, such as whether the Division bells are ringing.
  I am sure that, from the point of view of common sense, the whole House will appreciate—the hon. Gentleman himself made this point—that, when a Division is taking place and hon. Members are going through the Division Lobbies, it is exceedingly difficult in practical terms for the Chair or anyone else in the House to hear what is being said by the hon. Member who is raising the point of order.
  From the points that the hon. Gentleman raised during the first Division, it is clear that he was not making a point of order relating to the Division. It is sensible and practicable in those circumstances for the Chair to use its discretion in this way—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and to take points of order after the Division when they can be properly heard and properly dealt with—
  Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clearly within your recollection—this has happened during the seven years that I have been a Member of the House—that there have been many occasions when the Chair has accepted points of order during a Division——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Nellist: I have not made the point of order yet.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to question the judgment of the Chair. I am sure that he does not intend to do that. We now come——
  Mr. Nellist: On a different point of order——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Nellist rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come——
  Mr. Nellist: It is a different point of order——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is a different point of order, I shall hear the hon. Gentleman, but it must be a different point of order.
  Mr. Nellist: It is a totally different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain to me under which Standing Order the occupant of the Chair can decide whether or not a point of order is valid if the case has not even been made?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order, and there is nothing that I can add.

  Estimates
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.), and the Order [12 March], as modified by the Order yesterday.

  ESTIMATES, 1989–90 (AIR) VOTE A
  Motion made, and Question put.
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1990 an additional number not exceeding 3,800 all ranks be maintained for the Royal Air Force Reserve—[Mr. Fallon.]
  The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 3.

  Division No. 134]

  [11.10 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Amess, David

  Irvine, Michael

  Amos, Alan

  Jack, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Janman, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Baldry, Tony

  Knapman, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Lamond, James

  Beith, A. J.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bell, Stuart

  Lilley, Peter

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bowis, John

  Maclean, David

  Brazier, Julian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Mans, Keith

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Meale, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Mills, Iain

  Butterfill, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Neubert, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Norris, Steve

  Carttiss, Michael

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cash, William

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Chapman, Sydney

  Riddick, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ryder, Richard

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Devlin, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Dixon, Don

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Durant, Tony

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Stevens, Lewis

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Fisher, Mark

  Summerson, Hugo

  Gale, Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gill, Christopher

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Trotter, Neville

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Waller, Gary

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Hague, William

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harris, David

  Mr. David Lightbown, and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Haynes, Frank

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Ronnie Campbell.

  Nellist, Dave

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  ESTIMATES, 1990–91 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1991 a number not exceeding 66,800 all ranks be maintained for Naval service.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 7.

  Division No. 135]

  [11.21 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Amess, David

  Irvine, Michael

  Amos, Alan

  Jack, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Janman, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Baldry, Tony

  Knapman, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Lamond, James

  Beith, A. J.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bell, Stuart

  Lightbown, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lilley, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bowis, John

  Maclean, David

  Brazier, Julian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Mans, Keith

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Burns, Simon

  Mills, Iain

  Burt, Alistair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Butterfill, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Norris, Steve

  Carrington, Matthew

  Pike, Peter L.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Chapman, Sydney

  Riddick, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ryder, Richard

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Devlin, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Dixon, Don

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Durant, Tony

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Stevens, Lewis

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Fisher, Mark

  Summerson, Hugo

  Gale, Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gill, Christopher

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Waller, Gary

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Hague, William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Haynes, Frank

  NOES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Cummings, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Alan Meale.

  Nellist, Dave

  Salmond, Alex

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  ESTIMATES, 1990–91 (ARMY), VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1991 a number not exceeding 172,550 all ranks he maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 4,596 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 109,805 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 85,364 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 6,800 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  ESTIMATES, 1990–91 (AIR), VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1991, a number not exceeding 95,240 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 16,150 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,550 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1989–90
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,951,397,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 179 and 230.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1988–89
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £10,366,965.82, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1989, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 177.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolutions agreed to this day, relating to Supplementary Estimates, 1989–90, Estimates, Excesses, 1988–89 and Estimates 1990–91 (Vote on Account), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Lilley and Mr. Richard Ryder.
  Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1989, 1990 and 1991: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Coal Industry Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  "Opencast coal working: conservation requirements
  For section 3 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (preservation of amenity) there shall be substituted—
  Preservation of amenity
  3. In formulating any proposals as to the working of coal by opencast operations or the carrying out of operations incidental to such working or the restoration of land affected by such working or by such incidental operations, the British Coal Corporation (in this Act referred to as 'the Corporation') or any person who holds or is applying for a licence under section 36(2) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946—

  (a) shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and

  (b) shall so far as possible ensure that the proposals include measures to mitigate any adverse effect which the proposed activities may have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects."

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Baldry.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 31, in the title, line 5, at end insert
  "and the preservation of amenity in connection with opencast coal working".
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: The amendment has a history. On Report in the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said:
  "If the Government purblindly and stupidly insist on going ahead with a tenfold increase in the maximum size of opencast private workings, there should be parallel strengthening of the planning laws to protect local people."—[Official Report, 16 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 211.]
  My hon. Friend was told by the Minister to leave the matter to the planning authorities and that such amendments were superfluous.
  It was then argued in the other place—quite well, as I understand it—that, if the Government intended to allow for a massive expansion of opencasting in the private sector, they should ensure that the private sector operates within the same framework as British Coal. Even in the other place the Government argued that environmental failures were the fault of a lack of enforcement of planning conditions. I am pleased to say, however, that when the vote was taken in the other place, the Minister's noble Friends disagreed with him. Tonight the Government have returned to the House with an amendment that they rejected in principle in January.
  It is essential that the good practice of the British Coal opencast executive is extended to the private sector. I am well acquainted with examples of the good practice that the executive has adopted for many years in my constituency, where we have what might be regarded as a flagship project—the Rother Valley country park, which provides recreation for many people in the area. Before the site was opencasted, the initial plan for Bedgreave mill, a

  779
  medieval mill in the middle of the site, was that it should be destroyed, so that the opencasting could be carried on without interference. I am pleased to say that the arguments advanced at the time—long before I became a Member of the House—were won. The mill was kept and they opencasted round it. It now serves as a very good visitors' centre for the country park, and many school-children from my constituency and others use the mill for educational purposes.
  Next to country park is an opencast mine on the site of Brookhouse colliery, which closed late in 1985 after the miners' strike. The work taking place there relates directly to the Lords amendment—the one that the Government told us we did not want. A very good ecological experiment has been taking place. Reeds have been moved out of some ponds on that site and placed, at the right time of year, in some neighbouring ponds about half a mile away. That has been done to protect newts' eggs laid on the leaves of those reeds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really?"] I see that hon. Members are interested in this. The ponds contain crested, smooth and palmate newts. The opencast executive has moved the plants—and the eggs on them—so that those species will survive and can be brought back to the site when it is restored.
  Other sites in close proximity are being treated in the same way to save their habitats. At the Tinsley Park site in Sheffield, the executive is moving some acid heathland soil and resettling it about two miles away because it contains the seeds of many varieties of plants that grow in that area and in no other in industrial Sheffield. The soil has been relaid on a nature reserve by the ecology unit of Sheffield city council—a well-known good Socialist council.
  Those actions have been taken by British Coal to protect and preserve the environment as best it can. They are the result of years of expertise in such work. However, in the early stages of the Bill, we were confronted with expansion in the private sector, where there is little expertise in looking after the environment and related problems. The rapid expansion of the private sector allowed in the Bill would rely on an expertise that it does not have at present.
  We are pleased that the Government decided not to throw out the amendment made in the other place. We recognise that, while opencast coal mining is sometimes necessary, the environment needs to be protected.
  I congratulate the Government, because this is one of the few occasions when I have seen them show some common sense, even if it was forced on them in the other place by some of their hon. Friends. We gladly accept and support the amendment.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment, as it sets new standards for the opencast executive's working practices for the natural environment.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has said, British Coal has a good reputation in that respect, but it is useful and important to extend the legislation in this way.
  I am anxious to find out from the Minister tonight, when he replies to this short debate, whether the new standards set for this aspect of opencast coal mining—the natural environment—by the Lords amendment and the attitude that it reflects will permeate the Department's
  780
  thinking about opencast coal mining in general. Will planning applications for new opencast sites be considered in the light of that new attitude?
  The Minister will know that British Coal is proposing to develop an opencast site of 350 acres in my constituency. There are 3 million tonnes of coal there and British Coal is proposing to develop 1·25 million tonnes. The site is right in the middle of Stoke-on-Trent, within half a mile of the city centre, surrounded by housing, industry and commerce. I believe that it is a precedent for British Coal to attempt to develop an opencast site in the middle of one of the largest cities in the country, and it is a precedent that is entirely wrong. I gain some hope from the amendment and from what I take to be a new attitude.
  Although the site is in the middle of a large city, it is also an important natural habitat—a green site of some 650 acres, surrounded by housing and close to the city centre. It is heathland, with wildlife of various kinds—flora and fauna. People walk and jog on that land and exercise their dogs. It is an important part of their life.
  If the thinking behind the Lords amendment begins to permeate the Department's thinking, and that of the Department of the Environment when planning applications are considered, it will be impossible for British Coal successfully to pursue this opencast application in Stoke-on-Trent. All the 250,000 people in Stoke-on-Trent are totally against that opencast site. No hon. Member would like to be faced with a planning application for such a site in the middle of a large urban industrial area. All hon. Members would object to it and would take some encouragement from the Lords amendment, which sets new standards and provides people with some hope.
  11.45 pm
  I do not know whether the Minister can respond at this stage. Although the Lords amendment helps the case that my constituents will be fighting with regard to the natural environment, the other half of their case against the site in Stoke-on-Trent is that it is in the middle of the city, that it is surrounded by housing and that it would traumatically affect transport on the roads of Stoke-on-Trent. Some Ministers know the city well. I am being reassured that it will not happen, but my constituents will not be satisfied until British Coal reconsiders its plans and develops other sites. I regret, therefore, that the Lords amendment does not go one step further and impose the same high standards as regards the human environment as it imposes for the natural environment. We need that double protection if Stoke-on-Trent is not to be subjected to opencast development.
  The city is built on a coal seam. Its economy has been built on coal. We have paid our dues to the country, through the living and working conditions of the people of the city during the past 150 years. The city has gained a great deal from that industry; it has also lost a great deal. During the past 30 years, we have worked extremely hard to re-green our city and to create living conditions that provide hope for the future.
  It would be a disastrous step backwards if this opencast site went ahead. I hope that the Lords amendment will give some hope to the people of Stoke-on-Trent that the Department will pay more attention to environmental matters. The Minister has already received many representations from the people of Stoke-on-Trent. I can assure him that he will receive many more unless British Coal withdraws its application. However, for the time

  781
  being, I derive some hope from the Lords amendment. I thank the Government and congratulate them on accepting it. It is a good step forward.
  Mr. A. Beith: As well as having the largest deep mine in the northern coalfield, my constituency must have about the largest commitment to opencast sites, both large and small, and many more are planned.
  I welcome the amendment, not least because it will help to deal better with some of the applications for sites that are far away from the main opencast mining area. I am thinking particularly of the Wandylaw site, north of Alnwick, where an area of open moorland has become an opencast mining site. That was extremely controversial. It has not allayed the fears of those who feel that mining at that site should not have been permitted. There will be applications for sites in other rural parts of the constituency. Those applications should be tested against the amendment, which sets much stricter criteria.
  A substantial part of the constituency depends upon opencast coal mining. It provides security of employment. Sites should be opened up on a reasonably planned basis. Many of my constituents have had to contend with the consequences and therefore expect, in compensation, good quality restoration work. We have seen some excellent restoration work carried out by British Coal in my constituency and we hope to see much more. We have also seen an increasing commitment by British Coal to the welfare of the community in the area, and that is most welcome. However, there is no doubt that opencasting operations are a destructive business, and the beauty and attraction that are described in the Lords amendment are disguised from view for quite a long time.
  Those who live in the communities in my constituency that are heavily dependent on opencast coal have to be prepared to put up with the disadvantages to find employment. Opencast applications can be very divisive. Some of the applications have divided villages between the areas where people work in opencasting and those where commuters live who see it simply as an intrusion. The areas dependent on opencast coal are often the poorest and most disadvantaged.
  I was at a meeting on Monday night in one of the main villages—Widdrington Station—in which many people work in the opencast coal mining industry. That area is one of the most adversely affected by the poll tax in the north of England. As a result of their misfortune in being lumped in with an area that also includes some of the wealthiest outer suburbs of Newcastle, the people find themselves paying a £439 poll tax. A lot of overtime will have to be worked in the opencast industry if there is to be any hope for some of the families to be able to pay an enormously heavy poll tax which has been levied on a community that does not have high wages. The people there will be even more determined to see that there is a future in the opencast industry in the area.
  I ask Ministers not only to recognise how important it will be to test new applications against the criteria set out in the Lords amendment, but to see, especially with private contractors, that the obligations implicit in the Lords amendment are carried out. That puts British Coal in a rather odd position. British Coal is involved in the industry as a promoter of opencast coal mining, and I am not sure that the licensing and protective role that goes with that should stay indefinitely with British Coal.
  782
  In many ways, I would rather see that handled independently by the Department of Energy, so that moneys held against future restoration work are held by the Department in the interests of the future protection of the environment of the areas concerned. Some of those problems will extend far further than the Lords amendment, which is perhaps the beginning of a more rigorous approach to the granting of opencast planning applications. I hope that that will also involve more rigorous care of the communities that depend on opencast coal mining and require it to be continued so that they can have work, but which have to live with its effects.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall be very brief, but I felt it necessary to have a few words about the Lords amendment. I served in Committee, along with Conservative Members. I was terribly disappointed that, despite pressure by the Opposition to stop the extension of opencast mining, we lost. The disappointment, following on from that, was concerned with the question of clearing up the site and putting it back to something like it was before the opencast mining took place. The Opposition especially—because this is where the miners are—know a lot about the mining industry and know of the experiences that people have had with opencast. We know the way in which the land has been left after the operations have finished.
  I want to congratulate their Lordships, who have done a first-class job in the amendments. They are a step in the right direction. I also want to congratulate the Government on accepting those sensible amendments on looking after the areas where opencast mining takes place.
  I have been married for a long while and I remember the days when I was courting. We used to walk down the beautiful footpaths of Nottinghamshire. Some of them were wedged between the constituencies of Bolsover, Mansfield and Ashfield. They were beautiful walks. I could stand here all night describing those beautiful scenes.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: D. H. Lawrence country.
  Mr. Haynes: Yes. It is the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom. There were crowds down lovers lane, and when the lovers went they left the evidence that they had been there behind them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Some Conservative Members have awful minds.
  We may still have to amend the Bill because, with the further expansion of opencast mining and bearing in mind what is happening at present, we live in fear that a lot of cowboys will move in and not do the job properly. I hope that British Coal and the Department of Energy will accept their responsibilities and make sure that, where there is opencast mining, the job is done correctly in the interests of the whole community.
  I said that I would be brief and I have been. I simply wanted to put that on the record.
  Mr. Skinner: This is an important change, which was debated in Committee and on Report. Many people in Britain, not just in the House, believe that there will be a shift towards looking after the environment, and that is reflected in the amendment. The amendment has come too late for many areas, but if it is implemented properly, it will do a lot of good in areas where so far there has been no opencast mining. If it is carried out to the letter, the

  783
  flora, fauna and historic buildings will be protected, and that will be to the advantage of many who live in the coalfields, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) have said.
  I have made it plain in the past that I am not keen on opencast mining. I wish that the amendment had been in operation before Slaley went ahead. That site was almost turned down by the former Secretary of State for the Environment. Then, remarkably, it was agreed by the new Secretary of State, who is supposed to be green and friendly, in his first week in office. That has now gone ahead. Given the different arguments that were put forward at the inquiry, I do not think that the Slaley site would have gone ahead if we had had this amendment.
  Another site, adjacent to Slaley, is the Pinnock site. That is a big site, mainly in north-east Derbyshire and partly in Bolsover. If and when an inquiry takes place I want the Minister to look into that development, which has been opposed by the local people and the authorities. I want him to look into it carefully in the light of the amendment. If it is interpreted properly, it could be advantageous to many of our constituents in coalfield areas.
  12 midnight
  I also want the Minister to bear in mind the fact that there are many historic buildings around the coalfield, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said. I hope that there will not be any opencast mining in the areas around Bolsover castle, or Hardwick hall. Both historic buildings are in the middle of the Derbyshire coalfield, most of which is shut, and ready for opencast mining. The application for an opencast mine at Stamfree has been turned down by Bolsover district council. If there is an inquiry about that decision, and that lands on the Secretary of State's desk, I hope that the Iinister will make it clear that, under the provisions of this amendment, it will be looked at carefully.
  We are now paying more attention to the green belt. Some Tory Members have made an impact on this Secretary of State for the Environment and the previous one. It is becoming a matter of concern to Tory Members of Parliament and large sections of the population. That green belt is in the north of England, and in the coalfield areas, too. Notwithstanding the many applications for opencast mines—there will be many because of the pit closures—I suggest that the Minister makes sure that this amendment is not regarded just as a useful measure from the other place that was passed in the night, but is used properly, and carried out to the letter.
  The amendment will mean less opencast coal mining. That will be no bad thing, because it might mean that we shall concentrate on deep mining, where we still have an abundance of coal—the estimate is that we have 200 or 300 years' worth of coal left.
  This is an important amendment, so I hope that the Minister will tell us how it will affect historic buildings, flora and the fauna, how it will be carried out and how he will ensure that those who object strenuously to opencast mining will be given a fairer crack of the whip than they have had so far. Too often the local authorities in our areas have opposed such applications, only to find that
  784
  inspectors, and then Secretaries of State for the Environment, have allowed them to go ahead. I hope that the amendment will have a big impact.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am grateful for the thanks of hon. Members to the Government for accepting the amendment. I am also grateful to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which this week wrote to Ministers to thank them for the Department's helpful response on the environmental issues raised by the Coal Industry Bill. It was delighted that Ministers were able to respond positively to the new clause, and believe that its final version meets many of its original concerns.
  As the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) recognised, the Bill is an important signal to opencast operators that they are expected to maintain high environmental standards at all stages of their planning and operations. I have no doubt that those who need to hear will have heard and will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central deserves a full response to the issues that he raised, and I shall be happy to write to him in full with that.
  Mr. Barron: With the leave of the House, I should like to thank the Minister for accepting the amendment. Tory Members look rather subdued and tired at this hour, but while we know that there are not 100 of them—as there have not been for the past three Divisions, so they could not close the debate—we are pleased that the Government have accepted the amendment. We hope that the protection of the environment envisaged by the amendment will be carried out on all sites—both British Coal and private sites, the number of which will be increased by the passing of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

PETITION

  Human Embryos
  12.5 am
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: In a week when 10,000 members of the public lobbied Parliament in support of a ban on the use of human embryos as guinea-pigs, I wish to present two petitions which affirm that the human embryo is a real, live human being and urge that it is therefore entitled to the same legal protection that the rest of us enjoy. One petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the officers and supporters attending the 1989 National Conference of the organisation LIFE … Showeth that we affirm that the newly-fertilised human embryo is a real, living human being. Therefore, we welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 28 January 1985 that "the Government fully recognises the importance of the ethical and moral questions to be addressed in the debate, including the status of the embryo, and they will guard against undermining the special respect that is owed to the family and children and to the creation of human life."

  785
  And therefore we oppose all such practices as are recommended in the Warnock Report, which discriminate against the embryo, or violate his/her human dignity and right to life.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons, mindful of the Petition for the Protection of The Human Embryo, which was presented to the House of Commons in 1984/85 and bore some two million signatures, will take immediate steps to enact legislation which (a) protects the human embryo from any practices which violate his/her dignity or right to life; (b) forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned; and (c) forbids all forms of trans-species of fertilisation.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  That is signed by Keith Davies of 50 Eastham road, Billesley, Birmingham and 500 members of LIFE throughout the country.
  The second petition is couched in similar terms and is signed by Mr. Hugh Morrison of 18 Devonshire drive, Accrington. It is signed also by 36 members of the Evangelical Fellowship, York street, Church and Peel street Baptist church, Accrington.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Guest Houses (Uniform Business Rate)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  12.7 am
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: Before the House adjourns, I wish to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State some of my concerns about the effects of the uniform business rate on seasonal guest houses and private hotels. Several of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies with seasonal tourist interests have discussed the problems with me, including my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Waveney (Mr. Porter). The issues go beyond seaside resorts, of course.
  I make four suggestions that could be of help to the tourist industry generally and to small guest houses and private hotels that are open for part of the year in particular. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take these back to the Department of the Environment for urgent consideration.
  My first suggestion deals with raising the rateable value at which a small business may be assessed for the 15 per cent.-plus inflation limitation on the total increase for which the owners will be liable for 1990–91 from £10,000 to £15,000, as is the case for London. That would help small businesses generally.
  Secondly, I should like the Minister to consider extending the transitional period from five years to eight years, to reach the new rateable value liability, as I believe that the Local Government Finance Act 1988 empowers the Secretary of State so to do.
  Thirdly, I should like the Secretary of State to consider extending the 100-day rule for bed-and-breakfast accommodation, although I shall comment on the adverse effects of that rule, since an extension may help some guest houses, but be to the disadvantage of others.
  Fourthly—this is my main point—I should like consideration to be given to permitting guest houses and private hotels in seasonal resorts that are normally closed for the greater part of any year to register, either with their district council or with the district valuer, for the period for which they will be open for business and to have their UBR liability assessed accordingly. If a guest house is open for three months, for example, the UBR liability would be 25 per cent. of the figure that had previously been suggested by the district valuer. If a guest house is open for six months, the UBR liability would be 50 per cent.
  Mr. Barry Field: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way in such a precious and short Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend and I share many interests, one of which is Yarmouth. We both belong to the Yarmouth Association, which covers all the Yarmouths of the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that one difficulty facing the tourist trade is that proprietors have to publish their prices in advance? They have taken bookings and now find that their overheads are overtaking them.
  Another difficulty that I am sure that we in the Isle of Wight share with Great Yarmouth is that we are trying to extend the season and its shoulder months, but fixing the relevant period at 100 days fixes the length of the season in the minds of the proprietors and operators. In addition,

  787
  the shopkeepers are open for only a short period, and they are wondering why they have to pay the UBR throughout the year, whereas the guest house owners have not.
  Mr. Carttiss: My hon. Friend puts exactly the points that I should like the Minister to take into account. I am grateful to him for intervening and for drawing attention to them.
  I have had many letters from guest house proprietors, but should like to quote from just one which puts the points effectively. It is from Mrs. Johnson of North Denes road, which is a popular holiday area. She writes:
  "it is only right that you should know how the majority of us feel re the new taxes that are about to descend upon us.
  No, this is not a moan about the Poll Tax. That is a bug we will all have to bear, even though ours is over £100, more then we were originally told. This is about the Business Tax that is going to put a lot of us out of business over the next couple of years … Not only do we have to find the extra money for the Poll Tax but … will be expected to find another £750 per year"
  for the UBR.
  The letter continues:
  "On top of this, we have now been told that if we want to have more than one refuse bag a week collected it is going to cost us £4 per week for the privilege! …
  Because of this situation … A have had to limit my work at the guest house to bed and breakfast only and have found a full time job. … Please do all you can to get this message over".
  The message is that such proprietors will be put out of business if something is not done.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the problems seem to arise from the level of valuations? I am going to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the chief valuer at the Inland Revenue on this subject, because insufficient account seems to have been taken of the seasonality of the business. Many of the valuations seem to have been based on property values, which have been decapitalised at unrealistic rates.
  There is a terrible problem in assessing the proportion of the premises that is occupied by the proprietor. That point does not seem to have been given sufficient weight. About 500 people involved in this business attended a meeting in my constituency, of whom only five had been visited by the valuation officers. A fundamental problem remains to be addressed before we start complaining about anything else.
  Mr. Carttiss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose concern I share 100 per cent. I should like to follow his point by giving some examples.
  A 28-bedroom private hotel in Kent square, just off the Great Yarmouth sea front, had a rateable value last year of £900; this year its rateable value is £18,000. That gap is, of course, the result of there having been no valuation for 17 years. In Paget road, Great Yarmouth, a small guest house whose rateable value was previously £252 has had an increase to £4,000. A guest house in Prince's road—another area just off the sea front that is popular with visitors—which has 10 bedrooms for letting, has a rateable value of £6,775, while an identical guest house nearby in the same road has a valuation of £4,000. I know that the Minister is not responsible for valuation, but this highlights the tremendous problems of guest house owners.
  788
  I do not often agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but in The Independent of 6 March, he was reported as having said:
  "The Government just does not seem to know what it is doing or what the impact of the uniform business rate would be."
  There is no rhyme or reason in assessing two identical guest houses at totally different valuations. In the case that I have mentioned, the difference is £2,000. As a result, people will have to pay a great deal more.
  On the question of the 100-day rule, I have said that the Minister might consider an extension. This, however, is a matter on which there are mixed views. As a consequence of the 100-day rule, many proprietors may find it necessary to opt for restricted opening periods. This is particularly galling at a time when everybody in my borough and, I am sure, in other seaside resorts is making strenuous efforts to extend the holiday season into April, May and October.
  Places such as Bournemouth and Blackpool have a good season already, and in Great Yarmouth the season is getting much closer to May to early September. The borough council, through its economic development unit and publicity department, the Great Yarmouth Holiday Association and the publicity association representing so many of the people in the holiday industry, has been doing its best to extend the season, but the 100-day rule could limit that.
  Mr. Butterfill: On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Carttiss: Very briefly.
  Mr. Butterfill: The 100-day rule is causing great concern in my constituency. I served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the legislation. At that time, the concession was intended to apply to small cottages that might be let for a few days during the season. We are now in danger of creating a two-tier market—some people having to comply with fire regulations and pay VAT and the business rate, but others moonlighting and not doing any of those things. It seems quite outrageous.
  Mr. Carttiss: This is a problem that some of the guest house owners in my constituency have identified. Some people would like to see the 100-day rule extended to 140 days, as in the case of self-catering chalets. If self-catering chalets are in business for only 140 days, they will be exempt from the UBR. Other guest house proprietors point out, just as my hon. Friend has done, that, with private houses opening up for bed and breakfast, without having to comply with the stringent fire and public health regulations that apply to professional hoteliers, there could be unfair competition.
  There is a real dilemma as to whether there should be a 100-day rule at all, or whether it should be extended to 140 days. Within the holiday industry overall, there is genuine disagreement about that. It is a matter that needs to be considered. As I have said, I am particularly concerned about the prospect of the holiday season being shortened as a result of the 100-day rule.
  We in Great Yarmouth reckon that, on the basis of the lowest estimate, our holiday industry brings £122 million into the area. That is a very significant contribution to the economy of a town that currently has an unemployment level of 8 per cent. That is way above the regional average for East Anglia, which is 3·4 per cent. Last August we had a 5·5 per cent. unemployment rate in the Great Yarmouth

  789
  travel-to-work area, which is slightly larger than my constituency. That highlights the importance of the holiday industry having a season which is not truncated by the operation of the rule, if it leads to guest houses and private hotels generally opting for a shorter season to escape the enormous increases to which the UBR could lead.
  I want to emphasise the concern expressed by my constituents. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken to me about similar experiences in their constituencies. There should not be any insuperable reason why the rateable value, which is established on the basis of a business being open all year, should not produce a liability which relates to the period of three or four months, or whatever, for which the business is registered to be open. If that were done, it would help to ameliorate the considerable increases that many people in the holiday industry will experience.
  I commend these suggestions to the Minister, and I look forward with considerable interest to his response. In my constituency and in other seaside resorts, the future of many people is dependent on the holiday industry. Their ears will be acutely tuned to hear from the Minister a solution to the horrendous problem that they will face from the increased UBR, plus the community charge, plus the charge for refuse collection which my borough council has imposed.
  12.21 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) on securing the debate and on putting the concerns of his constituents clearly and cogently. I listened with great interest to what he had to say, because we are introducing a number of new rules and regulations, and we recognise that in some cases they have created uncertainty and difficulty. We are always anxious to hear how the system is operating on the ground, particularly in a holiday area such as the area my hon. Friend represents.
  Let me deal first with the general points which my hon. Friend raised about the new uniform business rate and the way in which the transitional arrangements will operate. Some rate bills will rise substantially under the new system, but that is largely due not to the uniform business rate but to revaluation. I think all hon. Members concede that we cannot run a system based on rateable values which are 17 years out of date. If we are to have a rate-based system, we must have a revaluation. That by definition means that there will be changes in values and therefore in the rates which are payable. If that was not the case, there would be no point in a revaluation.
  Mr. Butterfill: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in future, revaluations will be done on a quinquennial basis and will not be allowed to slip behind again?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think we did delay it too long. I assure him that we firmly intend to revalue every five years from now on. Indeed, it will require primary legislation not to have a revaluation every five years.
  Businesses cannot, of course, be expected to cope with very large rises overnight; that is why we introduced transitional arrangements. Many of the businesses in my hon. Friends' constituencies will have a new rateable value
  790
  below £10,000, which will qualify them for the more generous phasing limits of 15 per cent. in real terms on increases, and 15·5 per cent. in real terms on reductions. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth argued for a higher threshold. We thought long and hard about that and consulted widely on it last year. As a result, we significantly improved the protection available for small businesses.
  The arrangements were enacted in the autumn, in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, and further primary legislation would be needed to change them. Apart from that practical constraint, I think that we have already gone a long way to ameliorate the impact of the new system; given the pressing need for a fairer distribution of the rates burden between businesses, I feel that we should not delay unnecessarily by imposing too long a transition period. The proposed threshold of £10,000 outside London already ensures that about 75 per cent. of all business properties will benefit, and I expect that the percentage in my hon. Friend's constituency is roughly the same.
  My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would exercise the power available to him to extend the transitional arrangements beyond the initial five-year period. We have powers to extend it, and I appreciate that businesses would be reassured if we gave a commitment now to use them. It is, however, difficult to judge at this stage what kind of transitional scheme—if any—will be needed after the 1995 revaluation, because it is impossible to predict what will happen to rent levels over the next five years.
  There is an inverse relationship between rent and rates. Businesses tend to look at their total occupancy costs; if rates rise in real terms—other things being equal—market rents will tend to fall relative to other costs. The next revaluation may throw up different rateable values, and businesses that have not reached their full new rate bills by 1995 may then find that their prospective rate liability is reduced. That is why we think it best to delay a decision on a further transitional period until nearer the time, when the facts become clearer. In other words, we must wait and see.
  The transitional arrangements will, I believe, afford the maximum protection for businesses facing large increases, while at the same time being consistent with the need to bring in the new system as soon as possible. Once it is fully in place, businesses will benefit from the assurance—written into statute—that the rate poundage cannot rise each year by more than the rate of inflation, and may rise by less. They have not received that important protection hitherto.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned local authority services, drawing attention to the charges made in his constituency for the collection of commercial waste. Refuse collection is currently carried out under the provisions of sections 12 to 14 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and the related Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988, which define and clarify local authorities' responsibilities for the collection and disposal of waste.
  One of the key benefits of implementing sections 12 to 14 of the Act is that they provide much clearer definitions of waste, and the basis for a more commercially orientated and accountable collection service. The Act defines commercial waste as, among other things,

  791
  "waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade or business".
  In our view, waste from properties with mixed business and domestic use falls within that definition. We were asked to make that clear in regulations, and we did so.
  We think that, as a general rule, a reasonable charge should be levied on all waste collected from commercial premises, but the Act gives local authorities the power to waive commercial refuse collection charges in appropriate cases. We are aware that it has been the practice of many authorities to recognise that part of the waste from mixed-use properties is domestic by making a reduced charge, or allowing, say, for one bin to be collected every week. So the decision rests with local authorities.
  Hon. Members' constituents who have small businesses, mixed hereditaments and mixed properties which are experiencing difficulty should take the matter up in the first instance with their local authorities, but I am aware that councils are taking quite widely varying approaches to the problem, and we are currently analysing responses to our inquiries to see what further direct advice is necessary to those waste collection authorities.
  My hon. Friend also expressed the concerns of his constituents who run guest houses and so on, about the payment of business rates and the community charge. He particularly referred to the operation of the so-called 100 day rule.
  As for the payment of business rates and community charge, as my hon. Friend will know, the valuation officer will assess only that part of the premises which is used for business purposes. So although a personal community charge will be payable by the owner and anyone who has his or her sole or main residence on the premises, the part of the property used for domestic purposes will not be subject to rates. Also, of course, those who must pay both business rates and the community charge will be eligible for transitional relief, if appropriate, in respect of either or both payments.
  Mr. Carttiss: Who is responsible for ensuring that the transitional relief information is available? I understand that the district authority is responsible, but not much information about that is coming out of town halls.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry to hear that. The district authorities are in possession of all the necessary information. It is disturbing if it is not getting through to the people who may benefit. It is important that people avail themselves of the relief, particularly transitional relief, that is available. If they contact my hon. Friend, who will pass on the information to me, I will ensure that full and proper information is supplied to the people affected.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to certain difficulties, which he identified, about various rateable values being allocated. I need not remind him that rateable values are not, and will not be, based on the capital value of the premises concerned but, rather, reflect market rents. But if startling differences and inconsistencies are showing up in his
  792
  constituency, he will remind those concerned that there is an appeal mechanism which we hope will deal with the problem.
  Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is rare in any part of the country, and certainly in my constituency, for market rents to be passing in respect of this type of property. Valuation officers are therefore forced to decapitalise capital values, and that is where the problem is arising.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am anxious to deal with his question about the so-called 100-day rule, because my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth fairly pointed out the pros and cons and is aware that too-generous treatment of supposedly casual bed-and-breakfast businesses would represent unfair competition for the hotel trade in general.
  We must run a business rating system that tries to sweep in all those who are running commercial businesses from houses and premises. Not to do so would undermine the whole concept of business rating.
  We decided to make a concession, if I may call it that, for those who are clearly running a bed-and-breakfast business on a purely incidental or casual basis from their own homes. I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the conflicting views on this issue. We considered the matter carefully before deciding on the 100-day threshold.
  I remind my hon. Friend that, when the premises are valued for rateable purposes, the valuation officer will have regard to the annual value of the relevant part. That will inevitably reflect the seasonal nature of any business use. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the system already works in much the same way as he advocated. Assuming that the season runs for less than 12 months, the rateable value of a guest house will be lower than it would be—all other things being equal—if the season ran all the year round.
  We thought long and hard before we decided on the 100-day threshold. It represents a fair balance between the hotel trade and those who run a business in nothing more than a casual or occasional way but nevertheless provide an important service to seaside resorts, which need a higher capacity to cater for tourists and visitors during the height of the business season.
  If members of the hotel and catering trade in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth are still unhappy about the operation of the rule, I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), will be only too pleased to meet a delegation and talk the matter through person to person.
  That is all that I have time for in this Adjournment debate, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth for raising the issues that are of concern to him. I also thank my other hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who have spoken. He, too, is vigilant to represent those who provide such an important service to our domestic tourists and holidaymakers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to One o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of his decision to curtail public subsidy to Network SouthEast services on the quality of service offered to passengers.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest objectives for British Rail are based on the board's forecasts in the 1989 corporate plan that the need for subsidy for Network SouthEast will be eliminated progressively over the next three years as a result of increased revenue and greater efficiency. The objectives also set tougher quality of service targets, which NSE will be expected to meet route by route. The investment programme of £1·2 billion over the next three years will make a major contribution to the achievement of these objectives, both through savings in energy and maintenance costs and through additional revenue from increases in capacity and improved service quality.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made an assessment of the environmental implications of the proposed £13 billion road building programme.

  Mr. Atkins
  Protecting and enhancing the environment is a major feature of the Government's road building plans.

  By reducing congestion, which wastes fuel, the trunk road programme will lead to lower exhaust emissions than would otherwise be the case if additional road capacity was not provided. The emphasis in the programme on increasing capacity on existing motorways and other strategic routes will help minimise the requirement for additional land and the overall impact on the countryside. Some one third of trunk road schemes are bypasses, which will considerably improve the environment of the communities concerned.

  MOT Tests
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many Ministry of Transport test centres have been suspended and subsequently permitted to continue for each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the number of garages whose operation of Ministry of Transport testing has been terminated by his Department for each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:310

  Year

  Total MOT stations withdrawn

  Permitted to continue after appeal

  Appeals disallowed

  1983

  90

  13

  42

  1984

  107

  35

  43

  1985

  80

  28

  37

  1986

  73

  17

  38

  1987

  127

  21

  39

  1988

  103

  22

  45

  1989

  74

  17

  43

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average time taken between suspension and the final decision on the resumption or termination of testing for Ministry of Transport test centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Sixteen weeks.

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the extent of the remit given to the railway inspectorate in respect of reliability of equipment and systems of automatic train control as distinct from the safety of its operations.

  Mr. Portillo
  In his report on the Clapham junction accident investigation, Sir Anthony Hidden, QC, recommended that the railway inspectorate should monitor at six-monthly intervals British Rail's progress in implementing automatic train protection. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 7 November last that he accepted this recommendation. Safety and reliability are closely associated, and the inspectorate will take account of equipment and system reliability in Its continuing oversight.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The latest figures for fees paid by the Department to management consultants are as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  250,000

  1985–86

  272,000

  1986–87

  218,000

  1987–88

  371,000

  1988–89

  604,000

  1989–90

  1270,000

  1990–91

  2437,000

  1 Latest estimate.

  2 Budget.

  This excludes fees on computing consultancies.

  Information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hospital Posts
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the permanent third anaesthetist post in the Downe group of hospitals, Downpatrick, will be filled.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Appointment to the post is a matter for the Eastern health and social services board. It is under active consideration by the board.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is given by his Department to local authorities on how to handle redundant fridges and small quantities of solvents being disposed of by members of the public.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are currently considering the final draft of a report by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte entitled "CFC Market Study" which, among other things, considers the methodology and economics of CFC recovery and recycling. We hope to issue advice to local authorities in the light of the final report which is expected shortly.

  Litter
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish for consultation the draft code of practice relating to litter and part IV of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State, together with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Transport, published for public consultation a draft code of practice on litter and refuse on 20 February.

  Water (Quality)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount will be invested over the next 10 years to improve the quality of Britain's rivers, seas and drinking water.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In addition to the investment in new water treatment and disposal by industry and agriculture to meet effluent standards, the water industry in England and Wales will be carrying out the biggest programme of sustained investment in its history with total capital expenditure of over £27 billion planned over the next 10 years. This will enable the industry to renew and extend sewers and sewage treatment works, to improve our drinking water and to complete the clean-up of our coastal waters and beaches. The benefits of this investment will be seen in improved water quality, as well as in higher standards of service to the consumer.

  In Scotland, where the water industry remains in the public sector, capital expenditure provision is considered over a three-year period with annual reviews. Provision for the water and sewerage programme has been substantially increased to over £500 million for the period 1990–91 to 1992–93. This will enable authorities to make good progress with improvements.

  North Sea
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of measured or estimated total airborne pollution deposited on the North sea arises from discharges from factories, power stations and farms in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Emissions by source category of the major United Kingdom air pollutants will be published in the digest of environmental protection and water statistics, volume 12, at the end of March 1990, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. Agricultural sources account for the majority of total reduced nitrogen emissions.

  Modelling studies commissioned by my Department for oxides of nitrogen suggest that around 30 per cent. of United Kingdom emissions are deposited on the North sea.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he has taken on waste dumping in the North sea.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter),Official Report, Vol. 168, column 489, and to my right hon. Friend's answer on 12 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on the outcome of the Hague conference on 7 to 8 March, Official Report, Vol. 169, column 106.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding talks at, and the outcome of, the North sea conference of Ministers held earlier this month.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the North sea conference held on 8 March.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent initiatives he has taken to reduce pollution in the North sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 12 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on the outcome of the Hague conference on 7 to 8 March,Official Report, Vol. 169, column 106.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the new infrastructure charges limits on water and sewerage, being introduced by each of the water services companies as from 1 April 1990, were arrived at.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The infrastructure charges limits were determined by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales following an assessment of each company's investment needs to meet the demands of new developments, so that estimated income from the new charges balances the investment required over the period from 1990–91 to 1999–2000.

  Waste Paper Recycling
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to protect the economic viability of recycling of waste paper from the effects of the current market price.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Direct Government intervention artifically to maintain the price of waste paper through subsidising collection costs or other means would be ineffective or damaging since paper is an internationally traded commodity and users could switch to imported supplies. Central interference in the market overseas has been shown to drive down the price of waste paper and hamper recycling. The priority must be to encourage the market for recycled paper and expand industrial capacity to process waste paper. My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are specifically examining the waste paper market to assess the economic and environmental benefits of waste paper recycling, the means of collecting waste paper, what new uses for waste paper might be promoted and how demand for recycled paper might be stimulated. Government Departments are also considering their use of paper with a view to increasing the use of recycled products wherever feasible and economic.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce regulations to implement the hazardous substance consent provisions contained in part IV of the Housing and Planning Act 1986.

  Mr. Trippier
  Later this year.

  Inland Waters
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any intention of designating inland waters for the purpose of the EC bathing water directive (76/160/EEC).

  Mr. Trippier
  I am not aware of any inland waters which meet the criteria for inclusion within the scope of directive 76/160/EEC.

  Crown Suppliers and Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest position in relation to the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  The Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill was given its Second Reading in another place on 5 March. The competition for the sale of the Crown Suppliers is proceeding.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made an assessment of the role of market mechanisms in protecting the environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  There will be such an assessment in the forthcoming White Paper on the environment.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he offers to those industries seeking to dispose of sewage sludge.

  Mr. Trippier
  Discussions are now being arranged with sewerage undertakers to consider the implications of the policy to end dumping of sewage sludge at sea by the end of 1998. We intend that wherever possible sludge should be used beneficially. We shall need to examine carefully with the sewerage undertakers the various options for disposal which vary according to the particular circumstances of each location. The main disposal options are to agricultural land, Iandfill, and incineration.

  Pharmaceutical Wastes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department offers to those industries seeking to dispose of pharmaceutical wastes.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has issued general guidance on the disposal of pharmaceutical waste in waste management paper No. 19—"Wastes from the Manufacture of Pharmaceuticals, Toiletries and Cosmetics." However, advice on the disposal of specific pharmaceutical wastes is best obtained from the appropriate waste disposal authority as the body statutorily responsible for regulating waste disposal in its area.

  Waste Water Treatment
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) of 5 March,Official Report, column 452, (1) who will be responsible for showing that coastal discharges which receive only primary treatment will not adversely affect the environment; and how this obligation will work in practice;

  (2) what is his Department's definition of a substantial discharge of sewage;

  (3) what proportion of existing sewage discharge outlets will be affected by the requirement for (i) primary and (iii) secondary treatment;

  (4) how the investment programme of £1·5 billion for treating sewage discharges will be financed;

  (5) what is the timetable for implementation of his policy on waste water treatment.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 5 March,Official Report, column 452, noted that the investment programme should be completed as soon as practicable and that discussions would be held with the National Rivers Authority, the Office of Water Services and the sewerage undertakers to work out the detailed arrangements for implementing this. Those discussions are now being held. The starting point for those discussions will be the CES report, copies of which have been placed in the Library. In this context substantial discharges are those from settlements of 10,000 or more to coastal waters. The number of sewage discharge outfalls covered by this definition is shown in tables 3·1 and 3·2 of the CES report. It will be for the water companies to determine how to

  315
  finance their investment programmes, and for the director general to determine what adjustments to water charges will be needed.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has circulated to community charge registration officers on the changes to the rules governing exemptions from the poll tax established by the Local Government and Housing Act; and if he will place copies of all relevant circulars in the Library.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 9 March 1990] : The Department wrote to all community charge registration officers on 16 November 1989, outlining the changes to be made to schedule 1 (personal community charge: exemptions) to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I am arranging for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Irish Sea
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of pollution in the Irish sea is caused by sea dumping.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: Licences for dumping are granted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Irish sea apply only to the disposal of dredged spoil and sewage sludge.

  Available data on inputs to the Irish sea are contained in the quality status report by scientists from the United Kingdom and Ireland published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, a copy of which is in the Library. As with other United Kingdom coastal waters, inputs of contaminants from dumping are generally less significant than those from rivers and estuaries.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations have been received about pollution in the Irish sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 March 1990] : A number of representations have been received recently from organisations and individuals concerned with protection of the marine environment in the Irish sea. The United Kingdom Government are committed to applying their policy to protect the marine environment generally to all their coastal waters and the Irish sea will benefit from the package of measures which were agreed at the North sea conference in the Hague on 7 to 8 March.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report recalculations of the tables in annex J of Cmnd. 9714 "Paying for Local Government" on the basis of the poll tax levels set by local authorities for 1990–91.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I do not yet have full information on levels of community charge set by local authorities.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he took to inform right hon. And 316
  hon. Members of the availability of the Community Charge Transitional Relief Report (England) laid before the House on 15 February, and of the levels of the assumed community charges to be used in the transitional relief scheme in 1990–91 by the local authorities in their constituencies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 March 1990] : Illustrative figures of the assumed charge for the purposes of transitional relief were announced on 11 January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his answer that day to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), Official Report, Vol. 164, columns 682–83. These were confirmed in the report laid before the House on 15 February to which reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his answer that day to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he is considering raising levels of the assumed community charges to be used in the transitional relief scheme in 1990–91 above those set out in the Community Charge Transitional Relief Report (England);

  (2) whether he will make the assumed community charge in 1990–91 for each charging authority to be used in the transitional relief scheme the same as the assumed average community charge of £278 per head rather than the assumed community charge set out in the Community Charge Transitional Relief Report (England) where the latter is lower.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 March 1990] : I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 8 March, Official Report, Vol. 168, column 798.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will prosecute the Al Fayed brothers under section 5(c) of the Perjury Act 1911 in view of the conclusion of the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors appointed under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 that they repeatedly lied to them; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on 1 March.

  Property Law
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Government intend to bring into force section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and section 130 of the Companies Act 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  Section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 will be brought into force on 31 July 1990. Section 130 of the Companies Act 1989 will be brought into force in respect of England, Wales and Scotland on the same date.

THE ARTS

  Arts Exports
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he is now in a position to announce decisions on the replacement for the indefinite stop and the recommendations of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art on collections.

  Mr. Luce
  I have today written to the chairman of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art conveying to him and his committee members the decisions which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have taken on the indefinite stop. I have also conveyed in that letter my decisions on the committee's recommendations on collections, which it made to me in its annual reports for 1987–88 and 1988–89. I have placed copies of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Percentage of total energy R and D budgets committed to renewable energy R and D and to nuclear energy R and D and total Government energy R and D budgets in 1988

  Country

  Renewable R and D

  Nuclear R and D

  Total Government energy R and D

  Budget $US million

  Percentage of total R and D budget

  Budget $US million

  Percentage of total R and D budget

  Budget $US million

  Austria

  4·20

  16·63

  1·80

  7·19

  25·30

  Belgium

  3·10

  4·09

  62·90

  83·98

  74·92

  Canada

  13·90

  4·23

  129·90

  39·56

  328·22

  Germany

  101·40

  17·61

  343·00

  57·86

  575·65

  Greece

  5·00

  61·46

  1·10

  14·06

  8·18

  Italy

  52·50

  6·51

  422·40

  52·35

  806·86

  Japan

  128·50

  5·95

  1,485·70

  68·82

  2,158·83

  Netherlands

  21·70

  13·39

  31·70

  19·53

  162·13

  Norway

  2·90

  6·95

  3·20

  7·61

  41·94

  Portugal

  1·50

  26·07

  1·30

  21·74

  5·75

  Spain

  21·40

  33·71

  18·10

  28·65

  63·35

  Sweden

  18·10

  21·06

  14·90

  17·31

  85·98

  Switzerland

  14·40

  14·19

  45·80

  45·27

  101·16

  United Kingdom

  21·50

  5·40

  273·20

  68·60

  398·26

  United States

  124·30

  6·08

  1,013·00

  49·57

  2,043·40

  Full details may be found in "Energy Policies and Programmes of IEA Countries—1988 Review", International Energy Agency, OECD, 1989.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of 26 February,Official Report, column 89, when he expects the first two units of the flue gas desulphurisation plant at Drax to become fully operational.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am advised by the Central Electricity Generating Board that the first two 660 MW units at Drax power station are expected to be operational by the end of 1993.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what contribution he estimates the flue gas desulphurisation programme at the Drax power station will make to

ENERGY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gordon in the Official Report, 21 February, column 772, he will indicate which of the countries listed include expenditure on nuclear research and development in their renewable energy budget, giving details of the relative proportions of nuclear research and development and renewable energies research and development in each of these cases, if known.

  Mr. Wakeham
  While some of the countries listed spend substantial sums on their nuclear R and D programmes within their total energy R and D budgets, these sums are not included within the renewables element. The effect of a nuclear energy research and development programme is generally to increase the total size of the energy research and development programme and thus reduce the proportion of the total energy research and development programme spent on renewable energy development. The table sets out the budgets of different IEA Governments in 1988 on renewables R and D, nuclear R and D and expresses these as a percentage of the total energy R and D budgets.

  the reduction in SO2 emissions set out in the consultative document on implementation of the large combustion plants directive by 1993.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am advised by the Central Electricity Generating Board that, when fully operational, the flue gas desulphurisation installation at Drax is likely to reduce the station's emissions of sulphur dioxide by about 250,000 to 280,000 tonnes.

  Central Electricity Generating Board Property
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what date he proposes to set for the making of the scheme for the division of property which the Central Electricity Generating Board must prepare under section 66 of the Electricity Act 1989.
  319
  Mr. Wakeham
  The Central Electricity Generating Board submitted on 12 March a scheme for transferring all the board's property, rights and liabilities to successor companies which subject to my approval and any modifications will come into force on 31 March 1990.

  Bankside Power Station
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate has been made of the asset value of the Bankside power station site.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The estimate of the value placed on this site is commercially confidential.

  Greenhouse Gas
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the contribution of coal to the United Kingdom(a) primary and (b) final energy consumption in the years 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1989; and what is the projected contribution for 2005 and 2020 in the range of scenarios set out in the evaluation of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions and measures to ameliorate them prepared for the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The percentage contribution of coal to primary and final energy demands is shown in the table. Data for 1989 are provisional. Figures for 2005 and 2020 represent the range across all scenarios considered, on the basis of energy prices provided by the International Energy Agency.

  Year

  Primary Demand

  Final Demand

  1970

  46·7

  30·8

  1975

  36·4

  18·1

  1980

  35·8

  12·9

  1985

  31·8

  13·1

  320

  Year

  Primary Demand

  Final Demand

  1989

  131·4

  112·1

  2005

  23–28

  7–12

  2020

  9–34

  6–12

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the contribution of nuclear power to United Kingdom primary and final energy consumption in the years 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1989; and what is the projected contribution in the range of scenarios outlined in the evaluation of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions and measures to ameliorate them prepared for the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The percentage contribution of United Kingdom-produced nuclear power to primary demand is shown in the table on a heat-supplied basis. Data for 1989 are provisional. Figures for 2005 and 2020 represent the range across all scenarios considered, on price assumptions provided by the International Energy Agency.

  Percentage contribution of nuclear to Primary Energy Demand (Domestic Production Only).

