Sitting of 20 March 1990

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

    Prescribing Costs
    Mr. Carttiss: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how prescribing costs under the proposed National Health Service changes will be monitored.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Under the indicative drug budget scheme, practices will be able to monitor their own expenditure on drugs by means of a simple monthly statement from the Prescription Pricing Authority.
    Mr. Carttiss: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Has he seen the circular letter sent to local medical committees by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), repeating the Opposition claim that drug budgets will be cash limited? As the hon. Lady declines to recognise the repeated assurances that that is not so, will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to reiterate that drug budgets will not be cash limited, and that no patient will go without necessary drugs?
    Mr. Clarke: We demonstrate repeatedly to the British Medical Association and to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that indicative drug budgets will not be cash limited and that every doctor will be free to prescribe whatever drugs a patient needs for his or her condition. The hon. Lady continues not to produce any evidence for her contrary assertion, but she keeps making it. Therefore, I intend to write to all local medical committees yet again, refuting her suggestion and giving reasons, if I can persuade the British Medical Association to give me the addresses of the local medical committees to which she wrote.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Secretary of State please investigate the case of David Whitton, a former chairman of the Royal Free hospital kidney patients association, who had to change his general practitioner because his GP would not prescribe for him cyclosporin, an expensive drug which he needs to keep his transplant in place? Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that cash-starved hospitals are passing on to GPs expensive drug costs? How will patients get the drugs that they need when GPs' drugs budgets are capped under the National Health Service and Community Care Bill?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall look into that case, as I look into all the cases that the hon. Lady refers to me. So far, not one
    994
    of the cases that I have looked into has justified the particular assertion that she made on the Floor of the House. Certainly, I disapprove of the attempt by some hospitals to shift the prescription of drugs for which their consultants are responsible on to GPs. A GP has no budgetary reason for refusing to dispense a drug, but some of them are quite correct in insisting that they will riot prescribe drugs when a consultant continues to be responsible for the patient. I shall look into that case and see whether it gives rise to some cause to intervene.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no practice or doctor objects to the monitoring that is suggested? Does not he deplore the conduct of Opposition politicians and, sadly, unprofessionally, some doctors who are still frightening the life out of elderly and disabled people by telling them that the drug budget will stop them having the drugs that they need? Will he nail that lie once and for all?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. Most doctors already prescribe responsibly. The vast majority welcome the introduction of the information system known as PACT—prescribing analyses and cost—which tells them what they are spending now, and most will welcome the opportunity to monitor their own drug spending. I have already refuted the ridiculous allegation that patients might not get the drugs that they need, on grounds of expense. I continue to insist that in a minority of practices there is a sensible case for tackling avoidable and unnecessary costs in prescribing—perhaps they are dispensing drugs that are not needed by the patient, or expensive drugs when cheaper ones are available. The savings made by extending good prescribing practice will be ploughed back into the National Health Service to help improve services.

    Cervical Cancer Screening
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on cervical cancer screening.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The cervical screening programme forms an important part of our strategy to promote women's health. Between 1978 and 1988 deaths from cervical cancer in England and Wales fell by 10 per cent. to under 2,000 women per year and the death rate per million women aged 20 to 74 years fell by 16 per cent.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister aware that about 90 per cent. of the 2,000 deaths that occur each year could be avoided by a proper and effective screening service? What positive steps is she taking to ensure that her Department is providing an effective screening service? What improvements are there in uptake, and what is the hon. Lady doing to ensure that women at risk are aware of the services that are available?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of the cancer screening programme. Regular screening can prevent deaths. We were the first country in Europe to introduce a national call and recall scheme for cancer screening. Great headway has been made with the scheme, but we are determined to improve on delays or difficulties in its implementation. Great successes have been achieved

    995
    already and under the new contract we expect general practitioners to achieve targets, to ensure that they are proactive in encouraging women to realise the importance of health promotion and of having the test.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I have some of the most conscientious doctors in my constituency, but is my hon. Friend aware of the concern among many doctors, particularly in deprived areas, about encouraging people to come forward, to help them reach their targets? What should my message be to doctors who fear that there will be no incentive if they do not reach their targets?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear to those general practitioners that the payment for screening is part of the capitation fee. The intention of the target is to encourage doctors to go out of their way to help those who might not have realised the importance of screening tests. The lower target of 50 per cent. is achievable by most; the 80 per cent. target will be more of a challenge, but often health needs are highest in precisely the areas where there is a challenge.

    NHS Trusts
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the staff ballot in the West Lambeth health authority on the establishment of a self-governing trust.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have received two letters on the matter, including one from the hon. Member.
    Miss Hoey: As the Secretary of State's attempts to use cuts to persuade hospitals to opt out were repudiated by 80 per cent. of the staff at St. Thomas's voting against opting out last week, will he take immediate steps to reverse the underfunding of West Lambeth health authority? Is he aware that next week it will be taking decisions to cut another 160 beds, to cut out-patient services and to cut the number of people who can use the accident service? Is he further aware of the strong feeling on the matter, and will he assure the House that St. Thomas's will be taken off the list of hospitals that can opt out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—and ensure that it is not allowed to wither away from being a fine hospital?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for single questions, or our proceedings will be delayed.
    Mr. Clarke: That question started on a rather extraordinary premise, and I am afraid that the end of it was almost inaudible. There is no question of cuts in West Lambeth health authority. Its funding increased by 7 per cent. in real terms this year and it is treating the planned number of patients. Most people attribute its difficulties to financial mismanagement. Indeed, I have seen letters from the hon. Lady complaining about the position in West Lambeth, in which she mentioned financial mismanagement, which no doubt is why she welcomes the fact that the regional health authority has asked John Barnes to study it. No one has made an application for self-governing status, but there will be full public consultation if St. Thomas's makes such an application. We shall then consider the proposals for patient services and for better financial management.
    Mr. Bowis: We have the highest regard for people working in the Health Service, but does my right hon. and
    996
    learned Friend agree that the purpose of hospitals is to benefit patients, not staff? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that where a hospital trust is established, it will be because the flexibility and autonomy of such a trust will be in the interests of patients?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. Only one judgment should be made on an application for NHS trust status—whether the application is in the interests of the hospital unit, particularly the interests of the patients and the population whom it serves. Staff views are extremely relevant and cannot be disregarded, but the proper way to test those views is to consult staff and the general public when there is a formal proposition. The ballots that are being held about propositions that are not yet forthcoming are somewhat pointless.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Why does not the Secretary of State admit that he cannot sell the idea that their hospitals should go it alone? Is not he aware that it is not just West Lambeth, but there have now been dozens of ballots of staff and of patients, and that he has not won a single one? Is he aware that the average "No" vote across the London hospitals is 89 per cent? Is it not time that he paused to reflect that it is just possible that nine out of 10 people who work in the Health Service are right and that it is just possible that he might be wrong? Why, therefore, does he not now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am asking a question. If hon. Members will wait, I shall ask the question and I should prefer it if the Secretary of State would answer. Is it not time that the Secretary of State dropped his deeply unpopular proposal to make hospitals opt out, which the next Labour Government will reverse?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is a bit stuck to find anything to say about National Health Service policy as he has no policy of his own and he is rather repeating his comments last week about our policies at great length. The fact is that we do not yet have any propositions for self-governing hospitals and NHS trusts. When we accept firm applications, we shall have proper public consultations, setting out the pros and cons for patient services, for staff interests and for everything else. There have been places where the staff have voted in favour of being interested in self-governing status, but sensible judgments can be made only after proper public consultation on a serious proposition. For the hon. Gentleman to run ballots or to start saying that he will repeal all my proposals—because after two years he still cannot think of any of his own—is not, at this stage, to make a sensible contribution to events.
    Mr. Speaker: I again appeal to the House to ask single questions. We then get briefer answers and proceed with greater speed down the Order Paper.

    Voluntary Groups
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is being given to voluntary groups working with under-fives.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Department provides grant aid of about £1 million a year to national voluntary organisations that are active in the under-fives area. This year, we have given a further £425,000 to seven national organisations that have distributed small grants to local

    997
    projects providing services to pre-school children and their families. We have also launched the £2 million new under-fives initiative to test out various new policy ideas.
    Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for her reply and for her consistent encouragement of pre-school play groups and the carers for under-fives. Has she any intention of introducing inspection charges or registration fees for those groups?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Pre-School Playgroups Association receives the largest amount of support from my Department. It is receiving more than £500,000 this year. Under the Children Act 1989, it is necessary for the 17,000 pre-school playgroups to register. We have made it clear that the charges will be modest and we hope that they will be no more than £10.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What discussions are Health Ministers having with Education Ministers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to ensure that there is provision across the board for under-fives, so that parents have a choice between playgroups, nursery schools or classes, day nurseries and workplace nurseries and can use what is most appropriate for their family needs and for their children?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to a mixed economy of care for the under-fives, which is precisely the Government's policy. Ninety-one per cent. of three and four-year-olds in this country attend some education or day care provision and this country is among the leaders in the European Community. We shall seek to encourage a range of providers to meet the needs and expectations of those children and their parents.

    Cot Deaths
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the results of the research into a possible link between fire retardant materials and cot death syndrome to be available; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): On 9 March, the Department's chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, announced that he had asked a group of independent experts to investigate a claim that the emission of toxic gases from fungal growth on some cot mattresses is a cause of sudden infant death. He has asked the group to report as soon as possible and will make public its findings.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what advice he gave to parents during the inquiry? Does he agree that if there was a lesson to be learnt in his Department from listeriosis, it is that the public must be warned at the earliest opportunity of any risk to their health or, of course, that of their children?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a sad number of cases—some 1,500—of sudden infant deaths each year. The advice of the chief medical officer, issued on 9 March, was clear: keep young babies warm but not overheated; give children good ventilation in their rooms and keep bedding fresh and clean.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Have not scientists in the Department of Trade and Industry already issued warnings on this issue? Why has the Department of Health been slower in bringing forward such advice?
    Mr. Freeman: I am not sure that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the laboratory of the Government chemist could neither prove nor disprove the conclusions of the independent consultant chemist. That is why the chief medical officer has set up an independent and fresh team to review the evidence and advise urgently.

    Marriage Registrations
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about his plans to bring forward legislation to reform the law affecting the registration of marriages.
    Mr. Freeman: There has been a widespread welcome for the proposals in the White Paper, "Registration: Proposals for Change", which was published at the end of January. There is particular public support for the introduction of greater choice over where a civil marriage may take place.
    Mrs. Currie: Given that the discrimination against marriage was removed by the previous Chancellor in his Budget two years ago and given that all of us—married and single—expect great things of his successor this afternoon, would my hon. Friend like to tell me when people will be able to get married in a hotel, on a hillside or in some other place of their choice?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that, while paying tribute to my hon. Friend for introducing the Green Paper over a year ago when she held my present position, the House will agree that civil marriage is a serious ceremony. I can tell the House that the Secretary of State will seek to introduce a Bill during this Parliament.
    Mr. Key: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues on an excellent White Paper. Will he consider placing a duty on local authorities to encourage the collection, storage and accessibility of public records, particularly medical records, which will become essential for epidemiological research in the future?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly pursue my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is proposed in the White Paper that all records of births, marriages and deaths that are more than 75 years old should be available for research and open to all members of the public.