  Year

  Primary Demand

  1970

  2·6

  1975

  3·1

  1980

  3·8

  1985

  6·3

  1989

  17·1

  2005

  6–8

  2020

  3–4

  1 Provisional.

  After the generation stage, in final energy consumption, it is not possible to separately identify the contribution of electricity from any particular source.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to set up the national curriculum working parties in(a) physical education, (b) music and (c) art.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.

  Gipsies
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to ensure rights of traveller children to education in those areas where authorities have not applied for grant under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Section 6(1) of the Education Act 1980 places a duty on local education authorities to make arrangements to enable the parents of children in their area, including those of traveller children, to express a preference as to the school they wish their child to attend and to give reasons for their preference.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria have been established to determine allocation of grant under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988; and what plans he has to alter the level of funding for traveller education in future years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The draft circular issued in July 1989 indicated that in the case of satisfactory bids exceeding the total grant available priority would be given, as far as possible, to the maintenance of existing special provision. My right hon. Friend will review the level of funding for future years in the light of experience of the 1990–91 programme.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount of grant allocated for traveller education under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Expenditure of £7·9 million on traveller education is due to be supported through grant in 1990–91. Grant will be paid at the rate of 75 per cent.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether grants for traveller education under section 210 of the Education Reform Act are affected by whether local authorities applying have been granted designation under the Caravan Act 1968.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Grants are not affected by designation.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local authorities have applied, under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for grant to(a) finance existing traveller education provision and (b) to finance new provision; how many of (a) and (b) have received grant; and what is the amount of grant allocated to each local education authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The following local authorities have applied for grant to:322

  (a)finance existing Traveller education provision:

  Avon

  Lambeth

  Bedfordshire

  Lancashire

  Berkshire

  Leeds

  Bradford

  Leicestershire

  Brent

  Lewisham

  Bromley

  Lincolnshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Liverpool

  Bury

  Manchester

  Cambridgeshire

  Newcastle

  Cheshire

  Newham

  Cleveland

  Norfolk

  Croydon

  North Yorkshire

  Cumbria

  Northamptonshire

  Derbyshire

  Northumbria

  Devon

  Nottinghamshire

  Doncaster

  Oxfordshire

  Dorset

  Richmond

  Durham

  Rochdale

  Ealing

  Rotherham

  East Sussex

  Sefton

  Essex

  Sheffield

  Gateshead

  Solihull

  Gloucestershire

  Somerset

  Greenwich

  Southwark

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Suffolk

  Haringey

  Surrey

  Harrow

  Tower Hamlets

  Havering

  Trafford

  Hertfordshire

  Wakefield

  Hillingdon

  West Sussex

  Hounslow

  Wigan

  Humberside

  Wiltshire

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Wolverhampton

  Kent

  (b) finance new provision:

  Barnsley

  Hampshire

  Bolton

  Salford

  Camden

  Waltham Forest

  Cornwall

  Wandsworth

  Hackney

  In addition a number of authorities with existing provision applied for grant to expand that provision.

  Sixty-one authorities in group (a) have been informed of the level of expenditure which the Secretary of State expects to approve for their authority in 1990–91. This indicative approval is subject to confirmation on the coming into force of the Education (Grants) (Travellers and Displaced Persons) Regulations 1990.

  The details for individual authorities are as follows:

  Indicative approvals for the financial year 1990–91 of expenditure to be supported by grant

  Authority

  £000's

  Avon

  260·2

  Bedfordshire

  207·1

  Berkshire

  212·4

  Bradford

  165·8

  Brent

  26·7

  Bromley

  84·1

  Buckinghamshire

  245·5

  Bury

  9·1

  Cambridgeshire

  249·1

  Cleveland

  62·9

  Cumbria

  13·8

  Derbyshire

  145·2

  Devon

  139·5

  Doncaster

  58·1

  Dorset

  57·0

  Durham

  110·7

  Ealing

  12·0

  East Sussex

  54·7

  Essex

  509·5

  Gateshead

  35·8

  Gloucestershire

  59·8

  Greenwich

  75·4

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  9·6

  Haringey

  78·1

  323

  Authority

  £000's

  Harrow

  40·7

  Havering

  8·8

  Hertfordshire

  600·2

  Hounslow

  96·1

  Humberside

  226·7

  Kensington/Chelsea

  8·0

  Kent

  173·0

  Lambeth

  16·5

  Lancashire

  293·6

  Leeds

  193·9

  Leicestershire

  85·0

  Lewisham

  49·0

  Lincolnshire

  162·8

  Manchester

  286·1

  Newcastle

  16·0

  Newham

  46·8

  Norfolk

  65·3

  North Yorkshire

  105·0

  Northamptonshire

  184·0

  Northumbria

  32·0

  Nottinghamshire

  28·8

  Oxfordshire

  282·0

  Richmond

  14·6

  Sefton

  39·9

  Sheffield

  156·4

  Solihull

  22·1

  Somerset

  58·6

  Southwark

  200·5

  Suffolk

  122·5

  Surrey

  322·9

  Tower Hamlets

  17·8

  Trafford

  19·2

  Wakefield

  86·4

  West Sussex

  114·8

  Wigan

  56·3

  Wiltshire

  76·0

  Wolverhampton (West Midlands consortium)

  739·1

  Education Reform (Devon)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his best estimate of the cost to Devon county council of(a) circular 22/89, (b) introducing local management of schools and (c) introducing the national curriculum in the financial year 1990–91; and by what method each of the above was calculated.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  On circular 22/89, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 14 March on the same subject. Estimates have not been made on an LEA by LEA basis of the additional costs of introducing LMS and the national curriculum in 1990–91. However, the additional pressures on spending nationally arising from the implementation of these reforms were among the factors taken into account in setting total standard spending for education for that year. Some of this spending is supported by specific grants (education support grants and local education authority training grants). Allocations of these grants to Devon LEA for 1990–91 will support spending of some £3·3 million on activities related to LMS and the national curriculum. These allocations are mainly determined by formulae relating to the number of pupils and schools in each authority

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, 7 March, columns 626–27,
  324
  what assumption he made in calculating the cost of £620 million in 1990–91 of implementing the recommendations of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay in the manner he has proposed of (a) the number of teachers who would be awarded pay supplements of £750 in the Inner London weighting area from 1 April, (b) the number of teachers awarded enhanced incremental points and (c) the number of teachers whose maximum was extended to £18,000.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I followed the IAC in assuming that 50 per cent. of eligible teachers would receive the new London pay supplement. The new main scale discretions, which will be introduced from 1 January 1991, are designed to give authorities a wider range of options on pay in the light of local circumstances: they will not necessarily lead to increases in costs overall.

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the initial advice of the national curriculum working group for modern foreign languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are publishing today the initial advice of the national curriculum working group for modern foreign languages, together with our letter to the group's chairman, Professor Martin Harris. Copies of the initial advice including the letter have been placed in the Library.

  We welcome the progress which the group has made in developing the attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages in the national curriculum. The proposed structure covers the important aspects of learning a modern foreign language and it should provide a good basis for both developing and raising the linguistic competence of pupils of all abilities during compulsory secondary schooling.

  We also welcome the helpful advice which the group has offered on the issues in its terms of reference. We hope that all those concerned with modern foreign languages will now take the opportunity during the consultation period to comment on the group's proposals in order to guide it in its further work. We look forward to receiving the group's final report by the end of July.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide estimates showing for each financial year from 1978–79 to 1989–90 the capital spending allocations for(a) local education authorities and (b) voluntary-aided and special schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 December 1989, column 351]: In my earlier reply, the figures for capital grants paid to voluntary-aided and special agreement schools were given, from 1982–83 to 1989–90, as gross amounts including the governing bodies' 15 per cent. contribution. The adjusted table shows the level of net DES capital grants to these schools:

  £ million

  1978–79

  16·4

  1979–80

  20·3

  1980–81

  22·1

  325

  £ million

  1981–82

  24·0

  1982–83

  22·3

  1983–84

  19·0

  1984–85

  24·7

  1985–86

  31·0

  1986–87

  28·3

  1987–88

  31·6

  1988–89

  42·8

  1989–90

  55·5

  Notes:

  1. Capital grants are paid at the rate of 85 per cent. of gross expenditure: the balance of 15 per cent. is met by governing bodies.

  2. From 1978–79 to 1981–82 capital grants were subsumed within a single building grant which included repairs and maintenance. The figures for this period in the table are estimates based on an apportionment of the building grant using the average ratio between capital and repairs during 1982–83 and 1985–86.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Abattoirs and Meat Inspection
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many of his staff, full-time equivalent, were involved in the supervision of abattoirs in 1988–89 and 1989–90;

  (2) if he will list the number of man years of his staff involved in poultry meat inspection in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities are responsible for the supervision of slaughterhouses and for meat inspection. Officers of my Department visit plants to advise on hygiene and welfare standards. The manpower involved for 1988–89 was approximately 41 man years and we expect that it will be of a similar order for 1989–90. Of this, we estimate that in 1988–89 and 1989–90 seven man years were spent on poultry meat premises.

  Food Safety Bill
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of new costs he expects to fall upon Devon county council in implementing the provisions of the Food Safety Bill and making preparation therefor, in the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, respectively.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have already announced that the Food Safety Bill is likely to create additional costs, for all the local authorities in Great Britain taken together, of the order of £30 million a year from 1991–92 onwards. This sum will be taken into account in the revenue support grant settlements, and will be reflected in the standard spending assessment for each authority. It is for individual authorities to plan their expenditure accordingly.

  Butter Substitutes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce further legal controls on butter substitutes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 1 March 1990, at column 335.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to purchase at full value all offspring of cattle affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risks arising from his decision to allow the export of calves born of mothers affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Southwood working party concluded that the risk to humans from BSE is remote and there is no evidence at present to show that the disease can be transmitted maternally from dam to offspring.

  From 1 March, EC measures have restricted United Kingdom cattle exports to animals less than six months old and which are not the progeny of BSE-affected dams. Exports of cattle to third countries must satisfy the health conditions imposed by those countries.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he proposes to take to prevent the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy among cattle and to reduce further the possibility of transmission to humans.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to tackle BSE in cattle and to eliminate the remote risk to public health.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the relationship between scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  BSE was almost certainly caused by feeding scrapie-infected protein material to cattle. The feeding to ruminants of protein material derived from ruminants was prohibited in July 1988.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has had from the National Farmers Union in respect of the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a number of representations from the National Farmers Union about BSE.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Ministry will take to ensure that no threat is posed to humans by the sale of calves of six months or under, whose mothers are affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  If transmission from dam to offspring can take place (and there is no evidence to indicate that this occurs), research into scrapie suggests that the agent of the disease would not be detectable in such young animals.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been undertaken to establish whether bovine spongiform encephalopathy can transfer from cattle to sheep; and if he will make a statement.
  327
  Mr. Maclean
  Studies on the experimental transmission of BSE from cattle to sheep are being undertaken as part of the Ministry's programme of research announced on 9 January at column 572.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to eliminate so far as is practicable salmonella in poultry breeding flocks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries (Registration and Testing) Order 1989, registered owners of breeding flocks are required to have their flocks tested for the presence of salmonella and to comply with specific hygiene standards. A programme of compulsory slaughter, with compensation, has been introduced for flocks infected with salmonella enteritidis or salmonella typhimurium.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been undertaken to establish whether scrapie can transfer from sheep to cattle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Epidemiological studies have shown that the most likely cause of BSE was feeding cattle with ruminant-based protein which included material from sheep infected with scrapie. Research investigating the experimental transmission of scrapie from sheep to cattle is not considered a priority.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether scrapie has been identified in muscle tissue in sheep; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Glacé Cherries
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the use of E127 on glacé cherries is permitted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The food colour erythrosine BS (E.127) is currently approved for use in both the United Kingdom and the European Community in a number of foodstuffs. The recent review of colouring matter in foodstuffs conducted by the Food Advisory Committee recommended in the light of fresh scientific evidence that the use of E.127 should be restricted to cocktail and glacé to a maximum level of 200 mg/kg. I have accepted that recommendation and will be taking steps to implement it in United Kingdom regulations in conjunction with European Community requirements as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Ian Richter
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will continue to seek to secure the release of Ian Richter from detention in Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  I assure my hon. Friend that our efforts to secure the release of Ian Richter on humanitarian 328
  grounds are continuing and will continue. Mr. Richter's case remains a cause of deep concern, as we have made clear to the Iraqis on many occasions.

  Marine Archaeological Sites
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions Her Majesty's Government have held with other European Community states concerning the protection of important marine archaeological sites; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Car Imports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the restraints placed on the import of cars by individual member states; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The future treatment of car imports into the European Community from Japan was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 5 March. The Commission is to open exploratory talks with Japan and the Government will consider any proposals resulting from these talks when they emerge.

  The Government have put the case forcefully that there must be no obstacle to free trade between member states in all cars produced within the Community.

  German Reunification
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications for the European Economic Community of the reunification of Germany; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The EC implications of German unification will be considered at an informal meeting of Community Heads of State and Government in Dublin on 28 April.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received concerning action to reduce marine pollution.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have recently had representations from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals including industry, environmental groups and members of the public in the run-up to the third North sea conference which took place in The Hague last week on 7 and 8 March.

  The United Kingdom played a full and constructive part at the conference which, among other measures, agreed to
  reduce discharges to rivers and atmosphere for substances causing a major threat to the marine environment, such as cadmium, mercury, dioxins and lead by 70 per cent. or more by 1995;
  reduce emissions to the atmosphere for 17 dangerous substances by 50 per cent. or more by 1995, and at the latest by 1999;
  phase out all remaining identifiable uses of PCB by 1999 and to destroy them as far as possible in the country of origin and using storage only as an interim option;
  reduce nutrient inputs to the North sea by improving sewage discharge treatment standards and adopting secondary treatment as a general rule with exceptions in less sensitive areas;

  329
  end sewage sludge dumping at sea at the latest by 1998 and to develop a programme to achieve this as soon as possible;
  end incineration in the North sea by the end of 1991 (the United Kingdom will end it by the end of this year);
  protect dolphin and small cetacean species in the North sea and to co-operate on a programme to identify and protect a network of marine wildlife conservation sites around the North sea.

  South Africa
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations and from whom, she has received regarding opposition to her current policy in South Africa; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive many representations from a wide range of people expressing both opposition and support for our policy towards South Africa.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what public expenditure will be incurred on publicising the lifting of limited sanctions with South Africa in order to encourage wider investment in that country; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in a written answer to a parliamentary question on 23 February 1990,Official Report, columns 934–35, announced the withdrawal of the advice on new investment in South Africa which was issued in 1986. This was a deserved response to the constructive steps taken by President de Klerk. However, it will, as before, be for companies and firms to make their own judgment about whether to invest in South Africa. The Government will neither encourage nor discourage them.

  The statement made by the Secretary of State announcing the lifting of the ban was released as a press notice. Copies of this notice were also sent to relevant associated bodies and United Kingdom companies with existing interests in South Africa.

  The Department of Trade and Industry incurred minor administrative costs in doing this.

  Engagements
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kashmir
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a petition on behalf of the Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front about the rights of the people of Kashmir to obtain self-determination; and what response he proposes to make.
  330
  Mr. Maude
  Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is writing to the right hon. Member. Both the Indian and Pakistan Governments are aware of our concern about the situation in Kashmir, and also of our long-standing view that their dispute over its status can be settled only by agreement between them.

  North Korea
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown),Official Report, column 702, 7 March, what action is taken to protect the well-being of British citizens who visit North Korea.

  Mr. Maude
  Since we do not recognise North Korea as a state, and accordingly have no relations with any authorities in North Korea, we can offer no consular protection there. British travellers to North Korea who seek advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are warned of this difficulty.

  Archbishop Romero
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Salvadorean authorities about the murder of Archbishop Romero on 24 March 1980 and efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

DEFENCE

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current United Kingdom and NATO holdings of equipment covered by the Vienna negotiations on conventional forces in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Definitions of the treaty-limited items of equipment covered by CFE are not yet fixed. It is not therefore possible to be precise about the relevant holdings. But in general terms, on proposed western definitions the United Kingdom has some 1,250 battle tanks; 650 artillery pieces; 3,500 armoured combat vehicles; 1,000 combat aircraft; and 500 attack helicopters. Equivalent NATO figures are some 24,000 battle tanks; 18,000 artillery pieces; 30,000 armoured combat vehicles; 6,000 combat aircraft and 2,400 attack helicopters. The figures reflect the fact that for treaty purposes the definitions extend to equipment in storage and held in other non-operational forms, for example, in R and D and training establishments, rather than the more usual categorisation which reflects only equipment in active units.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, at the next meeting of NATO Defence Ministers, he will raise the implications of the Soviet decision to move its nuclear warhead-testing site to the Novaya Zemlya Islands.
  331
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest with other NATO Defence Ministers when they next meet at the nuclear planning group meeting early in May.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his counterpart in Norway concerning the plan by the Soviet Union to move its nuclear warhead-testing site to the Novaya Zemlya Islands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Ministry of Defence Land
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review water access arrangements to Ministry of Defence land with a view to facilitating greater access when this would not pose security or safety problems.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is Ministry of Defence policy to allow access to our land and facilities for recreational, social or commercial purposes wherever this is consistent with operational, safety and security requirements and does not conflict with the interests of tenants or have a detrimental effect on local amenities and the environment.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low flying were received in each month since November 1988 from addresses in (1) Scotland, (2) England, (3) Wales and (4) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of total monthly inquiries and complaints received over the period 1 November 1988 to 28 February 1990 relating to military low-flying training in England, Scotland and Wales is as follows:

  Month

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1988

  November

  254

  81

  50

  December

  137

  63

  26

  1989

  January

  428

  78

  106

  February

  297

  90

  82

  March

  278

  75

  36

  April

  301

  55

  86

  May

  478

  132

  100

  June

  662

  167

  118

  July

  822

  186

  196

  August

  802

  143

  154

  September

  584

  179

  70

  October

  437

  165

  91

  November

  250

  160

  32

  December

  117

  61

  39

  1990

  January

  267

  93

  18

  February

  256

  71

  62

  No fixed-wing low-flying training is carried out in Northern Ireland. However, helicopters undertake low-flying operations in Northern Ireland and although no central records are available of complaints received, headquarters Northern Ireland received 38 complaints in 1988 and 50 in 1989.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties were carried out over the United Kingdom in each month from November 1988 to the latest available date.
  332
  Mr. Neubert
  The number of low-flying sorties flown in the United Kingdom in each month over the period of 1 November 1988 to 31 December 1989 is as follows:

  Month

  Sorties

  1988

  November

  13,105

  December

  9,408

  1989

  January

  13,168

  February

  11,702

  March

  11,816

  April

  12,398

  May

  14,299

  June

  15,641

  July

  14,282

  August

  11,279

  September

  9,376

  October

  12,682

  November

  11,462

  December

  6,218

  Exercise Northaxe
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are scheduled to take part in Exercise Northaxe 2/90; and what overland flying activity is planned during the exercise;

  (2) what use is being made of (a) Stornoway airport, (b) Benbecula airport and (c) the Cape Wrath ranges as part of Exercise Northaxe 2/90.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 74 aircraft took part in Northaxe 2/90. Overland flying during the exercise was limited to transiting to and from Stornoway airport (to collect mail, stores and passengers for ships at sea), navigation training over north-west Scotland and the use of the Cape Wrath range. Benbecula airport was used as a diversion airfield.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many surface vessels and submarines are scheduled to take part in Exercise Northaxe 2/90; and what warnings have been issued to mariners about activities connected with this exercise.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Eleven vessels were involved in the exercise. Warnings of activity in the area round the Cape Wrath range between 6 and 9 March were issued to fishermen. It is not our normal practice to issue notices to mariners for exercises of this sort.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to military aircrew concerning interceptions of civilian air traffic during Exercise Northaxe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Military aircraft engaged on operational exercises have no instructions to intercept civilian aircraft and, in accordance with normal practice, aircrew have been instructed to avoid civilian aircraft during Exercise Northaxe.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of Exercise Northaxe 2/90; which nations are participating in the exercise; whether it is part of a regular series of exercises; and what plans exist to hold future Northaxe exercises in the region of the Minch.
  333
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Northaxe 2/90 is a primarily naval exercise which enables participant forces, all British, to practise their various anti-submarine and air defence roles. Northaxe exercises generally take place annually and one is provisionally planned for 1991.

  Radiation
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals have received, in the last two decades, consecutive or separate annual radiation doses of more than 15 milliSieverts; and what is the total radiation dose, including doses of less than 15 milliSieverts, sustained by those workers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1990] : Records for radiation workers at the atomic weapons establishments are held separately from those for other Ministry of Defence radiation workers.

  During the 17 years that AWE has been under the control of the Ministry of Defence, 91 individuals sustained attributable exposures to penetrating radiation determined to have been 15 mSv or more in each of one or more calendar years. The total attributable radiation exposure for all these individuals was approximately 15 person-sieverts.

  Figures for other MOD radiation workers are readily available only for the period 1 January 1979 to 31 December 1989, when 1,484 individuals sustained attributable exposures to penetrating radiation determined to have been 15 mSv or more in each of one or more calendar years. The total attributable radiation exposure for all these individuals, based on a sample of 100, was approximately 143 person-sieverts.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear submariners have received radiation doses of more than 15 milliSieverts in two or more consecutive years, for the last two decades to the latest available date; if he will specify in ranges of 5 milliSieverts the doses into which those nuclear submarine personnel fall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: In the period for which figures are readily available—1 January 1979 to 31 December 1989–60 naval personnel received radiation doses in excess of 15 milliSieverts per annum in two or more consecutive years. No naval personnel have received such consecutive doses for more than four years.

  The 5 mSv ranges of lifetime radiation dose into which these individuals fall are shown in the table:

  Ranges

  Dose

  30–35

  1

  35–40

  1

  40–45

  1

  45–50

  0

  50–55

  2

  55–60

  3

  60–65

  5

  65–70

  5

  70–75

  3

  75–80

  5

  80–85

  2

  85–90

  5

  90–95

  1

  95–100

  1

  100–105

  2

  105–110

  4

  334

  Ranges

  Dose

  110–115

  2

  115–120

  1

  120–125

  2

  125–130

  6

  130–135

  1

  135–140

  0

  140–145

  0

  145–150

  0

  150–155

  1

  155–160

  1

  160–165

  1

  165–170

  0

  170–175

  1

  175–180

  0

  180–185

  0

  185–190

  1

  190–195

  1

  195–200

  0

  200–205

  1

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals at CSB Faslane have been subjected to a total exposure to radiation of 10 milliSieverts over a period of six months in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Radiation dose data are not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received seeking reform of the system of national insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Representations have been received from the Confederation of British Industry about employers' national insurance, from the Institute of Directors about the upper earnings limit and from the Construction Industry Joint Taxation Committee about the closer integration of pay-as-you-earn tax and national insurance.

  Child Benefit
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total estimated saving to the Exchequer as a result of the freezing of child benefit in the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a. statement.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total estimated saving to the Exchequer as a result of the freezing of child benefit in the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The sums involved are about £140 million and £210 million respectively.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the maximum net weekly incomes that would qualify for community charge rebates for (a) a single person aged 18

  335
  to 24 years, (b) a married couple with two children under 11 years, (c) a pensioner couple aged 60 to 79 years and (d) any person with capital in excess of £8,000, assuming community charge per adult levels of (i) £250, (ii) £300, (iii) £350, (iv) £400, (v) £438 and (vi) £328.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is shown in the table. Where a claimant or his partner has assessed capital in excess of £8,000 community charge benefit is not payable.

  Annual community charge

  Single under 25

  Couple two children under 11

  Pensioner couple aged 60–74

  Pensioner couple aged 75–79

  £250

  56·03

  147·45

  123·35

  127·00

  £300

  61·15

  157·68

  133·58

  137·23

  £328

  64·01

  163·41

  139·31

  142·96

  £350

  66·26

  167·91

  143·81

  147·46

  £400

  71·37

  178·14

  154·04

  157·69

  £438

  75·26

  185·91

  161·81

  165·46

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many other appeals have been received following that of Mrs. Morris and Whitbread concerning the effect of occupational pensions on unemployment benefit; what timetable he has established for dealing with these appeals; what consideration he has given to his general policy on this matter; and when he expects the social security commissioners to review the remainder of cases;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the position of claimants aged 55 years or over in receipt of an occupational pension of £35 per week or over, whose unemployment benefit was reduced or removed on 1 January.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  From 1 January 1989 the age at which unemployment benefit is abated by the value of any occupational pension in excess of £35 per week was reduced from 60 to 55 years. The change affected people in receipt of unemployment benefit at the time and all subsequent claimants over age 55.

  The appeal against the decision by the social security appeals tribunal in Mrs. Morris' case was heard by a tribunal of social security commissioners on 8 March and this decision is awaited. Pending the outcome of this case, employment service local offices are maintaining a record of people in similar circumstances who may wish to have their cases reviewed in the light of the commissioners' decision. These records, and the number of other appeals which might have been lodged, are not held centrally and the overall numbers could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the total administration costs as a percentage of benefit expenditure for each year from 1978–79 to 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]:Administration costs as a percentage of benefit expenditure for each year from 1978–79 to 1989–90 are in the table:
  336

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  5·0

  1979–80

  4·9

  1980–81

  5·0

  1981–82

  4·9

  1982–83

  4·8

  1983–84

  4·7

  1984–85

  4·4

  1985–86

  4·4

  1986–87

  4·6

  1987–88

  5·0

  1988–89

  5·3

  1989–90

  15·6

  1 Estimated.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment, Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the Training Agency areas within Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, the Birmingham and Solihull Manpower Services Commission area and for Great Britain as a whole, what are the most recent monthly statistics for employment training showing(a) entrants in the latest available period, and the number of cumulative entrants since the scheme started, (b) a breakdown of entrants which shows how many were male and female, the length of time they had been out of work, their ethnic background and whether or not they had any disabilities, (c) the number of trainees in the latest available period who entered work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in work places at the latest available date, (d) trainees who left the scheme in the latest available period, and the number of cumulative leavers since the scheme started, (e) for all those trainees who have left the scheme how many found work; failed to attend; went on to another course of training or education; completed the course; left for sickness; or went back into unemployment and (f) the total number of currently filled places.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on entrants is given in table 1. The breakdown of entrants is given in table 2. Information about those entering or on work placements is not available. The estimated number of leavers in the most recent period is given in table 3. Information about the cumulative number of leavers since September 1988 is not available. Information about the destinations of leavers is not yet available. The number of filled places is given in table 4.

  Table 1

  Employment training entrants February 1990

  Area

  February

  Cumulative since September 1988

  London North

  840

  11,300

  London West

  250

  3,970

  London East

  470

  6,980

  London South

  520

  5,630

  Inner London North

  1,360

  18,100

  Inner London South

  640

  9,620

  Merseyside

  1,810

  29,230

  Manchester East

  600

  9,900

  Manchester Central

  890

  14,500

  Manchester North

  690

  10,800

  337

  Area

  February

  Cumulative since September 1988

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,370

  21,900

  Great Britain

  39,600

  621,900

  Table 2

  Employment training characteristics of entrants (April 1989 to January 1990) (all figures are percentages, figures may not total 100 because of rounding)

  Area

  Men

  Women

  Unemployment duration (months)

  Ethnic origin1

  PWD2

  0 to 6

  6 to 12

  13 to 23

  24 +

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Yes

  No

  London North

  54

  46

  24

  30

  14

  32

  45

  25

  15

  8

  7

  9

  91

  London West

  56

  44

  25

  32

  12

  31

  61

  12

  18

  6

  3

  8

  92

  London East

  60

  40

  18

  37

  12

  33

  56

  20

  18

  4

  2

  12

  88

  London South

  56

  44

  21

  32

  13

  34

  64

  19

  8

  4

  5

  10

  89

  Inner London North

  58

  42

  22

  31

  15

  32

  48

  27

  9

  8

  8

  6

  94

  Inner London South

  58

  40

  11

  34

  16

  40

  46

  36

  4

  7

  7

  10

  90

  Merseyside

  65

  35

  26

  24

  13

  37

  95

  2

  1

  1

  2

  6

  94

  Manchester East

  69

  31

  29

  29

  11

  30

  91

  2

  5

  1

  1

  10

  90

  Manchester Central

  69

  31

  28

  27

  13

  31

  82

  8

  5

  2

  3

  8

  92

  Manchester North

  67

  33

  27

  29

  12

  32

  91

  1

  6

  1

  1

  9

  91

  Birmingham and Solihull

  64

  36

  22

  27

  11

  40

  63

  17

  14

  3

  3

  8

  92

  Great Britain

  67

  33

  26

  30

  12

  32

  87

  5

  4

  2

  2

  11

  39

  1 Ethnic origin: 1. White

  2. Black/African/Caribbean

  3. Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan

  4. None of these

  5. I prefer not to say

  2 PWD—People with disabilities. Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do. Figures to end December 1989.

  .. = Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Table 3

  Employment training Leavers during February 1990 (estimated)

  Area

  Numbers

  London North

  690

  London West

  270

  London East

  430

  London South

  490

  Inner London North

  1,080

  Inner London South

  600

  Merseyside

  1,860

  Manchester East

  530

  Manchester Central

  880

  Manchester North

  590

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,370

  Great Britain

  38,000

  Table 4

  Employment training Filled places at 23 February 1990

  Area

  Numbers

  London North

  4,775

  London West

  1,309

  London East

  2,750

  London South

  2,106

  Inner London North

  7,525

  Inner London South

  3,855

  Merseyside

  10,521

  Manchester East

  2,539

  Manchester Central

  4,165

  Manchester North

  2,977

  338

  Area

  Numbers

  Birmingham and Solihull

  7,365

  Great Britain

  209,000

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each standard region of Great Britain what are the monthly statistics since December 1988 for employment training showing(a) entrants in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative entrants since the scheme started, (b) a breakdown of entrants which shows how many were male and female, the length of time they had been out of work, their ethnic backgrounds and whether or not they had any disabilities, (c) the number of trainees in each monthly period who entered work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in project places at the latest available date, (d) trainees who left the scheme in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative leavers since the scheme started, (e) for all those trainees who have left the scheme how many found work; failed to attend; went on to another course of training or education; completed the course; left for sickness; or went back into unemployment and (f) the total number of currently filled places.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on entrants is given in table 1. The breakdown of entrants is given in table 2. Information about those entering work placements is not available. Information on trainees on project placements is given in table 3. Leavers information is not available before April 1989; figures since April are given in table 4.
  339
  Information about the destinations of leavers is not available for the period requested. The number of filled places is given in table 5.

  Table 1

  Starts at employment training managers: January 1989 to February 1990

  Training agency region

  1989

  January

  February

  March

  South East

  2,300

  2,500

  2,100

  London

  3,800

  3,400

  3,800

  South West

  2,100

  2,500

  2,300

  West Midlands

  4,300

  5,000

  4,900

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,900

  3,600

  3,200

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,500

  6,100

  5,400

  North West

  5,500

  7,100

  6,500

  Northern

  3,600

  4,800

  4,700

  Wales

  2,900

  3,600

  3,200

  Scotland

  3,700

  5,400

  6,000

  Training agency region

  1989

  April

  May

  June

  South East

  2,300

  1,600

  2,400

  London

  3,100

  2,600

  3,100

  South West

  2,000

  1,700

  1,900

  West Midlands

  4,100

  3,300

  3,800

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3,100

  2,400

  2,800

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,900

  4,100

  4,500

  North West

  5,800

  4,800

  6,300

  Northern

  3,800

  3,200

  4,100

  Wales

  2,900

  2,300

  2,600

  Scotland

  4,400

  4,400

  4,800

  Training agency region

  1989

  July

  August

  September

  South East

  4,500

  1,900

  3,400

  London

  3,100

  2,700

  4,800

  South West

  1,500

  1,200

  2,300

  Table 2

  Employment training characteristics of entrants (January 1989-January 1990)

  Region

  Men

  Women

  Unemployment Duration (Months)

  Ethnic Origin1

  PWD2

  0–5

  6–12

  13–23

  24 +

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Yes

  No

  South East

  59

  41

  36

  25

  10

  29

  91

  2

  3

  2

  2

  14

  86

  London

  58

  42

  19

  32

  15

  34

  51

  25

  11

  1

  6

  9

  91

  South West

  66

  34

  29

  32

  12

  28

  93

  2

  1

  1

  2

  14

  86

  West Midlands

  66

  34

  25

  26

  11

  38

  79

  9

  9

  2

  2

  12

  88

  East Midlands and Eastern

  69

  31

  18

  34

  13

  35

  87

  4

  5

  1

  2

  14

  86

  Yorks and Humber

  71

  29

  28

  30

  12

  31

  89

  2

  5

  1

  2

  10

  90

  North West

  69

  31

  25

  29

  13

  33

  92

  2

  3

  1

  2

  9

  91

  Northern

  73

  27

  24

  34

  13

  30

  97

  3..

  1

  1

  1

  8

  92

  Wales

  69

  31

  25

  33

  13

  29

  95

  1

  1

  1

  2

  11

  89

  Scotland

  71

  29

  18

  32

  15

  35

  97

  3..

  3..

  1

  2

  9

  91

  All figures are percentages, figures may not total 100 because of rounding.

  1 Ethnic origin 1—White, 2—Black/African/Caribbean, 3—Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan, 4—None of these, 5—prefer not to say.

  2 PWD—People with disabilities. Starts to end December. Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do.

  3..= less than 0·5 percent.

  340

  Training agency region

  1989

  July

  August

  September

  West Midlands

  3,300

  3,200

  4,500

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3,000

  2,500

  3,500

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,800

  3,500

  5,500

  North West

  5,300

  4,500

  6,200

  Northern

  3,600

  3,000

  4,900

  Wales

  2,700

  2,300

  3,700

  Scotland

  3,400

  4,500

  5,600

  Training agency region

  1989

  October

  November

  December

  South East

  2,500

  2,300

  1,500

  London

  3,300

  3,600

  2,600

  South West

  1,900

  1,700

  1,400

  West Midlands

  3,800

  3,800

  2,900

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,800

  2,800

  2,100

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,600

  4,800

  3,700

  North West

  5,200

  5,600

  3,700

  Northern

  3,700

  3,700

  2,900

  Wales

  2,900

  2,400

  1,900

  Scotland

  4,800

  4,900

  3,500

  Training agency region

  1990

  January

  February

  Cumulative since September 1988

  South East

  2,800

  2,600

  41,900

  London

  3,900

  4,100

  58,800

  South West

  2,000

  1,800

  33,000

  West Midlands

  3,600

  4,500

  68,400

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,500

  3,100

  49,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,400

  5,100

  83,100

  North West

  5,400

  5,900

  95,400

  Northern

  3,300

  4,100

  65,000

  Wales

  2,500

  3,100

  47,300

  Scotland

  3,900

  5,300

  77,500

  341

  Table 3

  Employment Training Trainees on practical training placements on projects on census day 29 December 1989 (estimated)

  Region

  December

  per cent.

  South East

  29

  London

  42

  South West

  37

  West Midlands

  59

  East Midlands and Eastern

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  50

  North West

  49

  Northern

  51

  Wales

  39

  Scotland

  64

  n/a = Not available because of low numbers of returns.

  Table 4

  Employment training leavers: April 1989 to February 1990

  Training agency region

  1989

  April

  May

  June

  South East

  2,100

  1,000

  1,700

  London

  2,200

  2,200

  2,500

  South West

  600

  1,500

  1,600

  West Midlands

  2,600

  3,000

  3,400

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,100

  2,100

  2,500

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,100

  3,800

  4,200

  North West

  4,700

  4,300

  5,200

  Northern

  2,800

  2,600

  2,900

  Wales

  2,100

  2,000

  2,300

  Scotland

  3,300

  3,600

  3,900

  Training agency region

  1989

  July

  August

  September

  South East

  1,500

  2,200

  2,700

  London

  2,400

  2,600

  3,500

  South West

  1,500

  1,500

  1,800

  West Midlands

  2,900

  2,800

  4,700

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,100

  2,100

  3,300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,800

  3,600

  5,500

  North West

  3,900

  4,800

  5,800

  Northern

  2,200

  2,700

  4,700

  Wales

  1,700

  2,100

  3,700

  Scotland

  2,900

  3,800

  4,900

  Training agency region

  1989

  October

  November

  December

  South East

  2,500

  2,400

  2,100

  London

  2,900

  3,200

  2,700

  South West

  1,600

  1,800

  1,600

  West Midlands

  3,800

  3,900

  3,500

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,900

  2,700

  2,300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,600

  4,900

  3,800

  North West

  5,500

  4,600

  4,600

  Northern

  4,400

  3,600

  3,100

  Wales

  2,800

  2,600

  2,300

  Scotland

  4,100

  4,200

  3,800

  Training agency region

  1990

  January

  February

  South East

  2,400

  2,300

  London

  3,100

  3,500

  South West

  1,800

  2,200

  West Midlands

  4,200

  3,900

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,700

  3,000

  342

  Training agency region

  1990

  January

  February

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,800

  4,800

  North West

  5,300

  5,800

  Northern

  3,800

  4,500

  Wales

  2,800

  2,900

  Scotland

  4,000

  4,900

  Table 5

  Employment training Filled places at 23 February 1990

  Region

  Numbers

  South East

  14,900

  London

  22,300

  South West

  11,800

  West Midlands

  22,400

  East Midlands and Eastern

  16,400

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25,000

  North West

  29,000

  Northern

  23,300

  Wales

  16,100

  Scotland

  26,300

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the work force at Easington district council are registered disabled.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As at 1 June 1989, 3·1 per cent of the work force of Easington district council were registered disabled, as published in the Employment Gazette in February 1990.

  YTS
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people aged over 18 years are on YTS with special training needs endorsements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 15,900 young people aged over 18 were on YTS with special training needs endorsements on 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government intend to introduce an increase in the YT allowance, age related for 18-year-olds and over, in line with the principle set in April 1988 for income support claimants when rate liability was introduced.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There will be no change to the value of the higher rate of the youth training allowance. The present level of this allowance represents a clear lead over the corresponding level of the income support for 18-yearolds, and will continue to do so when the income support rates are increased in April.

  Roustabout Training
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have gone through the roustabout training programme at the drilling instruction training centre; and what percentage of such people have subsequently been offered full-time employment by offshore contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 217 people have gone through the roustabout training programme operated by the
  343
  offshore petroleum industry training board. Of these 191 or 88 per cent. have successfully completed their agreed training and have obtained full-time jobs with offshore drilling contractors. I welcome this extremely successful employment training initiative with the private sector and recognise the important contribution it makes in helping unemployed people find work and in meeting the labour needs of the oil industry.

  Earnings
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what figures he has on the latest available evidence for average earnings for(a) 18 to 20-year-olds and (b) 20 to 40-year-olds by (i) gender and (ii) region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available information, for April 1989, is provided in the table:

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees whose pay was not affected by absence, April 1989

  Males

  Females

  Region

  18–20

  21–39

  18–20

  21–39

  £

  £

  £

  £

  South East

  160·5

  302·7

  143·6

  220·0

  East Anglia

  144·2

  249·0

  120·2

  174·7

  South West

  139·6

  243·8

  116·6

  171·8

  West Midlands

  133·3

  232·9

  108·5

  167·9

  East Midlands

  138·2

  232·5

  110·6

  162·4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  131·2

  232·0

  109·3

  165·5

  North West

  130·5

  235·5

  111·7

  172·0

  North

  130·7

  226·7

  109·2

  163·1

  Wales

  131·3

  223·3

  110·6

  171·2

  Scotland

  129·3

  239·5

  107·5

  171·7

  Great Britain

  142·4

  258·3

  122·3

  188·4

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total cost of fraud investigations conducted in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total cost of employment service fraud investigation in 1989 was £20·23 million.

  Labour Relations
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has reconsidered the Government's reply to the Trades Union Congress's comments on the application of article 1 of International Labour Organisation convention 151, "Labour Relations—Public Service", to parliamentary staff, contained in the report of the committee of experts to the 71st conference of the International Labour Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have submitted further reports to the ILO since the committee of experts' report to the 71st conference in 1985 and have stated, following legal advice, that in the respects in question parliamentary staff enjoy the full range of normal employees' rights. The Government thus consider that the arrangements for parliamentary staff are fully in accordance with ILO convention 151 and that the application of article 1 of this convention to parliamentary staff is no longer at issue.

  Toxic Substances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies of each issue of the "Toxic Substances Bulletin" are provided and to whom they are distributed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  "Toxic Substances Bulletin" is issued twice a year and is available on subscription from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). There are currently 2,400 subscribers, mainly from industry and professional institutions concerned with the control of exposure to hazardous substances at the workplace, accounting for 2,900 copies of the publication. A total of 1,500 copies are distributed within HSE and a small stock is held for new subscribers and complimentary issues.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of industrial establishments subject to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have registered a COSHH audit to 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no requirement under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 for registration of COSHH audits.

  Genetically Engineered Organisms
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment at how many locations experiments connected with the release or potential releases of genetically engineered organisms are taking place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Eleven centres have notified the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) of proposals to release genetically manipulated organisms to the environment. At eight of these centres, releases have taken place and the HSE is presently reviewing applications from the remaining three.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average level of the poll tax so far declared by Welsh local authorities.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information available to me at present indicates that declared community charges range from £169 to £284 with a weighted average of £222.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each of the past 10 years, for each county in Wales, the total expenditure by that county authority, and the contribution towards their spending that came from(a) Exchequer grants, (b) rate contributions, (c) capital receipts and (d) other sources.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: Information relating to the total expenditure for block grant purposes, rate income, rate support grant and the use of balances and other sources for each Welsh county for each of the past 10 years is shown in the following tables:

  345

  £000 at outturn prices

  Local authority

  Total expenditure1

  Rate support grant

  Rate income

  Balances and other sources

  1979–80

  Clwyd

  92,000

  28,223

  63,621

  155

  Dyfed

  80,844

  28,018

  48,520

  4,306

  Gwent

  108,002

  34,738

  74,642

  -1,378

  Gwynedd

  56,813

  20,476

  37,252

  -915

  Mid Glamorgan

  140,028

  44,176

  88,919

  6,933

  Powys

  32,358

  16,027

  14,821

  1,511

  South Glamorgan

  92,442

  33,354

  59,637

  -550

  West Glamorgan

  96,249

  26,197

  68,653

  1,398

  Total Wales

  698,736

  231,209

  456,064

  11,461

  1980–81

  Clwyd

  114,650

  33,831

  80,437

  383

  Dyfed

  96,606

  33,930

  63,393

  -718

  Gwent

  135,406

  43,226

  89,282

  2,897

  Gwynedd

  69,394

  23,450

  43,592

  2,351

  Mid Glamorgan

  167,694

  53,411

  112,542

  1,741

  Powys

  38,508

  18,859

  19,803

  -154

  South Glamorgan

  111,950

  42,100

  69,794

  56

  West Glamorgan

  113,871

  31,345

  85,028

  -2,502

  Total Wales

  848,079

  280,152

  563,871

  4,054

  1981–82

  Clwyd

  130,431

  76,068

  57,202

  -2,838

  Dyfed

  106,940

  68,449

  38,252

  239

  Gwent

  148,438

  87,664

  58,050

  2,724

  Gwynedd

  78,605

  47,000

  28,906

  2,699

  Mid Glamorgan

  183,230

  132,608

  54,966

  -4,344

  Powys

  41,776

  30,543

  11,746

  -513

  South Glamorgan

  121,491

  62,798

  59,723

  -1,030

  West Glamorgan

  126,554

  69,184

  58,459

  -1,089

  Total Wales

  937,465

  574,315

  367,304

  -4,153

  1982–83

  Clwyd

  139,097

  86,455

  57,345

  -4,702

  Dyfed

  113,391

  75,846

  38,356

  -811

  Gwent

  153,730

  99,380

  60,404

  -6,054

  Gwynedd

  81,993

  54,000

  28,214

  -221

  Mid Glamorgan

  194,759

  142,350

  55,332

  -2,923

  Powys

  46,954

  36,401

  12,267

  -1,714

  South Glamorgan

  129,407

  71,386

  67,816

  -9,794

  West Glamorgan

  137,196

  81,000

  59,780

  -3,584

  Total Wales

  996,527

  646,818

  379,514

  -29,803

  1983–84

  Clwyd

  146,678

  84,849

  58,709

  3,120

  Dyfed

  120,506

  79,048

  40,778

  680

  Gwent

  160,316

  101,037

  61,717

  -2,438

  Gwynedd

  86,314

  55,400

  32,415

  -1,501

  Mid Glamorgan

  207,517

  143,000

  58,915

  5,602

  Powys

  49,273

  36,605

  12,244

  424

  South Glamorgan

  138,750

  70,302

  63,341

  5,107

  West Glamorgan

  141,924

  79,327

  60,179

  2,418

  Total Wales

  1,051,278

  649,568

  388,298

  13,412

  1984–85

  Clwyd

  150,403

  85,667

  64,126

  610

  Dyfed

  126,488

  79,365

  44,701

  2,422

  Gwent

  166,119

  101,902

  62,521

  1,696

  Gwynedd

  91,214

  55,070

  35,536

  607

  Mid Glamorgan

  217,985

  144,165

  69,102

  4,718

  Powys

  51,026

  36,009

  12,965

  2,052

  South Glamorgan

  141,274

  68,549

  66,749

  5,976

  West Glamorgan

  144,826

  80,551

  63,734

  541

  Total Wales

  1,089,335

  651,278

  419,434

  18,622

  1985–86

  Clwyd

  156,895

  89,579

  68,120

  -804

  Dyfed

  130,335

  81,690

  53,812

  -5,167

  Gwent

  173,327

  102,352

  64,558

  6,417

  346 347

  Local authority

  Total expenditure1

  Rate support grant

  Rate income

  Balances and other sources

  Gwynedd

  94,465

  55,170

  37,926

  1,369

  Mid Glamorgan

  218,722

  152,434

  72,321

  -6,033

  Powys

  52,911

  36,839

  15,165

  906

  South Glamorgan

  147,715

  69,107

  75,874

  2,734

  West Glamorgan

  150,228

  85,167

  68,232

  -3,171

  Total Wales

  1,124,598

  672,338

  456,008

  -3,749

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  169,753

  93,495

  76,348

  -90

  Dyfed

  147,245

  88,797

  60,570

  -2,123

  Gwent

  184,342

  112,389

  75,860

  -3,908

  Gwynedd

  101,560

  59,000

  43,222

  -662

  Mid Glamorgan

  239,148

  157,652

  79,549

  1,947

  Powys

  56,186

  38,387

  17,767

  32

  South Glamorgan

  162,111

  72,672

  95,469

  -6,030

  West Glamorgan

  164,292

  89,101

  72,504

  2,687

  Total Wales

  1,224,637

  711,493

  521,289

  -8,147

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  180,390

  102,049

  81,362

  -3,021

  Dyfed

  159,590

  96,919

  64,965

  -2,293

  Gwent

  201,358

  116,000

  86,801

  -1,444

  Gwynedd

  110,734

  62,000

  47,749

  986

  Mid Glamorgan

  256,154

  173,596

  84,438

  -1,880

  Powys

  59,282

  41,384

  19,434

  -1,536

  South Glamorgan

  173,371

  79,001

  102,101

  -7,732

  West Glamorgan

  174,930

  92,844

  81,568

  518

  Total Wales

  1,315,809

  763,793

  568,418

  -16,402

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  197,043

  105,970

  88,176

  -2,897

  Dyfed

  174,299

  107,153

  68,051

  -905

  Gwent

  219,117

  124,686

  95,501

  -1,070

  Gwynedd

  119,888

  70,696

  53,226

  -4,034

  Mid Glamorgan

  280,049

  189,767

  88,562

  1,720

  Powys

  64,860

  43,767

  21,047

  46

  South Glamorgan

  196,980

  81,281

  111,073

  4,626

  West Glamorgan

  191,377

  100,045

  94,209

  -2,877

  Total Wales

  1,443,613

  823,365

  619,845

  -5,391

  1 As defined for Block Grant purposes. Net of specific and supplementary grants.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets were set by his Department and what are the actual sums set by each district, borough and city council for(a) each borough community charge and (b) each average sum for community council purposes within each council.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information about the actual level of community charge set by councils will be published when available. I have set no targets for 1990–91; it is for councils to determine their own budgets.

  Milk
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dairy farmers in the Carmarthen area are likely to produce more milk than their quota allows for this financial year and whose payments are now being reduced by the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The position of individual producers under the quota arrangements is a matter for the Milk Marketing Board.

  Health Authorities (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each district health authority in Wales the total payments made by way of performance-related pay during 1988–89; and what was the number of employees in each authority who received such performance-related pay.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of general and other senior managers authorised to receive performance-related pay additions to salary in 1988–89 are as shown in the following table:

  Health authority

  Number of senior staff authorised to receive PRP

  Clwyd

  10

  Gwynedd

  2

  Powys

  2

  Gwent

  6

  Mid Glamorgan

  9

  South Glamorgan

  8

  West Glamorgan

  8

  East Dyfed

  1

  Pembrokeshire

  3

  349
  Employing authorities have discretion to determine the level of payments within prescribed percentage limits. Particulars of actual payments made are confidential and information thereon is not held centrally.

  EC Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the European Commission to ensure that adequate funds are available to meet the integrated development operation programme of Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The major element of the integrated development operation (IDO) programme, £108 million of European regional development fund grant, was allocated in 1988 following my visit to Brussels in February of that year. The United Kingdom Government are currently in discussion with the Commission about the availability of sufficient funding to complete the IDO.

  Roads
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his original planned timetable for the construction of the Penydip tunnel on the A55 near Penmaenmawr together with the original estimated cost of this tunnel; and what is the latest timetable and estimated project cost.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The decision to proceed with a tunnel on the present alignment was taken in 1985. "Roads in Wales 1985" indicated that the estimated gross cost at November 1984 prices was £31·32 million and work was programmed to start between January 1988 and December 1990. Work on the four-year contract started in November 1989, at which time the estimated gross cost of the scheme was £79·4 million at October 1989 prices.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list those boroughs and district councils in Wales which in 1990–91 are estimated to pay more to central Government in respect of the uniform business rate than they will receive in return.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Non-domestic rates are collected by the 37 Welsh charging authorities and (subject to netting-off arrangements) paid to the Welsh Office. The product is then redistributed by the Welsh Office to the 45 county and district councils in Wales as a flat-rate amount per head of population. Because both counties and districts receive shares of the amount collected, but only the districts collect, it follows that the amounts distributed to the boroughs and districts are in all cases less than the amounts they collect and pay to the Welsh Office.

  Cancer
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure early publication of figures on the incidence in Wales of leukaemia, lung cancer, colon cancer and stomach cancer in each district in Wales in respect of the years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  As the actual numbers of certain cancer cases registered in a given year may be relatively small and 350
  subject to chance fluctuations, the publication of annual incidence rates in isolation may lead to misinterpretation. The practice has therefore been to produce several years' registrations with explanatory text. As previously advised, the most recently available information on cancer incidence rates in Wales is presented in "Cancer Registration in Wales, 1974–84", published in 1988.

  It is intended that full data in respect of the period 1984 to 1986 together with a commentary will be published during 1990.

  The Department is currently reviewing its procedures for collating information on patients who have developed cancer. In particular, the computer system for cancer registrations is being re-examined with a view to improving the speed and accuracy of recording. Subject to the outcome of this review it may be possible to complete the scrutiny of the records for 1987 and 1988 before the end of the year.

  Flooding
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to class XVII, vote 5, of his Department's cash limits in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As foreshadowed in my statements on I and 13 March, at columns 403 and 143 respectively, about the flood disaster in north Wales, the Government will be making contributions totalling £150,000 to the disaster funds.

  This contribution will be met from savings on class XVII, vote 5, and the cash limit for the vote has been reduced accordingly from £268,972,000 to £268,822,000. As a result, the contribution will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support his Department is giving this year towards the teaching of Welsh to adults in Wales, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 February 1990, c. 630] : Unfortunately, due to an error an incorrect figure was given. The figure of £305,000 should read £356,000.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual expenditure on schemes to teach Welsh as a second language to adults in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 February 1990, c. 101] : Unfortunately, due to an error an incorrect figure was given. The figure of £305,000 should read £356,000.

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

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 March 1990, c. 284]: Unfortunately, due to an error an incorrect figure was given. The figure of £305,000 should read £356,000.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Agricultural College
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the membership of the board of the new Scottish agricultural college is representative of the different geographical areas within Scotland, including the highlands and islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the press release issued on behalf of my noble Friend the Minister of State on 8 March which indicates the membership of the board of directors of the Scottish agricultural college, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. In deciding who should be invited to serve as directors, the Secretary of State took careful account of the desirability of representing the different geographical areas within Scotland, including the highlands and islands. He is confident that the new board adequately reflects the balance of backgrounds necessary to take forward the work of the Scottish agricultural college.

  Tourism
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reviews he is carrying out for Scotland under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969.

  Mr. Lang
  The means by which Government support is delivered to the Scottish tourist industry, including the Scottish tourist board's section 4 assistance scheme, are kept under constant review. I remain satisfied that this support is both relevant and effective.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the relationship between alcohol sales in supermarkets and under-age drinking in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Both the 1986 survey on adolescent drinking conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the 1987 report of the working group on alcohol and young people chaired by Baroness Masham identified under-age drinking as a major problem, and off-sale premises—including supermarkets—as a significant source of supply for under-age drinkers.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he issues any guidance on the enforcement of the law against sale of alcohol to under-age drinkers in Scotland; what action he intends to take to improve enforcement; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Enforcement of the law against sale of alcohol to under-age persons is an operational matter for the police. The Government are, however, concerned about under-age drinking and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill includes measures to restrict unsupervised off-sales by persons under the age of 18. These measures, if enacted, should significantly reduce the chance of illegal sales through ignorance, deliberate flouting of the law, or collusion between an under-age purchaser and a young sales assistant.

  Deaf-blind Children
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many deaf-blind children have been identified in Scotland in the age range(a) nought to two, (b) two to five, (c) six to 11, (d) 12 to 15 and (e) 16 to 19 years;

  (2) how many deaf-blind children in Scotland attend specialist deaf-blind units;

  (3) what plans he has to issue a policy statement on the education of deaf-blind children in Scotland;

  (4) what provision is made to ensure the training of teachers of deaf-blind children in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Carnbooth school in Glasgow operates as a centre for deaf-blind children from all parts of Scotland. It has nine pupils in all: six aged between six and 11, two between 12 and 15 and one between 16 and 19. Provision for other deaf-blind children is made by the education authorities in whose areas they reside. Details of the age distribution of such children are not held centrally.

  I have no plans at present to issue a policy statement on the education of deaf-blind children. However, my Department is presently funding Moray House college of education and Carnbooth school to produce a training programme for teachers and carers of deaf-blind children.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support is provided to the families of pre-school deaf-blind children in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Local authorities have statutory responsibilities for the care and support of young children who are sensorily handicapped and their families. Health boards have similar responsibilities in relation to Health Service provision and there are well-established arrangements for co-operation between health and social work services. Decisions on the nature and extent of assistance to be provided are for the authorities themselves, having regard to the resources available to them.

  The Scottish Office supports two voluntary organisations which, to varying degrees, support such children and their families. The Carers' National Association has recently been awarded a grant of up to £31,750 during 1990–91 under section 10(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 towards the cost of setting up and running an office in Scotland. The association offers information, advice, training and support to carers who look after all types of people, not only those who are sensorily handicapped. SENSE in Scotland is a specialised voluntary organisation which provides a wide range of service and support specifically for deaf-blind young people and their families. It is currently receiving a grant of around £60,000, comprising £45,000 revenue and £15,000 capital support, also under section 10(1) of the 1968 Act.

  With regard to financial support from the DSS, the full range of social security benefits is available to families with disabled children. In particular for families on income support, the disabled child premium will be more than doubled from £6·50 to £15·40 from April; lower rate attendance allowance (£25·05 from April) is available for all severely affected deaf-blind children; and invalid care allowance (£28·20 from April) may be available to the parent or other carer who spends at least 38 hours each week caring for a disabled child for whom attendance allowance is paid.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his response to the representations of the Scottish Association of Master Bakery in relation to temperature control of bakery-crafted produce and food hygiene.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The representations made by the association will be taken fully into account in the revision of the food hygiene regulations.

  Seal Culling
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of illegal seal culling in fish farming areas.

  Mr. Lang
  Any evidence of a suspected offence under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in Scotland should be reported to the police or procurator fiscal. The outcome of any subsequent proceedings is a matter for the courts.

  The Scottish Salmon Growers Association has developed, in collaboration with various wildlife conservation interests, including the Nature Conservancy Council, a code of practice on salmon farming and predatory wildlife. This was published in February this year and lays down the general policy, which my right hon. and learned Friend welcomes, that shooting or other methods of destructive control must be considered only as a last resort. In relation to seals, the code of practice emphasises that the killing of a particular animal may be considered only after reasonable measures have been taken to exclude seals from salmon farms.

  Education Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the change in cash and percentage terms to his education budget in 1990–91 as against 1989–90(a) including student support and (b) excluding student support.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: Education expenditure will increase by £49 million or 13·1 per cent. between 1989–90 and 1990–91. Excluding student support, the increase is £5 million, or 2·1 per cent. No valid comparisons can be made between these separately calculated increases because of the effect on higher educational institutions of the switch to higher student fees.

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created in the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: Two hundred and fifteen jobs have been created and a further

  Population1 of specified Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 September 1989: by establishment and ethnic origin.

  Number

  Establishment

  Ethnic origin

  Total number of persons in establishments

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other not recorded (including refusals)

  Long Lartin

  319

  56

  26

  12

  10

  423

  Parkhurst

  179

  43

  5

  6

  5

  238

  Wakefield

  639

  31

  31

  12

  5

  718

  Holloway

  248

  149

  6

  17

  75

  495

  354
  347 jobs forecast by firms which have established or announced their intention to establish in the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electoral Registration
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 8 March to the hon. Member for Copeland,Official Report, column 818, if he will provide (a) a breakdown by country of the £760,000 for overseas electoral registration expenditure for 1990–91 and (b) a breakdown of the £486,000 expenditure in Great Britain.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Race Relations (Prisons)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account of race relations issues is taken by the prison department in the drafting of new contracts with individual prison governors.

  Mr. Mellor
  Regional directors have been asked to ensure that every governor's contract for 1990–91 includes objectives relating to the race relations liaison officer, the race relations management team and ethnic monitoring.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to allow prisoner representation on race relations and other internal committees in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are considering what guidance we might offer to governors about prisoner representation on race relations committees. As regards committees generally, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 16 January 1990 at column 176.

  Ethnic Minorities (Prisons)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total and ethnic minority numbers for the latest date available in(a) HMP Long Lartin, (b) HMP Parkhurst, (c) HMP Wakefield, (d) HMP Holloway, (e) HMP Frankland, (f) HMP Albany, (g) HMP Full Sutton, (h) HMP Gartree, (i) HMP Maidstone, (j) HMP Nottingham, (k) HMP Lewes and (l) HMP Wormwood Scrubs.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest readily available information is given in the table:
  355

  Establishment

  Ethnic origin

  Total number of persons in establishments

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other not recorded (including refusals)

  Frankland

  328

  17

  11

  14

  5

  375

  Albany

  294

  63

  16

  9

  5

  387

  Full Sutton

  359

  20

  13

  5

  2

  399

  Gartree

  236

  49

  16

  4

  2

  307

  Maidstone

  404

  89

  37

  10

  12

  552

  Nottingham

  253

  49

  10

  5

  —

  317

  Lewes

  405

  43

  9

  9

  61

  527

  Wormwood Scrubs

  677

  268

  36

  26

  21

  1,028

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reassessment he has now made of his parliamentary answers and Adjournment debate replies in the case of Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the question from the hon. Member on 14 February 1990 at column 238.

  Breathalyser Technology
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now issue a general circular to chief constables confirming the position stated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 14 March 1988,Official Report, column 974, that the police have no powers to prevent clubs or pubs from installing breath alchohol testing machines.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. I see no need to do so.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at the latest available date, how many male and female prisoners in England and Wales are currently remanded in custody awaiting medical reports.

  Mr. Mellor
  The data on remands in custody awaiting a medical report are collected annually and are not available centrally in a form which would enable a figure to be given for the number held on remand for this purpose on a particular date. This could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each year since 1979, how many male and female prisoners in England and Wales were remanded in custody for medical reports.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of male and female prisoners in England and Wales remanded into custody for medical reports since 1980 is as follows:

  Males

  Females

  1980

  7,587

  1,058

  1981

  7,225

  1,006

  1982

  7,506

  832

  1983

  7,507

  840

  January 1984—March 1985

  8,289

  1,032

  1985–86

  7,578

  782

  1986–87

  5,860

  676

  1987–88

  5,493

  481

  1988–89

  5,043

  652

  356
  Figures are not available for 1979 and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about acid house parties held in Lancashire.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a number of representations, both from hon. Members and members of the public, about acid house or pay parties. Some of these representations referred to Lancashire in particular but it is not possible to determine which particular events caused concern to our correspondents.

  Police (Pay)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the real increase in a police constable's pay over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between March 1980 and March 1990, the basic pay of a police constable increased by 100 per cent., from £5,334 to £10,671 a year. Over the same period, the retail prices index increased by 86·9 per cent. and the tax and prices index by 77·3 per cent.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on fees for firearms and shotgun certificates.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It has been the policy of successive Governments that there should be full recovery from fees of the cost of operating the firearms licensing system. As a step towards this end my right hon. and learned Friend laid before Parliament on 27 February the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1990, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details, listing the sums provided and the names of the organisations, of all voluntary organisations working in penal affairs to which his Department gives grants and other financial assistance.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 13 February 1990] : I list in the table the voluntary organisations to which the Home Office gives grants for their work with offenders and ex-offenders and the amounts of those grants in 1989–90:
  357

  Voluntary after-care accommodation grants scheme

  £

  Abbot Housing Society—2 projects

  13,951

  Adullam Homes Housing Association—3 projects

  111,071

  Alone in London

  17,953

  Alpha House

  2,153

  Base 3 Move-on Accommodation

  612

  Brighton YMCA

  3,085

  Bristol Cyrenians

  3,219

  Caldmore Area Housing Association

  6,000

  Cardiff Single Women's Housing Group

  1,286

  Carr-Gomm Society—4 projects

  32,766

  Central Methodist Church

  4,511

  Centre Point

  15,076

  Church Housing Association Ltd.—2 projects

  33,507

  Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District

  14,597

  Coventry Cyrenians Ltd.

  11,286

  Croydon Association for Young Single Homeless

  7,372

  Croydon Housing For the Young Unemployed

  1,613

  Cwm Rhymni Housing Association

  2,000

  Didcot Young Persons Housing

  1,810

  Doncaster Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  12,700

  Durham Action on Single Housing

  1,050

  East Bristol Youth Housing Association

  3,701

  Effra Trust

  16,652

  Ekaya Housing Association

  1,555

  Elizabeth Housing Association

  4,949

  Exeter Shilhay Community

  2,500

  Grace Tebbutt Housing Trust

  15,401

  Handsworth Single Homeless Action Group

  14,320

  Hargrave House

  15,340

  Harlow Council for Voluntary Services

  17,117

  Harringey Umbrella Housing Association

  8,670

  Havant Housing Association

  3,502

  Haven Project—2 projects

  21,504

  Homeless Action and Accommodation

  15,325

  Intake

  9,778

  Inward House

  7,580

  Kaleidoscope Youth and Community Project

  3,062

  Kare Housing Association

  17,777

  Kenward Trust—3 projects

  19,016

  Langley House Trust—12 projects

  561,229

  Leahurst Hostel

  2,048

  Leeds Housing Concern—4 projects

  26,802

  Leeds Young Persons Housing Trust—2 projects

  19,302

  Life for the World Trust

  17,462

  Macedon Trust

  7,072

  Margery Fry Memorial Trust—9 projects

  131,122

  Meta House

  23,894

  NACRO Community Enterprises—13 projects

  139,520

  Norcare Ltd.—6 projects

  106,477

  Norman House—Leicester

  16,185

  Norman House—Sheffield

  3,620

  North Devon Housing Society

  10,708

  North East London Shared Housing

  9,374

  North West London Housing Association—7 projects

  144,370

  Nottingham Help the Homeless Association

  1,828

  Outlet Ltd.

  1,650

  Oxford Cyrenian Community

  11,010

  Patchwork Community Ltd.

  18,204

  Penrose Charity—3 projects

  15,560

  Phoenix House—5 projects

  153,814

  Potteries Housing Association—2 projects

  32,871

  358

  £

  Richmond Fellowship

  154,440

  Riverpoint Single Homeless Ltd.

  9,213

  Rossendale (Devon) Ltd.

  7,576

  Rotherham District Council for Voluntary Services

  17,630

  Rugby Mayday Trust

  17,378

  St. Anne's Management Committee

  2,675

  St. Basil's Centre—4 projects

  9,927

  St. George's Community Trust

  69,127

  St. George's Crypt

  2,437

  St. Helen's Accommodation Project

  1,215

  St. James Management Committee

  8,057

  St. Martin of Tours Housing Association Ltd.

  115,915

  St. Mary's Tyndalls Park Trust

  1,355

  St. Mungo Community Housing Association—7 projects

  59,941

  Salford Aid to the Single Homeless

  1,725

  Saltash Housing Society Ltd.

  7,422

  Selcare Trust—7 projects

  152,180

  Self Help Organisation for Ex-Prisoners

  1,796

  Sheffield Hostels

  15,835

  Sheffield and Rotherham Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  49,346

  Sheffield Youth Development Trust Ltd.—2 projects

  17,677

  Shepherd House Project

  9,331

  Short Stay Young Homeless Project—2 projects

  9,774

  Single Homeless on Tyneside—2 projects

  8,704

  Single Homeless Project

  17,149

  Society for the Care of Irish Youth

  480

  Society of St. Dismas

  1,912

  Society of St. Vincent de Paul

  11,644

  South Wales Federated Housing Association

  3,572

  Spectrum Housing SocietyLtd.

  6,138

  Stonham Housing Association Ltd.—110 projects

  1,782,113

  Surrey Community Development Trust

  44,941

  Tameside Community Involvement Council—4 projects

  30,434

  The Portland Project

  3,140

  The Coke Hole Trust—3 projects

  42,353

  The Cranstoun Projects—5 projects

  113,070

  The Kipper Project

  2,978

  The Rainer Foundation—2 projects

  22,105

  Third House Trust

  14,917

  Timball Housing Project

  4,151

  Turning Point—2 projects

  33,010

  Ty John Rowley Trust

  1,268

  UK Housing Trust

  19,872

  Warrenhurst Flats Management Committee

  2,664

  West London Mission

  19,562

  West London Cyrenians

  14,546

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service

  10,138

  York Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  15,349

  YWCA

  1,027

  59 Greek Street

  36,217

  Total

  4,954,911

  Non-hostel grants

  Apex Trust

  75,680

  Burnbake Trust

  19,053

  Circle Clubs (London)

  45,920

  City Roads Projects

  28,800

  Hampshire Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  6,430

  Lancashire Constellation

  4,320

  Leicester Anchor Association

  11,220

  Lifeline Project (Manchester)

  30,785

  359

  £

  National Association of Voluntary Hostels

  43,200

  New Bridge

  27,270

  North East London St. Leonards Soiety

  1,925

  Prisoners Wives and Families Society

  5,140

  Prisoners Wives Service

  6,820

  Society of Voluntary Associates

  60,840

  Specialist Information Training Resources Agency

  6,560

  Southwark Day Centre

  5,640

  York Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  17,482

  Total

  397,085

  Pilot Projects

  Barge Project Ethel

  1,568

  CAST (London)

  6,503

  Chi Centre

  5,450

  Feltham Open Door

  1,836

  Henry Asplen Day Centre (Doncaster)

  6,760

  Moss Side Initiative

  6,448

  Nottingham Black Initiative

  2,766

  Peoples Place

  4,680

  Unit 51

  4,160

  Total

  40,171

  Projects linked with Part II of the Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community"

  Total grants to date; other grants likely to be made before 1 April 1990

  CSV

  40,000

  Durham Training Enterprise

  25,000

  Norcare

  42,000

  The Rainer Foundation

  15,500

  The Rainer Foundation and CARP

  25,350

  Unit 51

  20,500

  Total

  168,350

  Prison Service Grants

  National Association of Prison Visitors

  8,000

  Community Service Volunteers

  152,000

  Assisted Visits to inmates etc.

  1,564,000

  Prison Visitors Centres

  49,000

  Total

  1,773,000

  Other Criminal Department Grants

  Pilot Projects on Young Adult Offenders

  150,000

  Prisoners Abroad

  27,000

  Total

  177,000

  Grants to NACRO (excluding accommodation projects)

  Grant-in-aid (core-funding)

  824,000

  Prisons Link Unit

  134,000

  Management Development Officer

  31,000

  Education Advisory Service

  31,000

  Black Initiatives Unit

  70,000

  Training (of residential staffs)

  148,684

  Total

  1,238,684

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: For information up to 1988–89, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 April 1989 at column 240. In 1989–90 payments in respect of preliminary expenses on the privatisation of the Independent Broadcasting Authority's transmission system are expected to total £237,000. Parliamentary authority for such payments amounting to £752,000 in 1990–91 will be sought in the supply estimates.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: For information prior to 1987–88 I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 6 April 1989 at column 240. The equivalent estimate of payments made for the financial year 1988–89 is £1,257,000; the latest estimated expenditure for 1989–90 is £1,547,525 and the budget for 1990–91 is £2,159,300.

  John Harker
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his inquiries into the case of Mr. John Harker are now complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The case is still under consideration. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as we have been able to complete our inquiries.

  Asylum
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if in the light of the decision of the High Court to override the immigration authority's decision not to permit Lebanese asylum seekers staying over in Britain en route for a third country to remain here, he will either appeal against the decision or introduce legislation to plug this loophole.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The High Court found that in the particular circumstances of these applications directions could not be issued requiring removal to Brazil. My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the Government will not appeal against this judgment and the claims for asylum will now be considered in this country.

  We shall keep the position under review in case any changes in procedures, or legislation become necessary.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out by reference to police forces the number of special constables in post in 1985 and in 1989.
  361
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of special constables in post as at 31 December in each police force in England and Wales was as follows:

  1985

  1989

  Avon and Somerset

  480

  503

  Bedfordshire

  215

  137

  Cambridgeshire

  216

  169

  Cheshire

  252

  219

  Cleveland

  131

  139

  Cumbria

  182

  210

  Derbyshire

  275

  251

  Devon and Cornwall

  791

  852

  Dorset

  297

  218

  Durham

  172

  149

  Dyfed Powys

  143

  189

  Essex

  367

  445

  Gloucestershire

  185

  209

  Greater Manchester

  392

  473

  Gwent

  112

  95

  Hampshire

  480

  362

  Hertfordshire

  249

  203

  Humberside

  277

  249

  Kent

  510

  500

  Lancashire

  408

  432

  Leicestershire

  220

  327

  Lincolnshire

  345

  365

  Merseyside

  373

  296

  Norfolk

  178

  269

  Northamptonshire

  203

  240

  Northumbria

  606

  538

  North Wales

  215

  175

  North Yorkshire

  311

  334

  Nottinghamshire

  516

  485

  South Wales

  289

  253

  South Yorkshire

  261

  316

  Staffordshire

  513

  566

  Suffolk

  323

  329

  Surrey

  252

  174

  Sussex

  653

  530

  Thames Valley

  715

  568

  Warwickshire

  344

  347

  West Mercia

  633

  542

  West Midlands

  724

  673

  West Yorkshire

  486

  568

  Wiltshire

  232

  268

  City of London

  75

  60

  Metropolitan

  1,560

  1,362

  Total

  16,161

  15,589

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to review the training programmes for special constables.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The training of special constables is to be reviewed by the central planning and training unit, commencing this spring.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total annual cost of special constables.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total annual cost of special constables as recorded by police authorities for 1988–89 was £2,456,561.

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask for a report from the chief constable of Avon and Somerset constabulary on the events outside Bristol council house on 6 March.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of Avon and Somerset that in the early afternoon of 6362
  March demonstrators began to gather outside the council house in Bristol where the city council was meeting to consider the level of community charge. By 3.30 pm the crowd had grown to around 600 people. The crowd included some supporters of Militant and the Anti-Poll Tax Federation. At 3.45 pm a number of demonstrators attempted to force their way into the council house. They were prevented from doing so by the police.

  Further sporadic outbreaks of disorder occurred throughout the afternoon and early evening as elements of the crowd tried unsuccessfully to break the police lines. Missiles were thrown from the crowd and officers were kicked and punched. The demonstrators began to disperse at around 7.30 pm when the council meeting was concluded. A section of the crowd then proceeded to march into the city centre causing serious traffic congestion. A number of cars were damaged and three shops had their windows broken. A number of demonstrators returned to the council house and held a short meeting outside. These demonstrators had dispersed by 9.15 pm. Twenty-one people were arrested, mainly for public order offences. Five police officers were injured, three requiring hospital treatment.

  Penal Establishments
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the penal establishments in England and Wales, by security category, giving the number of inmates in each, at a convenient date in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Mellor
  Prison service establishments are classified by main function; subdivision into security category is practised only for male training prisons. A list of all establishments in England and Wales with their inmate populations on 31 December each year has been deposited in the Library. For a variety of reasons, training prisons may hold a number of inmates whose individual security classification is lower than that of the establishment itself.

  Police Rent Allowance
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the outcome of representations he has received on his decision to set aside certain elements of the police negotiating board's recommendations on rent allowance.

  Mr. Waddington
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 January 1990, columns 884–85]: Amending regulations were laid before both Houses of Parliament on 9 March. I have received representations from several quarters about the effect of these on officers in police forces whose maximum limits of rent allowance were last reviewed in 1988, on the grounds that they are at a disadvantage as compared with officers whose forces had a review date in 1989. I have therefore decided that officers whose allowances were last reviewed in 1988 and who are due to have their rent allowances protected at their existing amounts on 31 March should have those amounts increased as from 1 April by the movement in the retail prices index since their force maximum limit was last reviewed. Further amending regulations to give effect to my decision will be made as soon as possible.
  363
  This is in addition to the arrangements already provided for in the amending regulations whereby no officer in receipt of rent allowance on 31 March will receive less after that date than he was getting then.

  I have also decided that officers in accommodation provided by their police authorities should receive a transitional allowance of £300 a year for three years. This is provided for in the amending regulations already laid. This decision is in recognition of the fact that up till now such officers have occupied their accommodation free of rates.

HEALTH

  Population Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the current estimates and projections of the population aged 16 years and over, men and women, by standard region including Greater London for June each year from 1975 to the current year;

  (2) what are the current estimates and projections of the population of working age, men and women, by standard region including Greater London for June each year from 1975 to the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have placed the information in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made to provide community facilities for the mentally ill and handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for health authorities and social services authorities to collaborate to provide, within reasonable resources, community facilities for mentally ill

  Average daily available beds, wards open overnight, NHS hospitals, 1979 to 1988–89

  Health Authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Hull

  2,145

  2,128

  2,024

  1,955

  1,948

  1,935

  1,934

  1,862

  1,827

  1,791

  East Yorkshire

  2,184

  2,113

  2,004

  1,934

  1,951

  1,904

  1,871

  1,676

  1,455

  1,384

  Grimsby

  797

  800

  806

  800

  807

  800

  957

  970

  914

  854

  Scunthorpe

  993

  983

  962

  936

  931

  913

  933

  921

  859

  834

  Northallerton

  437

  448

  448

  444

  413

  406

  404

  405

  408

  390

  York

  2,985

  2,959

  2,933

  2,847

  2,548

  2,473

  2,377

  2,278

  2,066

  1,858

  Scarborough

  689

  701

  674

  688

  694

  682

  676

  650

  621

  606

  Harrogate

  995

  927

  954

  959

  1,142

  1,068

  1,027

  955

  910

  860

  Bradford

  2,721

  2,719

  2,724

  2,711

  2,680

  2,621

  2,510

  2,480

  2,330

  2,197

  Airedale

  1,528

  1,533

  1,501

  1,464

  1,402

  1,376

  1,353

  1,312

  1,250

  1,223

  Calderdale

  1,370

  1,385

  1,344

  1,357

  1,302

  1,258

  1,228

  1,214

  1,144

  1,106

  Huddersfield

  2,625

  2,389

  2,391

  2,391

  2,321

  2,235

  2,059

  1,903

  1,693

  1,540

  Dewsbury

  777

  778

  785

  756

  761

  752

  736

  733

  708

  632

  Leeds Western

  —1

  —1

  —1

  3,327

  3,218

  3,172

  3,156

  2,969

  2,809

  2,723

  Leeds Eastern

  —1

  —1

  —1

  2,734

  2,726

  2,698

  2,561

  2,495

  2,404

  2,256

  Wakefield

  2,607

  2,505

  2,473

  2,321

  2,309

  2,273

  2,128

  1,974

  1,810

  1,723

  Pontefract

  854

  848

  873

  865

  883

  904

  885

  881

  827

  788

  Barnsley

  962

  1,013

  1,014

  971

  1,032

  1,073

  1,134

  1,127

  1,110

  1,110

  Doncaster

  —1

  —1

  —1

  1,946

  1,954

  1,929

  1,879

  1,847

  1,681

  1,747

  Rotherham

  —1

  —1

  —1

  1,244

  1,250

  1,246

  1,251

  1,271

  1,258

  1,262

  Sheffield

  —1

  —1

  —1

  4,922

  4,800

  4,799

  4,771

  4,677

  4,679

  4,071

  1 Comparable figures not available due to National Health Service restructuring in 1982.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a final copy of the report made under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in the Library.
  364
  and mentally handicapped people. Subject to the enactment of current legislation, resources will be augmented by a transfer from social security to local authorities and by the introduction of a specific grant to help increase the social care available for people with a mental illness.

  Psychotherapy
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what National Health Service in-patient facilities exist, other than the Cassel hospital, Richmond, Surrey, to provide psychotherapeutic treatment for severely disturbed patients and families.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Cassel Hospital, Richmond
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the proposal by the Riverside health authority to close the Cassel hospital, Richmond.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received letters from a number of hon. Members and others and responded for the Government in an Adjournment debate moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 9 February at columns 1201–08.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each Yorkshire and Humberside health authority the total available patient beds for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Freeman
  Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in the light of the findings of the SSI report, "Developing Services for Disabled People", he plans to
  365
  ring-fence the money allocated for the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  No money has been allocated for the remaining sections of the Act. In general, we believe that Government support for local authority expenditure is best provided through the revenue support grant, to ensure maximum local accountability.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in the light of the findings of the SSI report, "Developing Services for Disabled People", he plans to ring-fence the money for community care services for disabled people under his new arrangements for community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. We believe that Government support for community care expenditure, as with other important local authority functions, is best provided through the revenue support grant. This will ensure maximum local accountability and encourage value for money by enabling local authorities to make decisions about community care based on local factors.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he expects to lay a final draft of the report to Parliament under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 before Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report was laid before Parliament on 21 December 1989.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the first meeting with local authority associations was held to discuss implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  The implementation of these sections of the Act was discussed in the course of a meeting with the local authority associations on 4 July 1988, when it was agreed that work on other sections should take priority. Officials have now written to the associations to seek their views on the cost and other implications of these sections, and intend to arrange a further meeting with them to discuss these issues in due course.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the findings of the SSI monitoring of sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and what steps he will be taking to publicise its findings.

  Mr. Freeman
  The social services inspectorate's report "Developing Services for Disabled People", published on 6 February, gave the results of an inspection of all sections of the Act in force, including sections 5 and 6. The findings of a more specific study of the progress of six authorities towards implementation of sections 5 and 6 are due to be published shortly, and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the average cost incurred by United Kingdom passport holders who, when falling ill abroad, required treatment.
  366
  Mr. Freeman
  No information on this subject is collected or held centrally.

  Wakefield DHA
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 8 March,Official Report, column 827, if he will make it his policy to make privately available to the hon. Member for Wakefield a copy of the director of audit's report relating to Wakefield district health authority's cook-chill catering system, when it is completed.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. If a report is issued it will be sent for consideration by Wakefield district health authority, Yorkshire regional health authority and the Secretary of State.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what allowance will be made for general practitioner remuneration in the light of his Department's non-issue of the child health surveillance fee claim;

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that general practitioners receive sufficient supplies of child health surveillance fee claim forms by 30 March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Stocks of the new child health surveillance fee claim form were issued to all family practitioner committees by 5 March 1990 for distribution to general practitioners.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many electoral wards would qualify for general practitioner deprivation payments if a score of 16 rather than 30 had been chosen as the trigger point for payment; and what would be the extra cost.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The number of wards (1981 boundaries) which have a Jarman score of 16 or more in England is 1,249. If deprivation payments were to be made at this level (16 or more) the cost would have to be met by reducing other fees and allowances within the remuneration system, to ensure that the average net income incurred by GPs did not exceed the level recommended by the doctors and dentists' review body and accepted by the Government. If the payment rate proposed for the band 30–39 was extended down to 16, some £30 million at April 1990 rates would have to be found by reducing other fees and allowances.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the electoral wards where general practitioners will qualify in England for deprivation payments; and if he will indicate what their Jarman index score is.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: I have placed information in the Library showing the wards (1981 boundaries) in England which have a score of 30 or more and the appropriate local authority district. The table shows that there are 269 wards with a score between 30 and 39 which will attract deprivation payment from April 1990 of £4·90 per patient per annum, 112 wards with a score between 40 and 49 (deprivation payment of £6·40 per annum) and 73 wards with a score of 50 or more (deprivation payment of £8·50 per annum) giving a grand total of 454 wards.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is to abate or reduce the fees of the Medicines Control Agency for orphan drugs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A reduced fee (currently £13,600 instead of £68,000) is payable for a major product licence application covered by paragraph 5 of chapter III of part 3 of the annex to EC directive 75/318.

  The term "orphan drug" is of United States origin and has no direct counterpart in United Kingdom or EC legislation. It is considered that the above directive provision (which deals with situations where comprehensive data on therapeutic safety and efficacy cannot be provided) covers the concept of "orphan drugs".

  Prescribed Medicines
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to publish the recent research for his Department on the attitude of pharmacists to the prescribed medicines taken by the elderly.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the study "Elderly people, their medicines and their doctors" by Ann Cartwright and Christopher Smith which was published by Routledge in 1988. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  One element of the research was an assessment by a clinical pharmacologist and two pharmacists of the appropriateness of the prescribed medicines taken by the elderly people in the study. They found that 31 per cent. of the prescribed medicines were assessed as pharmacologically open to question, for example because of potentially harmful interactions or inappropriate dosages.

  Ambulance Workers, Dewsbury
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on how many ambulance workers in Dewsbury are trained paramedics; and how many paramedic ambulance workers have been trained by Dewsbury health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may like to contact the chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority, Sir Bryan Askew, for further information.

  E111
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take urgent steps to ensure that all post offices and sub-post offices in the Wakefield constituency have an adequate supply of his Department's form E111.

  Mr. Freeman
  A further supply of forms E111 was received in the post office stores in Swindon on 12 March. Post offices and sub-post offices should apply for stocks through their usual channels.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the exemption from the community charge, to be given to mentally ill people, will be dependent on the definitions laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983; and if he will make a statement.
  368
  Mr. Freeman
  Exemption from the community charge will not be dependent on the definition laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Provided that a person is in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits listed in schedule 1 (paragraph 4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (as amended by the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) Order 1989, SI 1989/442, and the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions for the Severely Mentally Impaired) Order 1990, SI 1990/462) and is in receipt of a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that he is severely mentally impaired he will be exempt from the community charge.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what factors he ascribes the continued increase in reported food poisoning incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 8 February at columns 773–74.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prohibition orders under section 2(3)(a) and requirement orders under section 2(3)(b) of the Employment of Children Act 1973 have been served by(a) local education authorities in England and Wales and (b) education authorities in Scotland since the Act became law.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: The Employment of Children Act 1973 has not been implemented. In England and Wales, equivalent provisions to sections 2(3)(a) and (b) of the Act are available in section 59 of the Education Act 1944. This enables local education authorities to serve a notice on an employer to prohibit or to impose restrictions on the employment of any child. In addition, section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides for local authorities to make byelaws which regulate the employment of children and which prohibit children from being employed in any specified occupation. All local authorities (except Isles of Scilly) have such byelaws.

  Figures notified to the Home Office for prosecutions and convictions under sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 are as follows:

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1979

  23

  18

  1980

  26

  25

  1981

  24

  22

  1982

  17

  16

  1983

  12

  12

  1984

  12

  9

  1985

  11

  9

  1986

  2

  2

  1987

  8

  8

  1988

  28

  22

  Matters relating to the employment of children in Scotland are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report by Kathleen Murray entitled "Personal Data in Social Services Records, Access and Disclosure Policy in Practice" commissioned by his Department was completed; and when he expects to publish it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: Kathleen Murray's report on access to personal social services records was completed last year. The report is a substantial piece of work and is being given careful consideration with a view to publication.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of people with mortgage payments six to 12 months in arrears in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many mortgages are in arrears in(a) the building society and (b) the banking sectors.

  Mr. Major
  Around 37,000 in 1988 and around 58,000 in 1989—less than ½ per cent. of all home owners.

  Independent Taxation
  Cunliffe
  8. Mr. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect independent taxation will have on low-income households.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Almost 400,000 married couples with combined incomes below £10,000 a year will pay less tax as a result of the change to independent taxation.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from business and industry about British membership of the European exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from business and industry about British membership of the European exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Major
  I have received a number of representations.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has had recent discussions with his German counterpart regarding the timing of the United Kingdom's entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Ryder
  The German Government are well aware of the United Kingdom's position on sterling's participation in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average inflation rate of countries in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
  370
  Mr. Ryder
  It is 4·2 per cent. in December if owner-occupiers' housing costs are excluded.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with other European Finance Ministers about British participation in the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Lilley
  Our conditions for entry are well known.

  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the effect of proposed price increases in the gas and electricity industries on the retail prices index.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  British Gas has announced average price rises of 7½ per cent. from 1 March. Given the weight of gas of 2·2 per cent., this should have an impact of between 0·15 and 0·2 per cent. on the retail prices index, once the new tariffs have been fully implemented. The electricity boards are in the course of announcing their prices for 1990–91.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the effect on the average mortgage of an increase in mortgage rates from 9·5 per cent. to 15·5 per cent.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to have been the effect on the average mortgage of the increase in mortgage rates from 9·5 per cent. to 15·5 per cent.

  Mr. Lilley
  In July 1988, when the mortgage interest rate was 9·8 per cent., the monthly interest payment on the average mortgage, net of basic rate tax relief, was £128·63. At an interest rate of 15·5 per cent., the payment would be £203·44, if the level of outstanding capital was unchanged.

  Non-oil GDP
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-oil gross domestic product non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions represented in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  Non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions amounted to 34·1 per cent. of non-oil GDP in 1978–79, and 37·1 per cent. in 1988–89, the latest available year.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross earnings value added tax took up for a family on average male earnings with two children in 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  Approximately 2·7 per cent. and 5·0 per cent. respectively. Over the same period his real take-home pay has risen by 32 per cent.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new businesses have registered for value added tax in the latest year for which figures are available.
  371
  Mr. Ryder
  The number of new VAT registrations processed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the calendar year was 261,783. This represents a 50 per cent. increase over 1980.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross earnings value added tax took up for a family on average male earnings with two children in 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  A family consisting of a married man on average male earnings, his wife and two children would have paid approximately 2·7 per cent. of gross earnings in VAT in 1978–79 and will pay about 5·0 per cent. in 1989–90. Over the same period his real take-home pay has risen by 32 per cent.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on United Kingdom economic and productivity growth since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Both gross domestic product and whole economy productivity have grown by over 20 per cent. since 1979.

  Earnings
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in real take-home pay of a married man with two children on male average earnings during the 1980s.

  Mr. Lilley
  A married man with two children on average male earnings enjoyed an increase in real take-home pay of over 26 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1989–90.

  Inflation
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation.

  Mr. Ryder
  The all-items RPI annual inflation rate in January was 7·7 per cent. The underlying inflation rate, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, was 6·1 per cent.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many European countries have a higher inflation rate than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  Four EC countries have higher inflation rates than the United Kingdom when estimates of home owners' costs are excluded so as to bring the published figures on to a more comparable basis.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department has undertaken any study into the effect of the change in arrangements for local taxation on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The change in the arrangements for local taxation is one among many factors which will affect the rate of inflation. A forecast for RPI inflation will be published in the forthcoming "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the overall inflation rate, based on the retail prices index, in each month from January 1986 to the latest available date.
  372
  Mr. Ryder
  The information may be obtained from the latest issue of Employment Gazette and the latest annual supplement to Economic Trends (1989 edition).

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have zero inflation.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).

  Charities
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised through value added tax on charities in 1989; and what was the comparable figure in real terms 10 years ago.

  Mr. Ryder
  For the value added tax paid by charities in 1989, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 15 February [Official Report, column 338]. It is estimated that 10 years ago charities paid at today's values between £100 million and £150 million in value added tax.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any representations about the impact of interest rates from(a) Scottish businesses, (b) local authorities, (c) fishermen's organisations, (d) council tenants and (e) home owners.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject from a wide variety of sources.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Bank base rates are 15 per cent.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding the present level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were long-term interest rates in(a) the United Kingdom (b) West Germany and (c) Japan (i) 12 months ago and (ii) currently.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is as follows:

  Long term interest rates1

  March 1989

  6 March 1990

  United Kingdom

  9·9

  12·2

  West Germany

  6·9

  9·0

  Japan

  5·1

  7·0

  1 Yields on ten year government bonds.

  Source: Bank of England.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in gross domestic product during the 1980s(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European Community countries.
  373
  Mr. Ryder
  Between 1980 and 1988 growth averaged 2·7 per cent. a year in the United Kingdom and 2·1 per cent. in other European Community countries.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from caravan site owners in respect of value added tax.

  Mr. Ryder
  A delegation from the two national trade associations representing caravan park owners saw the then Economic Secretary shortly after the changes in the taxation of holiday caravan pitch rentals were introduced from 1 April last year. My hon. Friend confirmed the Government's decision to tax these pitch rentals but was able to give some reassurances about the impact on charges made by caravan park owners for electricity, water, gas and rates.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his latest forecast for the share of gross domestic product taken by business investment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The success of this Government in encouraging business investment is widely recognised. Business investment as a proportion of gross domestic product is expected to have been the highest ever recorded in 1989.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to meet the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss investment in manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend will be addressing the Confederation of British Industry's annual dinner on 17 May.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of manufacturing investment was in the fourth quarter of 1989; and what percentage change this was on the third quarter.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of manufacturing investment was in the fourth quarter of 1989; and what percentage change this was on the third quarter.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Provisional estimates of manufacturing investment in the fourth quarter of 1989 and estimates for earlier quarters are contained in the press notice CSO (90) 25 0, "Capital Expenditure by Manufacturing Industries", issued on 15 February 1990. Copies of this notice are available from the Library of the House. Revised estimates will be included in the GDP press notice for release on 16 March.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England; and what matters were discussed.
  374
  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer if inheritance tax liabilities in respect of shares in closely held unquoted trading companies were rolled over until the shares were realised for cash or the company was converted into a public company.

  Mr. Lilley
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 15 January 1990,Official Report, column 96.

  Exchange Controls
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of exchange controls on confidence in the currency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The removal of United Kingdom exchange controls in 1979 has had a wholly beneficial effect on the economy.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on his plans to encourage self-employment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Self-employment has increased by 72 per cent. since 1979 as a result of the Government's policies to encourage enterprise. My right hon. Friend has recently received a large number of representations on these policies.

  Personal Savings
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on measures required to boost personal savings.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations concerning the subject of saving.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on Ins latest forecast for the percentage of gross domestic product to be taken by general Government expenditure for 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Several representations have been received.

  Tax Revenue
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total revenues emanates from(a) taxes on consumption and (b) taxes related to employment and wealth creation.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1988, taxes on consumers' expenditure (net of subsidies) accounted for 30 per cent. of total taxes and national insurance contributions. There is no unambiguous definition of taxes related to employment and wealth creation.

  Investment and Consumption
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in total investment and in total consumption during the 1980s.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Total fixed investment grew by 42 per cent. in volume terms between 1980 and 1988, the latest full year for which estimates are available. Over the same period, the volume of total domestic final consumption grew by 26 per cent.

  Exports and Imports (Non-oil)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the underlying trend for the growth in non-oil export volume; and what it is for import volume.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the three months to January, export volumes (less oil and erratics) were 4 per cent. higher than in the previous three months, while import volumes (less oil and erratics) fell by 1 per cent. Export volumes were 11 per cent. higher than in the same period a year earlier, but import volumes were only 2 per cent. higher.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the corporation tax rate in the United Kingdom and other European Community countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on 18 January 1990,Official Report, columns 400–02.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was corporation tax as a percentage of gross domestic product in 1978–79 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  2·3

  1988–89

  4·0

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth during the 1980s of manufacturing productivity in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other major industrial countries.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick).

  Privatisation
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations against his privatisation programme have been received from employees of companies already privatised.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have no way of knowing by whom those who write to the Treasury are employed. But the popularity of the privatisation programme with the employees of privatised industries is amply demonstrated 376
  by the large numbers of those employees who apply for shares in their companies on privatisation. Most recently, some 37,500 employees (over 85 per cent. of those eligible) applied for shares in the water offers.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received recently about the taxation treatment of workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the appropriate conditions for full United Kingdom membership of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 28 November 1989,Official Report, column 195.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on developments towards economic and monetary union within the Community.

  Mr. Ryder
  Measures to improve the co-ordination of member states' economic and monetary policies were discussed at the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers on 12 March, about which I reported to the House on 14 March.

  Preparation for the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union, which will begin at the end of the year, is taking place in the Council and its committees.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions took place at the most recent meeting of ECOFIN about the implementation of stage 1 of the Delors report on economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 14 March.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants were in his Department in 1975, 1979 and at the latest date for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  There were 1,065 civil servants employed in the Treasury at 1 January 1975 and 1,052 at 1 January 1979. In November 1981 a number of additional functions were transferred to the Treasury from the Civil Service Department, increasing Treasury numbers to 4,177 at 1 January 1982. The number employed at I February 1990 was 3,155.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his written reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 8 January,Official Report, columns 553–56, on mortgage interest relief by range of income, whether he will provide a breakdown for each region.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is not available for each region. The regional distribution of mortgagors and mortgage interest relief can be estimated from the family expenditure survey (FES), but the sample size for the FES is not large enough to provide more detailed estimates for each region. The table provides the available estimates:

  Regional share of mortgagors and mortgage interest relief based on FES data for 1986 and 1987

  Mortgagors (per cent.)

  Mortgage interest relief (per cent.)

  Northern

  5·1

  4·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8·6

  7·5

  North West

  12·0

  10·5

  East Midlands

  7·8

  6·8

  West Midlands

  8·3

  7·4

  East Anglia

  3·6

  3·7

  Greater London

  10·9

  13·3

  Other South East

  22·6

  26·0

  South West

  8·1

  8·2

  Wales

  5·2

  4·6

  Scotland

  6·3

  6·4

  Northern Ireland

  1·5

  1·3

  United Kingdom

  100·0

  100·0

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many individuals in Scotland are currently receiving mortgate interest tax relief; and what were the comparable figures for 1973–74, 1978–79, 1983–84, 1988–89 and 1989–90;

  (2) what is the current cost to the Exchequer of paying mortgage interest tax relief in Scotland; and what was the cost in 1973–74, 1978–79, 1983–84, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  Precise estimates of mortgagors and mortgage relief in Scotland are not available. The 1986 and 1987 family expenditure surveys indicate that 6·3 per cent. of all mortgagors are in Scotland and they claim 6·4 per cent. of all mortgage interest relief. This would imply about 600,000 mortgagors receiving £450 million mortgage interest relief in 1989–90. The equivalent figures for 1988–89 are 570,000 and £350 million. Information for the earlier years is not available.

  Company Taxes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of company income went in taxes in 1978–79 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  38·9

  1988–89

  38·7

  Taxes comprise corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax, employers' national insurance contributions, national insurance surcharge and business rates.
  378
  Company income, including public corporations, in the calendar year is as defined in the national accounts, net of interest payments.

  Trade Deficits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which OECD countries had trade deficits that were bigger as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom's in 1989.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which OECD countries have, by latest estimates, trade deficits that are bigger as a percentage of gross domestic products than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) earlier today.

  TUC
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives from the Trades Union Congress.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor last met representatives from the TUC at the National Economic Development Council on 10 January.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of mortgage interest paid by owner-occupiers for 1988; and what is the comparable amount in 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) earlier today.

  Visible Trade Balance
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the United Kingdom visible balance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information may be found in table 1 of the monthly press notice on the current account of the balance of payments, published on 28 February, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of trade and measures to reduce the manufacturing deficit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the three months to January there was a deficit in manufactures of £3·1 billion compared with a deficit of £4·3 billion in the previous three months; this is clear evidence that the trade balance is now responding to the tightening of policy.

  Productivity
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the growth of productivity in the economy as a whole since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Whole economy productivity has grown by over 20 per cent. since 1979.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of funds in personal equity plans on 5 April 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  The total value of funds in plans at 31 December 1988 is estimated at £670 million. Information is not available for 5 April 1989.

  Banks (Tax Allowances)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his reply of 7 March,Official Report, column 652, what is the latest year for which the Inland Revenue has collected information on the amounts allowable against tax by the banks; and what was the amount for that year.

  Mr. Lilley
  Discussions between the banks and the Inland Revenue about provisions against Third-world debts allowable for tax for 1987–88 and later years are still going on. Amounts allowed against tax for earlier years were not significant. Estimates of the reduction in mainstream corporation tax receipts for provisions on doubtful sovereign debts are negligible for the years to 1984–85 inclusive, under £50 million, for each of 1985–86 and 1986–87, about £¼ billion for 1987–88, over £½ billion for 1988–89 and about ¼ billion for 1989–90.

  Debt Write-offs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of revenue lost in respect of write-offs for bad debts incurred in the last year for which figures are available by the main banks in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information about write-offs and provisions for bad debts other than sovereign debt where recovery is doubtful is not collected centrally and cannot be provided except at disproportionate expense.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to conclude discussions on establishing the European Community's bank for reconstruction and development.

  Mr. Ryder
  Discussions on establishing the European bank for reconstruction and development are making good progress. I hope that articles of agreement will be finalised very soon.

  Personal Debt
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the effect of a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates on the total level of United Kingdom personal debt and the average level of debt for each family.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  An increase in interest rates encourages saving and discourages borrowing and therefore, over time, leads to a reduction in the rate of growth of personal debt.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye Lord Balfour of Inchrye—Sat first in Paliament after the death of his father.

Schools: Management Training
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made with training for the local management of schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government are making available substantial support for training for this important reform. It is for each local education authority to decide on the nature and extent of training for LMS, having regard to its particular circumstances. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is encouraged by the way in which local education authorities are responding to the issue of management training.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the formula funding, which will come into operation with the local management of schools on 1st April, is causing great concern? Has the training dealt with the problem whereby the budget, calculated, as the noble Baroness will know, on the historic base, will be seriously affected when there is an increase in the number of pupils and, perhaps even more important, when there is an increase in teachers' salaries through normal increments, let alone any increase in overall salaries? What have the Government done about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the training is addressing all the issues that will be involved in managing education authorities' budgets and in particular schools' budgets. The noble Lord is venturing into whether the sum of money allocated to schools is actually enough for the transition when under the formula schools will either gain or lose. Most education authorities are finding a way of stepping those schools which lose to the point of the budget that they will receive. Those schools which gain will gain by not more than a percentage of their budget in any one year.
Lord Parry: My Lords, what further arrangements have been made for the provision of in-service education to meet the needs of the management studies that must be made available if those now being appointed to management positions in schools are to perform their task adequately?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the training will address that point. There is a programme of training for governors themselves, for support staff for
1638
governors and also for head teachers and senior teachers. To that end the sums of money in 1989–90 were: £4·9 million for training governors; £3 million for training support staff; and £10 million for training head teachers and senior teachers. In 1990–91 those sums are £5·1 million, £2 million and £8 million. There are plans that this funding should continue into next year.
Lord Parry: My Lords, is that additional money to the money that would previously have been given to education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is additional money to the normal allocation for training.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when more and more schools become self-governing under the Government's Education Reform Act it will presumably mean that fewer and fewer people will need to be employed in local education authorities. Will not some of those people be retrained and reallocated as bursars and adminstrators who will run schools more efficiently and cost-effectively than overgrown bureaucracies in local education authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. It will be necessary for local education authorities to respond under the new system to the need for less bureaucracy at the centre than before. I cannot comment on whether that money will be transferred to schools. It is for each local education authority to determine allocations for each school. But it will be necessary in regard to the ancillary allowances given to each school to think very much in terms of a bursarial post.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, what advice do the Government give to school managers who refuse to take over responsibility for the buildings because they are either unsafe or in a state of dereliction?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the capital moneys for the kind of problem addressed by the noble Baroness will be retained centrally. Minor maintenance money will be allocated to individual schools.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, what advice will the noble Baroness give to local authorities when local managers say that they will not take responsibility as managers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my answer implied that individual schools will not have to take on full responsibility for capital moneys for major maintenance. Local education authorities themselves will have to manage that issue, and many are doing it very well.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness will have seen the excellent report published by her own department this week on developing school management. Is she aware—I am sure she is—that it says that the function of the local authority will

1639
change but will not necessarily be diminished? Therefore, are not the remarks of her noble friend Lord Onslow quite mistaken in terms of any economies for the local education authority?
Is she further aware that the excellent report from her department says that many primary and secondary school head teachers who will be responsible for these budgets felt deprived of adequate support from the LEA in a consultative capacity and in the form of additional school-based administrative support? Is her right honourable friend the Secretary of State ready to respond to those statements and will he be taking an interest in appropriate action in the very near future as local management of schools starts in the very near future?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend is aware of all the issues and challenges for teachers, and for head teachers in particular, especially in the primary school sector. A school management task force has been set up specifically to advise the Secretary of State on all the management issues that are to be involved. There is a challenge for schools and there is the issue of whether the support staff is adequate at school level, but that will continue to be monitored.
The noble Lord referred to central administration. Many of us will be looking for a diminution of central bureaucracy in this area. The role for local education authorities will of course change. They will become monitors of quality and monitors of delivery of service. That will be the new role that they will have to develop.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in relation to the Answer which the Minister gave me, perhaps I may give her a firm assurance that I was talking about the amount of money available to schools; that is largely what LMS is about. Can she be a little more specific on the matter because, with the greatest respect, she did not really answer the Question? If the historic base is to be 1988–89 or even 1989–90, more money is bound to be needed if only, as I said in a supplementary question, in relation to normal increments for teachers. Will she kindly answer the Question?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with respect, that is not the Question on the Order Paper. The Question asks what progress is being made on the training front. I can say that considerable progress has been made on training, and all the aspects of what teachers, governors and support staff are being trained for will be addressed. The allocation of resources is another matter.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must press the noble Baroness on this point. It is connected with the question of training. Is not the problem that head teachers are being asked to manage budgets, which is something that they have not been asked to do before? They do not have the appropriate training. If my noble friend is right—and I believe that he is—in terms of scarcity of funds, head teachers will be asked to manage budgets which are too small to begin with. We are asking what the department will
1640
do if it turns out next spring—as this will take a little time to happen—that the schools run out of money.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amount of money available to local education authorities has always been a finite sum. When it was controlled from the centre there was great frustration at school level about the management. It has been proved, certainly in my authority over the past nine years, that the way in which it is managed at school level brings about greater value for money and better management of resources than is the case when it is managed centrally by the local education authority.