    NHS Unions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with National Health Service trades union representatives; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Ministers in my Department have frequent meetings with NHS trade union representatives on a variety of subjects. There were four such meetings last month and I personally met the TUC health services committee on three occasions last year.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Secretary of State for Health go to Mid-Staffordshire and speak to Health Service union representatives there? Why does not he

    999
    explain to them how he manages to combine cutting the National Health Service and opting out? Why does not he explain to ambulance workers up there in Mid-Staffordshire why he is prepared to offer them only 6·5 per cent., when company bosses got 28 per cent. last year?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Minister for Health went to Staffordshire yesterday and tells me that she had an excellent reception. As far as I am aware—and despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), no doubt—health is not a seriously controversial issue in Staffordshire, because the record of advance, in terms of the money spent, the patients treated and the new hospital building already achieved and proposed, has been outstanding. The idea that we can have a serious political argument on the basis that everything that is wrong with the Health Service is the result of underfunding, when we have increased spending on the Health Service by 20 per cent. in cash terms in two years, is nonsensical, and I am told that it has no appeal whatever to the electors of Staffordshire.
    Mr. John Greenway: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the representatives of the Health Service unions, will he point out to them that there are more people working in the Health Service than ever before and that they are being paid more than ever before? That is a record which the Labour party never could and never will sustain.
    Mr. Clarke: The Labour party achieved that record only for some groups of staff who had a habit of going on strike to achieve a higher pay claim. The Labour party reduced in real terms pay of nurses throughout its last six years in office and penalised all those who showed the most dedication to their patients. We have a much better record than our predecessors, in terms of the number of staff employed, their remuneration and making better use of their services to the best advantage of the patients.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Secretary of State next meets the unions in the Health Service, such as the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Union of Public Employees, the National and Local Government Officers' Association and the GMB, will he accept that their views on community care are highly progressive? As a token of accepting their views, will he ensure some ring-fencing or earmarking of the limited resources that are made available for those purposes?
    Mr. Clarke: First, most of the representatives of those trade unions warmly welcome my statement of Government policy on care in the community. Their members are actively looking forward to working with us on that. Secondly, I do not believe that is a correct approach to any part of local government spending to start "ring-fencing", as the hon. Gentleman puts it, by specific grants—set sums of money for set parts of the budget. We are placing confidence in local government to discharge its full responsibilities for choosing priorities within the social service budgets, for making use of the extra funds that we shall give local authorities on quite a scale and for making its own judgment on how to make best use of community charge revenue.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the trade union representatives the excellent news that since the introduction of the waiting list money, in the past
    1000
    year the waiting list for orthopaedic operations at West Middlesex hospital has dropped from 899 to 557, which is a drop of 38 per cent., while there has also been a drop of 45 per cent. in the waiting list for ear, nose and throat operations?
    Mr. Clarke: I congratulate Hounslow and Spelthorne on what it has achieved, by a combination of the money that we have given it through the waiting list initiative, and good management, and by studying the causes of the long waiting lists in the first place, which were by no means all financial. I am told that one of its best achievements is that the number of people waiting for an operation for more than one year has dropped by 50 per cent. in the past 12 months. That is a considerable achievement by that health authority for the benefit of all its patients.

    NHS Chief Executive
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet the chief executive of the National Health Service; and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Mr. Duncan Nichol has responsibility, with his management executive colleagues, for the operation and management of the National Health Service and the delivery of the objectives set for health authorities in line with Government policies and resources. I therefore keep in constant and regular touch with Mr. Nichol over a wide range of issues and usually meet him several times a week.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Secretary of State ask Mr. Nichol to review urgently and sympathetically the capital funding problems facing Oxford region, specifically to enable it to proceed with the much-needed replacement of shockingly sub-standard mental illness wards at Littlemore hospital? Will he consider favourably the loan application that he has received for much-needed facilities for severely disturbed elderly people at Littlemore hospital? Is it not time that mental health received the capital investment that it deserves?
    Mr. Clarke: Oxford region has an excellent record of capital investment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that it is sustained. At the moment, we are having to consider the position in the light of the drop in the anticipated level of land sales, which has been helping to boost that programme, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that Duncan Nichol and myself will keep a close eye on that. I remind him that, for the first time, this year we have introduced a capital loan scheme. One of its first objects is to enable regions to make progress in building new facilities for mentally ill paitents, so that better facilities can replace the older mental hospitals without having to wait for their closure and sale first. I am sure that Oxford region is considering the possibility of making use of that.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he next meets Mr. Nichol, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask him why, when so much additional money is being allocated to the Health Service, so many cottage hospitals are closing and why, when the Health Service is selling so much land in the Macclesfield health authority area, so little goes to Macclesfield and our hospitals and facilities are consistently being closed?
    Mr. Clarke: It is the duty of Health Service managers at every level to make the most effective use of the resources at their command. Obviously, we sometimes have difficult arguments about whether a community hospital should be replaced by a facility elsewhere. I wish that, nationally and locally, people would concentrate more on the number of patients being treated and on the work being done by the Health Service, both of which have increased dramatically since we came to office. The number of in-patients being treated each year is 1·25 million greater than when we took over. That is the best measure of what is happening, both nationally and in Macclesfield.
    As to land sales, I encourage management so to arrange things that most of any money raised from sales remains at local level. In that way, local management is given the incentive in making disposals. No doubt, Duncan Nichol will have a look at the particular dispute between Macclesfield and its region, which appears to lie behind the question.