Football Clubs and Local Communities
3.16 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to expand the schemes which foster good relations between football clubs and local communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government will continue to encourage "Football in the Community" schemes, run by the Professional Footballers Association, and other community initiatives taken by football clubs. The Training Agency provides financial support to the Professional Football Association schemes and the Sports Council provides financial assistance for clubs' community facilities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to advise the Minister that the Question is wholly benign and not malignant. Does he share my view that since the terrible Hillsborough disaster there has been a breath of fresh air in football in the form of those who are anxious to put right many of the aspects which people recognised were wrong? Can he tell us how his department intends to monitor the progress being made by those clubs that have in mind bringing together the local authorities, the local youth clubs, the local schools, the local police and other bodies? I ask this because, unless it is someone's job to prod and probe, it is possible that in 10 years' time very little progress will have been achieved.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for stating that his Question is benign. I entirely agree with him. It is to be hoped that out of the Hillsborough tragedy will come a new flowering for the sport and a new relationship especially with the young whom we hope to encourage to appreciate the game, and that will enable us to go forward. I have certain doubts as to whether the department can actively monitor the situation over the above contributing cash resources towards the schemes. However, I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for Sport.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has it come to the notice of the Government that a great deal of trouble at football matches is caused by organised gangs of people who seem to indulge in a rival sport of fighting each other? Is my noble friend aware that so long as that situation prevails it will be very difficult to achieve the right relationship among all those concerned with football?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, last year this House had extended discussions on the matters which my noble friend draws to our attention. The important aspect about the Question before us today is that we are trying to encourage young people to take an interest in the game. Whether we can reclaim the interest of those who engage in the activity of fighting—and a football match is purely the scenario for this—is a difficult and challenging problem.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will it be worthwhile having discussions with the representatives of the clubs at all levels of rugby union, including the international level? They do not seem to have any problem whatsoever, and they might be able to give some guidance to professional soccer.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am firmly of the belief that this is a problem for football that has to be cured by football.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the scheme that has worked well in Scotland for two years? It involves all the bodies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, together with at least two major sponsors who consider aspects in the stadium as well as clean play and discipline on the field.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is absolutely clear that all initiatives which have proved to be successful and which have been drawn to my attention by my noble friend should be looked at.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the club with which I am associated—Millwall—probably had more hooligans than some others I could name? It has now introduced a scheme which brings in the local council, local schools and others with a community officer. That is important. Would the Minister care to comment and say whether such a scheme, which seems completely to obliterate hooliganism, could be extended nationally?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the fame of the success of the Millwall scheme is such that my own officials at the Department of the Environment produced a document about it to show the respect in which it is held.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many football clubs at all levels in the country fear desperate financial straits as a result of the new business community charge? Is it not the case that if, as is feared by some of them, they get into debt they will not have the money to develop the schemes that the noble Lord has been putting forward and about which my noble friend has asked?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was referring to the business rate. That is, I feel, wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, if he wishes to put down a Question on the subject I should be more than happy to answer.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is proud to be president of the Millwall club. He rightly takes credit from the fact that the club took an initiative which has been copied by a number of other clubs. Will the Minister agree that, sad to say, over a period of time, some clubs will take positive initiatives and some will not? Surely it is not beyond the wit of the department to find a means of checking up periodically, through an agency or an association with which it works, or directly. Clubs are left untouched by initiatives and quite frankly many still live in the past.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I would draw his concerns to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for Sport. However, these schemes only work if there are willing participants on both sides.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that the continuing private ownership of the majority of professional football clubs makes it difficult to have true community involvement?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is therefore suggesting the nationalisation of football clubs.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, that is a cheap and easy jibe for the noble Lord to make. It is not what I suggested; nor did I imply that.

Westminster Council: Financial Transactions
3.24 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the report of the London District Auditor that the City of Westminster Council has been responsible for unlawful and unauthorised financial transactions, what powers they have to protect the residents of Westminster from the effects of such transactions.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the auditor of the City of Westminster has reported his provisional conclusions to the city council on certain transactions. When he reaches his final conclusions, the action that can be taken rests with the auditor and the courts and not Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as this Government have interfered more in local government than any other government in living memory, are they at all worried by the extremist policies of this local authority, even when the policies extend to breaches of the law?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should like to think that the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, in the first instance made it quite clear that the rule of law is being followed. I cannot agree with the supposition that Westminster is an extremist authority.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the reference in the Question to the protection of the residents of the City of Westminster, is my noble friend aware that those of us who live in adjoining boroughs are plain jealous of them since the City of Westminster has managed to fix the community charge at a reasonable level?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's contribution to the Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not the Government agree that the selling of cemeteries for a few pence by Westminster City Council has become a national issue? Do Her Majesty's Government give their blessing to that form of transaction which has irritated people throughout the entire nation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the Government would be accused of gross intervention if we started to interfere in the affairs of a democratically elected body. I should not wish to be the man to try to defend such a policy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his Answer the Minister stated that the district auditor's findings were preliminary. Will he do his best to ensure that the district auditor now produces his final report in good time for the electors of Westminster to receive it before the election on 3rd May? Will he confirm the Government's view that the remedy lies with the electors of Westminster and that this is their opportunity to turn out this dishonest administration?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this matter has been very widely aired. I think that no one in your Lordships' House would disagree with that. I am sure that the electorate of Westminster will be able to make its decision in the way it feels appropriate.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, did not my noble friend make it clear in his Answer that the ultimate criterion in this matter lies with the courts?
Lord Hesketh: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the fixing of the poll tax in Westminster has already been raised and answered by the Minister. Is he aware that the poll tax fixed in Westminster is subsidised through the safety net by community charges that are paid or will be paid in the East End of London?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is under a misapprehension. I went to some lengths not to refer to the community
1644
charge when the matter was raised earlier under this Question. The noble Lord's question is rather wide of that on the Order Paper.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that an unauthorised and unlawful transaction is not worthy of being stigmatised as being "dishonest", as is suggested by the Opposition Benches?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, nothing has appeared before a court. That is important.
Lord Jay: My Lords, whatever the district auditor does, would not the happiest solution to the troubles be for the militant lady who leads the council now to resign?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, all members of Westminster City Council will be up for re-election.

The Enterprise Initiative Scheme
3.29 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to abandon the Enterprise Initiative.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the Enterprise Initiative scheme continues. It is an important vehicle for a wide range of DTI services for business.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. How many business failures have there been in the qualifying category since the launching of the initiative in 1988?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid that I was not prepared for that supplementary question. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. How many business start-ups have there been in the qualifying category since the launching of the initiative in 1988?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the scheme has been well received. As at 16th February 1990 43,891 applications had been received, 31,581 projects had been commissioned and 13,931 projects had been completed. The terms of reference are agreed for a further 6,245 projects.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful for that information. How many business start-ups have there been in the qualifying category since the launch of the Enterprise Initiative in 1988?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with that figure.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should say that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has

1645
quite rightly pointed out that the object of Question Time is to elicit information. If the Government cannot provide the information that we wish to elicit, what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to carry on this whole procedure by correspondence?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ullswater has given the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the number of applications that have been made. If I may say so, I think they tell a good story. As the number of businesses that have been started is presumably a continuously moving total, my noble friend could, I think, be forgiven for not being able to give a definitive figure. However, I know that my noble friend, who is always helpful to the House, will write to the noble Lord with the best figure he can get.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, what areas of management do the consultancy initiatives address and which areas are most sought after?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the consultancy initiatives form a major element of the Enterprise Initiative. The key management areas are design, marketing, manufacturing systems, quality, business planning and financial information systems. The greatest interest has been shown in quality, followed by marketing.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I wish to make an appeal to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I have given him notice of it. There is on this side of the House and indeed in other parts of the House dissatisfaction when Ministers will not answer specific questions. We are told that the purpose of Question Time is to elicit information. However, there has been a practice recently of asking specific questions which involve specific dates. They have not been answered.
An instance of that occurred yesterday when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment repeatedly refused to confirm that this Government had signed an agreement in 1987 to end industrial dumping by 1989. The noble Lord has written to my noble friend Lord Northfield and he has sent me a copy of that letter. There is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question because there were certain reservations in the original agreement. However, these were never mentioned. Instead, the Minister continued to insist that the date involved was 1993. This kind of refusal to answer a direct question in my submission leads to the misleading of the House.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will say whether he is prepared to take any action.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government's intention in answering questions in your Lordships' House is always to try to give information. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench on this side of the House genuinely try to do that. As I understand it, the noble Lord is suggesting that
1646
my noble friend Lord Hesketh misled the House yesterday in answering the question which the noble Lord asked about the recent North Sea Conference.
In the time that has been available to me I have read yesterday's Hansard and I am certain that the House was not misled by my noble friend as regards giving inaccurate information which would therefore need correction. As that is the case, under the rules covering personal statements it would not be right procedurally for me to tell my noble friend Lord Hesketh that he should make a personal statement. Therefore for that reason I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, not to persist in asking for that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is considerable sympathy in all parts of the House with my noble friends on the Front Bench who fail to answer questions of detail, particularly when those questions are inordinately long?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is right for me to say that there was one question—that was not, to be fair, of inordinate length—to which my noble friend Lord Hesketh said he would need to reply in writing. I know that my noble friend has written to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who asked the question and has copied the letter to the noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Sefton of Garston.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, as the letter came to me perhaps I should say a few words. I hope that we can have some private discussion about this matter outside the Chamber when I hope we can settle it. However, if one reads the exchanges that took place yesterday one will realise that it was not so much a matter of the Minister misleading the House but rather of simply failing to give facts. We asked time and again whether Britain had signed an agreement to end industrial dumping by the end of 1989. We never received a straight answer to that question and that made the House angry. I hope therefore that we can discuss this matter outside.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House, but I do not understand why noble Lords are calling out "Order". I am in the course of an exchange with the noble Lord the Leader of the House and as the letter that we are discussing was sent to me I am entitled to make a simple point about it. I do not know why the noble Lord the Chief Whip also howled "Order".
I shall conclude my remarks briefly. I have said that I hope we can settle the matter outside the Chamber, but I hope that will be on the basis that we have a justified complaint. If one looks at Hansard, one will find that the simple facts which were asked for, and which have now been provided by letter, were simply not given. If those facts had been given yesterday, this entire problem would not have arisen.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it would be a mistake to extend this exchange. However, I should make one thing perfectly clear. There was a single question

1647
to which my noble friend Lord Hesketh was unable to give a reply. He told the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that he would write a letter to him. That letter has been written and it provides the information which was asked for—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is important that this point should be made quite clear. I am afraid I must make it clear. My noble friend Lord Hesketh offered to give information in reply to one question to which he was unable to reply yesterday. He wrote a full letter which makes it absolutely clear that the premise on which the question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in particular, was a false premise. I believe that my noble friend Lord Hesketh has acted entirely honourably and in a straightforward manner.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am not in any way impugning the honour of anyone on the Front Bench, least of all the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. However, I must correct the noble Lord the Leader of the House. A question was asked about a date. It was not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was unable to give an answer. He gave an answer, but it was incorrect. He gave the answer of 1993 but the correct reply was 1989. He made that plain in the letter that he sent to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. If he gave the answer of 1993 when it should have been 1989, that is an incorrect answer. That is not, however, an inability to give an answer.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it would be tedious if this exchange were protracted. I suggest that noble Lords would probably prefer to look at yesterday's Hansard and at today's exchange when it is printed. I hope I may suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, reads the letter.

Business
3.39 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the execution of Mr. Farzad Bazoft.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Third Reading of the Courts and Legal Services Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour. In that case, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1990 will be taken during the adjournment.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Hasmonean High School Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [H.L.]
3.41 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 8, leave out from ("namely") to (", any") in line 10 and insert ("a licence holder within the meaning of Part I of the Electricity Act 1989").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill was considered in detail by a Select Committee of the House last June. The amendments comprise adjustments to the definition of statutory undertakers and would help the Great Yarmouth Port Users' Association. In general terms they are very helpful amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("sewerage") to ("and") in line 12 and insert ("undertaker, a water undertaker").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [General directions to vessels]:
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 7:
Page 5, line 44, after ("Shipping") insert (", with the Great Yarmouth Port Users' Association").
Page 6, line 19, after ("which") insert ("in case of emergency").
Page 6, line 21, after ("which") insert ("in case of emergency").
Page 6, line 22, after ("which") insert ("in case of emergency").
Page 6, line 27, after ("Shipping") insert (", with the Great Yarmouth Port Users' Association").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments are of a very similar character. With the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

The Execution of Mr. Farzad Bazoft
3.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the execution of Mr. Farzad Bazoft. The Statement is as follows:
"The Iraqis executed Mr. Farzad Bazoft this morning. I can recall no recent case in which such a strong and unanimous view was expressed across the world in favour of clemency. That view has been ignored. The House will wish to express its total revulsion. At a time when the international

1649
scene shows many signs of hope and humanity, we have been reminded that there are still regimes capable of such cynical disregard for human rights.
"I have instructed our ambassador to return home. We are suspending all planned ministerial visits. We are stopping the training of Iraqis on Ministry of Defence courses. Students on these courses will return to Iraq without completing their courses. We shall seek support from the Twelve and from our friends and allies in condemning Iraq's action.
"I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole House when I extend to Mr. Bazoft's family my deepest sympathies on this tragic outcome. We shall continue to work for the release of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Ian Richter from their harsh sentences in Iraq.
"We made a strenuous and prolonged effort by many means to save Mr. Bazoft's life. The comments we made have throughout been measured and reasonable. By their action the Iraqi authorities have blackened the name of Iraq across the world."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Lord and his right honourable friends, we have been shocked and deeply dismayed by the news of Mr. Bazoft's execution this morning. We had hoped that the pleas made by Her Majesty's Government and so many other governments across the world might have persuaded the President of Iraq to commute the death sentence. President Hussein's callous reaction that he was not going to be influenced by Britain was a cruel excuse for committing a savage crime against a young man who at the very worst could only be described as over-zealous as a journalist.
We fear that that barbaric conduct confirms the Iraqi Government's appalling reputation in the field of human rights. It is sad to think that so cruel a government rule the territory that is known as the cradle of civilisation. We are conscious that Mrs. Daphne Parish and Mr. Ian Richter are serving prison sentences there and that steps will continue to be taken to secure their release. We extend our sympathies to them and their families.
We support the measures proposed by the Government as listed in the Statement and assume that export credits to Iraq will be suspended.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we also are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. Let us just recall what has happened. A journalist travelling on British documents sought in the course of his job to find out the truth about an incident in which 700 people are alleged to have been killed in an explosion. The evil regime of Saddam Hussein did not want the truth about that to come out so it murdered the journalist and locked up his acting chauffeuse.
I suppose that we should not be surprised that the Iraqi regime has descended to that level. It is a small, mafia-like, family group led by Saddam Hussein.
1650
First of all it subjected its own people to a secret police state. It began a war against its neighbour in which it used chemical warfare, the results of which I have seen with my own eyes. It committed genocide against the Kurdish people and stoked up the civil war in Lebanon by supplying arms to General Aoun and others. So the ritual slaughter of one man is nothing to that regime.
It is right that today we should express our horror and fury at such uncivilised behaviour. I am glad that the Government have done so in such measured terms. The prompt action which has been taken by the British Government will, I am sure, have the support of the world community. State terrorism has to be utterly condemned.
The Statement says that we seek the support of our friends in Europe. I hope that that means that we shall seek their support in some form of economic sanctions against the Iraqi regime. The sale of weapons, however non-lethal they may be, must be stopped. I hope that there will be an embargo on the next Baghdad arms fair, whenever that takes place. There may be some economic cost to this country in carrying out such measures but it is something from which we must not shrink. Appeasement of maniacs like that has been seen in the past never to pay off. It will not do so in the case of Saddam Hussein.
Like the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, we have great sympathy with Mr. Bazoft's family. We are deeply worried for Mrs. Parish and Mr. Ian Richter.
We have adopted a very low-key approach to this issue so far, but it is quite clear that no matter what words we use, that regime will take no notice of them. Therefore, I do not believe that we need to mince our words today. It is a horrific affair. The Government have acted very properly and very promptly and they will have the support of the whole country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and for their endorsement in principle of the Government's actions today. Having repeated the Statement, I should like to associate myself with much of what has been said in the House this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether export credits to Iraq would be suspended. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked whether trade sanctions could be imposed. We do not believe that they would work. Economic reprisals cannot help Mr. Bazoft or those in prison and we do not believe that they would change the policies of the authorities in Baghdad. Furthermore, they are likely to do us more harm than good.
So far as concerns seeking support from the EC, the EC has given us support from the outset. The Twelve have put out a firm statement deploring the execution and the European Parliament has also made a firm statement condemning it. We very much hope that the United Nations Secretary-General will follow up his appeal for clemency last week with a condemnation of this horrific act.

1651
On the question of the sale of weapons, the guidelines on arms sales to both Iran and Iraq are still in place. No sales of lethal equipment or equipment which might enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict are allowed. All export licence applications are considered rigorously on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned the subject of trade fairs and trade missions. I am not aware that another arms fair is to take place in Baghdad in the near future, but we have withdrawn government subsidy from a trade mission which was due to take place. I believe that it had intended to leave today. I hope that that answers the questions raised by noble Lords.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I associate myself entirely with what has been said, but I have one reservation. The noble Lord said that students would be sent back without completing their courses. How many students are there in that category? Does it include students who are due to take their examinations in a few weeks' time? What purpose will be served and what benefit will be gained from sending back those young men and women who will no doubt be the leaders in their country in some 10 or 20 years' time and might well be our friends? Is it right to visit the consequences of the crime which has been committed by the Government of Iraq upon presumably innocent young men and women who are doing nothing more than studying in our country and to whom we have been glad to offer hospitality?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the students to whom I referred in the Statement are the military students of whom I believe there are only four or five in this country. Those are the ones who will be sent straight back. Ordinary students, of whom there are a great many, will not be sent back for the very reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, gave in his question.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and to the House. I clearly misunderstood him. I thought that he was referring to all students, not just military students.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the more enlightened attitude from behind the Iron Curtain, will my noble friend the Minister say what the reaction from the Soviet Union has been and whether it has taken the same kind of action?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that we have not yet had a chance to hear reactions from many parts of the world, including the Soviet Union. We very much hope that it will condemn the action just as most of the rest of the world condemned the sentence when it was passed last weekend. Perhaps I should have said before that, as noble Lords will probably know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is going to Muscat tomorrow for the Gulf Co-operation Council-EC meeting. He will
1652
take the opportunity there to raise the matter with both his European Community partners and the Gulf states involved.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some people will believe that the government response is not adequate? Is he further aware that some people believe that the civilised approach of this Government and this country is seen as weakness by those fascist rulers of Iraq and other countries? Will the noble Lord say whether the Iraqi ambassador is to be expelled? Over the last couple of days, he has appeared on our television as an apologist for that abhorrent regime. Will the Minister also explain why the British Government are not prepared to take trade sanctions against Iraq and to encourage other countries to do the same? They would be the most effective form of expressing this country's and the civilised world's horror and abhorrence at the vicious sentence which was passed and carried out, without any right of appeal and in spite of world opinion, against an innocent victim.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that the Government have made a firm response to the Iraqis on this matter. We do not believe that it would do any good to break diplomatic relations with Iraq. I believe that it is important now, more than at any time, for the sake of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Richter, not to mention the other 2,000 or so Britons who live in Iraq, that we should have diplomatic relations with that country. We do not intend to expel the Iraqi ambassador. We are bringing back our ambassador to consult him about the wider implications of our relations. I feel sure that the expulsion of the Iraqi ambassador here in London would almost certainly lead to the expulsion of our ambassador from Baghdad. That is not what we want at the moment, as I have explained.
I do not believe that trade sanctions would help in this matter. They cannot help Mr. Bazoft or those in prison. They would be unlikely to change the policies of the authorities in Baghdad and they would lead to job losses in this country which we do not want to see.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must protest at that. A man's life has been forfeited and the Minister talks about job losses in this country. Have we no morals left?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is not the point. The point is whether we think those sanctions would have any effect on the regime in Baghdad. That is the point that I am trying to get across.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 17 [The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 14, line 33, leave out ("14") and insert ("16").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in one of his many capacities, my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton has been summoned away to Cambridge University and has left me with the privilege and the considerable responsibility of moving this important amendment.
It has been well said that the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee, with which this amendment is concerned—a lay-dominated committee—is at the very apex of the structure of the English legal profession. It is to supervise every important aspect of professional training and practice and effectively dictate not just the framework and detail of education, training standards and discipline of all those who provide legal services in our courts, but the very way in which those services are to operate.
Noble Lords may not be aware that no such committee is proposed in Scotland whose Bill is to be debated next week. The Lord President, or the equivalent of our Lord Chief Justice, will consider applications made by any professional or other body for rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation. If he rejects them, that is an end to the matter. It is only if he approves a draft scheme that it comes before the Secretary of State for him to be satisfied on quite different matters. Solicitors' rules of conduct must first be approved by the Lord President and then—and only then—submitted to the Secretary of State.
It was therefore small wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, speaking in the debate on the Green Paper last April—and speaking, let it be clearly recorded, in support of the Government—said he had a clear feeling that it is the advisory committee itself that is feared. He expressed surprise that there were not even at that stage—prior to the publication of even the White Paper, let alone the Bill—suggestions as to how that committee should be composed in order to consider whether its balance should be changed.
Those suggestions came thick and fast after the publication of the Bill. The first occasion was on Second Reading when a number of noble Lords suggested that a county court judge should be on the committee, bearing in mind how prominent county court litigation appeared in the legislation. That suggestion appeared to be favourably received by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he said that he would consider it carefully.
Bearing in mind that the committee was to have as its chairman a Law Lord or a judge of the Supreme Court, it was next proposed in terms at the Committee stage that there should be added three judges: one from each of the vital courts where the new structure would impinge and where in particular rights of audience would be considered; a stipendiary magistrate, because it would be in the magistrates' courts that much of the application for rights of audience among laymen might first start; a circuit judge, in order to speak as to the county court and the circuit judges; and, as to the High Court, a High Court judge of a particular character, namely, a presiding judge. As noble Lords may know, on each of the six circuits there are two High Court judges who for a period of four years are responsible to the
1654
Lord Chief Justice for the effective administration of that particular circuit.
In the debate that then took place, a notable contribution was made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who commented on the astonishingly wide terms of reference of the committee and the enormous amount of hard work in which it would be involved. He emphasised how critically important it was to get its composition right. Among other things he said:
"The people who will make the advisory committee work are those who have experience in the legal system. They know what needs to be done and how to go about doing it. No one knows better the needs of lay people than the judges before whom such people appear".
A little later he said:
"I believe that the committee would be enormously strengthened in terms of competence, ability arid sensitivity if there were added to it a presiding judge, a circuit judge and a stipendary magistrate".—(Official Report, 25/1/90; cols. 1242–43.]
During the same debate my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths, whom I am delighted to see in his place today and who had been an important member of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on the Civil Justice Review, said in terms that it was quite ridiculous that the chairman of the advisory committee should not have the assistance of judges who were at the receiving end of advocacy. He said:
"There should surely be there available to assist him [the chairman] the presiding judge and the circuit judge suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver. It is not good enough to say, 'You can call them in and get their evidence'. One wants them there to be available to discuss matters day in, day out, and to help one frame the questions that should be asked. They are absolutely essential to the proper operation of such a committee".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1256.]
The amendment which was moved at the Committee stage failed but it is not without significance that among those who supported it were four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, two distinguished Law Lords, now retired, the former Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, and my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls. In that debate my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"I am entirely open to suggestions as to the people who should be on the body".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1260.]
We returned to the charge a third time at Report stage, when the amendment then proposed was downgraded by being limited to two additional judges. We gave up the battle about the stipendiary magistrate and restricted our proposal to adding a presiding judge and a circuit judge to the committee.
In the course of the debate I pointed out that the chairman of the committee would inevitably be out of touch with current problems in the trial courts. Any English Law Lord who would be appointed would be fast approaching or would have attained 70 years of age and would last have presided as a trial judge perhaps a decade or more earlier. My noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, who supported the amendment, said that it was a real weakness in the framework of the committee that there was no representative other than the chairman who had any judicial experience. He said that there was thus a missing link in the chain of

1655
experience available to the committee. He confirmed how desirable it was that trial judges should be represented on the advisory committee and pointed out that even after two or three years of not trying cases one forgets what it is like.
We did not press the amendment because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that he was willing to consider further the possibility of adding one judge to the committee. He asked both me and the Master of the Rolls to elect whom we would opt for if confined to a single choice: a presiding judge or a circuit judge. Of course he kept it open; however we opted, he would accept our decision. We both opted for a presiding judge. He said that he would consult further before coming to a conclusion. It is apparent that he has come to an adverse conclusion and neither the chairman nor any of the other members of the committee, and in particular the lay members, are to have any assistance from any trial judge.
Let me emphasise that this amendment has cut our proposals to the bone. We have gone down from three judges representing the obvious three courts—the High Court, the circuit court and the magistrates' court—to one judge: a presiding judge. In this amendment we have suggested in terms that the number of the committee should go up by two. That is to accommodate the insistence of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that there should be a lay majority. This proposal preserves that which so many of us criticised; namely, the lay majority.
In the past we also asked that the Bar and the Law Society for that matter should have the right to nominate their representatives rather than have them selected by the Lord Chancellor, because a practising barrister and a practising solicitor could in fact be employed barristers and solicitors and the Bar might end up with two lawyers employed in government service. We have cut out all that. We now merely seek this one addition. I shall not move the next two amendments on the Marshalled List.
I invite noble Lords to consider again the comparison between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other. In Scotland it is the Chief Justice who is to make the vital decisions. Here it is a committee chosen entirely at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor—a committee which will be dominated by laymen and presided over by a senior judge who is long departed and remote from the all important trial scene. If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor insists on adhering to this decision, I can think of no better method of ensuring that his committee, the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee, enjoys the minimum level of confidence both within the profession and outside it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the powerful case that has been put by the noble and learned Lord in moving this modest but important amendment. There are two dominant features of this matter. The first is that the advisory committee in the nature of things will be London based. Secondly, court work is mostly—indeed overwhelmingly—not taken in
1656
London. Therefore, in order that the committee may have the benefit of being reminded from time to time of how things are going outside London in the administration of justice, surely it is desirable that there should be a presiding judge, as the noble and learned Lord suggested.
There is another factor in this matter. It is this. The chairman, who will be a judicial chairman, will no doubt feel it his duty to act impartially among the various views expressed on the committee rather than being the only representative of the judiciary trying to foist his own views on the committee. It would surely lead to much more balanced discussion, decision and advice on the part of the committee if there were a judicial representative apart from the chairman. Above all, that judicial representative should be au fait with what is happening in the courts away from London.
Lord Griffiths: My Lords, I have had the experience of sitting as the only judicial member of a law reform committee upon which we had a majority of lay members and a lay chairman. I speak of course of the Civil Justice Review, many of whose recommendations are now in the Bill. In that committee many legal procedures that I have accepted without question were challenged by my lay colleagues. I was called upon to explain and to justify them if I could. Fortunately I could not always do so, with the result that many improvements to our system of civil justice were proposed. On other occasions I was able to explain the practical necessity for a particular procedure. I believe that we all found it a thought-provoking experience and it had worthwhile results.
I wish therefore to make it plain that I have no prejudice against a lay majority. However, if I had been the chairman of that committee I should have found my role embarrassing. If I as chairman were continually seeking to justify a procedure it might appear, as my noble friend Lord Renton has pointed out, that I was seeking to lean on the committee. In any event, I do not think that a good chairman should ever talk too much.
As I understand the role of the advisory committee, it is to ensure, so far as education and a code of ethics ever can, that the right people have the rights of advocacy. Under our system the advocate has a dual role. He is there to help his client. But he is also there to help the judge dispose fairly of the case. It seems to me extraordinary to divorce from so large a committee the very person who can best advise the other members on the nature of the assistance a judge requires and whether the measure that they are proposing will achieve that end. Furthermore, as it is an ongoing situation, and as rights of audience may well be incrementally introduced, it would be right to have someone there with practical experience who could advise the other members of the committee how it is all working out on the ground.
Many questions are bound to crop up in the committee's deliberations which are best answered by a judge. Some can only be answered by a judge. I feel sure that one could trust the judge on the committee to be open minded in his approach. If he

1657
is not, he will carry no weight with his lay colleagues. After all, the choice of the judge is made by the Lord Chancellor. But that a trial judge will be needed as a member of the committee I have no doubt whatever, not only in its formal deliberations but in all those conversations that constantly go on in such committees, in the meal breaks, before one sits and after one sits, in which members of the committee say to the judge, "Explain this to me", "Explain that to me", and he is able to do so. One cannot have that from simply calling judges to give evidence.
One needs a trial judge. One needs the man on the ground. I know that the chairman will be a judge but he will be a very senior appellate judge, a man removed from the smoke of the battle. Noble Lords will know what they say of an appellate judge: he is a man who in the cool of the evening undoes what a better man did in the heat of the day.
I would not have much faith in a pit safety committee if it did not have a single member from the coal face. I support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wants lay members on his advisory committee, perhaps it might be mildly appropriate if a lay member of your Lordships' House, for want of a better expression, stuck his oar into the debate.
It seems to me that the advisory committee has to represent the whole of court practice and also—I say this, I hope, as a mediumly well-read human being—that there are three parts to the law and court practice. There is the judge, the person who argues (the advocate) and the person who prepares the case. All three sections should surely be represented on the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee: solicitors are represented from the Law Society and barristers from the Bar Council but the judges are not.
I suggest that the Lord Chancellor will not achieve balanced advice without the inclusion of at least one judicial figure upon that advisory committee. Nor, above all, will the lay people on that committee receive the advice of someone who is cognisant with judicial practice as it is being operated at the time that the committee is arguing. Will my noble and learned friend please pay attention to what the Law Lords and the judges are saying on this? The Government listen to judges when they talk about football stadia. They really ought to listen to them when they talk about the administration of justice.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, I too support the amendment for very much the same reasons as my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths gave a few moments ago. I venture to enjoin in what he said for this reason. He mentioned a recent law reform committee of which he was a member as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. That committee was appointed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. He also appointed the fraud trials committee about five years ago, of which I was chairman. I am not sure whether I now answer the description of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner of a departed Law
1658
Lord. But whether or not I have departed and it is now my ghost who is speaking, I was then an active Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
When that committee was first considered, I was to have been the only judge on it. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham will not think me guilty of indiscretion if I recall that I asked him whether he would be good enough to appoint another judge. He appointed the then Judge Hazan, later Mr. Justice Hazan, who died tragically after he had been moved to the Queen's Bench Division.
I cannot overemphasise the contributions to our work that Judge Hazan made. It was then some 15 years since I had last tried a case. As my noble and learned friend says, one becomes hopelessly out of touch very quickly indeed when one moves from one tribunal to another.
We had a lay majority on the committee. I ventured to suggest that to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and he agreed that it was right. If one has a body with a lay majority they will take established legal sacred cows and question them in a way that lawyers are not apt to do. They will sometimes question them very vigorously and successfully. That happened on our fraud trials committee. Your Lordships know that with only a single exception all its recommendations were later adopted by the Government.
That result flowed from a mixed contribution from laymen aided by a very experienced circuit judge who had been a prosecutor and defender. The advisory committee will be lacking if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor leaves it without the support urged by my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths and me. Without that further assistance it will be a great deal less effective.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly to point out that the proposal contained in the amendment that the committee is appointed by the Lord Chancellor must be seen in perspective. I have no fear that there will be irrelevant or unsuitable appointments from the employed sections of the Bar or from solicitors. I am totally content that the matter should lie within the remit of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. There is a considerable advantage in that because he would be in a position to choose objectively the type of people who could work together to produce a constructive result.
I also accept the principle that there should be an inbuilt consumer majority. Many of my friends do not agree, but I believe that to be right because the Bar and all advocates must be seen as the public sees them and not as they see themselves. I accept that principle if—and only if—the committee has a presiding judge as proposed in the amendment who is in touch with current issues and who can help, assist and advise. For reasons given by the noble and learned Lords and my noble friend Lord Onslow the situation would be unsatisfactory, which is the lowest form of term that one can use.
I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to keep an open mind on the amendment, particularly because no derogation of principle is

1659
involved. There is no derogation from the principle that the committee is appointed by the Lord Chancellor nor from the concept of the consumer majority. In fact, the amendment is a reasonable implementation of the spirit and intendment of the clause. Therefore I hope that the amendment, cut down as it is to its bare essentials, will receive favourable consideration.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the simple purpose of the amendment is to add a presiding judge to the membership of the advisory committee while preserving the lay majority. In Committee my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest correctly emphasised the necessity of getting right the overall membership of this large advisory committee with its lay majority. We accept that the knowledge of what is happening on the ground, particularly at first instance, which the presiding judge would have would be an invaluable addition to the committee's store of knowledge and experience. The amendment expressly recognises the maintenance of the lay majority which we support. Accordingly, we on these Benches support the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I wish to put forward what I presume to suggest is a parliamentarian's point of view. I have listened to debates on the Bill during most of its stages. At the beginning the lawyers approached their task rather truculantly and the general atmosphere that they created mitigated against their success in obtaining certain changes. However, when earlier they put forward this proposal they received a reaction from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which indicated that he was sympathetic to their general point.
As a parliamentarian I look upon the passage of a Bill such as this not only as a series of debates about what should be included or excluded but as a series of negotiations. Therefore, from the beginning of Committee until this moment we have had a series of negotiations as a result of which the amendment now before us appears to be eminently fair. At this stage the movers have reduced their claim for three judges to only one. They have recognised that it might have interfered with the overriding principle of a lay majority. Therefore, they now propose an additional two members—a learned judge whom they believe to be necessary (I accept their judgment on the matter) and another member in order to keep the lay majority required by the Lord Chancellor and the Government.
The noble and learned Lord will remember that throughout the stages of the Bill he has bought peace—if I may so describe it—by indicating a certain sympathy. The other side has shown reasonableness in the confines of its present appeal and therefore I believe that it would not be good for parliamentary procedures if, at this last stage, the noble and learned Lord did not recognise that. Parliament works not only as a maker and passer of Bills but as a negotiating machinery to try to arrive at the right answer by pooling knowledge. Therefore
1660
I believe that the noble and learned Lord should accept the amendment, particularly in view of the sympathy that he has previously shown.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is strictly necessary. However, it may be misunderstood if I do not speak openly in support of the proposed amendment. No one can accuse me of hostility to laymen in law reform committees. I appointed the Civil Justice Review, which had a lay chairman and a lay majority. I did so against a good deal of criticism from within the profession. As my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill said, I was also responsible for his fraud committee. I wish that in pushing through all six Civil Justice Review papers and the remaining and outstanding item contained in the Roskill Committee's report on fraud my noble and learned friend had shown the same zeal as he has shown in pursuit of this Bill. To be fair, we have Part I but the remaining six papers appear not to be pursued with the same enthusiasm.
We are dealing with a different kind of creature from either the Roskill Committee or the Civil Justice Review, to which reference has been made. The committee is a standing body. Although it is advisory to the Lord Chancellor it is appointed by him and is concerned with standards in the education, training and conduct of those offering legal services.
I have never objected to the presence of numerous and, I hope, varied lay representation on the committee. However, I believe that the absence either of a circuit judge or a presiding judge is a very serious defect indeed in the composition of this committee. It is liable to result in a reduction in standards in education, training and conduct. The advice of a practising first instance judge and a presiding judge would have been an invaluable addition to this body. If we are to choose between them, then I am for the presiding judge as suggested by the second amendment.
I ask my noble and learned friend to take this seriously because this is one of the keystones of the arch. It may be that the Government—and I do not accuse my noble and learned friend of this—are acquiring a certain reputation for insensitivity to criticism when Houses of Parliament offer their sincere advice.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may make a few points. First, I do not fancy the idea of advisory committees at all. Secondly, I dislike large ones even more. However, if there is going to be one—and it would seem that we are doomed to have one—then it seems to me odd that it should be put together entirely by the person whom it is intended to advise. The last point I make is that to put together a body of that kind and then deny it just that kind of professional guidance which this amendment seeks to give, seems to me to be falling far short of the wisdom which one would expect from my noble and learned friend.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, without any truculence, I should like to support this amendment from these Benches.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, throughout these proceedings I have been greatly assisted, as have other noble Lords, by very carefully prepared and well-reasoned notes provided to me by the Law Society. I have in my hand the notes provided by the Law Society on these amendments.
While there is some sympathy for the suggestion that a circuit judge should be on the advisory committee, in these notes it is argued that there is sufficient judicial involvement in the advisory committee and it is pointed out that under Part II Schedule 4 the designated judges have the role of giving approval to the proposals emanating from the advisory committee. It is also pointed out that there is cerain power in the designated judges making suggestions to the advisory committee.
I find myself in disagreement with the argument presented in these notes for the reasons which have been cogently put to the House not only in the debate this afternoon but also on Report. It seems to me that the judicial voice cannot be heard in that committee if it is to be left to a chairman impartially conducting those proceedings.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, only to amuse him and possibly the House. I have in front of me a Law Society briefing which reads as follows:
"The society does consider that there is a case for appointing a circuit judge provided that the lay majority is preserved".
I thought that since that seems to be inconsistent with the note which the noble Lord has, it may be that I have a later note.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, we both have the same note. I said earlier in my remarks to your Lordships that there is sympathy from the Law Society for the appointment of a circuit judge. I expressly said that to your Lordships. Indeed, it is right to say that there is support from the Law Society for a former solicitor circuit judge. However, I did not wish to reveal the full details of my brief to your Lordships, but I am compelled to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has the same briefing notes.
My argument was that the voice of the judiciary, with the only member of the judiciary being in the independent and impartial capacity as chairman of the advisory committee, will not be heard. Thereafter, the voice of the judiciary can only be heard under the procedures set out in Part II Schedule 4 at a very late stage. That is after the advisory committee's proposals have been considered by the Lord Chancellor and returned by him with his comments. It is only after the advisory committee's recommendations have then been considered by the Director General of Fair Trading and returned again to the advisory committee. It is only at the very last stage of this fairly lengthy process which is set out in Schedule 4 that the designated judges have a role.
I would see it as most unfortunate if the advisory committee was only truly to hear the voice of the judiciary at that stage. It would be most unfortunate if the designated judges found themselves having to represent strong views contrary to proposals advocated by the advisory committee at a very late
1662
stage when, if there had been a judge on the advisory committee and a proper opportunity o hear those views at a much earlier stage, that would never have arisen. For those reasons, I support the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
I have some anxiety that if the noble and learned Lord accedes to the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a legal executive will still be omitted from the advisory committee. I have already put the argument on that. I merely say that I hope that if the noble and learned Lord accedes to the submissions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, he will not be closed to also considering the inclusion of a legal executive.
I know the problems about the size of the committee. However, as I attempted to argue in a letter which I sent to the noble and learned Lord, the reality is that the advisory committee will split up into sub-committees and in its operation will not be a great unwieldy committee of 16, 18 or 20 people but it will conduct its business in a much more organised way through sub-committees. The fear of the noble and learned Lord that the advisory committee will not therefore be a cohesive force if too many are on it can be dealt with by the chairman of the advisory committee sensibly conducting its business. I support the amendment.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I support this amendment. There have been a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill when I personally felt that the Government might have been wiser to take the view that judicial experience, when expressed unanimously, might call for some change to the content of the advisory committee. I do not propose to speak on the concept of the lay majority, nor do I propose to speak to the suggestions which have been made that persons other than judges might be added to the committee. I want to focus and focus alone on this amendment.
I do that as an ex-practitioner of 28 years' standing in all types of work. Throughout those 28 years I have been acutely aware that it is on the skill, experience and knowledge of the judges that the administration of our courts ultimately depends. I have no doubt that that administration can be improved procedurally in many ways. However, I suspect that not one of us doubts that by and large the system in this country compares reasonably favourably with that of others.
It is against that context that the advisory committee has to do its work. The advisory committee needs to command public and, I suggest, professional confidence. It will not command that confidence among the thinking public unless it has upon it, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, someone who is actually in touch with operating a court day to day, dealing with all kinds of work at a grass roots level. The obvious person with that knowledge is a presiding judge.
As I say, I believe that the thinking members of the public will think that. How much more will that be so to command professional confidence? My noble and learned friend will need every ounce of support and help he can get if this mechanism,

1663
about which so many of us have grave doubts, is to command professional confidence. I ask him even now to take a step in that direction by accepting an amendment to which voices so much more experienced than mine have given their support. That would at least be a pointer towards encouraging the profession to believe that wisdom will come from the advisory committee.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendment for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Griffiths. Their reasons are unanswerable and it does not add to the support given to the amendment for anything more to be said.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, that looks like my signal to rise!
As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said, I have always been very sympathetic to the view that it would be beneficial to have judicial experience on the committee. That was the primary reason for the requirement that the chairman be a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or a judge of the Supreme Court, but that does not necessarily mean that he be an appellate judge. As my noble and learned friends know well—and I am sure other noble Lords know also—it includes the High Court, and all presiding judges are members of the Supreme Court. The chairman of the advisory committee can be a person who himself is engaged in day to day work, at first instance, in the High Court. However, I certainly appreciate the force of the argument that another judge should be continuously available.
As I indicated, there are powers to co-opt members of both the advisory committee and its sub-committees; the day to day contact mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths can be attained in that way. That option is open and will be open as regards more than one level of judge.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner explained the history of this matter as it came through the debates. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls referred to that. The original suggestion was that there should be a High Court judge, a circuit judge and a stipendiary magistrate. The matter went to a Division at that stage. I argued that it was necessary to have a lay majority, for reasons which I sought to explain and which are not now controverted. I also felt that it was necessary to have an advisory committee of reasonable size. It is true that some of its work can be done in sub-committees, but ultimately the advice has to be co-ordinated and decided upon by the advisory committee and therefore there are reasonable constraints of size.
A new development that we are faced with is the view that there should be a single judicial figure added to the membership of the committee and that such a person should be a presiding High Court judge. Presiding judges are receiving statutory recognition as such for the first time in this Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner explained, they are responsible, through the senior presiding
1664
judge, to the Lord Chief Justice for the judicial administration on the circuits. There are two judges for each circuit; one is usually in London and the other on circuit, so they are alternately in London.
Regarding the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, the fact that it is a presiding judge does not necessarily carry the consequence that he would be from outside London. For example, there are two presiding judges with responsibilities in relation to London and the rest of the south-eastern circuit.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to Scotland. There is no advisory committee in Scotland and the problems, particularly concerning rights of audience, are quite different there from those faced in England.
At each stage of the Bill I promised further to consider this matter. I have not reached a contrary conclusion, as suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. I seek to appoint a judge to the committee, the precise level of which is of some importance. Your Lordships are aware that I am most anxious that the committee should carry the confidence of both branches of the profession. There is certainly some difference of opinion at the moment. However, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, matters have moved on in the course of the debates and there is not now any antipathy in the profession to a judge being on the advisory committee so long as the lay majority is maintained. However, there is still some difference of opinion as to precisely the level of judge that might be appointed.
That brings me to a point mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill. He found the advice of Judge Hazan most valuable, as one would expect. At the time of his appointment and service on my noble and learned friend's committee Judge Hazan was a circuit judge. It was one of my most pleasant duties, shortly after I was appointed Lord Chancellor, to invite that very distinguished judge to become a justice of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice. I believe it would be no breach of his confidence to say that when he came to see me he had no idea of the purpose of the invitation. As I spoke to him and revealed the purpose he said, "Oh! What a surprise". He thought that he had been invited in order to be in some way told that I did not approve of some of his activities. That is a measure of the man. He was very pleased to go to the High Court. It is with the greatest sadness that we lost him so quickly after that event. I mention Judge Hazan because he served in that committee as a very distinguished circuit judge.
There is quite a body of opinion about this matter. I hope that your Lordships will see the force of my conclusion. I entirely accept the view that one judge should be added to the advisory committee. I am not despaired of securing agreement from the profession with regard to the level of the judge, although there is a little disagreement now. One sometimes finds that these things can move on and I have not despaired of reaching agreement on this matter with both branches of the profession. I believe that that, if I can do so, would be the best way forward.

1665
A presiding judge of course has very heavy responsibilities during his tenure as a presiding judge. It might well be more appropriate, from the point of view of the working of the committee, that one who has had recent experience as a presiding judge should be appointed rather than a judge who presently carries the heavy responsibility of presiding at the time of appointment. There is also the point that the term of appointment of a presiding judge is normally reasonably short—three or four years is usual. I would certainly be happy for such terms to be used. On the other hand, in the case of a judge who has been experienced in the advisory committee, this being a standing body as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, it might well be of advantage that he should continue for longer than the ordinary period during which judges of the High Court carry the heavy responsibilities of presiding judges.
In that situation, therefore, I can tell your Lordships that I am prepared to undertake to add a judge to the advisory committee with the corresponding addition of one lay person as this amendment contemplates. I certainly see the argument in favour of that judge being a judge of the High Court, but your Lordships will appreciate—indeed, the arguments were put forward—that there is also a strong case for a circuit judge being appointed. As I said, I hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on this matter. If your Lordships are prepared to allow the amendment to be withdrawn, when the Bill goes to another place I will carry this process forward so that when the Bill returns to this House, as it will, your Lordships will find that we have been able to reach an agreement which commends itself to the profession as a whole.
Of course, I am not committing myself to the absolute necessity of securing agreement. If I cannot reach agreement I shall have to make a decision on the matter, but your Lordships will probably accept that it would be better to obtain agreement. If agreement is not possible I shall take a decision in the light of all the considerations that your Lordships have put forward in this debate and in the light of any other representations that may be made to me.
I hope that in the light of that explanation and undertaking my noble and learned friend will feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, will be be good enough in the light of what he said to make clear that he has in mind that the judge appointed to serve on the committee will be a judge who during his service is gaining experience of what happens outside London? In that connection, perhaps I may mention that the south-eastern circuit includes the whole of the eastern and south-eastern counties of England.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am only too well aware of the last point. One of the difficulties of the administration of that circuit is that it covers such a large area, but there is no natural division available to make it smaller. I know that those who have responsibility for the circuit are conscious of
1666
that situation. I am certainly willing to consider that someone with experience outside London or gaining experience outside London, or who has recent experience of working outside London, should be the judge involved.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may make a suggestion which will solve his dilemma of whether it should be a circuit judge or a presiding judge. Can he not simply allow himself the choice in the Bill of appointing one or the other?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I had actually thought of that possibility. However, the more choices I have when the Bill is completed the more difficult it may be to satisfy everyone, as I hope I will be able to do with the appointments I shall make. Therefore, if it is possible to bring this to a conclusion during the course of the Bill's progress I would much rather do that. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, there has been a development of understanding of what this Bill aims to do and I am therefore optimistic in this respect.
There are a number of consultations that I feel I must carry out before reaching a firm conclusion. Perhaps I may add that your Lordships have assisted me greatly by gradually focusing on one. I felt that it would be extremely difficult to go for three or even two because that would make the committee very large. There is still the possibility of other judges at different levels being co-opted. Perhaps that matter has not been fully appreciated by everyone. The mere fact that we go for a particular level does not exclude from consideration others being co-opted.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps he can, in order to assist me, refer me to the part of the Bill which permits co-option to the committee. There are co-option powers to committees of the committee and to sub-committees but I thought there was no power to co-opt to the committee itself.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hat is right. There is a power to co-opt to committees and sub-committees of the advisory committee. Certainly that is intended to include meetings of the advisory committee. That is a power that could be exercised in this respect. However, the main point is that I have given an undertaking in respect of the subject matter of this amendment, which is an appointment to the advisory committee itself.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, can he tell me precisely what are the terms of the undertaking? Is it an undertaking that there will be two judges who are members of the committee? It is my understanding that there will be a chairman plus one other judge. From my mathematics, that makes two judges.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as usual my noble and learned friend's mathematics are superb. I am giving an undertaking that in addition to the chairman there will be another judge on the committee. The only point on which I cannot agree

1667
today is the precise description of that judge. I hope that I will be able to secure agreement within the profession in that respect. Therefore, very little divides us. We have come some distance since Second Reading on this aspect of the matter.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the assistance that he has given and I should like to make only a few comments. We have always assumed that because a Law Lord is specifically referred to in the statute itself, followed by,
"or a judge of the Supreme Court",
one or the other would inevitably involve an appellate judge. If that is to be rethought and the chairman may be a High Court judge, clearly my noble and learned friend needs an opportunity to reconsider who should be the second judge. However, I make only this observation. I proposed a presiding judge after having consulted the Lord Chief Justice, as might be expected. I would not have done so without his concurrence. My proposal has had his strong support throughout our discussions.
The other feature about a presiding judge which may not be known to the House is that the presiding judges—12 of them—meet under the chairmanship of the senior presiding judge. That has the enormous advantage that presiding judges know what is going on throughout the entire country. They are able to swap knowledge and experience. By having a presiding judge the committee would have a judge with a fund of knowledge of administration which no other judge has. For that reason I earnestly ask that a presiding judge should feature at some stage or another. However, having regard to my noble and learned friend's undertaking that there will be one other judge in addition to the chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 15, line 24, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 41. In Committee my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon tabled an amendment providing that the designated judges should not be liable in damages in relation to the discharge of their functions under this Bill. During the debate that was contrasted with the blanket immunity provided for the advisory committee. As I hope I made clear, it had never occurred to me that the designated judges could be liable in damages for any action arising out of the discharge of their functions under this part of the Bill. I think my feeling was shared by some of my noble and learned friends. I did, however, undertake to consider the matter. I was unable to complete this consideration in time for Report when my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner tabled the same amendment. The reason it took time was that the matter did not simply concern this Bill but could affect the situation in respect of other statutory provisions.
It seemed to me sensible to consider together all the immunities conferred by the Bill in this area. The principle that I decided would be right would be to confer immunity only to the extent that was required by the functions each of the parties are to carry out under the Bill. This has permitted a rather more consistent approach. The amendments I have brought forward are designed to achieve the following: the blanket immunity currently provided for the advisory committee is removed. The committee is given instead the same protection in relation to the law of defamation as the Bill gives to the Director General of Fair Trading. In giving their reasons under the Schedule 4 mechanism, the reasons of the Lord Chancellor and designated judges are equally to be absolutely privileged for the purposes of the law of defamation.
Furthermore, I am providing that in any proceedings for judicial review or breach of statutory duty, the remedy of damages will not be available against either the Lord Chancellor or the designated judges. That provision distinguishes many other statutory provisions in which judges are involved in which no special provision is made for them. I believe this is a sensible way to deal with the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am not troubled in the slightest by the first amendment to which the noble and learned Lord referred; namely, the removal of subsections (8) and (9) which deal with the advisory committee's exemption, or that of any of its staff or members, from liability in damages for anything that they may have done. What I am troubled about is the question of giving them absolute privilege in regard to defamation. As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the Director General of Fair Trading. As I understand it, he has to have absolute privilege because he may well mention individuals in his report and say unkind things about them in pursuance of his duty. If he had qualified privilege only, somebody could obviously allege that he was led by some improper motive to mention an individual, firm or company in his report.
When one looks at the committee's functions as set out in Schedule 2, they are limited (are they not?) to the approval or otherwise of rules submitted by existing or proposed authorised bodies and matters of that nature. Giving absolute privilege in those circumstances seems wrong. So far as I can see, there is no such immunity from libel as absolute privilege grants, as we know to be the case in connection with membership of your Lordships' House or the other place. We also know it to be true in regard to what is said or done in court.
The advisory committee does not have absolute privilege so far as I am aware. The lay observer does not have absolute privilege. Why should members of the advisory committee, bearing in mind their duties—I do not say this in any way offensively—be told, "It does not matter what you write in one of your reports about anyone when you are talking about rules because of course you have absolute privilege."? People may be misled. The committee is not a professional one. We have been reminded that there is to be, not just a lay membership, but a

1669
lay majority. A lay majority presumably will have responsibility for the report because of its majority. I see a case for qualified privilege. I can see no case, until the noble and learned Lord points out where my argument is wrong, for absolute privilege in this case.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may have had much more experience than I of the operation of the law relating to defamation, although I have had some experience of it. It always seemed to me that qualified privilege had the great disadvantage of uncertainty. There was often uncertainty on the facts and the various defences to it gave scope for a tremendous amount of argument. I should have thought that in the circumstances in which the advisory committee will be operating, and the duty that it has to advise the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges, that it is much better that the position should be clear and that the matter should be cut and dried.
I welcome the amendments. I support them for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, I believe that the noble Lord is being extremely modest in indicating that his knowledge of the law of defamation is a minor one. I am sure that it is not. However, does he realise—especially since this is a matter of contemporary comment—that the inspectors appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry, when issuing a report (the noble Lord will know to what I am referring in a contemporary matter) are covered by qualified privilege only? There is no question of uncertainty about that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with deep respect to the noble Lord, the circumstances are completely different and the two situations are not wholly analogous.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the amendments but merely to point out that this is one of 40 government amendments tabled for Third Reading. The Government have tabled 40 of the 67 amendments. Further, your Lordships did not start on this business until shortly before four o'clock. I say that because your Lordships have been required to sit very late day after day on the Bill. By "very late" I mean after 10.30 p.m. and often after midnight. According to the Order Paper the Bill will be taken today. There is no provision for the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, to be taken on a later day. But Standing Orders make it quite plain that there is perfect freedom, if the noble Lords think it right, to postpone the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. It is impossible for your Lordships to dispose of all the amendments tabled for Third Reading and still give adequate consideration to the matters for discussion on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
That submission is increased in force by the consideration that no fewer than 40 of the amendments—more than half—are government amendments. That was also the case at Report stage, when oddly enough more than 150 government amendments were tabled, again well over half of
1670
those put down for consideration. I do not oppose the amendments before us but is is quite impossible for your Lordships in one day to discuss the Bill with any parliamentary decency, taking both the Third Reading and the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as I was responsible in part for this amendment, I rise as a matter of ordinary courtesy to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for providing Amendment No. 33. From time to time during the course of these debates I have had to indicate some mild criticism. It is therefore a profound source of satisfaction to find that I have managed to achieve for the Lord Chancellor a personal immunity which when the Bill started he had not the opportunity to enjoy.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for that by-product of my noble and learned friend's activities.
Perhaps I may deal, first, with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The advisory committee will make reports to Parliament and comment on individual applications. The question there will include whether persons are fit and proper persons to have the responsibility of advocates in, for example, the higher courts. The committee is appointed to report. In that situation is seems right that the justification for the absolute privilege in your Lordships' House and the absolute privilege in court should apply in this aspect. We want the advisory committee to give its opinion properly without fear of action of any kind.
This is a slight narrowing of the immunity conferred in the original Bill as it went through Committee stage. A close consideration of the points raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon brought us to this view. It is eminently justified. I should point out that I am speaking to Amendment No. 7 but I mentioned with it Amendments Nos. 33 and 41 in order to explain Amendment No. 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Recommendations]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 19, line 12, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) The Ombudsman may, if he thinks fit, publicise the failure of any person to comply (whether wholly or in part) with a recommendation under subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we come briefly, during daylight hours, to consideration of the Legal Services Ombudsman. I have tried already in Committee and on Report, but in the late hours, to delete subsection (8) from Clause 21. I do not wish to detain the House now with a lengthy explanation of this amendment or with a repetition of what I said before except to explain how I have responded to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on Report. I have responded by providing in this amendment

1671
not just for the omission of subsection (8) but for the insertion of a new subsection which makes it clear that the ombudsman may publicise the failure of the practitioner to comply with the ombudsman's recommendations.
By way of explanation, the Bill provides that the Legal Services Ombudsman may investigate the manner in which a professional body has investigated a complaint against a legal practitioner. In effect the investigation is to review the professional body's decision that the lay complaint against the practitioner is unfounded. The ombudsman may go further and may investigate the substantive complaint against the practitioner. He may then make recommendations and the practitioner may be directed to comply with them.
The recommendations are not mandatory. Given the background to the investigation and the way in which it will be carried out it would be unreasonable if they were to be mandatory. But if the practitioner does not comply with them, under the Bill as drafted the ombudsman may direct the practitioner at his own expense to publicise the fact that he has not complied with the recommendations in such manner as the ombudsman may specify. It is to this element that the Bar Council, the Law Society and indeed Justice all take exception.
I need not go further over that ground now except to submit that, if the recommendation of the ombudsman is not to be mandatory, it is quite wrong to treat non-compliance as calling for some indirect form of punishment. At Report stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"I should be glad to know what sort of sanction my noble friends who do not care for this proposal have in mind should be attached to the ombudsman's jurisdiction if this sanction were not to apply".—[Official Report, 20/2/90; col. 265.]
I took and I take some exception to the use of the word "sanction" because one of the meanings of the word is punishment. It is possible that this is not what my noble and learned friend intended. The idea of punishment here should be altogether repugnant to your Lordships. What I and those who oppose the sanction would agree is that a recommendation by the ombudsman is to be treated very seriously indeed and that it would be right for the ombudsman to mark his disapproval of the practitioner who failed to comply with a recommendation. We consider that this can be most fairly done by the ombudsman himself having the power to publicise the failure. That is what the amendment provides. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that the amendment will be supported and that it will be accepted by my noble and learned friend. It removes what I suggest is a serious defect in the Bill. It is almost unbelievable and quite without precedent. Subsection (8) of Clause 21 could compel a person to defame himself publicly, and to publish his own libel against himself, and would require him to pay for doing so. We really cannot legislate in a way that has that result. I would take a very serious view of the matter if the subsection as drafted remained in the Bill.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I support the amendment. There would seem to be three courses open when a recommendation of the ombudsman is not followed. The first is for the powers to be mandatory so that they are bound to be complied with. Secondly, if they are not complied with and are left in discretionary form, it should be for the ombudsman himself to publish that the recommendations have not been complied with and for him to give his comments upon that. Thirdly, in accordance with the provision in the Bill, and one with which I disagree, the ombudsman requires the person who was defaulted to publish that fact and, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, to possibly publish a libel or something defamatory about himself and to do so at his own expense.
I am not aware of any other case where an ombudsman is given such power. However, as regards the ombudsmen of whom I am aware, they retain powers to publish if their recommendations are not accepted. The normal custom is to publish the information in the annual report stating that they made certain recommendations and that they regret that certain actions were not taken, although in most cases the powers of the ombudsman are such that the recommendations are complied with. It will be very much regrettable if this power to require someone to publish were accepted. The introduction of the sort of blackmail pressure of "If you do not do as I tell you, then you will be required to publish the fact that you have not done so in such form as I shall direct" would be most unfortunate.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I was under the impression, although I have not been able to check the facts, that there was such a power in relation to the building societies' ombudsman. As I understand it, he is able to make a building society publicise reasons for non-compliance. I regard the position of a building society as being wholly different to that of an individual practitioner. I believe that there is some publicity provision in the case of a local government commissioner; but, again, that is quite different.
In the case of a building society, there are many depositers and shareholders who need to be informed of such matters because they are part of the society; it is their agent, as it were, in the form of the building society, who has by definition misbehaved. As for a local authority, it is answerable to its electors because it has acted on their behalf. If it is to be criticised, there are grounds for saying that the authority should tell its ratepayers. I respectfully suggest that an individual practitioner or even a firm of practitioners from the solicitors' branch are in quite a different category.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this must be right. First, we are dealing with professional people; and, secondly, this must be a considerable sanction. Perhaps I may revert to what I said when I made a submission about the protection which was given to the advisory committee in respect of defamation. As I understand it, the ombudsman is to have privilege in regard to anything which is contained in his report. Therefore your Lordships must realise that

1673
if there is a failure to carry out the recommendation of the ombudsman there is a considerable sanction when there is a threat that a professional man may have a report published about him in regard to his failure which can be defamatory if one is dealing with a normal situation. He would have absolutely no rights whatever. Is that not enough of a sanction?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should have thought that the very phraseology makes the clause unworkable. If a person fails to comply with a recommendation, he doubtless has his own reasons which he thinks are satisfactory. However, he does not have the entitlement to publish those reasons because the clause says that he shall publish the reasons for it, in such manner as the ombudsman may specify. The ombudsman may say, "I am not going to accept your publishing those reasons because I do not accept them. These are the reasons which you must publish". I do not see how that is workable.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I take on board the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lord Renton on the matter. However, I should like to make just one point. If someone has failed to comply with a recommendation of the ombudsman, whatever the merits of the case may be, I think it is quite wrong that the taxpayer should have to pay for the cost of publication should the ombudsman see fit to publish that failure in the interests of the public generally.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. Clause 21(8) says,
"Any person who fails to comply (whether wholly or in part) with a recommendation under subsection (2) shall publicise that failure, and the reasons for it, in such manner as the Ombudsman may specify".
The ombudsman is only entitled to specify the manner of publication; he has no control over the reasons for the failure or their content. That brings me to a very important aspect which the amendment suggests. I assume that all of us believe that the recommendations of the ombudsman should generally be accepted, otherwise there is not much point in having him. I notice that my noble friend does not care for the word "sanction"; but there needs to be some consideration as a result of which those affected by the recommendation of the ombudsman should feel some degree of need to comply therewith. That must be important for the whole effectiveness of the operation.
Following lines such as those referred to by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, I have tried to provide that the person who fails to comply can be directed to publicise that failure and the reasons therefor. In other words, he is able to give his answer in his terms as part of the publication. Therefore, the view of the ombudsman is set against his view, if he has one. He would of course bear the cost of that, and your Lordships may think that he may have quite an elaborate explanation which he wanted to give. However, if the obmudsman's case is a strong one, it may be that it cannot be demolished at a stroke and that some fairly lengthy explanation is required. But the precise nature of that explanation would be a matter for him.
1674
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine strikes me as a good deal more fierce than what I propose in the sense that the ombudsman would have the right to publish the failure without any explanation as to what are the reasons for the failure. There is also the second point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Morris; namely, that this would be at the expense of the ombudsman.
There are powers vested in the Lord Chancellor to give directions under Schedule 3 about the extent of any obligation which might arise in regard to the matter. I do not see this as something which is likely to create a great burden on the practitioner. I believe that the ombudsman can be expected to use these powers in a reasonable and sensible way. The great advantage of them is that they include the reasons for non-compliance of the person who has declined to accept the recommendations. That is extremely important.
I think that the consumer bodies—for example, the National Consumer Council which has corresponded with my noble friend and sent me a copy of its letter to him—would be rather keen on having the recommendations binding on the practitioner. However, I have not felt it right to go that far. What I have proposed seems to me to be a reasonable, middle way in this connection. I hope therefore that your Lordships will allow this arrangement to stand.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should like to make one point. In the course of his remarks—to which we all listened with great respect—he gave an interpretation of the clause which was different from that given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. That strikes some of us with a certain amount of fear regarding the consequences of the clause which will ultimately go into an Act of Parliament, whatever the true construction may be. I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right in his construction. However, I think that I can quote my colleague who sits beside me on the Front Bench as saying that he sides with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Therefore, on any view we must not allow this clause to go through on the nod, so to speak, or the amendment to be dealt with very lightly.
The question I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord is this. His argument was that the amendment constituted a harsher verdict on the professional man involved by virtue of the fact that there would be publication of the recommendations of the ombudsman with which the practitioner had not complied without any reasons being given.
Obviously, the normal case with which we are dealing here is not a reasoned objection. I imagine that if the sanction is employed—and I insist on using the word—it is because the professional man is so irresponsible that by default he does not carry out the recommendations. However, there may in some cases be a reasoned objection. That objection may be unreasonable, but from the point of view of the practitioner it may be a reasoned objection. There is nothing to stop him writing a letter to the newspaper in which this is published. There is

1675
nothing to stop him publishing a statement as to his reasons for objecting to the ombudsman's recommendation. We ought not to deal with this clause either recklessly in regard to interpretation or wrongly in regard to the amendment which I support.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he imagine a more effective way of creating bad relations between the ombudsman and the two branches of the legal profession than the method that is put forward in subsection (8)?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I interpret the noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly, he said that he did not like what is in the existing clause and he supports the amendment. Is that what he said?
Lord Renton: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in that case I bless him for his observations.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I find it difficult to obtain a form of words on which there is no possibility of disagreement. We have listened to arguments on statutory construction. The ingenuity that can be lavished on them is quite considerable. However on this occasion I regard it as reasonably plain that the last phrase deals only with the manner of the reasons. If I could have an opportunity of putting some questions in respect of the argument to the contrary, I should be glad to do so. However, I do not think that our procedures here allow room for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggests that the practitioner could insert a letter in the newspaper in which the ombudsman's notice appeared. If I were the professional man I should much prefer to have my reason immediately in conjunction with or in contra-distinction to the words of the ombudsman as part of the one notice. Anyone reading one piece then reads the other. We have experience of corrections, as no doubt all of your Lordships have. It is much better if the correction or opposition is expressed at the same time and as part of the original notice. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, to noble Lords and to noble and learned Lords who have supported me. I wish to speak about the point first raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and answered by my noble and learned friend. I have always read Clause 21 in the way in which my noble and learned friend does. As I understand it, it is that the ombudsman will not control the matter which goes into the advertisement but only the manner of it.
My noble and learned friend suggested that his original version is in a way harsher than the amendment which I have proposed—I am sorry, it is the other way round. He suggested that I am asking for something harsher than he offers. In one sense I am. It could be said that the opportunity to give
1676
one's explanation is something which a petitioner might welcome. On the other hand, all those who speak for petitioners do not welcome it. There is much to be said for the argument that a professional body would be reluctant to see its members entering into long explanations in an advertisement which do not answer a case put in the advertisement but merely answer the recommendation which the ombudsman has proposed.
I have had the opportunity to discuss this with my noble and learned friend since the Report stage. I do not believe that I can persuade him that his view of the matter is wrong and mine is right. In my opinion this is a small matter but one of potential significant injustice to practitioners. Even if it were not for the support that I have received around the House, I should still feel that I could not allow the matter to leave the House without your Lordships having decided upon it. I therefore press the amendment.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 93.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hughes, L.

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jay, L.

Beloff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boardman, L.

Listowel, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Byron, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carnock, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Coleraine, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Roskill, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Erroll, E.

Seebohm, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Selkirk, E.

Feversham, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fitt, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Foot, L.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hacking, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brookes, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Auckland, L.

Camoys, L.

Balfour, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bessborough, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Blatch, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

De L'Isle, V.

1677

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Derwent, L.

Munster, E.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Nelson, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Greenway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pennock, L.

Havers, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Pym, L.

Hesketh, L.

Quinton, L.

Hives, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reay, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rees, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renwick, L.

Joseph, L.

Rodney, L.

Kimball, L.

Romney, E.

Knollys, V.

Saint Albans, D.

Lauderdale, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lawrence, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Leathers, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Somers, L.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sudeley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Suffield, L.

Mersey, V.

Terrington, L.

Milverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Morris, L.

Wynford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
Clause 25 [Rights of audience]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 20, line 44, at end insert ("or in the County Court").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have considered the matter raised in this amendment both in Committee and on Report. The noble and learned Lord kindly wrote to me on two occasions, both after the Committee stage and after the Report stage, and also arranged for me to meet some of his officials between the Committee stage and the Report stage.
I only return to the amendment again on Third Reading because the noble and learned Lord clearly indicated to the House that his mind was not closed on this matter and also because I believe that I can reassure him as regards the misgivings that he expressed. As your Lordships will recall, this amendment is directed to establishing the existing rights of audience that are possessed by solicitors' clerks in chambers in the county court. Your Lordships may recall that at the turn of the century the matter was brought before Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy when there was a challenge by a member of the Bar against the right of a solicitor's clerk to represent his employer in chambers in matters that came before the High Court. Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy clearly resolved the matter in complimentary terms in favour of the rights of solicitors' clerks to appear in the High Court.
I believe it was largely thought that the same right existed before county court judges and registrars in the county court. It would certainly be wholly logical
1678
if that were so, and indeed it would be anomalous if it were not so. However, when the officials of the department of the noble and learned Lord and later your Lordships considered that matter, they discovered that while there was a right for solicitors' clerks to appear in chambers in the High Court—as I have indicated, that right was established by Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy at the turn of the century—it was only by convention that solicitors' clerks appeared in chambers in the county court.
In clearly indicating to your Lordships that his mind was not closed on this issue the noble and learned Lord made it plain in Committee and on Report that, as regards rights of audience, he wanted to keep in place all existing rights of audience and devise a system for providing new rights of audience. If I have understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, his concern was that this amendment might establish a right of audience that did not already exist. All I can say is that while the custom I have referred to did not have the voice of Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy, it would certainly have had the consent up and down the country for the past 80 years and more of judges and registrars in the county courts. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord and to your Lordships that this custom has been well established. It is so established that the position has been reached where, to all intents and purposes, a right exists.
A further reason why I return to this amendment again on Third Reading is one that has already been advanced in Committee and on Report. However, I shall remind your Lordships of it. It is the concern that has been expressed by solicitors' clerks, and indeed by their solicitor employers, that difficulties may be put in their way and that points may be taken on a court by court basis. The noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out that it would be quite possible—he anticipated that registrars and judges would move in this way—on a case by case basis to give those rights pursuant to Clause 25(2)(c). However, I suggest to your Lordships and to the noble and learned Lord that we do not wish registrars and county court judges to take up their time in debating this matter if the point is taken, as it has been taken recently. For that reason there is concern among solicitors' clerks, as represented by the Institute of Legal Executives and by the Law Society. For all those reasons I ask the noble and learned Lord to accept this simple, straightforward amendment which turns a well-established convention into a right. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for the reasons which he has advanced and which I shall not repeat. However, I can confirm that it is the custom and practice in my part of the world for our county court judges and registrars to permit solicitors' clerks to be heard in chambers in the county court. We believe that the opportunity should now be taken in this Bill to confirm that convention and custom. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if it is the established convention that in the county courts solicitors' clerks and others are entitled to be heard, it seems to me that a possible construction of the Bill as it stands may be that this procedure is being brought to an end. The Bill, after all, firmly states,
"and the proceedings are being heard in chambers in the High Court".
It is possible that that might be construed as meaning not elsewhere. That perhaps strengthens the case for the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I indicated my general position with regard to the matter on an earlier occasion. I have been trying to see how to bring the matter forward. In recent times there have been difficulties in the operation of this matter in the High Court. No doubt others can elaborate. There have been some questions as to what exactly, for the purpose of the original decision, solicitors' clerk is. There is no definition of clerk in the Bill.
I propose, therefore, to put out to the circuit judges, registrars, presiding judges and the senior presiding judge, a paper asking them to confirm whether that is the practice and whether there are any questions which arise in connection with it. It is my impression that that has generally been the practice on a case-by-case basis. In other words, solicitors' clerks do not understand that they have a right to be heard, but almost invariably when they attend they will be heard if the case is suitable for that purpose. I believe that I can advance the matter in that way.
If consultation shows there to be no difficulty I intend to put such a provision into the Bill as it goes through another place. It may be that the consultation will show that some elaboration of the clause is required to clarify what exactly is meant by "solicitors' clerk" in these circumstances. Discussion of the matter in the course of your Lordships' proceedings has brought this particular aspect to my attention. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that that is an appropriate way forward. I am grateful to him and to others who have taken part for advancing the matter.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I did not want to raise difficulties of definition of a solicitors' clerk and the practice in the High Court. However, since the noble and learned Lord has raised the matter, it is my view that that should also be looked at. On the basis of the very helpful response from the noble and learned Lord I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Rights to conduct litigation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 22, line 32, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as drafted Clause 26(4) includes the phrase "the right to conduct litigation". thereby implying that such a right is indivisible and that any person granted a
1680
right to conduct litigation is entitled to do so before all courts and proceedings. In fact, rights to conduct litigation may be limited to particular courts and proceedings and therefore should not be referred to as a single entity but as a variety of possible rights. The amendment seeks only to clarify that point. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Authorised bodies: designation and approval of regulations and rules]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 23, line 38, at end insert—
("(5) Where the Lord Chancellor or any of the designated judges considers that it might be appropriate for an authorised body to alter—

(a) any of its qualification regulations or rules of conduct; or

(b) any right of audience, or right to conduct litigation, which it is entitled to grant,

he may advise that body accordingly.
(6) Where—

(a) the Lord Chancellor gives any advice under subsection (5), he shall inform the designated judges; and

(b) where a designated judge gives any such advice, he shall inform the Lord Chancellor and the other designated judges.

(7) Where an authorised body has been given any such advice it shall, in the light of that advice, consider whether to make the recommended alteration.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 11 I should also like to deal with Amendments Nos. 12 and 42 to 62 inclusive.
I have tabled the amendments following the undertakings that I gave the Committee on 29th January to revise Clause 27 and Schedule 4. Your Lordships may remember that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner tabled a number of amendments. He very conveniently summarised the main points to which he wished to give effect in that clause and that schedule. By reference to those points I was able to indicate a considerable measure of agreement with him. I undertook to bring forward amendments in due course to deal with those matters. As your Lordships see, the amendments are rather detailed and there are a number of them, but the ideas behind them are fairly simple.
Schedule 4 sets out the procedure which must be followed when a professional or other body applies to become authorised to grant either rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation, or to amend the codes of conduct and training regulations on the basis of which it grants such rights, or for the designation of such a body as an authorised body to be revoked.
The major changes to the existing clause and schedule that are introduced by the amendments are as follows. In Clause 27 there is a new mechanism for the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor to initiate the process of change by advising authorised bodies of changes they think should be made to qualification regulations, rules of conduct or the rights they are authorised to grant.
Your Lordships will notice that in Amendment No. 11 the Lord Chancellor or the designated judge consider that it "might" be appropriate. It is a

1681
provisional view that is being expressed. In a moment I shall call an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I do not wish to anticipate the argument on that amendment at the present stage except to emphasise that this is a provisional view.
In Schedule 4 I have provided that, first, the Lord Chancellor will send a copy of the application and its supporting documentation to the designated judges at the same time as he sends it to the advisory committee. Secondly, I have provided an opportunity for the authorised body whose application is under consideration to be given an opportunity to comment upon the advice the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges have received from the advisory committee and from the Director General of Fair Trading. Thirdly, I have provided for the designated judges to be provided with any representations the applicant body has then made, and, finally, that each designated judge and the Lord Chancellor shall give their reasons whatever their decision.
Those are the main points which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner raised. I believe that we have properly given effect to them.
There is a related but separate matter which arises in the Marshalled List. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and my noble friend Lord Renton have tabled Amendment No. 63 which deals with the situation in which there may be a question of revocation. In that situation a role for the designated judges is expressly provided in their amendment. It will be just as well if I say now that when we come to that matter I shall invite your Lordships to accept the amendment.
I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 11, Amendment No. 12:
Line 15, at end insert:
("() Where there is disagreement between the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges or between the designated judges over alterations on the matters covered by subsection (5), the authorised body shall be informed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the House that the amendment that I put down yesterday afternoon, literally a matter of minutes after I read the amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord, who was courteous enough to write to me with a copy of his suggested amendment, is intended to be helpful. The intention is to give the initiative to any one of the designated judges or the Lord Chancellor to advise the authorised body that the designated judge concerned or the Lord Chancellor considers that it might be appropriate for the authorised body to alter any of its qualification regulations, rules of conduct, any right of audience or right to conduct litigation which it is entitled to grant. Those are matters which go to the very root of what the authorised body is supposed to do itself and to the root of a very important set of provisions in the Bill.
It is not our job as legislators to take it for granted when we put down strict regulations in an Act of
1682
Parliament that everything will always be reasonable and that everything that ought to be done by designated judges or the Lord Chancellor will necessarily take place. Obviously, I assume that in each and every case, before a designated judge or the Lord Chancellor sends such a missive, as I assume it would be, to the authorised body, there would be proper consultation which would represent a unanimous and certainly a majority view, before it reaches the authorised body.
However, under subsection (7), the authorised body is told that, when it receives such advice, it must in the light of that advice consider whether to make the recommended alteration. Dealing with this matter as a legislator, as I humbly do, I am faced with a problem. The designated judge—I choose a designated judge; I could have chosen the noble and learned Lord, but I find myself more confident when I turn to a designated judge rather than to face the Woolsack with this problem—suddenly thinks to himself one day that he would like an authorised body to make a radical alteration. With all his authority, he sends a note to the authorised body to that effect.
As soon as the other parties—the other designated judges and the Lord Chancellor—receive a copy of that note to the authorised body, they find themselves in violent disagreement with the suggestion. We set out a detailed procedure in the Bill. The poor authorised body is told under subsection (7) to consider whether to make the recommended alteration. Unless my amendment is inserted in the Bill, the authorised body will not necessarily have a note of the fact that every other designated judge and the Lord Chancellor do not think that that is a sensible alteration.
As soon as I saw the lacuna, if I may respectfully call it such, and purely in order to help, I tried to fill in the procedure in the Bill, which is a detailed procedure. Thus, if there were a case in which another designated judge—it need not be all of them—disagreed with the suggested amendment that the authorised body is called upon to make, the authorised body would be so informed. It would then know that it was also entitled to take that matter into consideration when considering whether to alter its rules in regard to those material matters in accordance with what the designated judge might have said.
I realise that I am called upon to face reality, but it is within the bounds of possibility that there might be an eccentric or difficult designated judge in the future who hates the whole idea of the authorised body being able to do what it does. My amendment merely provides a necessary procedural measure if we are to accept the procedural requirements contained in the noble and learned Lord's amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, if I live long enough, I suppose that I shall be a designated judge. I might even be a designated judge of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had in mind. However, I do not myself see the measure working in quite that way.

1683
I drew attention earlier to my worries that if I entered into any conversations with, for example, the president of the Law Society—as I habitually do under the Solicitors Act, not in accordance with the Act but in informal consultations before any decision is reached under that Act—the licensed ratcatchers' union, for instance, which would not have rights of audience, might think that it could judicially review me. It would say that I had departed from the strict terms of the dance laid down in the fourth schedule.
The great merit for me of Amendment No. 11 is that it makes it clear that I would be entitled formally, as would the other designated judges and the Lord Chancellor, to write to one of the professional bodies, putting forward a point of view for its consideration. If we are entitled to do that in writing, formally and under the Act, I regard myself as totally bombproof if, instead of doing that, when I meet the president of the Law Society I say to him, "Look, shouldn't we think about this?"; to which he replies, "I don't think very much of that, but I shall look into it. Come and have a drink with me tomorrow and we shall discuss it further". That is how it goes on in real life, although the drinks are not as frequent as my rather flippant comments might suggest. It is dealt with informally, pleasantly and on a well-informed basis.
Amendment No. 11 makes that all right. Amendment No. 12 begins to reintroduce the strictness of the quadrille into the informal part of the proceedings if it contemplates disagreement between the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges. Let us suppose that I have a hare-brained idea, as the solicitors' branch of the professon might think it. I have publicly advanced such an idea within the last few weeks. Surely, in practice, I would talk to the president and members of the Council of the Law Society, floating the idea. I would put it to them formally in writing for their consideration under this procedure only if I were jolly certain that I would be backed by at least the three other designated judges, and preferably by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to the extent of saying that this matter deserved consideration. I would go no further at that stage.
I do not think that that is likely to happen. Perhaps I am being touchy about it. It is purely a cosmetic point and perhaps no weight should be attached to it. I do not like a statute which openly contemplates disagreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges. If that happens, it happens, but I certainly do not believe that it is necessary to contemplate it in this form. With the greatest respect and reluctance, in view of the identity of the mover of the amendment, I am opposed to it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if we are to use the language of the ballroom, I should like to say that, on his amendments to Schedule 4, my noble and learned friend has been a real dashing white sergeant. I should like to thank him for the attention that he has given to the matter.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I simply wish to add my thanks, particularly in view of the noble and learned Lord having indicated in advance that Amendment No. 62 will complete that part of the picture.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I appreciate the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to make this measure procedurally complete, but it is important, as I have sought to explain, to notice the provisional nature of the view provided for in the clause. The difficulty which my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls and others, including myself, raised was that the formal procedure which would require to be gone through might be damaged by the informal consultation which preceded it. We have had no such difficulty in relation to, for example, the rules of the Law Society where informal consultation goes on a good deal. But it is at least possible that some of these procedures may be a little more contentious than those which so far have taken place in relation to the Law Society, although there have been some problems in that area.
This is an attempt to make it possible to put forward a provisional view. It is important that the ultimate decision of the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges on a matter such as this is to be taken in the light of the advisory committee's report. It would therefore be quite wrong for any one of the five to form a concluded view before the advisory committee considered the matter. That is the reason for the provisional nature of this proposal.
The question of disagreement is, apart from anything else, one which I do not wish particularly to contemplate. I certainly hope that it will not happen. But at this early stage of the matter, for my part if one of the designated judges were to feel strongly that a particular change should be made, I might well say to myself: "I am not sure. In the way I have had to deal with some of the amendments before your Lordships, I am very willing to consider it further. But I am not going to decide yet. It is too early. I can see that it has some substance—otherwise one of my brethren would not have put it forward—but it may be that on looking at it the professional body may or may not think it is a good idea. I should prefer to hear their views before I take a view of my own on it".
Therefore I think that the disagreement contemplated is too firm a situation for that stage of the proceedings. Having raised the point, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will, I hope, feel able not to press the amendment on the footing that this is intended to open the way for advice to be given informally to the bodies and before a full and final decision is taken in the light of the advice of the advisory committee when it is only after receiving that advice that it would be proper to take a final decision.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, at the outset I said that my endeavour was to be helpful. It is still my endeavour. If the House does not see that in my reply I have put forward cogent reasons for disagreeing with what the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls

1685
said, then I shall bow to what seems to be the atmosphere of the House and certainly not press the amendment to a vote.
However, I must confess that I am astonished at the reply. First of all, I say with the utmost deference that when provisions are put in a Bill it is not done on the basis of a chatty atmosphere in your Lordships' House about how informal proceedings might and do take place between the Master of the Rolls and the president of the Law Society now in 1990. As I understand it, when provisions are embodied in a Bill and a procedure is set out it is done on the basis that such procedure stands up according to the wording of the statute whoever the individuals might be and whatever the circumstances. That is my first point.
Secondly I am told that, "Oh no. This is just to justify an informal procedure which might and does take place. That is all that is intended and that will safeguard people who indulge in that informal procedure". If that is the atmosphere in which we are asked to consider this clause, why include subsection (7) and put a duty upon the authorised body to deal in a certain way with that informal approach? The subsection says;
"Where an authorised body has been given any such advice it shall, in the light of that advice, consider whether to make the recommended alteration".
There is no informality there. There are no preparatory suggestions and no question of waiting for the advisory committee, so do not do a thing about it. It has to consider under subsection (7) when that missive, as I call it, has been received, whether to make that recommended alteration. If all this is informal, why put in subsection (7)? From the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, who always shows great reasonableness in his dealings with any of his colleagues, I am faced with his observation: "Please do not ever envisage a situation in which any one of the designated judges is going to differ from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor". All noble Lords have been sometimes entranced, sometimes amazed, sometimes frightened, sometimes apprehensive about the very differences which have appeared between the designated judges and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading and at nearly every stage of this Bill. Then I am told, "Please, do not by any amendment envisage any such thing happening because it would be absolutely unheard of". I conclude my observations on that particular aspect of the matter.
The last point made against me arises from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying, "This is intended to cover the situation that has been outlined. What is to happen, for example, if I, the Lord Chancellor, decide that I cannot make a decision at this juncture? I should like to hear what is being said before I make a decision which can be communicated to the authorised body". How right he is. However, my amendment does not deal with someone who has not made up his mind but with someone who has made up his mind. The amendment reads:
"Where there is disagreement between the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges or between the designated judges over alterations to the matters covered by subsection (5)".
1686
It is only where there is active disagreement that the authorised body ought to know the decision before it is ordered by subsection (7) to consider that missive and decide in the light of it whether to make the recommended alteration. If I may say so with deep respect, I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord, having realised that this was a statute, would have accepted this amendment which tidies up the procedure. However I am in his hands. If he says, "No, I have heard all the arguments and I see no point at all in the alteration", because I am endeavouring to be helpful I shall not press the matter. However, in view of the courtesy with which the noble and learned Lord has listened to my reply, I invite him to consider whether this amendment is necessary.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not think that this amendment is necessary. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord and accept what he says as a very cogent argument. But the essence of the matter is that these subsections are intended as provisions to enable the Lord Chancellor or the designated judges to convey provisional views to the authorised body.
If the matter is to be judged under the arrangements that we have made, no change will be effective unless first of all it is advised upon by the advisory committee and then the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor make up their minds at that stage. That is the ultimate decision which is important. It is a provisional view. The idea of subsection (7) is to reflect what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner had in his amendment, which was very like the idea that applies to the advisory committee's advice. We have altered it slightly to make clear that this is a provisional view.
Accordingly, the answer would be that if the Lord Chancellor or the other designated judges felt that they agreed with the advice, they might well say so. It might be otherwise if they did not agree or had not made up their minds. I believe that it is right to leave it free.
I know that I have not persuaded the noble Lord but I believe that he kindly said he would leave it to me. He has been extremely helpful as always but on this occasion I feel that it might be even more helpful for him not to press the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I meant what I said. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 11 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Right of person receiving legal aid to select solicitor and counsel.
The provisions of sections 25 to 29 of this Act shall not affect the right of a person receiving legal aid in the Crown Court under Part V of the Legal Aid Act 1988 to select his solicitor (or other authorised litigator) and counsel (or other authorised advocate) to act for him, and regulations made under that Act shall not provide that representation in the Crown Court shall be by solicitor only,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be remembered that at both Committee and Report stages of the Bill many of us were anxious—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor listened to us with great attention—that in giving rights of audience where they did not exist before the provisions in the Bill could not be used in legal aid letters so that the right of choice of the litigant in question, or the defendant in criminal proceedings, would be removed. In other words the Legal Aid Board would not be able to say, "We know of a firm of solicitors who would do this rather more reasonably. You are to go to that solicitor"; or, "We say to you that a solicitor should be your advocate on this occasion. After all, he is preparing the case. We do not think that you ought to have counsel. You have that solicitor". That issue was listened to with much understanding by the noble and learned Lord.
When I moved a rather wider amendment at Report stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated in this House on 1st March, reported in Hansard at col. 948:
"However, as at present, where counsel is to be instructed in circumstances where solicitors might have rights of audience, the question of cost and the appropriateness of the case should be considered.
The precise relationships between the legal aid provisions and the provisions of the Bill need to be worked out in some detail. I am doing my best to provide a series of amendments to deal with that matter. I believe that that will be part of the consideration of the Bill in another place. The general principle that I have in mind is that the legal aid scheme should provide advice and assistance in the presentation of a case which is appropriate for that case in the light of the client's requirements, enabling the client to make full use of whatever provisions may be available to him under the Bill".
In the light of what the noble and learned Lord said, on that occasion I withdrew my wider amendment. But I believe that your Lordships will be with me—I hope the noble and learned Lord also will be with me in saying that this Bill ought not to leave this House in regard to criminal cases without such protection written in the Bill; namely, the right of a defendant in the Crown Court to decide that, instead of a solicitor who has the right of advocacy in the Crown Court, he wishes to have counsel, and his right also to go to the solicitor of his choice provided that that solicitor is prepared to undertake criminal legal aid work.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me that whatever may be the situation in civil cases, it is important that in our House we do not allow the Bill to go to another place without our having put such provision in it. I therefore ask for the following clause to be put in the Bill:
"The provisions of Sections 25 to 29 of this Act shall not affect the right of a person receiving legal aid in the Crown Court under Part V of the Legal Aid Act 1988 to select his solicitor (or other authorised litigator) and counsel (or other authorised advocate) to act for him, and regulations made under that Act shall not provide that representation in the Crown Court shall be by solicitor only".
I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish briefly to support the amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the amendment. The noble and learned Lord may remember that on two previous occasions I expressed great fear about the powers under the Legal Aid Act in some way limiting the right of an accused person in the Crown Court to do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has been referring to. The amendment sets out exactly the protection to which I have referred on two previous occasions. I therefore strongly support it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment raises quite important questions about choice. The authority for legal aid with regard to the Crown Court is of course the Crown Court itself under the existing arrangements. One aspect of that has been of quite considerable concern and has resulted in regulations made after considerable consultation with the senior judiciary which affect the choice of counsel by clients. The court has a right to say what is to happen with regard to the number of counsel, and so on.
I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in moving the amendment is seeking in any way to innovate upon that position. For example, where there is more than one defendant the court has power to pick the team that is to represent those defendants if there is no conflict of interest. It also has power under regulations more recently made to say, for example, that the accused may be represented by a senior and junior counsel rather than just by two counsel, thus elminating his opportunity to have two junior counsel if he wants them.
These are quite important matters. The regulations made by the Lord Chancellor arise under the Legal Aid Act 1988. The decisions of course do not affect that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise, asking the noble and learned Lord for the courtesy of allowing me to intervene only because I wish to help. I thought that it might shorten the discussion.
The amendment specifically provides that the provisions of this Act have not to affect the rights of a person under Part V of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Therefore there can be no question of altering those rights in any way if the amendment is agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the next question arises on the second part of this provision:
"regulations made under that Act shall not provide that representation in the Crown Court shall be by solicitor only".
I am not clear whether it is intended that there should be no regulation which would make that a general provision, or whether there is in mind completely excluding the court's power to say that in a particular case the appropriate representation would be by a solicitor.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way but my intervention is intended to save time. I do not claim the privilege

1689
of authorship because the amendment was drafted by the Law Society. It specifically provides that the general regulations shall not provide that representation shall be by solicitor only. In each individual case the provisions of the regulations and the Legal Aid Act 1988 will govern the situation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is extremely helpful as regards intention. However, the advice I received was not so specific. The amendment specifies "regulations" but not "general regulations". As drafted it may give rise to a situation in which it is impossible to make a provision that in an appropriate case—the noble Lord shakes his head which is always a good sign. If in the last part of the amendment the noble Lord's aim is the kind of scenario attributed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—that I wished to drive counsel out of the Crown Court—that is not my intention. On the other hand, I do not wish to preclude the situation where it may be wise to restrict representation to a solicitor if that is the appropriate level for the particular case, That authority should be with the court.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord continues to be courteous and we are trying to help each other and the House. I should not have used the word "regulations" if I had meant that. It would be a ruling; it would be a decision. I am talking about regulations. If the noble and learned Lord would agree to accept the amendment subject to the addition of the words "regulations of a general nature made under that Act" I should be most happy.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am in a certain difficulty. If the intention of the amendment is that in particular cases the regulations may give authority to the court to provide that the representation is by solicitor only, that does not appear to damage what I have in mind. However, I have in mind the possibility that in particular cases the court can decide on the level of representation. I am prepared to agree providing that it is clear that the legal aid machinery can allow for particular cases to be restricted to solicitor only, if that is the appropriate level, but that further elaboration may be required to make that intention effective.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I agree entirely with everything that the noble and learned Lord has said. I am grateful to him for accepting the amendment on those terms.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Functions of the Board and financial provisions]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 28, line 3, after ("develop") insert ("and maintain fair").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the amendment is to make clear that the competition which the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board will be required to develop must be fair competition. The House will appreciate that there is a distinction between competition and fair
1690
competition. There are many types of competition which your Lordships would not countenance for one moment. They may exist in the market place among traders but should not exist between professional people carrying out responsible work. From time to time we have stated that an essential part of the citizen's life is often involved in the purchase or sale of a house.
In their Green Paper entitled Conveyancing by Authorised Practitioners, and in their White Paper entitled Legal Services: A Framework for the Future, the Government have recognised that it is essential to establish fair competition if authorised practitioners are to be permitted to provide conveyancing services.
I wish to emphasise two considerations in regard to the amendment. First, the interests of clients can be properly protected only if there is a genuinely free market in which the purchaser has a wholly unconstrained choice between an authorised practitioner and an independent conveyancer. Secondly, if large financial institutions which have massive resources are permitted to provide conveyancing services below their true costs—in other words, to loss lead in conveyancing—they could destroy the competition from independent conveyancers. Without doubt that will lead to a reduction in the network of solicitors' firms and thus make it more difficult for the public to obtain legal advice generally.
In the light of that I moved an amendment on Report. The amendment was designed to ensure that the Lord Chancellor's regulation-making powers under what is now Clause 38 of the Bill are sufficiently broad for the Lord Chancellor's regulations to secure that authorised practitioners do not engage in unfair competition by settling their prices for the provision of conveyancing services at a level that fails to provide a reasonable rate of return on the costs of providing those services.
In responding to that amendment the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"I would not wish to restrict the unfair competition aspect to the one that the noble Lord has suggested. That is one aspect, but there could be other aspects of unfair competition which might require to be dealt with".
I omit some words which do not matter. He continued:
"There are other aspects of unfair competition, apart from this one, which I would wish to have in my sights in case they should develop. The precise way in which this aspect of unfair competition should be dealt with is a matter of some judgment".—[Official Report, 22/2/90; col. 472.]
The noble and learned Lord went on to point out that the board has a duty to promote competition. He said that he would give consideration to inserting the word "fair" before the word "competition" in Clause 33(1). It would mean that the board would be under a duty to seek to develop fair competition in the provision of conveyancing services.
The noble and learned Lord has tabled a welcome amendment to Clause 38. It will make clear that the regulations for which he will be responsible may include regulations made with a view to securing that in providing conveyancing services, and in

1691
particular in fixing their charges, authorised practitioners:
"act in a manner which is consistent with the maintenance of fair competition between authorised practitioners and others providing conveyancing services".
The Law Society fully supports that amendment. However, the purpose of my amendment is to produce consistency between the noble and learned Lord's proposed amendment to Clause 38 and Clause 33(1)(a).
As presently drafted, Clause 33(1)(a) requires the board to seek to develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services and does not mention the words "fair competition". The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the competition which is to be developed by the board is fair competition. The amendment would also make it clear that once the board had developed fair competition, it was also under a duty to maintain that competition. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord. I simply add that it would be a very strange position if the Lord Chancellor, making regulations under Clause 38, were obliged to maintain "fair competition" but the board, doing its general duty under Clause 33, were merely required to maintain competition.
I do not need to remind your Lordships that when different expressions are used in the same statute, they must be given the different meanings which the context requires.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I also support this amendment. In defining the general duty of the board, it should be made clear—and I am sure that my noble and learned friend wishes it—that it should be fair competition, and that that will not only be developed but also maintained. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, competition can take many forms and some of those can be very unfair. Against the weight of some of the large financial institutions here, I believe that it is important that the board should have a general duty to develop and maintain fair competition. I support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to Amendment No. 21 which I am moving and which I brought forward as a result of consideration of the Amendment No. 155 of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which he moved on Report.
My amendment, if accepted by this House, will make it quite clear that the Lord Chancellor is empowered to make regulations with a view to securing that authorised practitioners, when providing conveyancing services, and in particular when fixing their charges, act in a manner which is consistent with the maintenance of fair competition between themselves and others.
1692
I do not believe that it is necessary to put that into this clause for a reason which I shall explain. I mentioned on Report that that was a possible way of dealing with the matter but I have had a chance to consider it further. Perhaps I may explain what I mean.
It seems to me that if we accept this amendment we would be imposing a duty on the board which it could not fulfil; namely, to consider what is "fair" not only between one authorised practitioner and another, but to go further and consider what is fair as between authorised practitioners and other participants in the domestic property market. The board however has no mandate to control those others and no way of investigating their activities, such as how they fix their prices or whether they cross-subsidise any of their other activities.
The Lord Chancellor however, unlike the board, is in a position to take a global view on that matter. It is right that the Lord Chancellor should have the responsibility of judging this matter and making the necessary arrangements. When the regulations are made, the board is bound to abide by them. Therefore, the purpose of the board is to be responsible for the conduct, in effect, of the authorised practitioners. However, the terms on which they can operate is a matter which should be fixed by someone who has responsibility for the whole area of the law. Therefore, the appropriate way to achieve the balance between authorised practitioners and solicitors and licensed conveyancers is for the Lord Chancellor to make appropriate regulations on conduct and competence, including those designed to secure the maintenance of fair competition. Therefore, that is now made absolutely plain in the heading of the regulations. The board is under a specific duty to make arrangements to enforce those regulations by virtue of Clause 33(2).
Therefore, I am really saying to your Lordships that the judgment of what is to be permitted in order to ensure fair competition is a judgment which should be made by the person having responsibility for the regulations. It should not be open to the board to say, "Well, we do not think that it is necessary in the interests of fair competition. We want something else". These regulations are the framework under which they must operate. In the light of our discussions on Report, I have considered this further. My amendment to Clause 38 achieves what is required, this amendment is not necessary and might be unhelpful for the reasons which I have mentioned.
The board's duty is to enforce the regulations which the Lord Chancellor makes. The Lord Chancellor has the responsibility of making sure that those regulations properly cope with questions of unfair competition. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation. I know that he will bear with me for a moment if I tell him that I am left in some doubt as to whether

1693
the explanation is complete. It is most likely my fault if I think it is incomplete.
As I understand the noble and learned Lord, he is saying that it would be wrong to put responsibilities on to the board regarding competition other than in connection with those persons for whom the board is responsible. The persons for whom the board is responsible are authorised practitioners.
If I may say so, I do not see the point at all. If the Lord Chancellor is in charge of competition generally and whether or not it is fair, and has therefore put the word "fair" before "competition" in the other clause by virtue of Amendment No. 21, I do not see why there is any necessity in those circumstances for Clause 33(1)(a) to be there at all. However, at present and without limitation Clause 33(1)(a) provides that:
"It shall be the general duty of the Board, subject to the provisions of this Part—
(a) to seek to develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services".
There is no limitation that that is to be only among authorised practitioners. That is a general duty.
All that I have asked for—and I am sure that the board or the noble and learned Lord would not want any other duty—is to see to it that in seeking to develop competition (and I say to maintain it) it should be fair competition. Rhetorically I ask myself, the House and the noble and learned Lord, what harm there is in saying that if the board has a duty to develop competition because it is given that under the Bill, that it should be fair competition? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would care to reconsider the matter and agree to the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, this is quite important because if I have understood it, the amendment of the noble Lord may not be helpful in promoting the object which he has in mind. It is the regulations which should say what is required in order to control the competition. To make sure that the competition is fair is not an open question. The decision on what is fair competition must be made under the regulations. Clause 33(2)—and we are talking about the earlier duty—states:
"In discharging the duty imposed on it by subsection (1)(b) the Board shall, in particular, make arrangements designed to enable it to ascertain whether authorised practitioners are complying with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor under section 38".
In other words, the authorised practitioner's conduct is regulated in order to get fair competition by the regulations which are made. Those regulations now make it perfectly plain that one of the aims of that regulation-making power is to achieve that object.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must not continue this discussion, however interesting and illuminating it may be to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and me. I do not wish to bore other Members of this distinguished House, but I wonder whether, in those circumstances, there is any necessity for Clause 33(1)(a) at all. Why impose upon the board the duty to seek to develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services?
I must not continue this discourse, however much I am enjoying it. In those circumstances, if the noble
1694
and learned Lord, on looking again at Clause 33(1)(a) and the duty imposed upon the board, still feels that it is hurtful to my cause for the word "fair" to be put in front of "competition", I accept his guidance. However, I should like to know that that is still his view.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my view is that the question of who judges what is fair is best left with the Lord Chancellor under the regulations. To put another body in charge of that judgment might produce a difficult and contradictory situation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I accept the guidance of the noble and learned Lord and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Provision of conveyancing services by authorised practitioners]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 29, line 10, at end insert—
("1A) In subsection (1)(b) and (c) "officer", "employee" and "member" mean respectively an officer, employee or member who (at the time of the act in question) satisfies, and is acting in accordance with, regulations under section 38,".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I agreed to further consider the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. I am sorry to say that he is not able to be with us. I know he has many important matters to deal with and it is perhaps more difficult for him to attend than for many others. I bring this amendment forward notwithstanding his absence.
The amendment provides that only those employees or officers of authorised practitioners who were qualified and supervised as prescribed by the regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor under what is now Clause 38 could prepare conveyancing documents without breaching Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974. This amendment is the result of that consideration. It provides that employees, officers or members of authorised practitioners will be exempt from the provisions of Section 22 only while they satisfy, and act in accordance with, the regulations as to conduct and competence (which may include the requirement for supervision) which the Lord Chancellor may make. The amendment will have the effect of encouraging compliance with the relevant regulations so far as they affect employees, since not complying would put them in breach of Section 22. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am not authorised to speak for the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, but I know that he would wish me to say on his behalf that I am extremely obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving this matter consideration and for bringing forward this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 11, leave out from ("rule") to ("a") in line 12 and insert ("(however described) which is imposed by a professional or other body and which would, but for this subsection, result in restricting or preventing").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot move Amendment No. 17. With Amendment No. 16, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 18. They raise the question of Amendment No. 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton and also deal with an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
I promised to reconsider this clause in Committee and on Report. It is worth re-stating the aim behind subsection (2)(c). I wished on the one hand to make it clear that no professional body can make a rule which would prevent one of their members from being an agent for an authorised practitioner. I had no intention, however, that the professional body could not control the way in which those services were provided. In other words, I wish to allow rules concerned with general conduct and competence to stand and be relied upon.
The amendments moved clarify this distinction by amending subsection (2) at its beginning and end. The amendments both clarify the type of rule that it is envisaged will be affected by this clause and remove the previous absolute nullification achieved by the phrase "… shall be of no effect", by qualifying it in the new subsection (2A).
Let me explain subsection (2A). The general premise in subsection (2) is that a rule, whose main or only result is to restrict or prevent a qualified person acting as or for an authorised practitioner, will not stand. In subsection (2A)(a), if this result is not the main or only result, the rule will stand except to the extent that the rule does restrict the potential authorised practitioner or its employee or agent from acting as such. In other words, the rule will be nullified only in so far as it extends to the provision of conveyancing services by qualified persons, wishing to be, or be employed by, or by agents of, authorised practitioners.
That is the first part, to restrict it to the provision of conveyancing. To deal with the question raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, I approached it from the other point of view. In order to ensure that general conduct and practice rules are preserved, however, subsection (2A)(b) allows a rule to stand so long as its main or only effect is not to restrict or prevent the individual from acting in the capacities laid down in subsection (2) and, as the amendment states,
"… the rule is reasonably required as a rule of general application for the purpose of regulating the conduct or practice of all members of that body".
It must be for the courts to decide into which category a particular rule will fall, if the question arises. But it seems to me, for example, that the Bar's rule with regard to indirect access is of that kind. The purpose is to deal with it in relation to the amendment.
The new subsection (2B) specifically addresses the amendment put down by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Irvine of Lairg on Report. I promised to give the principle
1696
favourable consideration and I hope that noble Lords believe that I have done exactly that. The new subsection should ensure that any professional body can make rules which allow independent legal or financial advice to be given by one of its members while acting as the agent of an authorised practitioner. The new subsection (2B) therefore clarifies the scope of the clause in this important respect.
At the moment I am moving only Amendment No. 16. Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 are inextricably together in their principle and I sought to explain the scope of both. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for meeting the simple point that I made in so far as I understand that he has met it. However, I feel obliged to say that he does it by the most unbelievably complicated piece of drafting. I most earnestly hope that when the Bill reaches another place he will have the whole of subsection (2) looked at with a view to eliminating some of the double negatives and reduce some of the occasions on which the words "only" and "unless" occur. It is not the happiest way to draft legislation.
Having said that, and in the hope that simplicity will eventually prevail, I thank my noble and learned friend. I perfectly understand how it is that my Amendment No. 17 has been pre-empted by his Amendment No. 16.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I at once rise and say that, subject to one matter—which I believe the noble and learned Lord will understand—these amendments are welcomed. In subsection (2B) they mirror an amendment that I was privileged to table with my colleagues at Report stage. The present amendment is one that is very much appreciated. As I say, I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will understand that the only proviso that I make is that professional bodies, including the Law Society, are not very happy when they find in a statute some disturbance with their rule-making powers. They make that observation in general terms and would devoutly have wished that subsection (2) had been removed from the Bill. Subject to that comment the amendments are most welcome and we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
7 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, perhaps I may say at this point that I do not propose to speak to my Amendment No. 19 to Amendment No. 18 until my noble and learned friend moves that amendment. Certainly Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 go together but they are separate on the grouping list. The profusion of double negatives to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred suggests to me that it would not be convenient to debate my Amendment No. 19 at this point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to Amendment No. 16 and, in an advance way, Amendment No. 18. These amendments have not been put forward without a great deal of thought. The amendment of the noble

1697
Lord, Lord Renton, has the merit of simplicity in giving special treatment to the General Council of the Bar. However, I must seek to reach a principle which will apply generally, not just to the Bar, because it is possible that in the future another professional body could seek rights of audience and the same kind of referral rules as the Bar. Therefore, it is right that I should seek to obtain a general principle which applies without needing specific reference to the General Council of the Bar. That is the explanation. Simplicity can sometimes be obtained at too great a price.
In regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it is necessary to make just sufficient innovation in the rule-making powers to preserve the statutory scheme and the possible statutory scheme that we have in mind. I believe that we have done so in the most modest way possible consistent with achieving that aim. I am therefore particularly delighted that we have been able to insert the amendment which mirrors so closely the amendment put forward on Report by the noble Lord and his colleagues.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 29, line 19, at end insert ("unless it is given partial effect by subsection (2A)(a) or full effect by subsection (2A)(b).
(2A) If the result mentioned in subsection (2) is not the main or only result of the rule in question, subsection (2)—

(a) shall apply only to the extent that the rule would have that result; but

(b) shall not apply if the rule is reasonably required as a rule of general application for the purpose of regulating the conduct or practice of all members of that body.