    Community Care
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of care in the community as it applies to patients with mental illness.
    Mr. Freeman: The Government have set out their proposals in the White Paper, "Caring for People". Key elements are the introduction of the care programme approach, and the specific grant to help increase the social care available for people with a mental illness, which we hope to introduce from April 1991.
    Mr. Alton: Has the Minister had a chance to consider the tragic case outlined to him in a letter from me and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), acting as trustees of the charity Crisis, which acts for homeless people? Does he agree that that case illustrates the real problem of discharging people with mental problems into the community? Does he accept that this policy can too easily become dumping in the community, which is in the interests neither of the patient nor of the community?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall be replying to the hon. Gentleman on the specific case that he and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised. The whole House will agree that in the past some patients have been dumped from mental illness hospitals. There is no question about that. That is why we are pursuing a number of initiatives, including this year a specific initiative aimed at the mentally ill homeless in central London—to be followed in 1991–92, I hope, by a wider national initiative. The situation is scandalous, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must take firm action.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Can my hon. Friend confirm that often the best and most apporopriate quality of care for mentally ill people and mentally handicapped people is provided within the community? To that end, will he promote the citizens' advocacy schemes, which have been growing up on a voluntary basis around the country, notably in my constituency, whereby mentally handicapped people are provided with a friend, advocate and mediator with outside bodies enabling them to establish themselves more easily in the community?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the whole House agrees with him that caring for people with mental illness or handicap to the maximum possible extent in the community is a humane and civilised. policy, but there are limitations. As to advocacy I agree that it has a place, particularly for the mentally handicapped and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
    Mr. Frank Field: Do the Government accept that not just a few but thousands upon thousands of patients have been dumped into the community and are literally homeless? Does the Minister accept that the measures that the Government have announced, though welcome, in no way meet the crisis faced by this group? When will the Government announce the provision of adequate resources to house those who are homeless?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. We are trying, first of all, to correct the discharge policy, and the hon. Gentleman will know of the very firm steps that we have taken.
    For instance, we have indicated that we shall not permit a mental hospital to close until we are satisfied that there is proper provision for those moving into the community. As regards those who are already in the community—the homeless with a history of mental illness—I agree that in Greater London the number is probably up to 3,000. That is why we shall bring to the House shortly concrete proposals to help to address this problem.

    Nurses (Pay and Conditions)
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made in the pay and conditions of nurses since 1978–79.
    Mr. Clarke: The pay of nursing staff has increased over and above inflation by an average of 43 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in addition to the increases in nurses' pay there are many more nurses working in the National Health Service? Does not this show clearly that Opposition claims that the Government do not care about the NHS are totally false?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have greatly increased the number of nurses, we have hugely increased their pay, we have improved their training and, through the grading system, we have given them a better career structure. This has been one of the Government's main contributions to making the National Health Service an even finer British institution than it was when we took over.
    Mr. Cousins: What action does the Secretary of State propose to take to assist the 650 nurses in Newcastle who are still waiting for their grading appeals to be heard two years after the gradings were first awarded?
    Mr. Clarke: I told the trade unions that that sort of delay was inevitable. I deeply regret the fact that they did not act on my suggestion that the appeal system should be improved when we introduced the new grading structure. The unions and I were wholly agreed on the desirability of the new grading structure. I cannot understand why they insisted on sticking to an appeal procedure which is

    1003
    incapable of sorting out all the individual grievances in a reasonable time. I should like to see a change in the structure to one that could sensibly handle the workload.
    Mr. Dickens: I have been in two hospitals in the north-west recently as a National Health Service patient. Is my right hon. and learned Friend pleased to hear that the nursing profession in our hospitals is in extremely good shape, that morale is high and that the nurses are working as hard as ever and are worth every penny?
    Mr. Clarke: I trust that my hon. Friend is in good shape as well. He appears to be in extremely good shape. I am grateful to him for his supplementary question. Nine out of 10 patients have nothing but admiration for the clinical and nursing standards achieved by the NHS. Our reforms and the additional money that we are pouring into the NHS are intended to give more power to the elbow of all those doctors and nurses who contribute so much to all those, including my hon. Friend, who need their help.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State recall that the parliamentary answer to a question that I tabled showed that for eight years under the Government the number of nurses has increased by 9 per cent. compared with 14 per cent. in five years under the Labour Government? Do not those figures show which party is really committed to the Health Service? Do not they confirm that under the present Government the annual rate of increase in the number of nurses has fallen to a third of the level achieved under Labour, and to only one seventh after the reduction in nurses' hours? Do not those figures show clearly why so many hospitals now cannot cope?
    Mr. Clarke: Between 1974 and 1979, the take-home pay of nurses fell by 21 per cent. in real terms. The Government have introduced an independent review body to advise us on nurses' pay and we have given them a 9 per cent. award this year. We have reduced their working week, improved their training and raised their pay on average by 43 per cent. in real terms. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to make such pathetic claims in respect of the Labour Government's record which was a shameful one in relation to the nursing profession.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the figures that he has given show clearly that the Labour party is the party of cheap labour? It increased the number of nurses but reduced their pay whereas we have increased their pay and improved quality. The Royal College of Nursing recognises that.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have increased the number of nurses in the NHS, and it is plain that we shall continue to do so. By comparing records—[Interruption.]—the public should be able to make a judgment about the real concern and commitment shown by the Conservative party to the Health Service compared with that of our opponents—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. Too much private conversation is taking place.

    Hospices
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on funding for the hospice movement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We have now issued guidelines to health authorities on the distribution of the additional £8 million that we have allocated for 1990–91 to enable them to contribute more to the voluntary hospice movement. These measures underline our commitment to the hospice movement. We very much value the standard of care that it has developed and the comfort that it has brought to the dying and their families.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for her reply. Given that 60 per cent. of all terminally ill patients are still treated in NHS general wards, that there is clearly a growing demand for hospice care and that some hospices are finding difficulty meeting their obligations, will the hon. Lady undertake to keep the situation closely under review and to increase the allocation of funds if the need arises, as many hospice organisations are saying that it will?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There is a great deal of work within the National Health Service providing care for the terminally ill and the dying. Our contribution was intended particularly to give assistance to the voluntary hospice movement, which has done excellent and pioneering work in providing comfort and dignity for the dying. Certainly we hope to move towards a fairer partnership between the public support for the dying and the voluntary hospice movement.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some 36 new hospices are now being planned by the NHS and the voluntary sector, including one in my constituency on a site provided by the local health authority? Is not that a welcome sign of the improving co-ordination between the NHS and the voluntary sector?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is very important that the NHS and the voluntary sector plan together. That is why the £8 million is being distributed through the health authorities, to encourage better planning and the provision of dignity and proper care for the terminally ill.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Why is the matched giving for hospitals in Scotland, pound for pound of charitable funding, not available elsewhere? When will it be available in England and Wales? Is the Minister aware that more hospices could then give more help to more people at home for whom there is no residential accommodation available and that more could be done to help bereaved families, not least bereaved children?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I fully endorse the points made by the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the hospice movement, for the bereaved family and children as much as for the patients themselves. I am pleased to have been able to announce the 70 per cent. increase in public funds for hospices this year and we have made it clear that we hope that health authorities will move towards an equal partnership with the voluntary hospice movement.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that 36 new hospices are planned in the coming year in the public and the voluntary sector and that one of them is in my constituency? Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the people of Bury on raising all the money to build and equip this excellent facility?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituents most warmly on raising the money for that voluntary hospice. It is a magnificent example of what can be achieved for the terminally ill and the dying.

    Dental Checks
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now review his policy of charging for dental checks.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The number of dental examinations has gone up gradually in recent years. We expect this long-term trend to continue. There was a slight dip in the figures for late 1989. More people than usual sought examinations just before the charge was introduced.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that the number of dental treatment courses taken by patients over 18 and liable to charges fell by 10 per cent. between the first and third quarters of last year? Does she accept that the charges are damaging dental care and should be withdrawn?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I accept no such thing. The examination charge is £3·45 and it is right that people should make that contribution. When the Labour party was in power there were far fewer examinations. Now there are four examinations for every three that took place then.

    Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the patients affected by an excessive dose of radiotherapy at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital in 1988 have now received final compensation, interim compensation or no compensation to date.
    Mr. Freeman: I understand that the position on 12 March 1990 was that, of the 104 claims received so far, 11 have received full and final settlement of both pain, suffering and amenity and special claims, 57 claimants have received partial settlement, and 36 claimants have received no compensation as yet.
    Mr. Speller: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is two years since those people were damaged through the actions of our National Health Service? Will he accept that the pain, suffering and stress are far more than physical pain and suffering and will he do all that he possibly can on behalf of, for example, the only three of my eight constituents damaged who are still surviving, so as to get this unfortunate affair settled quickly, even if it is costly?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend, who, in a recent Adjournment debate, stood up most valiantly for his constituents. I will be in touch with the district health authority and. I will do as my hon. Friend requests.

    West Midlands RHA
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently employed by the West Midlands regional health authority.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The latest information is that 5,094 people were employed by the West Midlands regional health authority on 30 September 1988.
    Mr. Gill: Is not that rather too many? Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Shropshire people demonstrate the finest of British traits and would welcome greater economy and independence?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I fully recognise my hon. Friend's point. Good administration is necessary within the NHS, but we are seeking to devolve as many decisions as possible. That is the intent of our reforms to improve and enhance the NHS.

    NHS Allocations
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allowance for inflation has been made in allocations for 1990–91.
    Mr. Freeman: Health authority allocations contain no specific provision for inflation. Authorities receive an overall cash allocation and are expected to manage their expenditure within that amount, together with resources released by cost improvement programmes and any additional funding—for example, towards the costs of review body pay awards. The 1990–91 allocations to regional health authorities represent an average cash increase of 9·6 per cent. over the previous year.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bearing in mind the figures on inflation released by the Treasury, does my hon. Friend accept that it is difficult to believe that no allowance is made for inflation within such large sums? Indeed, we are talking about £24 billion to £28 billion. Although the sums that we give to the Health Service are large, does my hon. Friend agree that as only 3·8 per cent. was, I understand, allowed for the rate of inflation last year, another 4 per cent.—£800 million—would make a hugh difference to the hard-pressed West Midlands health authority and, indeed, every other health authority? Does my hon. Friend agree that inflation is of huge importance to the National Health Service?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right, and the whole House awaits my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget with great anticipation because keeping down inflation will help the Health Service most.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 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 be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the basic unfairness of the poll tax means that thousands of people in north-east Lancashire, and millions throughout the country, will not simply be not paying, but will be unable to pay? Because of high inflation and the