(2B) Nothing in this section prevents a professional or other body from imposing a rule that any member of that body who is acting as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) may do so only on terms which allow him to give independent legal or financial advice to the person for whom conveyancing services are being provided by the authorised practitioner concerned.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 18, Amendment No. 19:
Line 12, after ("(2)") insert ("(b) or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 18, tabled by my noble and learned friend in response to the amendment moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which I and many other noble Lords supported. The noble Lord suggested that it was through arrangements with high street solicitors that authorised practitioners would, for the most part, seek to provide their conveyancing services.
His concern was that the public, directed by authorised practitioners to go to these agency solicitors, might find that the solicitors failed to give the financial advice which may not always be required of a solicitor by the buyer or seller of a house but which on occasion, as I am sure we all know, turns out to be vital in the interests of the client in the conveyancing transaction. That failure would result, as the noble Lord pointed out, if there
1698
were some form of restrictive agreement between the authorised practitioner and the agency solicitor which did not allow the solicitor to give financial advice. It was to ensure that that undesirable state of affairs did not materialise that the noble Lord sought, by his amendment, to allow the Law Society to make rules which would in effect provide that agency solicitors should not act for authorised practitioners on terms which would restrict or prevent the solicitor from giving independent financial advice to his clients. My noble and learned friend accepted the sense of that amendment and we now have Amendment No. 18 before us.
My noble and learned friend said that the amendment was in accordance with his own ideas but my amendment would extend my noble and learned friend's amendment to cover also solicitors employed by authorised practitioners. The original amendment, which relates only to solicitors working for authorised practitioners on an agency basis and not to solicitors employed by authorised practitioners, will leave the client in a vulnerable position when he is dealing with a solicitor who is employed by the authorised practitioner. Not only that, the position will be extremely confusing to the client.
There are a number of ways in which solicitors now practise in close proximity to building societies, for example. An independent firm of solicitors may practise at a distance from a building society office or in a separate office within the structure of the building society's building. In either case that firm may already be doing so much work for the building society as to be practically tied to it. After the Bill becomes law the office of a solicitor employed by an authorised practitioner may equally be at a distance from the institution, physically speaking, whereas the solicitor with an agency contract with an institution may open a branch office immediately next door to the institution in order better to further its connection.
From the point of view of the customer or client the distinction between the employed solicitor and the agency solicitor will often be extremely obscure. There is no rhyme or reason for the distinction between the employed solicitor and the agency solicitor. There is no logic in saying that the Law Society may have rules which allow the agency solicitor to give financial advice but not the employed solicitor.
I also refer to the matter of fiduciary relationships which will be brought before the House again in Amendment No. 20, tabled by my noble friend Lord Boardman. On Report my noble friend put the case that the provision of conveyancing services should involve a fiduciary relationship between the authorised practitioner and his client. My noble and learned friend thought that the level at which the fiduciary relationship ought to exist was as between a qualified person, the solicitor and the client. He said on 22nd February (Hansard, col. 467):
"As I see it, the essential point is that the person who is acting as the qualified person—namely, the solicitor or licensed conveyancer—should owe the proper professional duty to the client whether he is an employee or acting as an agent of a building society … The idea must be that the conveyancing work is done by a person who owes the client the proper professional duty, and that should rest on the professional person".
My noble and learned friend also said (col. 469):
"I believe that I can favourably consider bringing forward an amendment to make it clear that where the authorised practitioner is providing these services, the person who is responsible for the transaction at the professional level shall have the responsibility to the client in carrying out the transaction that a solicitor would have in relation to the ordinary practice".
My amendments would enable the Law Society to go some way, by its rules, to provide for what my noble and learned friend said is desirable.
It seems to me vitally important that the Law Society should be able to protect both the good name of the legal profession and the public interest by being expressly permitted to make the same rules for the qualified person who is an employed solicitor as it does for the qualified person who is an agency solicitor. A contractual arrangement with an employed solicitor which prohibits the giving of financial advice by the solicitor seems to be a noxious restrictive practice, debasing the legal profession. So is such an arrangement with an agency solicitor. In my submission, there is no reason why a client seeking conveyancing services should not have the same assurance—the assurance that the employed solicitor whom he meets in the course of transacting his business will be just as unfettered by such a restrictive practice as an agency solicitor. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment extends the operation of subsection (2B) to cover employed members of a professional body as well as members acting as agents of authorised practitioners. The amendment would take that subsection too far. I wish to ensure only—this was the scope of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—that agents providing conveyancing services were not forced into agreements with their principals which would restrict their ability to provide independent advice. If the client wanted advice in addition to the conveyancing service, there should be nothing to prevent the independent solicitor from giving that advice.
A solicitor or other qualified person employed by an authorised practitioner owes a duty to his employer by virtue of his contract of employment. On that aspect, it would be unusual for a building society to employ someone to give advice which was independent with regard to that building society's financial services. It would be like asking a shop assistant selling one type of goods to give advice about a competitor's goods. If one goes to a solicitor for a particular service—conveyancing—one should be free to ask him about other matters in addition. It would be inconsistent with the regime of the provision of financial advice for a person who is employed full time in the service of a particular building society to give independent financial advice to people who go to that building society as between the insurance, mortgage and so forth provided by his employer and those provided by others.
I do not believe that the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was putting forward applies properly to employed solicitors. It applies only to those who are in independent practice. It prevents them from being fettered in that independent
1700
practice in giving independent advice. Those solicitors might be agents for any number of building societies. They might give conveyancing services for a whole range of building societies, whereas the employed solicitor will of course not be doing that. Although I understand the purpose for which the amendment is moved, it stretches the principle of my new amendment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, mirrors his, too far. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I find my noble and learned friend's answer arid. The principle that I am trying to establish with the amendment is that the client who is buying or selling a house should be able to consult the solicitor involved with the authorised practitioner, whether on an employed or agency basis, and receive proper professional advice.
By proper professional advice I mean that if the client wants to know whether the terms of a mortgage being offered to him are proper, he should be able to ask the solicitor dealing with the matter, and that solicitor should be able to say, "I have to tell you that these are in general the terms upon which mortgages are offered"; or he may say, "There is a provision in the mortgage agreement which says that if you redeem within five years of taking out the mortgage you must pay extra interest. That is usual in this type of mortgage where you have no proper security or where we are guaranteeing you a rate of interest for the five years".
My noble and learned friend may have misunderstood the amendment when he suggested that it might be inconsistent with the regime. There is no reason why a solicitor who is employed by a building society should not give the financial advice to his client which any other solicitor would give.
On many occasions we have had it pointed out to us that for years competitive forces have led building societies to employ or engage a borrower's solicitor, who is acting for him in buying a house, to act also for the building society which is granting the mortgage. That transaction may also involve the creation of a collateral charge over a life policy which the building society has arranged for the client to take out.
In replying to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on Report, my noble and learned friend said that there was no doubt that independent solicitors in private practice act for the purchaser and the person who provides the mortgage. That happens in a high percentage of cases, I believe, without detriment to anyone. Why should not the same highly convenient practice be continued where the solicitor is the employee of the authorised practitioner? The practice does not and would not restrict or prevent the employed solicitor from providing conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner. I do not for a moment see why it should be said to be outside the scope of the proposed regime. Nevertheless, that is, as my noble and learned friend has stated, widening in scope in some respects the amendment moved by

1701
the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In the absence of any support in the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 18 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this may be a convenient time to break for dinner. I beg to move that proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. Perhaps I may suggest that the House does not return to this business before 20 minutes past eight.
Moved, that proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may ask what the proposals are for the rest of the evening. I have to put the question in that way because great enthusiasm has not been shown for deferring to the wishes of noble Lords and the House. That was especially marked on the final day on Report when all parts of the House expressly desired that proceedings should be adjourned. If the noble Lord the Chief Whip or the noble Earl wish to intervene to say that an extra day will be given, I shall sit down right away; otherwise I must explain why I am asking the question.
On the last day on Report, as I said, the wish was expressed from all parts of the House that the proceedings should be adjourned for the day. That was at about 11 p.m. However, that wish was not agreed to. We had always the threat that the noble Lord the Chief Whip had his majority outside ready to vote down any Motion that the House do now adjourn. We have been discussing the Bill for nearly three-and-a-half hours. After we resume there will only be about two-and-a-quarter hours before 10.30 p.m., which is generally considered late to adjourn. After that the House is regarded as sitting late or, if it sits after midnight, very late. We have often had to sit very late on the Bill.
We have reached Amendment No. 19 out of 67 amendments. I do not want to exaggerate, as some of the later amendments have been spoken to and others have been glanced at, but there is no doubt that there is a substantial amount to be discussed if noble Lords are to carry out the function of this House which is to act as a revising and scrutinising Chamber. Your Lordships are not to be regarded merely as a legislative sausage-machine in which the government business managers insert a pig of a Bill at one end, there is a squeal about midnight, and then in the early hours of the morning something processed by way of minced meat and rat is produced.
The Third Reading of this Bill is bound to be substantial. Disraeli described Hartington's speech after the Berlin Conference as a string of congratulatory regrets. The Third Reading of this Bill will not be such. Certainly there will be congratulations to noble Lords who have contributed so much to our proceedings, notably my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, but regret would be
1702
a very mild word to describe the feeling of so many noble Lords about what the Bill does and the way it has done it. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will tell us that there will be no attempt to move the Motion, That the Bill do now pass; that we can finish with the Third Reading this evening; and that another day will be given to the discussion of that Motion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I think it would be helpful to many noble Lords if he could indicate how far it is intended to proceed tonight. This is a very important and, as your Lordships know, not uncontroversial Bill. There is a good deal to be said for, at any rate, the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, being discussed at a civilised daylight hour. I should have thought that it would be to the advantage of the Government if what I regard as the very powerful case for the Bill were deployed at an hour when many noble Lords could be here and also when its chances of being adequately reported were greater.
In any event, whether my noble friend accepts that view or not, it would be helpful to many noble Lords if he could now give an indication of what his intentions are for tonight.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Denham, of a precedent. It relates to when he and his colleagues were in opposition and I was in charge of the Criminal Law Bill for the Home Office. I remember his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, then leading for the Opposition, saying that it was quite intolerable for the House of Lords to sit after half-past nine at night if Law Lords were expected to be present. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Denham, warmly agreeing with that proposition.
In the light of my recollection of that event I hope that the noble Lord will adopt a positive view about the entirely serious suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It seems entirely reasonable that the Motion to which the noble Lord referred should be moved at a reasonable hour in the House early next week. Noble Lords who wish to express a view can then do so. It is quite wrong that the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, on a Bill of this importance, should be discussed late at night in a virtually deserted House.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in view of the hopes engendered in my noble friends by recent opinion polls, I think I ought not to say anything from this Front Bench.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House knows that I have also expressed concern that noble Lords are not given sufficient opportunity at a reasonable hour to examine all the clauses in this complicated and important Bill. I have nothing further to add. I wish merely to support the request of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in the Chamber when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, began speaking about this matter. I understand noble Lords' concern that this extremely important Bill should be debated sensibly and that there should not be, as it might be felt, pressure. I should like to remind the House, going back a long time now, that after we had the famous all day debate in March of last year, we added first one day and then two days, to the Committee stage. We had quite a generous ration for the Report stage and now we are taking the Third Reading of the Bill.
I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In the back of the noble Lord's mind, I think, is the accepted convention, certainly of this House and indeed of Parliament, that at the end of the day, as concerns time, the Government should get their business; but of course in a reasonable way and without being unreasonable to the House. I have one thing to say on that point. It is very, very, very rare indeed—I thought it never happened, but it has happened certainly once in recent memory—ever to take more than a day on Third Reading. The exception which I have been advised exists was the enormous Education Reform Bill—a measure more than twice as long as the Bill before us. Therefore I have to say to the House that I think it reasonable for the Government, having agreed this through the usual channels, to wish to finish the Third Reading of this important Bill in one day. And that is what we intend to do.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he referred to finishing the Third Reading tonight. That indeed was my suggestion. He has not dealt with the point as to what should be arranged for the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, which, as he knows, is the normal final stage in which perhaps almost ceremonial speeches are made.
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is a stickler for the conventions and always remains if possible to the very end, usually making remarks which are very much appreciated. However, I have to make it clear, both in my capacity as Leader of the House and also as leader of my own party in this House, that what I intend is that the Bill should be passed today.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he realise that he has been quite implacable about this, just as he was on the last day of Report stage? The noble Lord has always a velvet glove which is very acceptable and pleasant. However, on both occasions, he has shown nakedly the iron fist inside it.
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords. It is perfectly true that from time to time I have to be firm, but I hope always in the nicest possible way.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, has the Leader of the House noticed that many noble Lords do not seem to be too anxious about going for dinner? They have already taken a quarter of an hour from the time announced by the Whip. As an important debate on
1704
the prevention of terrorism is about to take place, I hope that a quarter of an hour will be added to the time available for that debate.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we do not return to this business before half-past eight.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Strathclyde Regional Council Order Comfirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1990
7.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is a year since the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 was given the Royal Assent on 15th March 1989. Most of the Act's provisions came into force a week later. The Government believe that, like its predecessors, the 1989 Act is a wholly exceptional measure, justified only by the continuing threat to the people of this country of Northern Irish and international terrorism. I hope to explain to your Lordships why, in the Government's view, it is essential that the Act should continue in force for another 12 months.
There will, I believe, be no doubt in any of your Lordships' minds about the seriousness of the terrorist threat both in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. In 1989 we saw the first anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster in which 270 people were killed. We also saw the terrible explosion at Deal in which 11 soldiers were killed, the highest number of deaths in any Irish terrorist incident on the mainland since 1974. Sixty-two people were killed in Northern Ireland, including 23 members of the security forces. In Great Britain, a soldier and his wife were injured by a car bomb in Colchester last November, and it is only good fortune that prevented deaths or serious injuries when more recently bombs exploded in Leicester and Halifax. A corporal and his baby daughter were tragically murdered in West Germany. Those were terrible incidents. Our sympathies are with all those who suffered and we mourn for those who died.
But there have also been successes. International co-operation is now an important aspect of counter-terrorist investigations. The year 1989 saw arrests in France, in West Germany and in the United States of America. At home, there was the discovery of an arms cache, including 100 pounds of plastic explosive, on the Pembrokeshire coastal

1705
path; and the arrest of two men at the site of the cache just before Christmas. Those two men were subsequently charged with explosives offences. Obviously, I cannot comment further other than to say that the arrests marked the end of a sustained and determined police operation over a period of seven weeks in the most atrocious conditions. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in thanking all the officers concerned in this as in so many other counter-terrorist operations.
In considering the Prevention of Terrorism Act we have the benefit of the report of my noble friend Lord Colville on its operation in 1989. I am glad to see that he is in his place in the Chamber tonight. This is my noble friend's fourth annual report on the legislation, and we are all grateful for the work which he does for us. The chief innovation of the 1989 Act is the fact that money and assets which will be used for terrorist purposes can now be seized or frozen. My noble friend rightly points out that it is too soon to evaluate these powers, which came into force on 1st September. But I am glad that the powers were supported on all sides of your Lordships' House.
Under the 1989 Act there were also new powers to assist in counter-terrorist investigations. These included the ability for the police to apply to a court for a production order. Production orders enable the police to have access to, for example, bank accounts which are believed to be used for terrorist purposes. I can tell your Lordships that since 1st September the police have successfully applied for a total of 48 of these production orders.
At the heart of the Prevention of Terrorism Act—and its most difficult and controversial feature—are the executive powers of exclusion and extended detention. I am glad to say that my noble friend makes no criticism of the way in which these powers were exercised in 1989. But it is not enough for me to assure the House that the powers are properly exercised. I must also persuade your Lordships that they are still needed, and I must do so in the knowledge that my noble friend, in his review of the 1984 Act, recommended that the exclusion power should be discontinued.
The purpose of the Act is to prevent terrorism, and it is always more difficult to show that something has been prevented than to show that something has occurred. It is particularly difficult to demonstrate that an exclusion order has prevented specific acts of terrorism. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said in his review of the legislation in 1983 that the power had been used against individuals who there was a good reason to believe had come to Great Britain in order to set up an IRA active service unit or who were being used as carriers of information or arms. My noble friend Lord Colville, who I acknowledge is not in favour of the exclusion power, nevertheless agreed with the assessment of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe that it disrupts terrorist lines of communication and the supply of arms and explosives. We believe that these results are sufficient justification for the continuation in force of the power.
There have been some notable cases in which the use of extended detention has resulted in serious
1706
charges which are unlikely to have been brought had the police been obliged to rely on the powers of the ordinary criminal law. My noble friend Lord Colville cites in his 1987 review and in this year's report two examples in which Loyalist arms procurement operations were disrupted in Scotland as a result of investigations involving extended detention. Sixteen men received sentences of up to 16 years' imprisonment in the two operations. We can only speculate on the number of shootings which were prevented and the number of lives which may have been saved.
We should not assume that, because the threat of terrorism continues, the Act has therefore failed in its purpose—far from it. Both the Government and the police remain convinced that the executive powers are still needed in the fight against terrorism. It is in the very nature of these powers, though, that we cannot always show the results which they achieve.
In November 1989 the Government confirmed their limited derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the case of Brogan. Your Lordships will recall that a case in which a suspect had been held for just over four days without charge was found to be in breach of the requirement to bring the suspect promptly before a judge. In his report my noble friend said:
"It cannot be felicitous for the UK to have to derogate",
from the convention. As is so often the case, he is quite right. We took the decision to derogate with great reluctance and only after the most serious consideration.
It remains the Government's view that the power to detain for up to seven days on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism is essential in Northern Irish cases. In Great Britain, the decision to authorise a detention of more than 48 hours is always taken by the Secretary of State in person, and not by a junior Minister. The Government accept that these exceptional powers have to be matched by adequate safeguards for the suspect. Schedule 3 to the 1989 Act introduced a system for reviewing detentions based on the comparable system under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
There is at present no general system for the tape recording of interviews with suspected terrorists. However, the Government announced on 1st March a two-year experiment, at Paddington Green police station and the Main Bridewell, Liverpool, involving the tape recording of summaries of interviews together with any comments by the suspect or his legal adviser.
The experiment will be monitored by the Home Office research and planning unit and evaluated by a steering committee which includes representatives of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society. We continue to believe that tape recording the whole of the interview, as opposed to a summary of it, has to be ruled out on security grounds.
There is clearly much more that I could say. My noble friend has made many valuable points in his report, and I would like to assure him, if indeed he was in any doubt, that his reports are taken very seriously in my department. Copies will be sent to

1707
all chief constables in due course and we are most grateful to him for his careful and assiduous work.
If there are any points on which your Lordships wish me to enlarge I shall endeavour to do so at the conclusion of the debate.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will as usual appreciate the manner in which the noble Earl has moved this order. I should at once like to echo from these Benches what he said in expressing appreciation to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for his report which we read with great care. We realise the effort, the fairness and the assiduous work that he puts into these reports which we very much value.
I wish to make the position of the Opposition in this House abundantly clear. We are completely at one—I almost feel that this does not require to be said—with the Government in wishing to defeat terrorism at the earliest possible moment. We have co-operated with the Government, as we should in legislation which deals with international co-operation to defeat terrorism. We have supported the Government in legislation which aims to confiscate funds which are meant to support terrorist activities.
It is only in regard to certain matters contained in the Act that we feel uneasy about just a general continuation order. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to dwell upon the matters that we support. It is obvious from our previous attitude that we support the confiscation of terrorist funds. The noble Earl mentioned tape recordings. We are pleased to have received the recent announcement by the Home Secretary that those detained under the Act would have a limited tape recording made of their interviews in the police station.
However, as the noble Earl made clear, those tape recordings will merely be a summary. Perhaps I may ask for the noble Earl's reaction to this suggestion from the Front Bench. If he cannot give it immediately, I shall understand. Perhaps it would be a much better idea to give not only the impression of justice but a reassurance to everyone as to how these interviews take place and what are the justifiable actions following those interviews. Would it not be better if there were a complete tape recording and if arrangements were made that in any trial the judge should hear the whole of the tape recording? He could then excise from it those portions which he felt should be excised, either because they are not admissible for any reason, according to our law of evidence, or because they infringe security. Representations could be made to him in chambers as to what was thought about the security risks.
I emphasise this point not only because of the inherent justice which I believe lies within the point but also because some of us will have been concerned at the recent decision on extradition by a High Court judge in Eire. It would be our practice to say that
1708
we respect the judges' judgments in any country where we have reason to believe that the court is an independent court. I therefore show my respect in that context.
However, I believe that we do not make our lives any easier in front of foreign courts or in particular in front of courts in Eire if we do not show that our procedures are consistent with fairness, weighing it up in the balance of how we have to fight terrorism. I shall refer to our procedures in another context in a moment. We endanger the true and proper working of those courts in our favour if we do not show transparent justice where we can, certainly in the conduct of interviews where vital evidence will be given by the prosecution, based on those interviews. That is why I regard the point that I was trying to make to the noble Earl with such seriousness.
In the same context I examine the provision of detention without charge for seven days. Here again we give the excuse to certain courts, if they wish to take advantage of it when asking for co-operation, whether it be on extradition or whatever, that as I see it we are flying in the face of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Terence Brogan. The European Court held that detention without charge and without judicial review was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in regard to that case. I believe that when we have a provision which entitles us to detain without charge for seven days we are in danger of being in breach of the judgment and therefore of the convention which we have signed.
Lastly, I turn to the exclusion orders which the Minister mentioned. Again he dealt with a matter which was mentioned in the House on the previous occasion when we dealt with continuation orders. I am referring to the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made it clear in his previous report that the Government ought to consider carefully the continuance of exclusion orders. His advice—if I may term it that—has not been followed. I regret that it should not have been followed. Again, we are literally saying that for our security someone who is not fit to live in England, Scotland or Wales can be required to live in Northern Ireland.
I could mention other points against exclusion orders and their justification, but I mention that one specifically because it seems to me to be quite inconsistent with the view that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. How we can expect the people of Northern Ireland to respect our judgment—I put it no higher than judgment—in keeping these exclusion orders in our armoury against terrorism, is beyond me.
Those are our reservations. There will be no question of opposing in this House an order which has had the approval of another place.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I support the order. I believe that the powers that it confers on Ministers are justified on the basis of the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom. I am well aware of the concerns about exclusion orders. The noble Lord,

1709
Lord Mishcon, dealt with them when he referred to the strong reservations held by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on this point. I am glad that the noble Viscount is in the House. He indicated that although that was his view and had been his constantly stated view, it was not the opinion of an almost unanimous police service in this country.
I concede at once that the exclusion order is a most unusual power to give to any Secretary of State. There is no difficulty at all about that. Nevertheless it is my view, based on my own direct experience, that without the operation of exclusion orders, many more of our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom would have been murdered by the IRA. Having said that, I must admit that I remain deeply uneasy about the Brogan case. The European Court of Human Rights has held, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us, that seven-day detention orders should be subject to some form of judicial intervention. Since we last debated this matter, the Government have derogated. I concede at once that this is a difficult matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, confirms that in paragraph 4.4 of his report. Nevertheless, as I am sure the Government recognise, the decision to derogate is an exceptionally serious matter. However, I concede that there is a precedent. All I would say to the noble Earl is that I hope the Home Office will keep this matter under review.
It is not just a question of satisfying Parliament at Westminster; our international reputation is also involved. We rely a great deal on international co-operation in our fight against terrorism. We have received substantial assistance both from the United States and from our partners in Europe. They, too, have to be persuaded that we are behaving reasonably. To take one example of that, Ministers will be well aware of the constant pressure faced by the President and his senior advisers in the United States from some members of Congress who are highly critical of our position in Northern Ireland. One does not have to be an enthusiast for their cause to remind Ministers that when they take action of this kind it can sometimes play into the hands of some of our most dedicated critics.
I should now like to turn to some other issues which were raised in the report of the noble Viscount. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. The reports of the noble Viscount have been remarkable pieces of work. They are clear and lucid and they are based on a substantial programme of visits to all parts of Great Britain. I know very well the deep appreciation felt by many senior police officers for the amount of effort that the noble Viscount puts into his reports. It is right to acknowledge that on a day such as this.
However, I shall deal with one or two other questions based on the judgments in the report of the noble Viscount. First, I wish to ask the noble Earl a question about the national ports scheme which, as he will know, is run by a department of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police. I am bound to say that I was rather disappointed to see in paragraph 2 of the report of the noble Viscount that a few police forces are still not members of that scheme. Obviously not all police forces have
1710
coastlines in their areas. However, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, all at the very least have a number of private airfields. I do not believe in interfering with the operational independence of chief officers of police, but I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that these matters will be raised with those chief officers by the inspectorate of constabulary. I believe that is an important matter.
Secondly, I wish to discuss the issue of control facilities at ports which is dealt with in paragraph 6.4 of the report of the noble Viscount. This, as the noble Earl will be aware, is again a rather important matter. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the 1989 Act requires carriers to present passengers and crew in such a way that the police can fulfil their duties. Paragraph 9 gives the Secretaries of State the power to insist on proper control facilities for passengers. It also gives them the power to require port operators to comply with notified requirements for facilities and other matters.
The noble Viscount comments in paragraph 6.2 of his report:
"I assume that paragraph 9 is wide enough to ensure that port operators can be made to provide the facilities … which the police must have for efficient exercise of their PTA powers".
However, in paragraph 6.4 the noble Viscount indicates that significant problems appear to have arisen at Felixstowe and Cairnryan, although some small improvements have been made at the latter port. Does the noble Earl agree with the noble Viscount that his right honourable friends have power to ensure that operators can be compelled to provide the necessary facilities when they decline to do so? I have looked at the relevant part of the legislation. It seems to me fairly obvious that Secretaries of State have such a power. However, if that is so, what action do they propose to take regarding the single operator at Felixstowe and Cairnryan?
It seems to me highly unsatisfactory that a single operator is not providing the facilities which are clearly required in the national interest. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to reassure me that the operator concerned will experience some heat from his department on this matter. I do not think it is at all appropriate, particularly given the past problems that have arisen at Cairnryan, to see difficulties of this kind still being experienced.
Finally, what action do the Government propose to take regarding paragraph 7 of the report of the noble Viscount which deals with ships which do not set out from designated ports? That is, of course, a matter of high importance, not only in relation to the prevention of terrorism legislation but also in respect of the smuggling of heroin and cocaine.
The noble Viscount has referred to various initiatives taken by a number of police forces from Devon and Cornwall to Lincolnshire and Dumfries and Galloway and has suggested in the final paragraph of his report that the neighbourhood watch scheme against crime might be extended to a "boatwatch" scheme around the coast. At first sight that appears an interesting proposal. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that this matter will be discussed by the inspectorate of constabulary and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

1711
As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, my noble friends support this order. However, as I have also indicated, I believe we have a right to expect progress on the Brogan case before we debate the matter again.
8 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, since the passing of the original Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 I have on a number of occasions in both Houses opposed many of the draconian provisions that were contained within that piece of legislation. I opposed particularly the powers of exclusion that my noble friend Lord Mishcon referred to. However, throughout the years that that legislation has existed, I have never found myself able to justify exclusion orders. I know that there are two sides to this story and that there are differences of opinion. However, I have desperately tried to find justification for the exclusion of certain people from England, Scotland and Wales to Northern Ireland in many cases that have been brought to my attention. I have referred to Northern Ireland as being a dumping ground. However, as the years have gone by, I have lived with and seen the effects of terrorism both in Northern Ireland and, latterly, in this country. I am now of the belief that legislation such as this is necessary. In the absence of this legislation the IRA and other paramilitary organisations would be able to move about far more freely to carry out activities which would undoubtedly increase the death toll from year to year.
The noble Earl has read out this evening a list of the number of people who have been killed since we last discussed this order. Those men, women and children, and very young babes in arms, have all been murdered by terrorists. Therefore I could not in all conscience either oppose the legislation or, even more cowardly but as some people would expect me to do, be absent when the issue was discussed.
The noble Earl has said that since we last discussed the legislation, there has been international co-operation in the fight against terrorism. He mentioned what had taken place in France, Belgium, Germany and so on. My reason for coming here tonight is to tell him that he is not receiving international co-operation where he should be obtaining it most: in the island of Ireland, from the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
I was appalled, sickened and saddened by the decision of the Irish court during this week. I say that as an Irishman and one who loves Ireland. We are only two days away from St. Patrick's Day, on which the Irish national saint will be commemorated and celebrated in Ireland. There will be great celebrations this year in the camps of the Provisional IRA. There will be great rejoicing in all paramilitary organisations because of that terrible decision which was handed down in the name of Ireland by the supreme court in the island of Ireland.
I cannot for a single second see any reason or justification for those five judges making such a disastrous decision. Let the lawyers talk as much as they like, let them go into all the legal niceties, let them emphasise the fact that it was a judicial
1712
decision and not a government decision: that judgment was manna from heaven for the murderers in our midst in Northern Ireland. Those judges are Irishmen. They have lived on the island of Ireland. Irrespective of the legal niceties of their decision, they must have been aware of the terrible effect that it would have in Northern Ireland.
That decision was a tribal decision. I say that with the authority of the knowledge that I have gained from living on the island of Ireland. If you oppose that decision, and I do most vehemently, then you are categorised as a Unionist, a Protestant, anti-Irish, pro-British. I am none of those. I am proud to be an Irishman; I am a Catholic; I have been an anti-Unionist all my life, and I love the island of Ireland. I certainly am not anti-British.
Let us analyse that decision. There is one thing that has not been said by any of the leader writers in all the thousands of words that have been written in the past few days. One of the reasons that the judges gave for not sending those two convicted criminals back to Northern Ireland was the fear that they might be assaulted by prison officers in the Maze. The judges said that they were protecting their constitutional rights. Their constitutional rights represent an intrusion into Northern Ireland. If the judges can give a decision based on their constitutional rights, it is in line with Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution which claims jurisdiction over the whole of the island of Ireland. Otherwise, they would not have any constitutional rights in the Republic, which would allegedly be a foreign country outside the United Kingdom. That is an admission and it is a precedent. That precedent is very far-reaching. We shall have to live with the consequences in the years that lie ahead.
The judges said that prison officers had been found guilty of assaulting other Republican prisoners in the wake of the very vicious break-out from the Maze prison in 1983. On that occasion 19 prison officers were brutally beaten, one of them was stabbed to death—he subsequently died—others were also stabbed and severely injured. I cannot stand here and say that those prison officers were justified in beating up those prisoners they were able to apprehend in the immediate aftermath of the break-out. However, one can quite understand their emotion and how they felt after being subjected to such brutality themselves by the escaping prisoners.
The very fact that the prison officers were charged with assaulting Republican prisoners and the Republican prisoners were awarded compensation last year means that those prison officers are far less likely to assault anyone who is given back into their charge. If they have been found guilty of assault and compensation has been awarded, the prison officers are going to be very careful before putting themselves in a position to be charged with assault again. The argument that the prisoners were going to be assaulted does not hold water.
We say in Northern Ireland that the IRA could not have sustained its campaign of murder for 22 years unless there was a section of the community which was willing and able to give it protection. It is like a fish; which, as Chou En-lai said, has to have room to swim around in in which it will be given

1713
protection. We all recognise the active service soldiers, as they are called, of the IRA, the ones who set off the bombs, who kill, who kneecap and who blow out the brains. We all know that they are there. However, there is another element in Irish society which does not do any of those things. They stand back in silence and wish those active terrorists well. There are far too many of those people in Ireland. They are not confined to one section of the community. We refer to them as the "prawn cocktail provisionals"—the people with the mohair suits who finance the IRA but do not let their names be mentioned.
Let us consider the history of the judges who made that decision. Every one of them was a political appointment. Let us go into the antecedents of the Fianna Fail Party. Fianna Fail is the party of the Republicans—that is what it says on its election material. Its present Taoiseach was charged in the courts in the 1960s with arms smuggling and gun running. He was found not guilty, but many people said that there was no smoke without fire. Some of the judges who gave the decision this week were actively involved in the defence of Mr. Haughey, who is at present Taoiseach. There is a line of communication all the way through nationalist Ireland. That is why it was a tribal decision.
Can anyone blame the Protestant majority, the Unionist majority, the people who live—terrified for their lives—along the border where most of the murders take place, for being totally and absolutely furious at that decision?
I stood in this House when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was promulgated. I expressed great reservations about it. I did so with a knowledge of Ireland, not because of what I had been told over here or read over here. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was cobbled together without any discussions with the main party—the Northern Ireland Unionist Protestant majority—which was treated disgracefully. Its opinions were not asked for. We were told that the agreement would make extradition easier and that it would involve the Irish Government in a campaign to prevent terrorism on the island of Ireland. It has not done so.
People over here are inclined to forget very easily once an issue is taken out of the leader writer columns. Let us think of what happened in the case of Father Ryan. I do not refer to that man as a priest; I call him Mr. Ryan. He was suspected of having been involved in terrorist activities. He was arrested in Belgium. The Belgian courts decided to have him extradited to this country, but the Belgian politicians overruled that decision and sent him to Ireland. No one here criticised or opened their mouths about those happenings until Mr. Ryan arrived in Ireland. The Prime Minister then went to the Dispatch Box in another place and voiced her concern that it appeared that the Irish were unwilling to extradite Mr. Ryan. She was quite right to voice that concern. I was sitting in the Gallery and felt concerned about the whole matter.
Immediately the whole Irish diaspora from America and particularly from Ireland criticised the Prime Minister for intervening and saying that she wanted to see Mr. Ryan extradited. That was refused.
1714
It was not a case of the Dublin court saying, "We absolve ourselves. It was a judicial decision". The Attorney-General in the Republic refused to extradite Mr. Ryan. That was a political decision because he was a Law Officer of the Government.
There are three or four more cases pending in the Republic. The precedent that was set down last week will in effect mean that, if any of those IRA terrorists on the run in the Republic are apprehended, they can say, "Please don't send me back there because the warders are liable to beat me up". The IRA does not beat up warders; it blows their brains out and has done so over many years.
Was it not possible for those five judges who were so caught up with their legal jurisprudence and their right to protect constitutional rights to say, "We can't send them back to the Maze Prison, but we could send them back to another part of the United Kingdom because they are convicted terrorists". Naturally, there would have been great dissent, from Republican sources, but that would not be true of most reasonable people.
I have been watching television programmes and saw one this morning which made me sick—the "Kilroy" programme, on which the IRA justified its actions. It takes the view that IRA political prisoners do not get justice in Britain. I say, with the full knowledge that my noble friend Lord Mishcon is on the Front Bench, that I have been deeply unhappy about the official Labour Party response to the happenings over the past two or three days, certainly not from Members of this House. However, one spokesman for the Labour Party said, "We have good co-operation from the Irish Government—900 people have been extradited over the past 20 years, many of whom were terrorists". That is untrue. Many of them were not terrorists. The vast majority were charged with other criminal offences in this country, for example, tax evasion. Only a handful of terrorists—I believe five altogether—have been extradited back to the United Kingdom.
I raise the matter deliberately so that the Government may question matters through the Anglo-Irish Agreement with which I do not agree. I do not believe that Britain has achieved anything out of that accord. In response to Ireland giving a promise that she would do everything she could to apprehend terrorists, they were given a say in the running of affairs in Northern Ireland through the Anglo-Irish Conference.
Over the past two or three days, most of the editorials have said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement must be kept, otherwise we might go back to megaphone diplomacy. I suggest that a little megaphone diplomacy in cases such as this would be all to the good because the British people and the British Government would be speaking on behalf of the Northern Ireland people. They should shout as loud as they can to those Congressmen on the Irish-American scene in America who believe every bit of propaganda that is ladled out to them by the Provisional IRA.
There are two sides to that story. America's Congressmen do not have to contend with bombings and murders in America. Those acts take place here. I read today that a member of the Kennedy family

1715
has again criticised Britain for not giving justice to Irishmen. If those same Irishmen were bombing his homeland in Boston or other parts of the United States, Congressman Kennedy would be peddling a different tune.
I feel strongly about the matter. I could go on for a long time. Another part of the judgment was by Mr. Justice Walsh. He said that, if terrorists fight to unite the country, it is a political offence and they should not be charged or extradited. That takes us back to the realms of uncertainty.
I have noticed that not too many Catholics in Northern Ireland have voiced their criticism at the decision of the Dublin High Court. I wonder why. Does it mean that every Catholic wants to see IRA men released so that they can return to the use of the gun, or that they are frightened? Do they think that it is not right to break away from the tribal response and say something which might be construed as helping the British or the Protestants?
I do not believe that I am helping the British or the Protestants in any way by voicing my concern at that awful decision. I believe that I am helping humanity in Northern Ireland by saying and doing whatever I can to force the Irish Government to look again at their extradition procedures and to look into their own mind and conscience to see whether they have done all they can to prevent terrorism on the island of Ireland.
Yesterday's Evening Standard contained a leader on this issue. The last sentence is appropriate to clear thinking on this week's events. It stated:
"Terrorists are enemies of all Ireland, North and South: and so are the the judges who wrongly set them at liberty".
I urge the noble Earl to make whatever strong representations he can to the Government so that they in turn may make the strongest representations to the Irish Government to live up to what they say they are doing and to take every action to prevent a further eruption of terrorism in the island of Ireland.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the contributions that have been made on this matter which affects us all gravely and about which we all feel acutely concerned. Perhaps I may start my remarks by referring to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who, if I may say so, made a speech which was full of feeling—feeling which derives from his knowledge of Northern Ireland and his concern about the judgment made last week.
I can understand why the noble Lord feels cross, angry and upset. I believe that most of us feel very concerned. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that the judgment was grossly offensive and totally unjustified. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that it was an unacceptable slur on the practices which are carried out in Northern Ireland and that he would be pursuing with the Irish Government his concern that the system should work effectively and fairly. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will recognise—as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—that it was a judicial judgment. As such it is a judgment of the courts and one which we must respect, even though we may not agree with it. I should also say that
1716
throughout the whole extradition process it was the Irish Government which was seeking the extraditions on our behalf. Indeed, it made strenuous efforts on our behalf all the way through to get these two men extradited. It is the judicial judgment about which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is so concerned.
Effective extradition arrangements between our two countries are vital to co-operation against terrorism. We shall closely study the terms of the judgment to see how similar episodes can be prevented in the future. In fact the judgment consists of seven judgments which run to 98 pages, so there will be quite a lot for the Government to consider and decide how we can best run affairs so that these unfortunate occurrences do not happen in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was not too complimentary about the Anglo-Irish Agreement but both governments are committed, in the context of that agreement, to ensure fair and effective extradition arrangements between our two countries. That is what we wish to try to ensure happens.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris, referred to the Brogan judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that Members of the United States Congress would be critical of what we do. I have no hesitation in saying to your Lordships that derogation from the convention is not to be taken lightly. We did not undertake it lightly. But by the same token, nor is any measure to be taken lightly which would weaken the effectiveness of our response to terrorism. To put it frankly, the Government were not able to find a system that would satisfy the terms of the convention without risking the lives of individuals and valuable intelligence or affecting public trust in the independence of the judiciary. That is the reason that we had to have the derogation. In the Government's view, intelligence and the sources of intelligence might have to be revealed either to the judge, the defendant or his representatives. That would put or might put security at risk. The derogation is limited to extensions of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland but of course not to international terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned that a tape recording was being made only of the summary and not of the complete interview. I quite see why the noble Lord would have preferred the recording to be of the whole interview, But our view remains that the information that might be revealed to the police during an interview with a terrorist suspect could be such as to put lives at risk should it fall into the wrong hands. Tape recording the whole interview might therefore discourage the suspect from speaking freely to the police and information vital to our efforts against terrorism would therefore be lost. The police also rightly fear that tape recordings of interviews could provide terrorist organisations with an insight into police investigative matters which otherwise would not be available to them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl with his usual courtesy will give way. I rise only so that the House may be clear on what is being said.

1717
Is the noble Earl saying that a full recording on tape will not take place? In those circumstances, how does one prepare a summary? I did not understand that the Home Secretary's statement meant that there was not a full recording of which there was a summary. That is why I suggested that the judge should be given jurisdiction in camera to decide which part of the tape should in fact remain as evidence.
This is an important point. If the noble Earl cannot help us now, I shall understand and perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me. I am sure that equally the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, would also be interested. It is an important point. If there is a full recording, his point about suspects not being prepared to speak so frankly when there is a full recording obviously would not apply.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly give the noble Lord details later exactly how it is proposed the arrangement will operate. I should emphasise that it is not intended to have a full and complete recording of the whole interview because by so doing it is possible either that the interviewee may not give the information which he would otherwise give (because it would be on the tape and might fall into the wrong hands) or he may well find that he would prefer to be less open. It is for that reason that a summary of the interview will be taped as opposed to the whole interview itself. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned. If possible I shall try to placate his anxiety in more detail later.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was also concerned about the exclusion powers. He said that it was inconsistent, if Northern Ireland is to be part of the United Kingdom, that we should exclude certain members of the United Kingdom from part of that kingdom. I understand his concern. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was in favour of it. It is a matter of great concern if one must have such exclusion orders and of course they are highly controversial. As I said in my opening remarks, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, agreed, one can never say when the attempt has been successful. We are concerned that there is evidence to consider—evidence which makes us believe that if we did not have those exclusion powers, unfortunate and unattractive though they may be, others would suffer as a result. If they had been removed, I believe that noble Lords would agree, given the examples that I mentioned earlier, that there might have been either more deaths or more trouble from terrorism than has been the case with the exclusion powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was concerned about Cairnryan and Felixstowe. I can tell him that discussions are taking place with the port operator about the improvements which need to be made. The local police forces are being fully consulted. I hope that significant improvements will be made shortly. We do not at present foresee any need to use the powers which are available under Schedule 5.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also referred to the national ports unit. The national co-ordinator of ports policing continues to encourage the remaining
1718
forces to join the scheme. They have no major ports but as traffic grows, or if new facilities are developed, they will need to consider joining the scheme.
With regard to small boats—this was another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville for his analysis. The Home Office is discussing the issues with police forces and other agencies including customs and immigration. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, will understand that I am not in a position to describe in detail what we have in mind but I can assure him that we take the matter very seriously and hope to make proposals before too long.
I acknowledge that in this order there are exceptional powers. They are intended to meet exceptional circumstances. We all look forward to the day when the Act will no longer be necessary. However, so long as terrorism remains a threat to the people of this country we shall have to seek to continue to keep it in force. We shall continue to provide the police with the powers they need. But we also have due regard for the rule of law. That is why there is an extensive range of safeguards associated with the Act that we are now extending by means of this tape recording of interviews on an experimental basis.
I am grateful to your Lordships for having given overall approval to the order, even with the reservations that have been expressed. I hope that noble Lords will see fit to approve the order. I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
8.32 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Conveyancing fiduciary relationships.
.—(1) A fiduciary relationship shall be deemed to exist between an authorised practitioner and any person for whom the authorised practitioner provides any conveyancing services.
(2) The extent of the fiduciary relationship imposed by subsection (1) shall be the same as would exist between a solicitor and his client for whom similar services were being provided.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report stage we had an amendment in the same terms as Amendment No. 20 which I now move. The principle was in part accepted by my noble and learned friend. The intention of the amendment was to establish a fiduciary relationship between the authorised practitioners, similar to that which would apply to a practising solicitor in the same circumstances. In response to the debate, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stated at col. 469 of the Official Report:
"I believe that I can favourably consider bringing forward an amendment to make it clear that where the authorised practitioner is providing the services, the person who is responsible for the transaction at the professional level shall have the responsibility to the client in carrying out the transaction that a solicitor would have in relation to the ordinary practice".
My noble and learned friend went on to say that there might be difficulties in drafting that. But I

1719
understood that the principle was accepted. Unfortunately, we have not had an amendment from my noble and learned friend covering that point. No doubt we shall hear more about whether one will be possible or what has happened to make it impossible.
The amendment covers a somewhat wider field. My amendment sought to make a fiduciary relationship apply not just to a professional person who was conducting the conveyancing part of the transaction but to the authorised practitioner covering the whole range of the services covered by that authorised practitioner which were connected with the particular conveyancing transaction. The purpose of the present amendment is to make it clear that it is the authorised practitioner who owes the fiduciary duty to any person for whom he is providing conveyancing services.
It is not enough for an employee alone, carrying out conveyancing, to have a fiduciary duty. That duty must pass to the employer. The analogy with a firm of solicitors in private practice is perhaps helpful. A principal of a firm of solicitors cannot escape his fiduciary responsibilities by arguing that it was his employee—even if the employee were a solicitor—who carried out the work. The law imposes a fiduciary duty on the firm as a whole.
Similarly, I believe it must be the authorised practitioner who is under that fiduciary duty. Indeed, on Amendment No. 19 in connection with a point raised by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, my noble and learned friend said that a solicitor employed by a building society, for example, owes a duty to that society just as an employee employed by a firm of solitors owes a duty to the firm of solicitors. It must therefore be that employer who has the fiduciary duty similar to that which is employed between a firm of solicitors and its client. That is important in the case of a lending institution. A solicitor who lends money on mortgage to his clients has very strict obligations placed upon him. A financial institution which also undertakes related conveyancing to the client should be placed under no less a fiduciary duty.
The authority on this with regard to solicitors is a book called Cordery on Solicitors. I quote an extract. It states:
"The relationship existing between a solicitor and his client is recognised in equity as a fiduciary one imposing on the solicitor special obligations. In his dealings with his client the solicitor must exercise the utmost good faith and in any financial transaction … with his client there will be a presumption that such transaction should not be upheld unless the solicitor can establish that it was effected by the free exercise of the client's will and without any influence",
and so on.
I urge and argue that the same duty applies to an authorised practitioner who has employed a solicitor in house in order to carry out conveyancing transactions which may be associated with the lending of money or with the placing of insurance. A solicitor who lends money on mortage to his client is under a very special duty. There are many authorities. Perhaps I may mention one. It is Nocton v. Lord Asburton which laid down the grounds of the duties and the responsibilities that apply when
1720
a solicitor lends money to his client. I ask: why should that relationship between the firm of solicitors lending money and, as part of that, also undertaking the conveyancing, be different from that of a building society lending money and also, as part of that, undertaking the conveyancing? There must be a duty on the part of those employing the solicitors to their client. It is the same duty that applies between the solicitor and his client.
My view is that where a financial institution is both providing a loan on mortage and providing related conveyancing services, it should be placed in the same position as a solicitor who is providing a loan on mortgage to his client and providing related conveyancing services. In other words, the authorised practitioner should have a fiduciary relationship with his client. If that is not so, we shall have an impossible position in the competition between the high street firm of solicitors which will be faced with special duties and obligations to its clients and the next-door building society or insurance company (or whatever it is) which is offering the same conveyancing services. Both are free to lend money to people who cross their thresholds and both are free to place insurance. The solicitor is in a position to give independent advice but the other is not. However, a fiduciary duty should be the same in both instances. There must be level playing fields in the competition which my noble and learned friend wishes to create.
It means that in a fiduciary relationship a solicitor is under a duty to disclose any secret profits which are made. The building society or bank which receives commissions from endowment policies and so forth must be in no different a position to that of solicitors who also arrange endowment policies for clients whose conveyancing work they carry out. A different set of rules would mean two standards and that would be quite unacceptable.
My noble and learned friend may say that at the end of the day it should be left to the courts to establish whether there is a fiduciary relationship in such circumstances. I hope that that will not be his reply. It is right that the relationship should be clearly established in the Bill. It should not be delayed until litigation raises the question in years to come as to the duties of the building societies and banks carrying out conveyancing, offering services and retaining commissions and so forth which are undisclosed and unaccounted for. We should not wait for the courts then to decide whether they were in a fiduciary relationship and must account for those profits in the same way as must a high street firm of solicitors discharging such duties.
I hope that, following on from what he said on Report, my noble and learned friend will go a little further and extend the relationship which he accepted for the professional element of the financial institution. I hope that he can extend the relationship to the authorised practitioner who should have the same duty as the high street solicitor with whom he competes. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to support the principle of the amendment. It would establish a fiduciary relationship between the authorised

1721
conveyancing practitioner and his customer. In plain language it would mean that in the exercise of his duties towards the customer the conveyancing practitioner must act with utmost good faith. That is the significance of the term "fiduciary relationship". It is the highest standard of conduct known to English jurisprudence. It is a high standard developed by the courts of Chancery over the centuries. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, has indicated that it is the standard expected of a solicitor in his dealings with his client. Thus it requires that the solicitor must not exercise undue influence and that he must give disinterested advice and make full disclosure of all the relevant facts.
It is difficult to see why a financial institution which provides a loan on mortgage and a related conveyancing service should not be expected to be guided by the same high standards. Therefore, it is right that the conveyancing practitioner should observe the standards of utmost good faith and that it should be spelt out in the Bill.
Lord Byron: My Lords, I support the amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. It is not enough for the employees carrying out the conveyance to have a fiduciary duty to the client; the provider of the service, the employer, must also be under a fiduciary duty.
It is helpful to have the analogy of a firm of solicitors in private practice. A principal in a firm of solicitors could not escape his fiduciary responsibilities by arguing that his employee, even if he is a solicitor in a branch office, was carrying out the work. The law imposes a clear fiduciary duty on the principal in a firm of solicitors. Similarly, the authorised practitioner should be under such a fiduciary duty. I support the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment on Report. It is not an easy area in which to operate. I understood my noble friend to suggest that the existence of the fiduciary duty determines the terms on which a solicitor may act. However, I believe that the precise terms on which a solicitor may act require to be determined with a good deal more precision than simply saying that he or she is subject to a fiduciary duty.
The passage from Cordery to which my noble friend referred states that,
"in any financial transaction with his client (save as to costs for work done) there will be a presumption that such transaction should not be upheld unless the solicitor can establish that it was effected by the free exercise of the client's will and without any influence on the part of the solicitor. Thus a solicitor is bound to give his client disinterested advice".
In relation to the conveyancing transaction that is one thing. To give disinterested advice on matters outside the conveyancing transaction is another. If the service given by the authorised practitioner is related to conveyancing the advice would be disinterested. However, it would be impractical to think of a solicitor in a building society being asked to give independent advice on whether the terms of the mortgage offered by his building society were better for the client than those of another. That
1722
would not be sensible because, as I made clear in earlier discussions, the solicitor or professional person in charge of the transaction must make clear to the client the service that he is offering. That would not be one of the services.
That is highlighted in an amendment which I moved earlier and which accepted an amendment tabled on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about indpendent advice for an independent solicitor. In addition to conveyancing services he can give independent financial advice. I have accepted an amendment that there should be no possible prohibition against him doing so. The Law Society should be able to make rules to prevent him being muzzled in respect of independent advice over and above the conveyancing service.
In the context of this situation a solicitor employed by a building society would be giving only the expertise necessary properly to complete the conveyancing transaction. His remit from the building society would be to complete the title of the building society to secure the mortgage. It would be unreasonable to expect him to do anything more.
Cordery goes on to state:
"Thus a solicitor is bound to give his client disinterested advice, and the mere fact that the solicitor, by becoming personally interested in a transaction of the client's, has put it out of his power to give that advice, will entitle the client, as against the solicitor, to have that transaction set aside unless the solicitor has disclosed his interest to his client".
If the solicitor employed to carry out the conveyancing tells the client, "I am an employee of this building society", that is immediate notice to the client that he cannot give independent advice where a conflict is concerned. Of course, he can give independent advice in respect of matters without conflict. That is why I have said that there must be an interview at the beginning in which those matters are determined. The solicitor, the building society's employee, can only act for a client if he is satisfied on his professional judgment that there is no conflict of interest between the service required by the client for himself and the service which the solicitor is to give to the building society.
When advising a client, a solicitor will be bound to make full and honest disclosure of the facts within his knowledge, and he cannot excuse the failure to discharge a duty to one client by showing that a due discharge would have constituted a breach of duty to another. A lawyer is under a duty to his client not to disclose to third parties any information confidentially revealed to him, and that duty continues.
As a consequence of those rules, transactions between a solicitor and a stranger would be unobjectionable. As made between a solicitor and his client, they are neither enforceable by the solicitor nor subject to consideration of delay in confirmation sustainable by him when impeached by the client.
On the matter of disclosure of information about commissions and the like, which I understood to be an important aspect of my noble friend's amendment, the general rule does not specify precisely what he must do in that connection. The

1723
Law Society in England and Wales has rules in respect of that but those are special rules. They are rules which the Law Society has made.
I think I can illustrate this best by pointing to one of the cases which is referred to in the footnote of the passage from Nocton v. Lord Ashburton to which my noble friend referred. Immediately after that is a very famous Scottish case called Brown v. The Inland Revenue Commissioners in which I had the honour of appearing in this House a considerable time ago. From that case it is quite clear that the English and Scottish law in this respect is the same.
If I take that as the foundation, there is the same sort of relationship in law between the solicitor and his client in Scotland and the solicitor and his client in England. Rule 10(1) of the 1988 practice rules of the Law Society of England and Wales provide as follows:
"A solicitor shall account to his client for any commission received of more than £10 unless, having disclosed to the client the amount of the commission or, if the amount cannot be ascertained, the basis of calculation of the commission, he has the client's agreement to retain it".
That is the English rule. The Scottish conduct of investment business practice rules 1989 make it quite clear that there is no duty on the solicitor recommending to or effecting for a client a transaction relating to a life policy or unit in a regulated collective investment scheme to account for commission although he must disclose that fact that he has received commission and, if asked by the client, the amount.
That shows that the precise relationship and obligations are matters for regulation. Therefore, I believe that the correct way to deal with this matter is to provide for them in the terms of the transactions and to do that in detail in terms of the regulation making power which the Lord Chancellor has in Clause 38(2)(e). There the Lord Chancellor has power to make regulations as to the terms and conditions on which authorised practitioners may provide conveyancing services. The right way to go about the matter to which my noble friend has referred is to make terms and conditions of that kind under the regulation-making power with precision, saying exactly what is to be done.
Perhaps I may give one more illustration of why I believe that must be right. My noble friend referred to the position of a building society and commissions which it may receive from an insurance company. For example, let us take as an example an insurance company to which the building society is a tied agent. The building society may expect to receive commission from the insurance company in respect of business made with that insurance company although it may not be in the form of discrete commission for particular transactions but it may be in more complicated form. If the building society provides the conveyancing services, one result will follow. If the insurance company provides the conveyancing service, the results will be quite different, on the way in which my noble friend looks at the matter.
If the insurance company provides the conveyancing services, it will receive no commission
1724
of any sort in respect of that. If the building society does it, the situation will be different. That is why I say that those two situations, as regards a very generalised fiduciary duty, may well be different. That is why I believe that the right way to cope with this matter is to deal with it very precisely in the regulations in order to ensure that what is desired is accomplished, with precision, in that way. It is only in that way that one could effectively avoid litigation on that sort of question.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am very disappointed with the response of my noble and learned friend. I suggest that it goes right against the trend of current legislation, and indeed of current Government philosophy on consumer protection. We spent many days in this Chamber discussing the Financial Services Bill. In that Bill we spent a great deal of time on consumer protection, on polarisation, and on Chinese walls being established in order to prevent any conflicts of interest arising.
As the Bill is now, we are playing on very unlevel playing fields as between a solicitor practising in one High Street firm and next door a building society offering the same services on very different terms and deluding the customer into believing, because the customer is being seen by a solicitor (as the Bill provides he should be), that he will be receiving the same independent advice and standards of fiduciary relationships and so on as if he went to the High Street solicitor practising next door. I find it very disappointing that that distinction is not recognised and that the Bill is not amended to place the same duty on both.
If you are having a quite different standard as between the authorised practitioner and the High Street solicitor then there should be something like a health warning put on the building society or financial institution's name plate outside saying, "You will not get independent advice here, we shall keep to ourselves any side profits we make and please do not smoke this particular packet unless you want to take a risk". I believe that it is as serious as that. A customer visiting and seeing a solicitor, although employed by a building society, will receive the firm impression that he is getting the standard of integrity and independent advice which I hope that he rightly associates with a solicitor. The fact that that solicitor is an employee of the building society should not lower that obligation any more than if he was a solicitor employed by a firm of solicitors next door. That is unfortunate.
My noble and learned friend referred to a difference between the insurance company arranging conveyancing and providing an insurance policy where there would be no direct commission and the building society doing the same thing, where there would be a commission. I suggest that if an insurance company is providing financial services, then I hope it is required to make it clear to the client for whom it is providing the conveyancing services that it is receiving side benefits from the sale of its own insurance policies to that client. There must be benefits there. If the policies were placed through a building society, the insurance company would pay the building society commission. I would hope that

1725
that would lead to a disclosure of interest. It certainly would be in the case of a practising high street solicitor who managed to make some side benefit by virtue of the office that he was carrying out as part of or as adjunct to a conveyancing transaction.
Although there is a distinction in the quantification of it—building society commission can be quantified but it is difficult to quantify what an insurance company makes by placing its own insurance policy with its captive customer—nevertheless, there must be a side benefit which should be caught up by a fiduciary duty owing by that particular authorised practitioner to the customer.
I am very sorry that my noble and learned friend has not felt able to give more encouragement to this amendment. I note that he says that it will be a matter which will be taken care of in the regulations. The right place for what is a fundamental part of our whole system of consumer protection which we have spent so many hours debating—that essential plank—should be in the Bill. It should not be left to regulation. It is one which I very much regret will not appear. However, at this time, with such a thin House which, if I should divide, will not have been persuaded by listening to arguments on both sides—perhaps that would be to my advantage—I feel I cannot press the matter any further. I express my deep regret and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 38 [Regulations about competence and conduct of authorised practitioners]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 32, line 9, after ("services") insert—
("(aa) that in providing such services (and in particular in fixing their charges) they act in a manner which is consistent with the maintenance of fair competition between authorised practitioners and others providing conveyancing services;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have to a certain extent already spoken to this amendment when discussing the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I bring this amendment forward in response to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his colleagues at the earlier stages and to put beyond doubt the regulation-making power to enable the Lord Chancellor to make regulations with a view to securing that authorised practitioners, when providing conveyancing services and in particular when fixing their charges, act in a manner which is consistent with the maintenance of fair competition between themselves and others, such as solicitors and licensed conveyancers, who supply conveyancing services. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to welcome this amendment. It is more or less in line with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mishcon at Report stage and so we welcome it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Conditional fee agreements]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 38, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2A) A conditional fee agreement shall be unenforceable so far as it provides for the amount of any fees to which it applies to be increased above the amount which would be payable if it were not a conditional fee agreement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the subject matter of this amendment is contingency fees. I know that my noble friend Lord Mishcon, whose absence from the Chamber I note with a genuine sense of deprivation, cavils at the word "contingency". That is because, as he said, many of us recognise it as being evil. I adhere to the use of the word because it is a wholly proper description of what is proposed, the true and ordinary meaning of "contingent" being "dependent upon something else" or "liable but not certain to happen"; hence the phrase "contingency plans".
I derive further support, if I need it, from the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper headed "Contingency Fees" and in particular Chapter IV which is headed "How Contingency Fees Might Operate". In that chapter, at page 10, under the heading "Speculative Basis" is described that which, in this Bill for obvious cosmetic purposes, is given a brand new name; namely, "Conditional Fees". Even its Scottish name—"Speculative Action"—is not used since to our profession that has a distinctly disreputable flavour.
Perhaps I may make it quite clear that my proposed amendment signals no partial conversion to the Lord Chancellor's proposal on this subject, since I wholeheartedly join with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in condemning it as being inherently immoral.
At Committee stage, when it was Clause 44 and the Motion was put that it should stand part of the Bill, four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, three retired Law Lords, the former Lord Chancellor—my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—and the Master of the Rolls all voted against it in its entirety. My amendment merely signifies my acknowledgement of the power of what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham calls "the elective dictatorship".
Lord Justice Buckley, in explaining the nature of the public policy which condemns contingency fees, said in 1975 in Walersteiner v Moir as follows:
"It can, I think, be summarised in two statements. First, in litigation a professional lawyer's role is to advise his client with a clear eye, and an unbiased judgment. Secondly a solicitor retained to conduct litigation is not merely the agent and adviser to his client but also an officer of the court, with a duty to the court to ensure that his client's case, which he must of course present and conduct with the utmost care of his client's interest, is also presented and conducted with scrupulous fairness and integrity. A barrister owes similar obligations. A legal adviser who acquires a personal financial interest in the outcome of the litigation may obviously find himself in a situation in which that interest conflicts with those obligations".
That quotation may be found on page 4 in the memorandum entitled Contingency Fees, being the Law Commissioners' response to the Green Papers, the wisdom of which the Lord Chancellor has seen fit to ignore. I quote but two of the eight conclusions

1727
to be found on page 32 of that memorandum. Conclusion (vi) states:
"Any type of contingency fee agreement creates the potential conflict of interest either between the lawyer and his client or between the lawyer and the court. Protection against these conflicts requires careful consideration".
I interpolate to say that the Bill provides no such protection.
"Conclusion 7. It seems most inadvisable to repeal the existing rule of law at a time when it is proposed to change radically not only the organisation of the legal profession but to widen the scope of those who may give advice to and present cases of litigants".
During the debate my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made what I describe, with deep respect, were I sitting in a judicial capacity, as a good jury point; that is, a point which appeals to the emotions rather than to the intellect. He said:
"My noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Ackner referred to the Scottish position; namely, that these arrangements—that is to say, speculative actions as we call them, in which the lawyer takes on the client on the basis that he will be paid the taxed costs if he wins and not if he loses—have been lawful for many generations, although the percentage related to the amount of damages has not.
The question of the extent to which such an arrangement is taken up is a separate or different matter. The first question is: is it moral, or is there anything immoral about it? I cannot believe that the distinguished lawyers who have operated the Scottish system over many years regard it as in the slightest degree immoral".—[0fficial Report, 5/2/90; col. 553.]
Very well. If that is my noble and learned friend's best point—I am bound to say I can find no other—that is precisely what my amendment proposes to do; to introduce the Scottish system (no more, no less) which distinguished Scots lawyers have apparently operated over so many years, although I believe to a negligible extent.
However, that is not what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor proposes. He is proposing something radically different. Towards the end of my noble and learned friend's speech at this stage in the debate, when referring to the agreement which he was proposing to permit, he said:
"If this clause goes forward, it is to be related to the work done and not related to the amount of damages".—[col. 554.]
Perhaps that was his answer to the Law Commission's paper, from which I quoted, which reads as follows:
"To require the litigant to pay any significant sum out of his damages does, of course, detract from the fundamental principle of English law that courts strive to put a wronged person back into the position he would have been in had he not been wronged".
A further extract reads:
"Any time a litigant has to pay representation expenses from his award, justice is not done".
That, of course, is precisely what will be done when the uplift—to use current jargon—of this significant addition to the taxed costs is permitted. That is the real prize if the speculation is to succeed. It is by this new and potentially corrupting process that I believe it is hoped to reduce the pressure to extend—not to take away—state legal aid.
In his final contribution to the debate, referring yet again to the Scottish system, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"It is quite difficult to have such a public policy—which is the policy of the legislature of the United Kingdom—which allows them in one jurisdiction"—
that is, the Scottish jurisdiction—
"but not in another".—[col. 555].
That is, in England and Wales.
However, the amendment I now put forward is designed to achieve precisely the position for which the Lord Chancellor was then contending.
I am proposing that my noble and learned friend's understandable sympathy and affection for the Scottish system be fully satisfied, but no more. There is absolutely no warrant for substantially altering the nature of that system, thus giving the legal adviser for the plaintiff a stake, by virtue of this uplift in the taxed costs, in the very damages which justice has decreed should belong to the successful litigant and not to his lawyer. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It is regrettable that yet again this important and highly controversial matter of conditional fees should come before your Lordships' House at such a late hour. I find that there are fewer than 20 of us in the Chamber. The legal aid advisory committee whose report was discussed yesterday criticised the conditional fee agreements in the Bill, and did so in general. One is entitled to an answer to the questions: why was there no uplift in Scotland, although this scheme has operated in Scotland we are told for generations, and why is there no mention in the Scottish Bill of the possibility of a percentage uplift? Why should Scotland and England and Wales have different ways of applying that extremely controversial practice?
I also ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor: why should we in England and Wales have inflicted upon us at all the only questionable part—as my noble and learned friend knows well—of the Scottish system of justice which we all admire so much? Despite the denial at an earlier stage by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that that had nothing to do with legal aid, or the lack of it, we are left with the conclusion that the main reason for its insertion into the Bill is that it is intended to fill part of the gap—a gap in which so many people in this country formerly were able to have legal aid but who do not have it now and may not have it for some time to come. It looks as though we must accept that there will be conditional fee agreements in England and Wales, but for goodness sake let us have them on an even plane and not with that percentage uplift.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, it is important not to be bemused by the extent of the uplift which may well be a small percentage, because, as I see it, there is a fundamental difference between a conditional fee agreement without uplift and one with uplift. It is not entirely a question of the percentage. Perhaps I may illustrate that point. Barristers, and I do not doubt solicitors, have, from time immemorial, followed the same course as is followed by doctors of acting for their fellow professionals for nothing. They may receive a small present or something of that kind. However, basically they are working for nothing.
It is one thing for a lawyer to act for another lawyer in a litigious context, and work for nothing,

1729
which will be the straightforward position if that lawyer client loses. It is another thing if the lawyer client wins because the beneficiary then will not be the lawyer client but the other party, because one cannot obtain one's costs out of the other party if one is not liable to pay them in the first instance. If one is acting for the plaintiff for nothing and the plaintiff wins, the plaintiff, when he comes to claim his costs from the defendent, cannot include the costs for which he is not liable.
The conditional fee agreement without uplift meets that situation. Let me not mislead noble Lords into thinking that arises only in the context of lawyer working for lawyer. There can well be a situation in which a lawyer, be he solicitor or barrister, is impressed by the hardship of his client, and perhaps the merits of his client's claim, who thinks, "Well, as an act of charity, an act pro bono, an act in the best tradition of the profession, I am prepared to act for this man for nothing, or at a reduced fee, in the hope of assisting in seeing justice done." The same problem then arises. If justice is done and his client succeeds, it goes only to relieve the burden of costs which would otherwise fall on the by definition, rogue defendant.
Once one starts adding a percentage one is in a different league altogether. It is not a question of the percentage. The lawyer is then looking at the matter, not as a matter of professional comity, not as a matter of charity, not as a matter of pro bono, or public interest; he is making a hard-nosed calculation as to whether it is worth gambling, losing and getting nothing, against the possibility of succeeding and getting his normal costs plus x per cent.
It is not a question of the x per cent. It is a fundamental difference. I very much support the amendment. It would prevent barristers and solicitors becoming involved in a market-place approach to the basis on which they charge fees in a litigious context, which I think is wholly lamentable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope I may have the leave of the House to make a correction to what I said just now. It has been pointed out to me that there is in the Scottish Bill an opportunity for percentage uplift. But it will be arranged not by the Lord Chancellor or any other member of the Government but by the court.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is the most important amendment to be considered on the Bill. This debate is even more important than the debate on what is called the cab rank rule. I echo what has been said: that it is a scandal that the most important issue of the Bill has to be debated in an empty House at this hour of night. One has only to look around to note the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, who made powerful speeches both at Second Reading and in Committee. He is not present, very naturally, at this hour, just as many other noble Lords are not present.
The amendment is important because not even the most cross-brained critic of the law can complain that lawyers, in objecting as they do strongly to this provision, are other than completely disinterested. Your Lordships have heard three notable speeches.
1730
I first entered the other place in 1951. The speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner was one of the most powerful I have ever heard in Parliament.
A further reason why this is so important is that the main arguments at an earlier stage were never answered by my noble and learned friend. Perhaps I may summarise them briefly. The first is that the proposal involves a conflict of interest. The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Boardman and Lord Coleraine, have referred to that matter as of great importance in other connections. I am sure they would agree that it is equally important in this connection. The second argument is that there is no provision for independent advice to the client as to whether a contingency fee agreement is in his interests generally or whether the terms are in his interest. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has emphasised on other occasions with great force the importance of independent advice.
The last argument is, as the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls and previous speakers have shown, that the provision imports into a Bill which is intended to promote justice the very principle of injustice. Instead of the court being able to compensate for a wrong by reinstating so far as money can do the plaintiff into the position of which he has been deprived, part of that compensation is lost to the uplift. I say to my noble and learned friend with profound respect that I hope he will specifically address himself to those three points, as well as to the other points raised by my noble and learned friend and by the noble Lord.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debates taking place at the other end of the Chamber, but the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in which he referred to my interests and those of my noble friend Lord Boardman and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in questions of conflict of interest prompts me to say that it has never been held that such issues arose where it was a question of the lawyer fixing the fee with his client. There obviously cannot be an entire situation where there are mutually compatible interests, but certainly questions of conflict of interest do not arise in this respect.
I should like to comment on the conditional fee agreement as contained in the Bill at present. In my view there is always bound to be a point at which legal aid does not reach potential litigants who nevertheless cannot afford the costs of litigation—the fees—and the uncertainties. The Bill has the position right at present in that it gives a potential litigant the opportunity to come to an arrangement with his legal advisers whereby he will have a conditional fee agreement which will mean that he will possibly pay nothing if he loses and possibly an uplift if he wins.
Litigants in such situations would consider it most curious if they had to go to their advisers and try to push the Scottish system upon them by saying, "Look, I have quite a good case but I cannot afford to fight it. Will you take me on on the basis that you will receive your normal fee if I win but nothing if I lose?" That does not seem to me to make sense

1731
and I do not think that any member of the public would see it as such. Far from being a corrupt arrangement, I think that this is a wholesome extension of the availability of litigation and advocacy services to the general public.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we debated the principle of this clause in Committee and at that time it was affirmed by a substantial majority in a fairly full Chamber. Therefore I do not propose to go back over the main arguments of principle in connection with the allowance of conditional fees in this clause. I shall deal with the amendments which have been proposed and which have the effect of removing the possibility of uplift.
The purpose of the uplift and its possibility is to make this a practical arrangement. There is no doubt that, apart from anything else, these days the lawyer conducting the litigation can expect to encounter outlays quite a while before he would be likely to be paid under these arrangements. In the ordinary case he would have to make such outlays and stand out of the money for that period. It seems to me to be right that some arrangements should be made to cover the situation.
At an earlier stage I considered whether it would be practical to distinguish between outlays and other matters. However, I think that it is extremely difficult and not very practical and therefore it is better to permit a more rounded system in which a percentage uplift is allowed. I suggest that that uplift would be of fairly modest proportions and would be fixed under the subordinate legislation powers which have been confirmed.
A good deal has been said about Scotland. Of course I am very happy to talk about it. I used the argument in relation to Scotland that was being developed because it was said that the principle of the system was immoral and that it involved a conflict of interest.
I use the Scottish position to demonstrate that it certainly had not been so regarded in that jurisdiction. If this is a matter of public policy, it seems to me that a common public policy is desirable in the United Kingdom.
The arrangement so far as I can see involves no conflict of interest in a proper sense. Where a solicitor has a wealthy client who can afford the fees that would be required for continuing a litigation, a solicitor or counsel is accustomed to considering the question of whether the case should be settled. An offer may come in near the borderline and he considers it. If the case continues, further fees will be payable to the lawyer. However, I have never heard it suggested that our profession does not apply a proper consideration to these matters. The lawyer often advises a settlement even though it is against his interest in obtaining these continued fees.
The next point I wish to make is in relation to the second point of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale that justice is denied by the possibility of an uplift. That depends, first, on whether the action would get under way at all. Secondly, all your Lordships who have experience of the law will know that where a client succeeds
1732
against a defendant the costs are taxed against the defendant on a scale which is now referred to as the standard scale. On the other hand, the client has to pay his own lawyer the indemnity scale which may well be considerably higher. What is more, the lawyer has a lien over the proceeds of the action for the payment of that difference. The law has, I believe, recognised that as a proper right in the solicitor to claim his fees—so far as they are not met by the other side—out of the proceeds of the action.
The possibility of uplift could not take place without the agreement of the client. The question is whether the client thinks it worth while to allow that—which is related to the work done, not the amount of damages—in order to bring his case.
The third matter referred to is in relation to legal aid. I made it perfectly plain in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and there is a clause in the Bill immediately after this one based on an amendment which the noble Lord proposed—that this is not to be used as a test. The availability in a particular case of a conditional fee arrangement is not to be used as a substitute for or obstacle to legal aid.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine took up the point that, as I also explained, unless we are in the ideal world to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred yesterday where everybody is entitled to legal aid, there is bound to be an area not covered by legal aid. That is possibly an area where the person who wishes to raise the action does not have money ready to hand but has a good case which he would like to pursue.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the report of the advisory committee. I shall not read it all, but paragraph 74 states:
"This committee has always opposed, on the grounds of conflict of interest, the introduction of contingency fees whereby a lawyer is paid only if the client's case is won, with payment fixed by reference to a percentage or share of the award that is made. We are therefore pleased to note that the Government has rejected any type of fee involving a proportion of whatever damages are obtained. We remain somewhat apprehensive, however, regarding the proposal to allow conditional fees with a percentage addition to the normal costs. Although the possibility of serious conflicts of interest arising in such cases is probably remote, it should be ensured that any uplift of this type is unlikely to impair impartiality in the conduct of a case".
In other words, it should not be seen as in the nature of a prize but rather in the nature of compensation in respect of expenses incurred. That is precisely what I am proposing to do.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, I should say that if he reads on to paragraph 76 he will find a further elaboration of the committee's views.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was proposing to read a good deal more of the report. I was merely making the point that we are seeking power to set an uplift of the type that the committee has in mind. The next part of paragraph 74 is important. It states:
"Nonetheless, we believe that such conditional arrangements might occasionally prove helpful in cases where legal aid is not available, where the client is ineligible or where he or she would be required to make a substantial contribution. On the other hand, we doubt whether such arrangements will have any major impact on financing litigation, first because lawyers will only be

1733
prepared to undertake cases on such a basis if they are reasonably certain of success, and secondly because of the disincentive effect of the costs rule".
That is, as against the client. Paragraph 75 states:
"There are, however, two considerations specifically relevant to legal aid which we would wish the Government to address before releasing the present bar on conditional fees. The first is to ensure that conditional fees are seen as a supplement to legal aid, not as an alternative".
I dealt with that matter in the amendment that I accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. My noble friend will be pleased to know that I shall now deal with paragraph 76. However, I have skipped a little bit of the final part of paragraph 75.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will complete the reading of that paragraph before going on to paragraph 76.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords, I shall do that with pleasure, but I thought that I had dealt with it. Paragraph 75 continues by stating:
"Where a client is eligible for legal aid, particularly if no contribution is required, he or she may be well advised to make use of it rather than engaging a lawyer on a conditional basis because with legal aid he or she will usually be protected from paying his or her opponent's costs. We would therefore attach a particular importance to ensuring that the availability of conditional funding in no way affects the present duty on solicitors, whether participating in the legal aid scheme or not, to consider whether a client would be best advised to apply for legal aid".
I certainly do not propose anything contrary to that. As I said, I accepted the amendment which embodies the principle of it. I now come to Paragraph 76. I apologise to my noble and learned friend for the slight delay in coming to that paragraph. Paragraph 76 states:
"We are also concerned to ensure that the availability of conditional fees is not perceived as a reason for not maintaining legal aid eligibility levels, and for not extending legal aid to those areas where it is presently unavailable but much needed. For the reasons outlined above, we do not regard the arrangements for conditional fees as a realistic alternative to legal aid".
I accept all that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to prevent my noble and learned friend from finally settling down, but he argued that it is up to the client whether or not he enters into a conditional fee agreement. I hope my noble and learned friend will see fit to deal with the second point I made; namely, that no provision is made for independent advice for a client on the matter. Does not my noble and learned friend consider that it is inherently desirable that the client should have such independent advice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend Lord Coleraine had made that point. I certainly dealt with it in Committee in answer to my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls. I believe that when a client goes to his solicitor to make arrangements for taking his case on, it is not normal to require the client to take independent advice. If he did, he would have to go to another solicitor to obtain it and there would have to be an arrangement of terms on which it was obtained and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, I see no particular reason why independent advice should be required in this case.
1734
I would say, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, proposed an amendment as to the form in which the conditional fee arrangement should be couched. That gives the opportunity to standardise the arrangements in such a way as to make independent advice even less necessary. As we know from what we have heard, the lawyer has a duty to give independent advice, independent even of his own interest, in a matter of this kind.
In my submission that point has been adequately dealt with in the argument. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, enables one to deal with it even more fully by means of the form in which the conditional fee agreements might be couched.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I shall make three very brief comments. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's reference to outlay at the outset of his speech seems to me to be totally irrelevant. The Scottish system, which it is sought to export with this substantial alteration, of course applied to outlay. If one got one's costs back if one was successful, part of those costs were the outlay. That was self-contained. Otherwise the scheme in Scotland, which was said to have been used over the years, would never have worked at all.
Secondly, as regards legal aid, I made it very clear that I believe that this will be used as an excuse, not for granting legal aid which is covered by an amendment which my noble friend Lord Mishcon achieved, but for extending legal aid, which was the subject of so many speeches yesterday.
Thirdly, I fully concur with what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said with regard to the need for protection of the client. That was the very point made by the Law Commission, which has been totally disregarded by the Government. Protection against conflicts should be carefully provided for. No protecton at all is provided.
I know that it is late and I know that the House is sparse. I share my noble and learned friend Lord Simon's views about the seriousness of the matter, and I therefore wish the House to pronounce upon it.
9.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 45.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Benson, L.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Seear, B.

Hacking, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hooson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Blatch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Boardman, L.

Arran, E.

Boston, L.

Balfour, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Belstead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

1735

Byron, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.49 p.m.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 38, line 19, after ("be") insert ("illegal or void or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 26. It concerns a rather obscure aspect of the law; namely, the difference between unenforceable, void and illegal contracts. It is rendered all the more difficult as there is great inconsistency of terminology both in judgments and among textbook writers.
I raised the point at an earlier stage and my noble and learned friend was good enough to let me enter into correspondecne with him about it. I believe that we have come much closer together as a result. When I wrote a letter to him yesterday I thought that I had convinced him. However, I received back a letter about midday today and found that my hopes were a little premature.
I left the amendment on the Marshalled List in case it should be picked up in the other place if so wished by one of the many able lawyers there. Perhaps I should indicate my areas of concern. Although I shall not move the amendment, I asked my noble and learned friend whether he would like me to do so and I think he would not want it moved at this stage. The point is that if there is a conditional fee agreement where the uplift in the agreement exceeds a specified percentage and the client makes a payment under that contract but subsequently repudiates the contract, can he get his money back? He cannot if it is unenforceable; he cannot if it is illegal; but he can if it is void. That is the whole point.
Having indicated that point in case anybody in another place wishes to take it up, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 38, line 31, after ("consult") insert ("the designated judges,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 47 already provides that the Lord Chancellor
1736
shall consult the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society and such other authorised bodies, if any, as he considers appropriate. I believe that the designated judges should properly be consulted. I wish therefore specifically to provide under the clause for them to be consulted. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls for having raised this matter with me. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 52 [Multi-disciplinary and multi-national practices]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 40, line 32, at end insert—
("() Alterations in the existing rules of the General Council of the Bar relating to the formation of a legal relationship by a barrister with another barrister, with a solicitor or with any other person for the purpose of their jointly offering professional services to the public shall have no effect unless approved under Part II of Schedule 4.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage I moved this amendment as a probing amendment because it seemed that there was a good deal of confusion in the Bill through the overlapping of what were then Clauses 26, 28 and 50 and the second part of the fourth schedule in relation to multidisciplinary practices, which is a matter now covered by Clause 52. It is of course a new departure in our law and in the rules, conveyances and practices of the Bar of England and Wales.
It is important—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has on several occasions said so—that where feasible the new machinery introduced by the Bill should apply unless there is some better way of dealing with the matter. For that reason I suggested, as reported at col. 853 of the Official Report of 1st March, that the machinery of the Bill whereby the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges have the last word should apply in particular in this matter.
The point at issue was where the Bar Council found that as a result of the introduction of multidisciplinary practices it has to alter its rules. It is felt that when it has to do so in a way which relates to the formation of a legal relationship by a barrister with another barrister, with a solicitor or with any other person for the purpose of jointly offering professional services to the public, the matter shall in the last resort be covered by the provisions of Part II of Schedule 4. That is what the amendment provides.
I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will feel that it is consistent with what he has proposed for the Bill as a whole. We have not always agreed with him. However, on this occasion we believe it is important that that is what should occur. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House at this hour if I am permitted to speak to Amendment No. 30 after the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just introduced his Amendment No. 29.

1737
As I pointed out at previous stages of the Bill, the Law Society is very concerned indeed, not in regard to multi-national practices (where discussions of the usual friendly and warm nature are taking place with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor) but in regard to multi-disciplinary practices where the public in its view would not be safeguarded by the same professional rigidity of discipline as the Law Society imposes very properly on its members and where many conflicts could arise between solicitors and members of other callings, professions or trades. The noble and learned Lord said that my anxiety on behalf of the Law Society need not be as great as I thought it was because the Law Society would still be in charge of its rules. It can continue to say that its rules prohibit such (if I may use the phrase) improper partnerships.
I then said, "Please, Lord Chancellor, be aware that there is a Director of Fair Trading. There are competition laws". I do not know what the competition law will be in the future. For all one knows the Law Society may literally be made to alter its rules if one leaves the provision at that.
Amendment No. 30 provides two factors. First, it brings under one umbrella rules relating to multi-national and multi-disciplinary partnerships in the sense that the rule alteration on both cases comes through one procedure instead of a mixed procedure. They go through the procedure in Part II at Schedule 4. It means that before the Law Society can alter its rules in regard to such matters the alteration must go through that procedure and obtain the sanction of the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor.
I and the Law Society have sufficient faith in the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor to realise that they would not give their permission in improper cases. Therefore, if Amendment No. 30 is agreed to the Law Society has its way, as does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and everyone ought to be happy. On that note, and in order to make everyone happy, I shall move my Amendment No. 30 when we come to it.
10 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I hate to disturb a happy note. However, I have a nasty feeling that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will say that this is already governed by Part II, Schedule 4, in relation to rights of audience and the provision of litigation services. I shall not have a right to reply so I shall point out now what I believe to be the fundamental fallacy of my noble and learned friend's reply when he makes it.
The amendment deals with partnership. It is not possible to have a rule which states that it is all right to have, for example, a multi-disciplinary partnership in relation to non-litigious matters but not in relation to litigious matters. Whatever the technicalities, if two people are in partnership to provide legal services they will be in partership for all purposes. In reality one cannot have Messrs. Bloggins, Bloggins, Bloggins and Company in a litigation partnership and the same partners in a
1738
non-litigation partnership. There will be the same staff, the same premises, the same loyalties and effectively there will be a single partnership.
Therefore, I support both amendments. They face the reality that if people are in partnership in the giving of legal services, unless they are confined to non-litigious services, which is a rare bird, everything must go through the same channel.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord leads me well into the point that I wish to make. In Committee I moved an amendment and argued the advantages and importance of the one regime. I again adopted that argument when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, moved his amendment on Report.
Your Lordships will know that Clauses 25 and 26 and Schedule 4 are restricted to regulation of rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. The mandate of the advisory committee is much wider and is set out in Clause 18. It states:
"The Advisory Committee shall have the general duty of assisting in the maintenance and development of standards in the education, training and conduct of those offering legal services".
If noble Lords are in any doubt about the width of that mandate, at Schedule 2, paragraph 5(3), they will see:
"The Advisory Committee may from time to time give advice to the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society and other authorised bodies on all aspects of their qualification regulations and rules of conduct, whether or not relating to advocacy or the conduct of litigation".
Therefore, it is quite clear that the advisory committee has a full mandate to deal with that. I suggest that the reality is that when matters concerning the rules of either the Bar or the Law Society come before the advisory committee, very prudently and wisely the advisory committee will look at it with the wider mandate and not simply the limited mandate of rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation.
If I recall correctly—and I do—another function of the advisory committee is to be found at Clause 18(3) relating to the practices and procedures of other member states. It reads as follows:
"In discharging its functions, the advisory committee shall … where it considers it appropriate, have regard to the practices and procedures of other member States in relation to the provision of legal services".
Again, your Lordships will note the width of the mandate which is proposed to be given in this Bill to the advisory committee. That all leads logically, in my submission, to the conclusion that there should be one regime and that that regime should be protected from further investigation by competition authorities or otherwise.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the mandate to give advice, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has pointed out, is extremely wide. I believe that that is advantageous. However, when it comes to requiring approval from the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges, the terms of reference for that approval, as laid out in Clause 27(3) in relation to alterations, are that,
"those alterations shall not have effect, so far as they relate to any right of audience or any right to conduct litigation granted by that body".

1739
That is the only approval function which the judges have because they are concerned with the courts. It is in relation to the courts—rights of audience and right to conduct litigation—that this approval is required. Otherwise there would be an unwarranted interference, perhaps by the Lord Chancellor, in arrangements of this sort if his approval was required, if it did not relate to those two matters.
My noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls said that it would be very difficult to separate out those matters. In a sense, that makes the amendment less necessary. If, in reality, anyone who wishes to practise fully as a solicitor wants to have a right to conduct litigation, then he must conform to the rules as approved by the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor. However, for example, if a solicitor did not want to do any litigation but wanted purely to give advice, there is no reason why the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges should be concerned. Of course, as your Lordships know, barristers are already in partnership in relation to work in Europe, although when they appear and practise in the court in The Strand, they cannot be so.
It is very important that the judges and the Lord Chancellor in this connection should be dealing with matters which concern the court and only matters which concern the court. Therefore, the provision is for approval in so far as it relates to any right of audience or any right to conduct litigation granted by that body.
I agree with my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls that the question of partnership or not in that connection may well settle the matter for the particular individuals altogether. If they do not want to do something which is only outside the court, they will have to conform with the rules approved by the judges. If they are prepared to confine their activities to other matters altogether, then they would be entitled to do that, as illustrated by what I have already said.
This is an important matter in that the jurisdiction of the judges and of the Lord Chancellor is properly confined to matters relating to rights of audience and right to conduct litigation. The phrase:
"relate to any right of audience or any right to conduct litigation"
is fairly wide. It casts the net, or protection of approval, depending on how one looks at it. I think the movers of the amendment at this stage look upon this approval as a protection; if so, that casts protection of approval as widely as it seems to me appropriate. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation. In the light of it I certainly do not wish to press this amendment. I take some comfort from the terms of subsection (3) of Clause 27, to which he referred, which is somewhat wider in its terms than I was given to understand and wider than I understood from what he has just said.
"Where an authorised body alters any of its qualification regulations"—
1740
I am sure that my noble and learned friend would say that "qualification" is the operative word—
"or"—
and this is much wider—
"any of its rules of conduct, those alterations shall not have effect … unless they have been approved under Part II of Schedule 4".
I hope and believe—and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, agrees—that if we accept the broad interpretation of subsection (3) it carries us a long way towards what we are seeking in our amendments. I put my amendment first because it appears first on the Marshalled List. However, in the circumstances I feel obliged to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 40, line 32, at end insert—
("() Alterations to the existing rules of the Law Society relating to the formation of a legal relationship by a solicitor with any person who is not a solicitor for the purposes of their jointly offering professional services to the public shall have no effect unless approved under Part 11 of Schedule 4.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish that I could share with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the joy that I wanted to share with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I believe the remarks which fell from the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls were all too relevant, even though he sought to agree with the spirit of the amendment and the practical way in which it might work out. He forecast absolutely accurately the answer that might be given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The reason I cannot share the joy of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is that he omitted to read aloud—I am sure that he read them to himself—the limiting words to the qualification regulation alteration and the rules of conduct; namely:
"So far as they relate to any right of audience or any right to conduct litigation".
There is therefore a very severe limitation on the ambit of Clause 27.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene to say, yes, that is so, but the Bar Council and the Law Society are entitled to limit respectively, in relation to their own numbers, the right of audience or the right to conduct litigation if they are linked with multi-disciplinary practices. It is true that I did not read out the whole of that subsection, but it is necessarily part of the scenario which will be before them on each occasion.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Bar may take a degree of comfort from what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just said and from the ambit of Clause 27. However, the fear that my side of the profession has is in regard to those who conduct conveyancing practices, and conveyancing practices and probate only, and trust work only, and merging in partnership with those whom it would not be seemly, as some of us think, to be in partnership, both in protection of the public and in regard to the way in which a disciplinary body can exercise

1741
proper control over its members. Possibly the ambit is wider on my side of the profession than it would be with the Bar. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I hope that this is a convenient moment to endeavour to increase the happiness—notably absent at the moment—of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Unless I have misunderstood the situation greatly, where four designated judges and the Lord Chancellor stop work under the fourth schedule there is a residual designated judge who remains under the Solicitors Act doing his best to support the noble Lord's branch of the profession. Approval is required for any changes in the rules.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my happiness with the present designated judge is complete, whatever the hour of the day at which I say that. I was about to go on to refer to the fact that obviously any alteration in the rules would need to have the approval of the Master of the Rolls. That is the one comfort that I am left with. It is a substantial comfort but it would have been very good if we could have written into the Bill a safeguard against, as I put it, the inroads that competition law may make into the jurisdiction, whether it be of the Law Society itself or indeed of the Master of the Rolls in certain circumstances.
However, bearing in mind the fortitude and strength of the present Master of the Rolls, which I hope future holders of the office will inherit from him, I must repose my faith in whoever those persons may be in the future. I have no doubt about reposing my faith in the present holder of the office. In the circumstances, I must ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Rights of audience for solicitors in certain Crown Courts]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 40, line 45, at end insert—
("(3A) Any direction under this section may be revoked by direction of the Lord Chancellor.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I tabled these grouped amendments, Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 66, as a result of discussion on the third day of Report concerning the provision I then brought forward to replace the existing Section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, in response to a problem raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. Your Lordships agreed to the amendment which now forms Clause 53 of the Bill, subject to my undertaking that I would bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to make directions under the new clause subject to the concurrence of the four heads of division. The second of these grouped amendments represents the fulfilment of that undertaking, by inserting the requirement for that concurrence into Clause 53.
The first of these grouped amendments provides that any direction under the new Section 83 may be revoked by direction of the Lord Chancellor. As I understand the old Section 83 the simple revocation of a direction was not possible. It is clear, however,
1742
that if, for example, a temporary shortage of counsel at a particular court ceased, or a court changed its location, then revocation of such a direction might well be appropriate. That emerged in our discussions and it is right to provide for it.
The third amendment of this grouping is a saving provision for the existing directions that have been made under the existing Section 83. I have made clear throughout the discussions we have had on Section 83 that my firm view is that the existing directions must be preserved. I understood your Lordships agreed with that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, proposed an amendment to do just that. Amendment No. 31 achieves that aim. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 41, line 3, at end insert—
("(5) Any exercise by the Lord Chancellor of his power to give a direction under this section shall be with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption from liability for damages etc.
.—(1) Neither the Lord Chancellor nor any of the designated judges shall be liable in damages for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of any of their functions under this Part.
(2) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication by the Lord Chancellor, or by a designated judge, of any advice or reasons given by him in the exercise of functions under this Part shall be absolutely privileged.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Tying-in arrangements]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 58, line 43, at end insert—
("(5A) No supplier nor any associate shall offer to provide combined services for a specified consideration for those combined services or separate considerations for each of them unless the offeror—

(a) specifies the apportionment of the consideration between the several services, and

(b) offers to provide any of the services separately for the part of the consideration apportioned to that service.

(5B) For the purpose of subsection (5A)—

"offer" includes an invitation to treat;

"combined services" means any combination of services whether provided or offered by the supplier or any associate of his or partly by the supplier and partly by the associate; and

"associate' includes any partner and any associated company within the meaning of section 416 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

1743
(5C) No offence shall be committed under subsection (5A) where it can be proved—

(a) that the offer was in writing and included clear notice of—

(i) those considerations which did not apply unless combined services were provided; and

(ii) the combined services which were to be provided; and

(b) that where the consideration for each separate service was greater than it would have been if that service had been provided as part of combined services, the difference was justified because of the greater cost to the supplier or associate of providing services separately.