    1007
    Government's policy of forcing up mortgages and council house rents, the position will become worse. When will the right hon. Lady do something to help those who cannot afford to pay their poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman comes from Lancashire, where the county has set a very high community charge—indeed, far higher than the amount considered reasonable by the Government. That is being passed on to all the districts. Burnley has received £101 in safety net, so it is better off than many other areas. The taxpayer will be paying about £3 billion towards the community charge rebate and also towards transitional relief. That is an excellent amount to help those who cannot afford to pay and to help those who face a sudden increase to obtain transitional relief.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health said both today and last week that every patient would have whatever medicine he or she might need? Is she further aware that that statement is enormously welcome? However, while clause 18 on indicative budgets remains in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, there will always be a worry that an element will be cash limited by some future Secretary of State.
    The Prime Minister: I note the inherent contradiction between my hon. Friend's first sentence and his second. An indicative budget is not a rigid budget, and it is precisely for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend has stressed that doctors will receive the amount of money necessary to prescribe what they think is best for their patients.
    Mr. Kinnock: What reward does the Prime Minister have in mind for the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) who, hearing of the decision of councillors in Humberside to resign the Conservative Whip, said, "Well done them!"?
    The Prime Minister: I would rather address my comments to the change in Beverley. Beverley is unfortunately in a Socialist county—[Interruption.] It has the great misfortune—[interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: Beverley is in Humberside, which has a community charge of £83 a head over what the Government consider reasonable. They are prepared to inflict that amount on all their constituents. Beverley neither contributes to nor receives a safety net. All the other districts in Humberside receive a safety net, but Beverley does not. Beverley therefore has very good reason to be dissatisfied with Socialist Humberside.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady does not listen to anyone. If she did, she might have heard her fellow Conservative, Councillor Steve Parnaby, chairman of the finance committee of Beverley council, say that the poll tax had nothing at all to do with Labour councils. In his words the poll tax is "not right" and "not fair" and the Government
    "has got it [completely] wrong."
    Is not that absolutely true everywhere?
    The Prime Minister: People in Humberside and many other Socialist or Labour authorities are paying far more because they live in a Labour authority than they would if
    1008
    they lived in a Conservative one. For example, in Conservative Barnet the community charge is £338 compared with next-door Labour Haringey's £573, Conservative Kingswood's £395 community charge is compared with next-door Bristol's £490 and Conservative Westminster's £195 compared with next-door Labour Camden's £534. The lesson is that it always costs more to live in a Labour authority.
    Mr. Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome today for the news that additional help in the form of a 30 per cent. increase in allowance will be provided for disabled students in higher education and that new allowances will be made available for their particular needs for care, personal support and equipment? Is that not further evidence that Conservative Governments can always be relied on to help most those in most need?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and this adds to the excellent record of the Government with regard to disabled people. We have spent nearly double the amount over and above inflation upon those who are disabled. It is a very good example of how we may not talk so much about welfare but we do a great deal more about it.

    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister when she next proposes to visit Newcastle upon Tyne.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Cousins: When the Prime Minister next makes it up to our fine and well-run city, what hope does she expect to bring for Gemma Hayley of Blakelaw who has waited three years for a liver transplant, who cannot get it done in her own city, because, although the doctors there are trained, no money has been allocated for them to use their skills, and who has to go backwards and forwards to Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge, and who finds budgets and figures very hard to understand because she is only six years old?
    The Prime Minister: As I know well, and I expect the hon. Gentleman also knows well, that particular hospital in Cambridge is the very best, specialising in liver transplants. I do not think that anyone would complain about going there—it is a quite magnificent hospital.
    Mr. Trotter: When my right hon. Friend next visits Tyneside, will she see for herself the visible signs of progress and the success story of the regeneration of our area? Will she accept that there is a new spirit of confidence in the north-east, which is better placed to face the challenge of the future than it ever has been in the past?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. About a year ago I went up to Tyneside and saw the excellent amount of development that is taking place there and the much better employment position. It has a very good future. Swan Hunter has a good order for frigates, and there are many other things in the pipeline that will bring new prosperity to Newcastle—greater even than it is enjoying now.

    Engagements
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Douglas: Has the right hon. Lady had any time today to examine her conscience? I take it that she has responsibility for that. If she has done so, will she compare and contrast the position before the law of the Fayeds, who were able to lie and cheat to acquire substantial assets, with that of the poorer sections of the population in my constituency and other areas who, if they cannot afford to pay the poll tax—and many cannot—will be visited by state-sponsored violence in the form of poinding and warrant sales? How does that square with the right hon. Lady's conscience?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that if people cannot afford to pay the poll tax they will receive a community charge rebate, and an additional 20 per cent. if they are on income support, to enable them to pay the rest. That is being paid for in full by the taxpayer because many Labour authorities have overspent. The overspending by local authorities is in the order of £3 billion, and the taxpayer will be paying an extra £700 million towards community charge rebate to ensure that people do not suffer from the extravagances of Labour authorities.
    Mr. Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to know that tomorrow morning, when the people of Middlesbrough receive their community charge bill, no fewer than 24,660 of them will be in receipt of transitional relief—an average of £48 per household—at a cost of £1·2 million to the Exchequer? That type of relief is available in many parts of the country where there are low-rated houses. It is automatic and not means-tested.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are two types of relief—the community charge rebate, which is means tested, and the transitional relief, which is not means tested. I understand that most of the bills that have gone out so far have included the amount of rebate that the community charge payer will receive, and also the transitional relief. That has enabled them not to be worried about a charge that otherwise might have caused them some concern.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: With Estonia about to follow Lithuania in demanding the right to self-determination, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to emphasise to President Landsbergis and to President Gorbachev our country's commitment to the Baltic peoples' right to self-determination in the face of sabre-rattling and intimidation? Will she commend the people of the Baltic states for their courage and resolve?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have never recognised the legal annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We recognise especially that Lithuania has expressed the wish to determine her own future. We hope that the position will be satisfactorily resolved between those who express that wish and President Gorbachev—so that the people of Lithuania may have their wish.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the community charge, or service charge as it is known in Welwyn Hatfield, is a bargain, as only 25 per cent. is paid by each individual towards its cost? Is not a 75 per cent. discount a bargain?
    The Prime Minister: Where local authorities are spending to the amount that the Government consider to be reasonable, their community charges are usually reasonable. If people cannot afford to pay, they will get rebates. The community charge has brought relief to many people who live alone, who were paying high rates and who now, for the first time, have fairness and justice in paying only one community charge, which is often a good deal lower than the amount of rates that they would otherwise pay—[Interruption.]—as is clear from many letters in The Times in recent months on this subject.
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government have suffered yet another opinion poll setback in Scotland, this time from a BBC pre-Budget survey of Scotland's top 200 companies showing that only a quarter of them believe that the Government are sympathetic to Scottish interests? Is the right hon. Lady aware that that means that Scotland's top companies have joined the rest of the community in concluding that the Government's economic policy in general and the Budget this afternoon in particular will be dictated by economic conditions in the south of England without reference to the needs of the rest of the country?
    The Prime Minister: This Government, like our Conservative predecessors, have looked after the needs of Scotland particularly well. We are well aware of the pride of Scotland and how much the Scottish people consider everything Scottish, and therefore we have given them far more per head in expenditure than has been given to England and Wales.
    I looked at recent polls on the economy. A recent one in The Independent made it clear that twice as many voters would expect the economy to be weaker under Labour, that twice as many people would expect taxes to go up under Labour, and that twice as many people would expect prices to rise faster under Labour. That was a very good write-up for Conservative Government.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that, at the end of the Chancellor's speech, copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
  3.31 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): The Government's economic policy has two main objectives. The first is to bring inflation down again. Until that happens, we cannot reduce interest rates and keep them down. The second is to enable this country to take the opportunities of the 1990s. In western Europe, the single market is nearly on us. And the whole of eastern Europe, where there is great good will for Britain, has opened up in a most dramatic way. We need to make sure that British business can take advantage of these changes.
  These two objectives are closely related. Unless we succeed in the first, we are unlikely to do so in the second. Therefore this Budget will take no risks with inflation. It will maintain a strong fiscal surplus. It will, above all. be a budget for savers. It will provide a range of incentives to save and a novel incentive to give. It will bring the introduction of independent taxation for married women. It will introduce important new measures for business and keep up the pace of supply side reform. It will remove an old grievance from the tax system and make the social security system fairer, and it will abolish two taxes.
  In framing the Budget, I have had the great advantage of the fiscal reforms of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). He has left the public finances stronger than at any time in living memory and he was also the architect of as comprehensive a tax reform as any other Chancellor this century. That will be an enduring record.
  I will come to the detailed measures later. First, I wish to review the performance of the economy in 1989 and look at the prospects for 1990; I will then deal with monetary policy and public sector finances. As usual, the Red Book, together with a number of press releases filling out the details of the Budget measures, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down.