(5D) The Director General of Fair Trading shall investigate any complaint that an offence under this section may have been committed and take such further action as he considers appropriate.
(5E) Subsection (5D) shall not apply where the Director General of Fair Trading is satisfied that the complaint is being or has been investigated by any other public authority with power to prosecute for the offence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsections (5A) and (5B) of the amendment reproduce the precise wording of an amendment which was discussed on Report and which was aimed at tightening the prohibition on tying-in arrangements contained in Clause 79; but in the course of discussing that amendment it was felt that it went too far, and that a supplier offering a combination of services should have the opportunity to offer to the consumer a rebate of a proportion of the profit. The amendment seeks to remedy the defect in the amendment which was discussed on Report.
The remedy is to be found in subsection (5C). That subsection accepts that it may be in the purchaser's interest to allow the supplier to offer a package of services where the conditions contained in subsection (5C) arc complied with. That subsection requires that the offer should be in writing; that it should make clear the linked nature of the transaction; that it should specify the costs related to the combined services and those related to each of the separate services, provided, however, that the rebate offered for a combined service is justified because of the greater true costs of providing the services separately.
Without the safeguard of subsection (5C)(b) of the amendment it would be open to the supplier to embark upon a price cut which did not cover the costs of the service to the purchaser.
Finally, the amendment also requires the Director General of Fair Trading to oversee the enforcement of the provision. I hope and trust that the amendment, containing as it does new material in subsection (5C), will be acceptable to the House. The amendment is supported by the Law Society and the National Consumer Council. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have discussed the amendment in different forms during the various stages of the Bill. I am bound to say that the addition of subsection (5C) makes it a little nearer what I believe might be right. However it is unfortunate that the provision should be expressed in the way in which it is.
The clause does not appear to me to be necessarily in the consumer's interest. I am not sure in whose
1744
interest it is proposed, but I understand from the noble Lord that it is supported by the NCC. I find it a little hard to see how it is in the consumer's interests. It may be so. In which case I have not completely understood it.
The clause sets out a more complex regime for offering packages than is strictly necessary. That creates extra work for the supplier of the services, which means that the terms of the package may not be as generous as they may have been without that additional work. I do not see how that can be in the consumer's interest.
The clause as drafted already provides much of what this amendment seeks. For example, it makes for transparency of pricing. Subsection (5) already provides for separate pricing by requiring that separate details shall be given in writing in respect of each service. Where a consumer is being offered a package of services which includes a mortgage, he will of necessity be told of the cost or terms of that package and, as I have explained, by virtue of subsection (5) he will be given separate details in respect of each additional service. This will enable him to determine whether he is being given a fair deal.
Another similarity between the clause and the amendment is that the present clause already by implication provides that the supplier will have to be prepared to offer any of the services separately in that he cannot make the taking of one conditional on the taking of another. I accept that the clause does not require an apportionment of the consideration. This requirement that the service be offered on these terms, while superficially appearing to be in the interests of the customer, overlooks the way that business pricing works.
What we are trying to do is to prevent the consumer being forced to take services he does not want. Forcing businesses to change their pricing system plays no part in this. It may be said that the mere offering of a package of services at a reduced price is of itself an inducement to take unwanted services. As I read the amendment, this is one of the ills it seeks to cure. If that is the effect of offering a package, and I am not sure that it is, we should perhaps ask ourselves whether we should deny to the consumer the benefit of that financial package. Does it not make the cure worse than the illness? Any matter that is in the consumer's interest as well as perhaps being a matter of fair competition could appropriately be dealt with in the regulations under the earlier clause which specifies the conditions on which the authorised practitioners would be allowed to offer their services.
Perhaps I may turn to the last two subsections in the amendment which provide that the Director General of Fair Trading shall investigate offences under this section unless he is satisfied that some other public authority was investigating them. I accept that there needs to be some specific provision as to enforcement of this clause. It may be, however, that enforcement should not be the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading but should be perhaps for local trading standards officers. I am seeking to obtain views on this. It is important to get an effective mechanism. The local trading

1745
standards officers seem to provide the most likely one. I had hoped to be able to bring forward proposals in this connection but I shall not be able to do so. However, the matter will be for consideration in another place. In the light of these explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his sympathetic response to the principle of the amendment. He has gone a long way to meeting the concern of the National Consumer Council and of the Law Society. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 [Liability of magistrates for damages and costs]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 59, line 40, at end insert:
("(3A) For the purposes of sections 44 and 45 the term "justice of the peace" includes Stipendiary Magistrate, Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, acting Stipendiary Magistrate and acting Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this purely technical matter in Committee and my noble and learned friend agreed to deal with it. He has kindly written to me saying that he will consider it. Perhaps I may move the amendment in the hope that my noble and learned friend will accept it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have had the matter looked into with a view to bringing forward an amendment. There has never been a policy difference between us on this point. The amendment is acceptable in principle. My noble friend is right as regards metropolitan and acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. I believe, however, that provincial and acting provincial stipendiary magistrates are already covered by the terms of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. I had a little difficulty in accepting that that was the position but it appears to be so. I therefore suspect that a slightly different form of words from that proposed by my noble friend may be preferable. If he will allow me I shall have the matter dealt with in another place. We are now in a position to do so but I was not able to put down an amendment in good time for Third Reading. Therefore, if my noble friend will allow me to do so, we shall put forward an amendment which exactly covers the area of difficulty.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. The matter is quite important in practice because it affects the immunity of acting magistrates and those acting outside their immediately authorised jurisdiction. In view of what my noble and learned friend has undertaken to do, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 85 [Administration of oaths and taking of affidavits]:
Lord Byron Lord Byron moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 63, line 14, at end insert:
("(10) Every—

(a) solicitor who holds a practising certificate which is in force;

(b) authorised person;

(c) general notary; and

(d) member of the Incorporated Company of Scriveners ("the Company") who has been admitted to practise as a public notary within the jurisdiction of the Company,

shall have the right to use the title "Commissioner for Oaths".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of another amendment introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the last day of the Report stage of the Bill. That amendment, which is now Clause 85, repeals the powers of the Lord Chancellor to appoint commissioners for oaths. They will therefore in the fullness of time become an extinct species.
Under the Solicitors Act 1974, every solicitor with a practising certificate has the powers of a commissioner for oaths. For some time there has been an important distinction between an ordinary practising solicitor and one who has been given the title of commissioner for oaths. The only difference between me and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and I hope he will forgive me for using him as an example—in administering an oath is that he would be entitled to describe himself as a commissioner for oaths and I would describe myself as a solicitor empowered to administer oaths.
Clause 85 confers on a wider group of people the powers of a commissioner for oaths—that is, a new category of authorised persons. The intention is no doubt very sensible in view of the other changes in the Bill. However, I venture to disagree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when, in introducing the original amendment, he said:
"It will certainly be less confusing to the public."—[Official Report, 1/3/90; col. 936.]
To have solicitors, notaries, authorised litigators and authorised advocates all exercising the powers of a species which in due course will become extinct, cannot in my submission be anything but confusing to the public.
The purpose of the amendment—which I should point out is supported by the Law Society—is to confer on all these various bodies the title of commissioner for oaths. It is not simply a matter of nomenclature or title; there is some practical importance in what is proposed. Many documents have to be sworn before commissioners for oaths for proceedings in this country and abroad. It is somewhat confusing, even at the present time, if a document has to be sworn before a commissioner to say, "Well, this person is not actually a commissioner, but he has all the powers of a commissioner".
In my view it will become doubly confusing in the future when commissioners will have disappeared altogether but a whole body of people continue to

1747
exercise their powers. It would be very much easier for those who exercise this power to do so using the simple title of commissioner for oaths rather than a more elaborate title such as authorised person empowered to administer oaths pursuant to Section 85 of the Courts and Legal Services Act. It is a small but practical amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. There are an increasing number of documents which have to be authenticated for overseas jurisdictions. Sometimes the machinery is extremely complicated. Therefore it greatly assists people to have a clearly identifiable person in the other jurisdiction—and for these purposes our jurisdiction—who is a named person like a commissioner for oaths, because that person is identifiable. It helps to avoid the complications which can arise in satisfactorily authenticating documents of other jurisdictions.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am proud to share the dignified title which I hold and to which the noble Lord was kind enough to refer, with anybody who is empowered to take oaths. However, perhaps I may point out one possible difficulty, even though I may be wrong about it. Internationally, a notary is required to attest documents. The word "notary" is known abroad as a requirement. If this means, as it seems to do, that in future notaries describe themselves as commissioners for oaths, I am afraid that quite a lot of international difficulty might arise, with the document being sent back with the requirement that it must be signed before a notary, not before a commissioner for oaths. Provided the notary was intelligent enough when taking oaths within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom to sign, "Commissioner for Oaths" and when he attested documents which had to go abroad as "notary", all would be well. I thought I ought to raise the point in case it had any relevance.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said when I moved the amendment on Report, I have no desire to remove from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble title of "Commissioner for Oaths". I think it is a title dignified by antiquity as well as by nobility; therefore I can well understand people having a desire to use it. I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may have to be addressed. The amendment says:
"shall have the right to use the title 'Commissioner for Oaths'".
As the noble Lord has said, an intelligent notary should be able to use the correct title for this situation and one would hope that that would be a qualification for being a notary—that one had the necessary level of intelligence.
The noble Baroness suggests that she does not accept that as necessarily true without further evidence. I do not think I should go further into that point at this juncture.
I should be content to accept the amendment—it seems a fairly small point—so long as the noble Lord, Lord Byron, will not think that I am defeating him if I were to come along with some emendation of the amendment in the course of proceedings
1748
through another place. I have no reason to believe that I would require to do that, but we have not had a chance to examine it in the light of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for example. I should just like to be sure that it is all right. Subject to that, I am content that this amendment should be accepted.
Lord Byron: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said. I do not claim authorship of the amendment, and if it can be improved, so be it; I shall be content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Bail applications]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 37:
Leave out Clause 86.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it appears that the torch has passed from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to me. This amendment relates to bail applications, and your Lordships may recall—and it is only the faithful among your Lordships who are still here now—that we debated this matter at 2.15 a.m. on 5th February. We again debated the matter very late at night at Report stage, at something like 20 minutes before midnight.
The reason why I bring the matter again before your Lordships—and I was hoping to do so at an earlier hour of the evening, but that has already been defeated—is not in any way to criticise the Crown Prosecution Service. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has not in any of his submissions relating to the amendment or elsewhere suggested that he was making any criticism of the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope I may briefly remind your Lordships of what I said on the last day of Report, at col. 941 of Hansard for 1st March:
"Bail applications must not be seen as a mere formality which can be presented by an unqualified person. The outcome determines, on the one hand, whether an unconvicted person nevertheless spends time in custody before trial; on the other hand, whether somebody who may be a danger to the public is to be allowed to remain free prior to trial. It is an extremely sensitive balance between the rights of the individual and the right to protect the public at large. It lies at the very heart of all contested bail applications."
My wife is a qualified doctor. In the medical profession, that judgment is always used when matching the qualifications of the doctor against the task that is to be performed. To transfer that to the legal profession, for the reasons I advanced on Report and which I read out again to your Lordships just now, is a matter which is in the higher rather than in the lower realms of skill and judgment of a lawyer. Therefore it follows that this is not a matter that should be handled by unqualified people. That is the simple point that I seek to make. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment on two previous occasions. The noble and learned Lord showed no signs whatever of accepting the principle on which I moved those amendments. In those circumstances, I took the view that it would not be appropriate to put the same amendment down on Third Reading as this is a

1749
non-elected House. Those are the circumstances in which I do not add my name to the amendment. Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, drew out of me everything I had to say on this amendment on the two previous occasions that we discussed it. I do not have anything to add. My understanding is that this practice was widespread until the decision of the Divisional Court in R v. DPP ex parte FDA. That case was primarily concerned with the rather different question of who should screen prosecutions and advise on whether they should continue. That is the vital decision that has to be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. A side effect of the decision on that was to make illegal the use of law clerks in bail applications. That was the cause of the definition of the vital phrase in the Act. All that I have seen suggests to me that this practice is perfectly acceptable. The decision ultimately is one for the judge who has the proper qualifications for the situation that he has to deal with. I said earlier, and I believe it to be the case, that the senior presiding judge gives his support to this proposal. The practice has also been found acceptable to a good number of circuit judges. The matter is one of judgment. I have nothing to add to what was said before. I think it right to allow this to be restored as a side effect of the judgment which does not need in practice to be continued.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, we have debated this amendment late at night. I moved my amendment briefly, and I shall now briefly withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 [Interpretation]:
Page 65, line 37, at end insert ("or in respect of whom the body makes rules or regulations").
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I shall move Amendment No. 38. I had a private agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I would take over this banner from him.
The amendment is a technical amendment but it also affects the Institute of Legal Executives.
Your Lordships will know from Clause 25(2) of the Bill that the structure for rights of audience is based upon rights of audience granted by the appropriate authorised body. In Clause 25(9) your Lordships will find the definition of an appropriate authorised body, which is as follows:
"'appropriate authorised body', in relation to any person claiming to be entitled to any right of audience by virtue of subsection (2)(a), means the authorised body—

(a) granting that right; and

(b) of which that person is a member"

In the case of the Law Society—and I believe also of the Bar Council although I have had only a short time to consider the matter in relation to the Bar Council—the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal, which is the body responsible for discipline over solicitors, applies to both paid-up members of the Law Society and those who are not members of the Law Society. I think that the position is the same with the Bar and that it is possible to practise at the Bar without
1750
paying subscriptions to the Bar Council and being a member of that body. Nonetheless, I am quite sure that, under Part 8 of the new disciplinary proceedings under the code of conduct which the Bar adopted on 27th January to take effect at 31st March this year, whether or not a member of the Bar has paid his subscription and is therefore a member of an authorised body within the meaning of Clause 25 he will be subject to discipline.
It therefore follows that persons who are not members of either the Law Society or the Bar Council will not fall into the category that I have identified under Clause 25. It is for that technical reason that I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider favourably the thrust of the amendment.
We have already debated at some length the position of legal executives and solicitors' clerks and the mechanism under which they can be granted, under this Bill, extensions to their current rights of audience. The noble and learned Lord has taken the rather firm position that in future any persons who wish to achieve extensions or new rights of audience can only do so under the operation of the Bill, and if they are members of either the Bar Council or the Law Society they must be members of a body which has been authorised under the provisions of the Bill. The effect of that position would be that if legal executives are to achieve further rights of audience they can only do so as a result of the Institute of Legal Executives, for example, becoming an authorised body and granting those rights.
I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord that that creates an anomalous position because of the relationship of the legal executive to the member of the Law Society. That is the relationship of employee and employer—an employer, incidentally, who has considerable disciplinary powers, which every employer is entitled to have, over his employees. If a legal executive or solicitor's clerk should misbehave, the Law Society can visit its discipline on the solicitor who employs that clerk or legal executive who has for one reason or another misbehaved himself.
I merely mention all that to noble Lords because the amendment would also have the desirable result of enabling the Law Society to grant rights of extension to solicitors' clerks as it is thought right, both by the Law Society and the institute, to serve the best interests of the profession and, more significantly, the public at large. The central purpose of moving the amendment is the technical one that I have just addressed. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord's submission in support of the amendment, I shall be happy to consider whether we should look at the definitions to ensure that all those that we wish to cover are covered. On the noble Lord's second point, I should not be content to accept the principle of that suggestion because I believe it right that, if the Institute of Legal Executives is to have rights of audience, it should do so directly. With that explanation, perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, indeed I do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 [Extent]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 67, line 12, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment together with Amendment No. 40 extends to Scotland the provision contained in Schedule 13 (the schedule of minor amendments) removing the prohibition on a solicitor being able to act as a ship's agent or sub-agent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 67, line 14, at end insert ("; and
(h) paragraph I of Schedule 13.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Advisory Committee]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 71, line 25, at end insert—
("Immunity for advice and reports
11A. For the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication of any advice or report by the Advisory Committee in the exercise of any of its functions shall be absolutely privileged.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Authorisation and Approval]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 62:
Page 76, line 32, leave out from ("shall") to ("ask") in line 33 and insert—
("(a) send a copy of the application and of any documents provided under sub-paragraph (2)(c) or (3) to the Advisory Committee and to each of the designated judges; and
(b) ").
Page 76, line 37, leave out from second ("the") to ("to") in line 38 and insert ("documents mentioned in paragraph (2)(4)(a)").
Page 77, line 1, leave out ("of any advice or report") and insert ("by the Lord Chancellor or the Director of any advice given").
Page 77, line 8, leave out from ("shall") to the end and insert ("send a copy of the advice to the applicant.
(1A) The applicant shall be allowed a period of 28 days, beginning with the day on which the copy is sent to him, to make representations about the advice—

(a) to the Lord Chancellor; or

(b) where the Lord Chancellor appoints a person for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, to that person.

(1B) When the period of 28 days has expired the Lord Chancellor shall consider, in the light of the advice and of any representations duly made by the applicant under sub-paragraph (1A)—").
Page 77, line 12, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1B").
Page 77, line 14, leave out from ("judge") to end of line 20 and insert ("a copy of—
(i) the advice; and
1752
(ii) any representations duly made by the applicant under sub-paragraph (1A); and").
Page 77, line 22, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1B)").
Page 77, line 26, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1B)").
Page 77, line 29, leave out paragraph (5).
Page 77, line 35, after ("principle") insert ("(whether because of any provision of the regulations or rules, or for any other reason)").
Page 77, line 37, leave out from ("Chancellor") to end of line 40 and insert ("in writing both of his decision and of his reasons for reaching it.").
Page 77, line 42, leave out ("sub-paragraph (1)") and insert ("this paragraph").
Page 78, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert ("refused to approve the application it shall fail.
(10) The Lord Chancellor shall, if the applicant applies to him in writing, notify the applicant of—

(a) his reasons for reaching his decision; and

(b) the reasons given by each designated judge for reaching his decision.").

Page 79, line 16, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 17 and insert—
("(a) send a copy of the application and of any documents provided under sub-paragraph (2)(c) or (3) to the Advisory Committee and to each of the designated judges; and
(b) refer the application to the Committee for advice.").
Page 79, line 19, leave out from second ("the") to ("to") in line 21 and insert ("documents mentioned in paragraph (8)(4)(a)".).
Page 79, line 32, leave out ("of any advice or report") and insert ("by the Lord Chancellor or the Director of any advice given".).
Page 79, line 39, leave out from ("shall") to the end and insert ("send a copy of the advice to the applicant.
(1A) The applicant shall be allowed a period of 28 days, beginning with the day on which the copy is sent to him, to make representations about the advice—

(a) to the Lord Chancellor; or

(b) where the Lord Chancellor appoints a person for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, to that person.

(1B) When the period of 28 days has expired the Lord Chancellor shall consider, in the light of the advice and of any representations duly made by the applicant under sub-paragraph (1A)").
Page 79, line 41, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1B)").
Page 79, line 43, leave out from ("judge") to end of line 4 on page 80 and insert ("a copy of—

(i) the advice; and

(ii) any representations duly made by the applicant under sub-paragaph (1A);").

Page 80, line 18, leave out from ("Chancellor") to end of line 19 and insert ("in writing both of his decision and of his reasons for reaching it.
(6A) When—

(a) the Lord Chancellor has discharged his duties under this paragraph; and

(b) the dsignated judges have notified him of their decisions, the Lord Chancellor shall notify the applicant of the result of its application.").

Page 80, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (8) and insert—
("(8) The Lord Chancellor shall, if the applicant applies to him in writing, notify the applicant of—

(a) his reasons for reaching his decision; and

(b) the reasons given by each designated judge for reaching his decision.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment Nos. 42 to 62 inclusive with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 80, line 30, after ("28(2)(c)") insert ("or is advised by one or more of the designated judges that there are grounds for making such a recommendation").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was kind enough much earlier in the evening to indicate that the amendment was acceptable to him. It completes the batch of amendments that we sought to Schedule 4. It brings the designated judges into the issue of revocation of an order, thereby enabling them, if they wish, to take that step to have their representations considered at the same time as my noble and learned friend considers whether he will exercise his powers under Clause 28(2)(c) which will be found on page 23 of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As my noble and learned friend said, I have already indicated that I commend the amendment to the House for acceptance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Probate]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 86, line 7, after ("case,") insert ("they").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment to improve the grammar of subparagraph 4(b). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 65:
Transpose Schedule 7 to after Schedule 8.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment puts the schedules in a slightly better order than they were in at the end of the Report stage. I hope that noble Lords will agree to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Transitionals and Savings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 124, line 19, at end insert—
("Directions under section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c.54)
2A.—(1) Any direction given under section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (right of audience for solicitors in Crown Courts) and in force immediately before the commencement of section 53 shall have effect as if validly made under section 83 as substituted by section 53.
(2) This paragraph is without prejudice to section 17(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1978.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 127, line 34, at end insert—

(1975 c.27.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.

In section 1(2), the words from "but" to the end.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this indicates that the Lord Chancellor thinks of himself last. This amendment adds to the list of statutory provisions providing for the abatement of judicial salaries which was repealed by Schedule 16 so that the Lord Chancellor's salary will not be subject to abatement any more than the other judges'. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if anyone at this stage were to make a speech incorporating all that he felt had been done by the House to improve the Bill and the defects which he felt were still left, he would be the most unpopular Member of your Lordships' House. I therefore do not intend to do any such thing.
I merely say that this is a Bill in which I know the noble and learned Lord has a great deal of confidence. His aim was always to get a better and more economical system of justice for our citizens. Many of us have approved of the aim but disagreed with the means.
However, by and large we know that there are many provisions in the Bill which bode well for the future. We can only hope that some of our forebodings are not fulfilled in the future as facts.
I want to say one thing more. I am deeply indebted to my colleagues, and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in particular, who have helped me in regard to this important Bill. I want to close with a very sincere expression of admiration, which I believe is shared throughout the House, for the patience, courtesy and physical and mental endurance of someone who will go clown in history as a great but extremely obstinate Lord Chancellor.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, would not wish to turn this session into an all-night sitting. But there are a few words that I should like to say. First, I should like to endorse the praise so felicitously expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the way in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has handled the Bill. On numerous matters of detail and drafting in this excessively complex and detailed Bill he has enabled us to help him to improve it.
On some matters of principle he has made some useful concessions. Alas, he has refused to accept our proposal that only barristers and solicitors should be judges of the Supreme Court, a decision that was made late at night with few Peers present. Members of the public will not understand that. It is very hard to understand the Government's altitude on it. I hope that my noble and learned friend is capable of changing his mind on some important matters, including this one, and that in another place there may be further thoughts on the matter.

1755
The main purpose of the Bill is to give solicitors and some members of other professions the right of audience as advocates in all our courts of law and to enable them to become judges even in the higher courts. The barristers and judges who have taken part and those who have advised us from the outside have not opposed the main purpose of the Bill.
In order to achieve it, however, the Bill creates an unnecessarily elaborate, complicated, cumbersome and expensive administrative system. I suggest that it would have been much better to have a short Bill which said in effect: "Solicitors and certain members of other professions shall have the right to appear as advocates in any court of law subject to the cab rank rule and to certain simple safeguards to ensure their competence, and they shall be eligible for appointment as judges in any part of the judiciary." That is simple enough, capable—with the usual British good sense and understanding—of being implemented without the great palaver that is introduced by the Bill.
Under the Bill the advisory committee, the legal services ombudsman, the Director of Fair Trading and others, are given functions which I suggest are quite unsuited to the administration of justice. But the Government say, "But all of that is necessary to ensure competition." But will it? The Bar is extremely competitive as it is, and the number of solicitors seeking rights of audience in the higher courts in the first few years will make scarcely any difference to competitors.
In the long term, however, the Bill will lead to there being less competition because most of the larger solicitors' firms, especially in London and the large cities, will establish their own advocacy departments and will expect them to keep their advocacy work in the firm instead of going outside it by briefing barristers. That will be a big step in the long run towards fusion of the two branches of the legal professions and that will be a denial of competition. They have fusion in the United States and elsewhere and they find it impossible to break it up.
There will have to be great vigilance on the part of those people who are given responsibility under the Bill to see that it does not lead to the kind of unacceptable situations to which it could lead.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I join with the noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating my noble and learned friend on the ability, courtesy and stamina—the pure staying power—that he has shown during the long days that the Bill has been before the House. I have found in almost all cases that the lucidity of his answers to points raised has been convincing. As he knows, I have certain reservations on a couple of matters which I shall not detain the House by raising again except to say that I hope that they will be looked at in another place and considered again.
I think it right that I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has also shown great stamina, displayed great clarity, and has done a great deal for the Law Society in the presentation of his case. I
1756
hope that the Bill achieves all that my noble and learned friend desires. I believe that in view of his diligence and patience it deserves the outcome that I am sure he expects and I hope that that will be so.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the greatest asset of an advocate is courage. I am afraid that I shall show courage and be extremely unpopular in the view of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, because there are a number of matters that I wish to raise despite it being five minutes past eleven, on the last day of our deliberations on this Bill.
I also should like to pay tribute to the stamina, patience and unfailing courtesy of the noble and learned Lord. His Lone Ranger performance, if I may put it in that way, has certainly been remarkable in conducting our deliberations on this Bill.
Despite that asset, I must admit that I have found our debates somewhat depressing. I end by expressing the gravest doubts as to the eventual impact of the Bill on the provision of legal services in England and Wales. It is to those doubts that I should like to turn.
As a lawyer, I can think of no finer purpose than to make justice more accessible, cheaper, quicker, comprehensible and rigorously honest. I fear that the Bill will achieve none of those things. My greatest sadness is the narrowness, the small-mindedness, of Part II.
When the concept of justice is under discussion great matters of principle inevitably arise because justice is the basis of our civilisation. I am proud that lawyers in this House raised such matters during our debates and insisted on them being discussed, even though it was not a course which found favour with those noble Lords whose only interest was the next business of the House.
In general, the noble and learned Lord avoided discussion of those great issues. The Royal Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, wrestled with such matters for four years. Yet the Government have resolutely refused to refer to, criticise, reject or accept the conclusions of that enormously conscientious commission. Such matters have been consigned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be discussed hereafter by his advisory committee of appointees with its lay majority, operating what hitherto has been known as "the administration of justice" but what will now be known as "the mechanism".
Ironically, the Bill replaces the relatively simple restrictions which have controlled the conduct and practice of advocates with bureaucratic machinery of a complexity and density which could have been devised only in the darkest caverns of the Civil Service, with codes of conduct to be policed by an unknown number of authorised bodies from whose ranks will spring a new race of para-legals, none of whom needs to be a professional lawyer.
At an early stage I expressed the view which has been referred to this evening by the noble and learned Lord; that one of the central but unadmitted aims of the Bill was to cut the cost of legal aid by gradually removing the independent barrister from

1757
the Crown Courts, restricting representation there through the Legal Aid Bill 1988. Although a dozen or so of the more ridiculous ideas in the Green Paper find no place in the Bill—something for which we can all be thankful—our deliberations on Part II have served only to confirm my original suspicions.
It is quite clear that the Government accept the situation in which all prosecutions will ultimately be conducted by salaried state employees of the Crown Prosecution Service. They accept the situation in which defences will be conducted by para-legals certified as competent to handle limited types of cases in appropriately designated courts and that legal-aided cases will be prepared, investigated and conducted by part-time advocates clustered round the Crown Courts, directly approached by uninformed members of the public, and strictly controlled under the provisions of the new Legal Aid Act.
Therefore, in my opinion, the Bill will produce polarisation to the detriment of the public and of justice. The independent, full-time sole practitioner advocate, free from conflicts of interest, engaged through informed professionals with no interest in the outcome of the case, will no longer have a role. That too will be to the detriment of the public and of justice. The efficient, delicately adjusted relationship of high street solicitor and universally available barrister—in my opinion the best and cheapest legal service which has yet been devised—will also have no place.
As regards the mechanism, the only independent voice in the new executive bureaucracy will come from the now appropriately named designated judges, of whom, pre-eminently, will be the judge we prefer at present to know as the Lord Chief Justice of England. On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord said:
"the … 'designated judges' among whom, to my surprise, I find myself".—[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 146.]
That is a remarkable comment on the manner in which this Bill has been prepared. The Lord Chief Justice has been conspicuous by his absence from our debates, as the Master of the Rolls has been conspicuous by his presence in them.
The office of Lord Chief Justice is overwhelmingly arduous and time-consuming and, speaking for myself, I can only pray that somehow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, will find time to play his major part in oiling the dry works of the executively controlled mechanism. He alone, of the five members of the judiciary involved, has first-hand experience of the criminal courts, knows of the pressures upon the advocate, the vital role of the independent prosecutor, the need for responsible professionalism whenever the liberty of the subject is in issue and the disasters which come from polarisation.
Uncharacteristically, I am pessimistic about this Bill, the publication of which I looked forward to with such expectations. I fear that it will restrict access, increase costs, lower standards, create confusion among the uninformed public and do nothing to simplify legal procedures. It will deprofessionalise the role of the advocate and bring
1758
what will now be but a trade or an occupation under executive control. The tradition of the legal profession has always been to serve the public and I know that when the Bill becomes an Act professional lawyers will strive to make it work to that end. However, I fear that that will be an immensely difficult task.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, "An event has happened upon which it is difficult to speak and impossible to be silent". Part I of this Bill was to herald a bright new dawn. Delay and cost, the two great bugbears of our legal system, would be alleviated by the transfer down of civil work from the High Court to the county court. But Part I, which alone in this convoluted Bill was to achieve this end arrived, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said:
"unfinished, sent before its time into this breathing work, scarce half made up … It is fantasy and misleading fantasy to suggest that Part I of this Bill can be implemented when the infrastructure of the county court is already crumbling".—[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 149.]
"… if Part I … were put into effect tomorrow the result would be a total shambles. I think it will be a matter of years rather than months before it is in place."—[col. 151.]
So said my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in the same debate.
At Report stage there was produced the usual run of statistics to muddy our understanding of the situation. The awful truth, as was so eloquently established by the judge's letter which was read out by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice during Second Reading, is that during the past two years, when the Lord Chancellor's Department should have been earnestly preparing for this very transfer, matters have gone from bad to worse. Cash limits have become more and more unrealistic, with the result that the legitimate demands of a vital service—the administration of justice—have been and are being seriously neglected.
As regards Part II of this Bill, I entirely share the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that almost every principle of methodology which law reform ought to attract has been disregarded by the Government. Recommendations of a Royal Commission, which reported a decade ago and which consistently thereafter were accepted by this Government, have been overturned without prior consultation, research or explanation.
This Bill has given the lie to the proposition that this Government "are not for turning". So far from improving access to justice for all who require it and making the system more cost effective, precisely the opposite will be the consequences.
I am firmly of the opinion that the long-term—and not all that long term—collective effects of this litigation will be to inflict serious damage on the quality of justice in this country. The small firms of solicitors, the so-called "high street" solicitors, who, with fewer than four partners, form 80 per cent. of the solicitors' profession, will be crippled by the twin effects of the loss of conveyancing work to the money lenders and the money lending institutions and the lack of access to the specialist independent Bar.

1759
As I previously stated, the ever-increasing mega-firms of solicitors, with their growing litigation departments—growing both in size and costs—with full rights of audience in all courts, will cause the Bar, whose continued vigorous existence the Government have accepted as being of great importance to the public interest, to whither away.
The much vaunted free-play of market forces will be of no use to a continually rising proportion of the public who will be unable to afford to enter the so-called "market place" for legal services and who will be denied state legal aid. The very dogma upon which so much of the justification of this Bill has been based will prove self-destructive to the very great prejudice of the so-called "Consumer" of legal services.
In addition to this, the American district attorney system will take over criminal prosecutions previously conducted by a strong and independent Bar. The corrupt philosophy of the contingency fee will pervade the whole system. The existing strong and independent judiciary, acknowledged by the Government to be one of the central supports upon which our liberties are based and upon which the rule of law depends, will be weakened by the diminishing quality of available recruits; by the use of laymen instead of lawyers, and by the growing political influence in their appointments.
In the limited time available I take but two crucial points, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee and the appointment of laymen as judges to all courts from the House of Lords downwards. I invite your Lordships very briefly to consider the quality of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's defence of these two radical proposals, bearing in mind the outstanding powers of advocacy at his command, to which I paid special tribute in the course of this debate.
I refer now to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee.
"The idea that an independent profession should effectively be governed by such a ludicrous body, of which we have seen only too many examples in the past 25 years of my experience of Parliament, is one too terrifying to imagine".
So said my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in the debate on 25th January at col. 1251. It was stressed again and again during the debates that the insistence on the domination of this committee by laymen is but a process by which the Civil Service will exercise control over what has hitherto been an independent and separate part of our national life. Such laymen, it was observed, may simply be the political appointees of the day. Such a committee, in the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, at col. 1247 of the debate of 25th January, is,
"an instrument by which the executive can, in a very large measure, control a legal profession which until now has been self-regulatory, and by which it can, by the creation of new classes of practitioners in the courts, secure an even greater control than it enjoys at the moment over the composition and of course, ultimately, the conduct of the judiciary at all levels".
I turn now to the reply of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to these criticisms. It is to be found in the debate of 25th January at col. 1259. His defence of the lay majority appears to be
1760
based solely upon our system of criminal trial by jury. He said:
"They are the ultimate consumers of legal services. If the judge receives legal services those people have the responsibility of judging in criminal trials. They are lay people who above all are said to be concerned in relation to the provision of advocacy services by the Royal Commission on Legal Services. Jury trials are particularly inappropriate for solicitors. The lay element in our system of justice in this country is extremely strong and it is not the same as the navigation of a ship to which my noble friend referred".
That is the sum total of the defence. The nautical reference was, as your Lordships will remember, to the observation, at col. 1252, by the much travelled noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who said:
"Passengers in a liner have an enormous interest in the safe navigation of the vessel. Yet when I have travelled in a liner, I have always found a notice saying, 'Access to the bridge is not permitted to passengers'".
With the deepest respect to my noble and learned friend, I found his reply so unsatisfactory as to be almost unintelligible. And in making that observation I am not alone.
Finally, and briefly, I come to laymen as judges and the proposals to be found in Clause 55 and Schedule 9 to appoint laymen to all judicial positions from the House of Lords downwards. In Committee the Lord Chancellor was asked three times to answer the simple question: why, if this is such a desirable proposal, no such provisions are to be found in the Scottish Bill? I had to ask the same question twice on the final day of the Report stage before I had his answer. This, at col. 902, was apparently the best that he could do:
"I believe that the question of which qualifications are appropriate is a matter which may well relate to the size of the jursidiction".
I believe that to be a most revealing answer. What this Government are seeking to achieve by this Bill is increased control—increased control of the independent legal profession and, ultimately, the judiciary. In Scotland, because of its size, there was not enough at stake to justify the inevitable further serious loss of popularity that this would achieve.
"Time bath, my Lords, a wallet at his back, wherein he puts alms for oblivion",
but, I fear, not alms enough. The proponents of the Bill, or some of them, will live to see the integrity of our system of justice, which has been developed over the centuries, heavily undermined, and its quality seriously diminished. The fruits of that folly will be most bitter.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two. I mean that. I am driven to stand up by the sense of doom and gloom in which we are being enveloped.
There is a clear need for Part I of the Bill which deals with the Civil Justice Review. I express no view as to whether there was such a crisis of confidence in the legal profession as to call for Part II. That is a matter of political judgment; and, whatever political judgment I may or may not have, it is part of my professional approach never to express a view. But assuming that there was such a requirement, I believe in all sincerity that the machinery will work. I believe that most of the arguments that my noble and learned

1761
friend Lord Ackner has deployed, and all the arguments that the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and Lord Renton, have deployed, will be redeployed before the Schedule 4 tribunal—if I may call it that—together with other arguments for other interests and other views of the public interest, in an atmosphere which will be much more conducive to arriving at the true answer in the interests of the administration of justice. So I do not fear the future. I am convinced that it will work out all right in the end. I believe that the end in that sense will come quickly. It will be an end which is neither filled with gloom nor with doom.
I conclude on a personal note. I have been a maiden participant in the life of the Bill in terms of speaking in the House. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have borne with me as I found and lost my way through the procedures of the House. I should like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his receptiveness to some of my less inspired contributions and to others of my contributions. If he was not as receptive as I should have liked, that merely illustrates my greed. I have found the whole experience highly addictive: it is a great regret to me that I must now return to The Strand for a prolonged period of detoxification.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, earlier this evening I quoted the observation of Disraeli on Lord Hartington's speech after the Berlin treaty:
"A string of congratulatory regrets".
I indicated that that was the normal tone of a debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
I hope to be allowed to pay tribute to the various noble Lords to whom we are so indebted as regards the Bill and most of all to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It would be idle to stifle the regrets. Indeed, that term is inadequate to express my feeling of foreboding at what the Bill portends. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said. I hope that even though their speeches were delivered late at night they may nevertheless have the publicity which it has been sought to deny them, and I hope that they will endure as a message for the future. I shall endeavour not to cover the same ground as they have covered so well.
I should like to say a brief word about the way in which this Bill has been flogged through the House and also about its general style and tone which are indicative of its conduct and of the ideology that lies behind it. I shall leave aside the effect of the Bill almost entirely because that has been dealt with already. I merely say that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, whose report we debated last night thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed the same misgivings as to the effect of the Bill on the junior Bar and therefore on the availability of independent advice, particularly legal aid advice, and as to its effect on the high street solicitor. I cannot do better than surrender to the committee the judgment on these matters.
I should like to say a word on the conduct of the Bill in being driven through the House. It is
1762
extraordinary that such has been the breathless haste of the Government's business managers that time and again they have overtaken my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He fully intended to make his amendments to Schedule 4 at Report stage but he did not have time. Instead, they came up again this evening. That was the case with one amendment after another. My noble and learned friend said several times this evening that he had wished to make certain amendments but that they would now have to be reserved to the decision of another place.
This important debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, did not start until eleven o'clock tonight. I regard that as a constitutional outrage. But it is really more serious than that. One aspect should be mentioned. I refer to the effect on your Lordships' House. The House rightly purports to be a revising Chamber which closely scrutinises legislation. That has been denied over this Bill. Instead, the Bill has been hustled through, with comment being stifled or muffled. Time and again noble Lords have curtailed their speeches.
I have already indicated the nature of the debate on the Green Papers. The same happened at Second Reading. More than 40 noble Lords wished to speak and others removed their names from the speakers' list as a result. But only one day was given for Second Reading. The noble Lord the Leader of the House sought to derive credit from the fact that two extra days were given for the Committee stage. We had the ludicrous decision to allow only four days for Committee when little more than Clause 1, raising very serious issues, took the whole of the first day. On all but one of those six days your]Lordships were kept sitting after 10.30 p.m., and on two occasions after midnight. The same happened at Report stage, and the same has happened tonight. If I can manage to see so far, it is now twenty-five minutes to midnight. So much then for the way in which the Bill has been driven through.
I now turn to the style of the Bill which is so indicative. Clause 1(1) begins with the words,
"The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision".
Those words are repeated well over a hundred times in the Bill. Then, time and again, we had the Henry VIII clauses which were all the more extraordinary because of my noble and learned friend's very close knowledge of the Bill, supervision of all its details and the fact that he had responsibility for the conduct last Session of the Children Bill where such clauses ran into serious trouble, where the Donoughmore Committee reports were cited at length and where the Government hastened to make concessions. Yet, here again, in this Session, we have this Bill which is full of Henry VIII clauses together with the Education (Student Loans) Bill which also incorporates one such clause. It is indicative of the authoritarian character of the Bill and, I fear I must say, the authoritarian character of this Government.
That is all I have to say about the style of the Bill. The ideology is easy to identify: it is the consumer competition, free market and free enterprise ideology. In other words, the market will decide. My noble friend Lord Benson made a notable speech indicating how inappropriate that was to a

1763
profession and that was echoed in the report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. However, what is odd is not only the fact it is alien to a profession such as is regulated by the Bill; it is also utterly alien to all that I have understood in the way of Tory and Conservative philosophy. Indeed that laissez-faire, free contract ideology was the ideology of Bright and Cobden in opposing the proposals of Ostler, Sadler, Shaftesbury and Disraeli on the 12-hour Bill seeking to limit children under the age of nine from working in factories and those over nine working more than 12 hours. They were Tory wets, every one of them. That is the ideology—and a wholly alien one—which has been applied to the Bill.
I turn more agreeably to pay the tributes which I feel are due. First and foremost there is my noble and learned friend. He started under very great difficulties. In the first place, as has been pointed out, the Bill is in contradistinction—indeed, in contradiction—of the report of the Royal Commission which took evidence over three or four years, reported only a decade ago and much less time ago had its recommendations accepted by the Government.
My noble and learned friend also had the views already quoted this evening of the senior members of the judiciary disapproving almost entirely of what he was doing. However, he had two advantages: one was unusual and one was carried to an unusual degree. The unusual advantage was that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his formidable debating powers was fundamentally in favour of the Bill. The advantage to an unusual degree was the way in which the government business managers put their shoulders behind the Bill in such a way as to stifle and muffle debate. Even discounting those two advantages, my noble and learned friend faced formidable disadvantages. It is a great tribute to his skill in debate, his power to think quickly on his feet, his versatility and his astonishing physical and mental stamina that he has seen the Bill through to this stage.
I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, last night, and I shall not embarrass him by repeating what I said by way of encomium. I wish, however, to mention the contribution that has been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, who has worked fantastically hard. He had no research organisation behind him, no great department of state. Yet he has come with his cogently argued and well-documented speeches to remind your Lordships of what is at stake, culminating in his notable speech this evening.
It would be invidious to mention every noble Lord who has made so good a contribution to the Bill. I hope that I can mention the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because he has been party leader and chief whip of the frondeurs. We owe a great deal to him.
I confess that I feel almost unrelieved gloom and foreboding at what the Bill portends. If there is any relief from it, it lies in a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the cab rank rule in which he said, I thought with great nobility and departing from the Law Society brief, that if solicitors are
1764
to accept the privileges that the Bar has enjoyed heretofore they must also accept the burdens. If I may say so, I thought that was a noble pronouncement which gives some gleam of hope for the future.
The other gleam of hope is what has been done by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, fighting to the last. We cannot really say that Admiral Duncan's fleet going under the waterline with all its guns firing was suffering a total defeat. From those two matters I sustain a gleam of hope, though I cannot see at the moment where it will work out. On the whole, realism makes me think that we are in for a bad time in our system of justice.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, as we see the Bill leave the Chamber, I watch it with great distress because I believe that it will do great damage to a great profession. But even worse than that, I am afraid that it will set a standard for the other professions and will destroy a proud privilege we have had in this country for so many years—the high quality of all our professions.
The proponents of the Bill have claimed that it will develop new ways of providing legal services. That is not a true and fair description of the Bill. A fair description of the Bill would be to say that it enables persons who have not been trained as lawyers to carry out legal services for reward. We must remember that those persons are virtually self-elected. Those para-legals will elect themselves through the medium of their para-legal societies.
Some of your Lordships may feel that this Bill is a great achievement. I do not share that view. If the same lack of principle is to be applied to other professionals such as surgeons, physicians, veterinary surgeons, chemists, accountants, airline pilots and others, the quality of the professions in this country will inevitably fall into the standards of a third world country.
One would expect in reforming a profession that the first thing to do would be to define the principles on which a profession should be governed and administered. They are well known and have been well documented for some years. However, noble Lords will notice that the Government have never, neither in the green papers nor in the White Paper, nor in anything said in this Chamber, at one single point referred to the principles which should govern the administration of a profession and on which one would expect them to base legislation.
All the professions in this country are committed to improving quality. They seek to serve the public to the best advantage. That process is well established. It involves higher and higher thresholds for the admission of students in education and training and longer periods of theoretical and practical training and research. It also involves greater post-qualification experience, training and education and higher and higher standards of discipline. However, those aims are not the theme of this Bill.

1765
The Bill moves in the opposite direction. It seeks to establish para-legals who can carry out legal services for reward and who are not subjected to that process. As they are para-legals and are not practising the law generally they are not capable of being subject to that same process. I cannot imagine a system better designed to damage the cause of justice.
The principle of good administration is simplicity and a clear channel of authority. Both have been abandoned. The Bill sets up a ponderous and disjointed machinery which will be slow in operation and extremely costly. One could go on indefinitely putting forward the deficiencies of the Bill. However, I do not wish to weary the House any longer. The matter comes down to this: we shall now have to wait and watch the deficiencies in the Bill become manifest in practice. When they have established themselves, I can only hope that the legal profession will be replanned on principle instead of the Government seeking to placate a populous clamour for reform.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I feel as if I am a rather junior member of the school at the end of a rather long term. It is certainly a term which has had plenty of "banco". Those noble and learned Lords who may recall what "banco" was, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—will know that I am referring to long evening preps.
Despite the length and tiring nature of this term, I certainly go away from it with enormous admiration for, and memories of, the intellectual and physical stamina of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I include in my admiration of that intellectual and physical stamina the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Renton, who, from their respective positions, have borne the brunt of the work on behalf of the Law Society and the Bar respectively.

I shall also remember the contributions made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I shall remember not only the contributions but also the presence of the noble and learned Lord who, despite his heavy responsibilities in The Strand, as he refers to it, has been with your Lordships for every minute of our debate.
I shall certainly also remember at the end of term those of the pupils who are still in the school—the noble Lords, Lord Boardman, Lord Coleraine, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Byron. I shall also remember those members of the school who have not spoken during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carnock, for example, who is still in your Lordships' House, has faithfully attended every one of your Lordships' debates on the Bill and listened to the argument. So, indeed, until a few moments ago has the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, also listened for so long to your Lordships.
The headmaster, who is still here and has kept us in school so long—and I refer to the noble Lord the Leader of the House—has also been kind enough not only to keep us in school but to listen to us in debate throughout.
1766
Perhaps my memories will be—as will the memories of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—of the contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. As I reminded the noble and learned Lord at dinner this evening, when I was first called to the Bar he was a leading member of the Bar and a leading advocate. I had little opportunity then to hear the noble and learned Lord as an advocate in court. It is quite clear to me that all the years that he has spent on the bench have not diminished the vigour of his argument or the cogency of his reasoning. Unlike the nob le Lord, Lord Mishcon, I have never had an opportunity to instruct the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I hope therefore that he will make early arrangements to free himself from what other difficulties may be in the way and be available again to be instructed by my side of the profession.
As the Bill goes from your Lordships' House there is still much to be done. It is one of my regrets that your Lordships have not been able to complete the work on the Bill while it has been in your Lordships' House. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in one of the many letters that he was kind enough to send me—and I know that he sent many other letters to other noble Lords—mentioned many further measures that he proposes to have introduced in another place concerning, for example, multinational practices. I have promised him a letter concerning limitations of actions for his consideration so that the matter can continue to be under review in another place.
As the Bill passes to another place I should particularly like to mention the rights of audience debate. I hope that in the other place this great debate will not continue. Although I much admire the advocacy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I do not agree with his pessimistic view of the prospective greed of the mega-firms of solicitors and of the Bar fading away. Throughout the debate I have supported the extension of rights of audience to all lawyers, and particularly to lawyers on my side of the profession. At no time in the debates—and I go back to the Green Paper debate of last April—have I been an advocate of fusion. On the contrary, I have always advocated that there should be a separate, independent, discipline of advocates. I should like to see that in the Bar in its reformed existence under the structure of this Bill.
Therefore I hope that the opportunities will now be seized by both sides of the profession. I hope that they will desist—and indeed that is one of the central thrusts of the Bill—from further debates and disputes on rights of audience and come together on such matters as common education and training. I hope that one of the of the products of the Bill will be that young law students will move into the legal profession without having to decide prior to entry into it whether they wish to be a barrister or solicitor.
Furthermore, I hope that as part of the common training young solicitor articled clerks will be permitted to have six months pupillage in chambers. Equally, I hope that young members of the Bar will be offered the same facility of spending some of their pupillage time in solicitors' firms.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did so before being called to the Bar.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am interested to hear that, but I am anxious to see the structure for that common training. I believe that there will be so many advantages with it, but first and foremost would be the advantage of opening up to all lawyers the higher skills of advocacy whether they are motivated to my side of the profession or the barristers' side of the profession. I hope that out of that will come a process in which both the young lawyer will be able to test his skills better as an advocate and the advocates who supervise the young aspirants to the Bar or advocacy will have a better opportunity to judge those skills.
The Bill should not leave noble Lords, certainly on my side of the profession, without a considerable word of praise for the leading members of the Bar and the Chairman of the Bar Council who is listening to the debate as he has our debates throughout all the proceedings on the Bill.
In the debate on the Green Paper, I was critical of the Bar holding on to practices long after they could reasonably be defended. There have been tremendous changes at the Bar during the past 10 years and during the last few years, nay few months. Only recently, under the chairmanship of David Latham, Queen's Counsel, the whole new conduct has been adopted by the Bar Council, effective, as I said, from 31st March this year. Rumbling matters such as pupillages and tenancies have all received a tremendous amount of attention. There is now far greater access to members of the Bar and removal of all those restrictive practices which not only worked against the public interest but impeded the Bar in its own growth.
We have had long sessions and we are just about to complete the Third Reading after yet another long session. Two views could be held about the cause of those long sessions. The first is that lawyers and judges talk too much. The other view is the one that I put forward; namely, that the Bill is not only of great interest and importance to noble Lords, but it is a Bill in which noble Lords have great expertise and a great opportunity to make a real contribution. If there has been a down side on the long hours, it is that we have not made as great a contribution as I feel we are capable of doing, and that is a pity.
With that, the upper side should also be examined. It should be recognised that noble Lords have made a considerable contribution. It is therefore upon that note that I end my comments to noble Lords. One of the refreshing aspects of the passage of the Bill through the House, particularly during this final stage of Third Reading, is how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has increasingly responded to noble Lords' submissions. He responded for example, to a major matter of concern—the composition of the advisory committee—and gave a most favourable response earlier today on that issue. That is one of many examples of the way in which he has responded. I like to think that if we had not had these long sessions but had had a few extra days, the noble and learned Lord would have been able to respond further to our pleasure.
12 Midnight.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it would be inappropriate for me to speak long on the Motion that this Bill do now pass. However, I should like to say one or two words.
First, I believe that this Bill will make a considerable contribution to the improvement of legal services and to the structure of the courts in this country. Part I of the Bill is a set of provisions which I think contains almost all the primary legislation necessary to give effect to the Civil Justice Review set up by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when he was Lord Chancellor. I believe that that arrangement under Part I will be extremely effective. Perhaps the best testimony to it is the fact that the judges of the High Court are already sending down to the county court considerable numbers of cases and have continued to do so right up to the present time.
So far as concerns Part II, in that area we have been in more controversy. But I thoroughly believe that Part II of the Bill contains an arrangement under which the legal profession can develop and continue to prosper. The suggestion that the market philosophy underlies this Bill is true only to the extent that it is a philosophy which it is appropriate to apply only within proper limits when one is dealing with professional matters. That is why it is necessary, in allowing for any development in legal services, to have a proper safeguard for the competence and conduct of the profession, which after all is a central part of professional discipline.
I cannot accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, that this Bill does not properly take account of the fact that rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation are matters which require proper qualification and proper conduct.
I believe that the arrangements in the Bill are designed very aptly to secure those standards for the future. The control is in the hands of the professional bodies, the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society, with the approval of the judges and also that of the Lord Chancellor being necessary for any change. The advisory committee is there in order to give advice on these matters. I believe that this is a well-balanced arrangement which will have extremely beneficial effects.
This afternoon my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths spoke of his experience in a lay-dominated or lay-majority committee; so did my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill. The matter of conveyancing by institutions such as building societies, banks and insurance companies has been on the statute book since 1986. We have sought to modify the arrangements for that and introduce more detailed arrangements for proper protection of the persons who use the service and also to ensure fair competition in that area. I have every confidence in that, as had the previous president of the Law Society who I think said that he believed that in fair competition the solicitors would have a very good chance.
There are other detailed provisions in the Bill to which I do not need to devote particular attention. This Bill is designed to improve access to justice. It is intended to assist the development of the whole

1769
legal profession, the Bar and the Law Society. It provides a mechanism for resolving matters of long-standing dispute between the Bar and the Law Society which cannot but be in the interests of the profession.
I hope that these arrangements will work very well. I have said before, and I say again, that I believe this Bill will do nothing in any way to damage the Bar. On the contrary, I believe that it will help to stimulate and open for the Bar even further opportunities.
I should like to pay tribute to all your Lordships who have taken part in these debates and proceedings. There are a great number of noble Lords who have done so and I do not wish to leave anyone out. On the other hand, I cannot be sure that I shall include everyone. Therefore, I should like generally to thank everyone who has taken part.
I should like to begin with my noble and learned friends the Law Lords and in particular my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, because I appreciate as much as anyone here the great work that he has done in bringing before your Lordships the point of view that he desires to advocate. It will not have escaped your Lordships entirely that I have not been able to agree with him completely in all the points that he has made. However, I always appreciate the force of his advocacy and do my best to accommodate him so far as I can. I have endeavoured to do so in a number of the amendments, for example, that were passed today.
Others of our colleagues, my noble and learned friends, have participated and I am grateful to them. I should like to mention my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale who has been a regular contributor and attender throughout these proceedings and who has been very courteous in bringing his concerns to my notice in private so that we were able often to save your Lordships' time by resolving differences between us by such consultation.
I should also like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice for his participation. As your Lordships know, he has many heavy responsibilities and it is the wish of all of us that lie will have every possible success in the heavy responsibilities that he carries.
I should also like to thank my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls who has been with us so helpfully during nearly all our discussions. I am extremely grateful to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, has taken a great interest in our proceedings. Again, although I have not been able to agree with him in everything, I appreciate the fact that he has given us the benefit of his great experience. The noble Lords, Lord Hacking, Lord Byron and Lord Allen of Abbeydale, have all contributed to our debates from the Cross-Benches, as has the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. I should like to thank all of them for their participation which I am sure has been extremely useful to us.
I should in particular like to pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Irvine of Lairg, who have shared the burden of the Opposition Front-Bench during these debates.
1770
Perhaps it is not a burden. I have no doubt it is a great pleasure. It is a pleasure to work with them and I should like to thank all of them for their part in these debates.
Noble Lords on the Benches immediately on my left have contributed a great number of speakers and have made a number of contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has made his usual very lucid and (if I may say without any feeling of being patronising) well-delivered salvoes at the Bill. Again, I cannot say that I have always fully agreed with him, but I believe that there is more between us of agreement than perhaps he would recognise because I share many of the values that he has expressed. The only difference between us is that he does not see them enshrined in the Bill quite so clearly as I do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, gave us the benefit of his experience for which we are grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, was with us for a good part of the time. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, brought to our notice the interest of intellectual property, patent agents and trademark agents. We always appreciate his help in these important but recondite areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, spoke from the point of the high street solicitor and we appreciated what he said. He has not been present because of other commitments but he made extremely useful contributions. I was happy to respond to some of his concerns.
My noble friend the Leader of the House has already been mentioned for keeping us going. I thank him for the arrangements that he made. My noble friend Lord Renton has been described as the leader, chief whip and so forth in the debates. He carried out those duties in a most friendly and constructive manner, and I thank him.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater has been with me almost continuously trying to keep me on the right track. In so far as I have been able to do so, he must take a great deal of the credit. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon played a leading part in many of the debates. I thank him for his participation. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil told us of his conversion. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was extremely helpful in bringing into the discussions the lay point of view. One can illustrate the way in which a lay involvement can resolve difficulties between lawyers by turning to the good example he gave this afternoon. My noble friend Lady Faithfull also participated with her usual knowledge and experience of the background to the legal system and that is always valued.
My noble friends Lord Boardman and Lord Coleraine were notable in bringing to our attention problems associated with the detail of the conveyancing arrangements. I am grateful to them because I am most concerned that these matters are dealt with properly. One result of our discussions on the Green Paper and the Bill has been to direct more attention to concerns in the area of house buying and the possible difficulties for people operating in it than has previously been the case. One result of the stimulation was the recent activity of the Director

1771
General of Fair Trading in respect of estate agents, as was announced. That is all to the good of those whom we seek to serve; that is, those who are buying and selling their property.
I should also like to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who made some fairly vigorous comments at an early stage in our debates. She helped to ensure that the matter was not left to the lawyers.
I express my gratitude to all noble Lords. As the Bill goes to another place for consideration I hope that ultimately it will prove to be what I claim for it and that the gloomy prognostications which some noble Lords have expressed will be disproved by the result. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter past midnight.

  VOLUNTARY SECTOR: GOVERNMENT FUNDING SCRUTINY
  VOLUNTARY SECTOR: GOVERNMENT FUNDING SCRUTINY
  SUMMER TIME PERIOD
  SUMMER TIME PERIOD
  BRISTOL UNIVERSITY: STATISTICAL RECORDS
  BRISTOL UNIVERSITY: STATISTICAL RECORDS
  PHYSICAL EDUCATION WORKING PARTY: MEMBERSHIP
  PHYSICAL EDUCATION WORKING PARTY: MEMBERSHIP
  PROPERTY AND COMPANIES LEGISLATION: ENACTMENT
  PROPERTY AND COMPANIES LEGISLATION: ENACTMENT