  Budget Statement

    ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND PROSPECTS
    First, the economic background. The year 1989 saw continued buoyant growth in world trade despite some slowdown in the main economies, particularly in the United States. However, increased inflation and fears of overheating in continental Europe led to higher short-term interest rates in most major economies during the year. More recently, we have seen a rise in long-term interest rates—particularly in Germany, where uncertainty about the effects of unification has been an additional factor.
    This general tightening of monetary policy is likely to mean lower growth in 1990 than last year and, in due course, a fall in inflation. We are likely, therefore, also to see slower growth in world trade in the current year, although the astonishing developments in eastern Europe improve the longer-term prospects.
    High interest rates also reflect very strong investment growth over the last two years in all the major industrialised economies. This rise in investment is to be welcomed—and indeed may be intensified by the emerging investment opportunities in eastern Europe—but it also emphasises the need for a healthy level of savings to finance it.
    The need for higher saving is greatest in the United States and the United Kingdom, where the shortfall is reflected in current account deficits, whereas in Japan and Germany domestic savings have remained more than sufficient to finance their own investment. In the medium term, the United Kingdom's savings and investment need to come closer into line and we must ensure this occurs through a rise in savings rather than a fall in investment.
    During the last year, business confidence in Britain has remained a good deal stronger than many expected. New businesses have outnumbered closures, by around 1,500 every week; a larger figure than we expected and a record never before approached. Employment has continued to rise, and unemployment to fall. Almost 27 million men and women are in work today—a larger number than ever before and 1·5 million more than at the beginning of the 1980s. Business investment has risen by a further 9 per cent. in the last year, making a total rise of 40 per cent. over three years and taking it to its highest level ever, and a great part of this investment has been financed from rising company profits. In the last few years, profitability has recovered to the levels of 20 years ago.
    As companies have become profitable, they have been investing in more than just plant and machinery. Their spending on research and development has also risen in real terms by almost 50 per cent. in the five years to 1988. They now spend over £5,000 million a year on research and development, nearly all of which is allowable against tax. Similarly, in the five years up to 1989, the numbers of employees receiving training has increased by over 70 per cent.
    These are all favourable developments which reflect well on businesses' preparation for the future, but recently, they have been accompanied by the return of inflationary pressures. That, beyond any doubt, is the most urgent problem before us today. To a degree, it is a problem common to all nations. Since its low point in 1986 and 1987, inflation has risen significantly throughout the Group of Seven—the leading economies of the western world—but our affliction has been sharper. There are a number of reasons for this—some welcome and some not. The record rise in business investment is obviously welcome; but it has been accompanied by a rapid growth in borrowing and in consumer spending. Thus, investment has been rising but the savings to finance it have not. This has led to excessive growth in domestic demand, a revival of inflationary pressures and a current account deficit, a good deal of which itself represents suppressed inflation.
    Policy was therefore tightened, and interest rates have now been in double figures for 20 months. This tight monetary policy has been backed by large Budget surpluses throughout the last three years. So monetary and fiscal policy have acted together.
    Squeezing out inflation is always difficult, but there is now clear evidence that demand is slowing down. High street sales are now only 2 per cent. up on a year ago. The housing market has cooled off noticeably. New car and

    1013
    vehicle registrations are down, and import growth has been sharply reduced. As demand has fallen back, so has output growth, to just over 2 per cent. in 1989.
    No one likes to see the economy slow, but it is inevitable if we are to push inflation downwards. I now expect the economy to grow by only 1 per cent. this year, compared with the above-trend growth of 4·5 per cent. in 1987 and 1988. The size of this slowdown shows the extent of the downward pressure on inflation. But growth should return in 1991 towards its sustainable rate of around 2·75 per cent.
    I am confident that the period of low growth will be short-lived—not least because of the permanent improvements in in the underlying economy in the 1980s. For example, investment has grown more than twice as fast as consumption over the last eight years. As this additional capacity comes fully into use, inflationary pressures will lessen and more growth will resume. No one need have any doubt about that.
    Last year also saw a record level of foreign direct investment into Britain. Overseas investors see the potential for investment in this country in the 1990s. These investments are particularly welcome as they are in industrial sectors like cars and electronic goods, where a high proportion of the output is traded. For example, Britain already runs a trade surplus in colour television sets, and by the mid-1990s there will be a dramatic improvement in the trade balance on cars.
    Increased investment will enable British industry both to meet domestic demand and to respond to export opportunities. Indeed, that is already beginning to happen. The current account deficit for 1989 as a whole was over the £20 billion I forecast at the time of the autumn statement, but the deficit in the last three months was substantially lower than in the previous quarter and, in particular, the manufacturing deficit is now improving. Exports have been growing faster than imports since the early autumn.
    The reason for this improvement is twofold. In recent years, rapidly expanding domestic demand sucked in imports to meet a market that fast-growing manufacturing output simply could not satisfy. Moreover, that same demand absorbed British goods that would otherwise have been exported. This pattern is now reversing.
    Exports are now growing rapidly, regaining the share of world markets they lost in 1988. Last year, the volume of exports of manufactures grew by 11·5 per cent.—the highest recorded rate for nearly 20 years. So British industry is responding extremely well to export opportunities. The fact that it is doing so clearly shows that the present trade deficit is not caused by poor industrial competitiveness. It is caused by excess demand, and as that is reduced, the current account deficit will fall—initially to £15 billion in 1990 and further thereafter.
    But we cannot afford to relax policy, notwithstanding the prospect of lower growth. The buoyancy of past demand means that inflation has been far more stubborn than anyone expected. A significant fall is still some months away, and a number of factors will mean that the position will worsen noticeably before it improves. That will be reflected in the retail price index during the next few months.
    The largest single factor is the increase of some £5,000 million in local authority revenue spending next year. This is mainly responsible for the expected growth of more than 30 per cent. in average community charges compared with
    1014
    domestic rates. This will add more than 1 per cent. to the retail price index next month. Similarly, the further rise in mortgage rates last month will also increase the retail price index.
    As a result, I now expect that retail price index inflation may still be a little over 7 per cent. by the fourth quarter of this year, compared to the 5·75 per cent. I had previously expected. Beyond that, as the effects of these one-off increases drop out and the lagged effect of monetary tightening builds up, I expect inflation to fall below 5 per cent. during 1991.
    To summarise, the economy—both consumption arid investment—has been very resilient in recent years. Adjustment so far has been gradual, but this is not necessarily a good guide to the future. The gradual adjustment may continue, but equally, the downturn may become quite sharp. It is against that uncertaiin background that I must set monetary and fiscal policy, to which I now turn.

    MONETARY POLICY
    I want to deal with monetary policy and interest rates first, for two reasons: because they are of great concern in the House and in the country, and because, as always, they provide the key to progress on inflation. I repeat, my first priority is to prevent inflation from entrenching itself, for inflation is immensely damaging socially as well as economically. It damages business by undermining planning and investment and it foments industrial strife—and, socially, it penalises the weakest most.
    I know that high interest rates are unpopular. They are generally most unpopular as they become most effective. They discourage spending and borrowing. They act directly on the things we have to control if we are to get inflation down. Interest rates are also the most flexible way of responding to what can be a rapidly changing situation. They can be raised quickly when necessary, and they can be reduced just as quickly when it is safe to do so.
    In recent months, I have looked carefully to see whether there is any effective alternative to interest rates. I have done so because I am very conscious of the burden they place on business and on individuals purchasing their own homes.
    I know that many people favour direct controls on lending, hire purchase and consumer credit. I understand that. In particular, I understand the distaste many people feel for the widespread marketing of credit that is so evident today and that is characterised by indiscriminate mail shots encouraging people to borrow. I believe that the financial institutions would be wise to reconsider their policy, and I hope that the subject will be covered in the code of practice the banks and building societies are currently preparing following the Jack report.
    However, having looked at the matter, I have concluded that it is extremely unlikely that credit controls would work in the modern world in anything other than the very short term. They were becoming less and less effective even before exchange controls were abolished over 10 years ago. Their main impact now would be to replace domestic borrowing with overseas borrowing. These days it would, for example, be a simple matter for any high street bank to arrange its lending through an overseas branch.
    That, of course, applies to other countries too, and it is for that reason that Governments of all persuasions

    1015
    throughout the western world are abolishing credit controls and are relying on interest rates to control money, and thus inflation. The same is true of those countries in eastern Europe which are seeking to adapt to the market system.
    In recent years, financial markets have become more open to competition, and their behaviour has changed enormously. As a result, monetary conditions have become more difficult to judge. This is one of the problems of financial deregulation, but one that must be set against the benefits that it has brought.
    Therefore although monetary policy remains the key to controlling inflation, it is not realistic to suppose that we can take decisions solely by reference to the way any one particular measure of money is growing. In a more sophisticated world, we must apply judgment and take into account the other evidence about monetary conditions that may be available.
    In recent weeks, I have looked afresh at the role of monetary targets. Having done so, I am clear that it is sensible to retain a target for narrow money, and that this is best measured by the familiar aggregate M0. Since this is essentially notes and coin, it clearly is not a comprehensive measure of money in all its uses, but it does have value as an indicator of transactions and has been a reliable guide for many years. For next year, I have set the target range at 1 to 5 per cent. Although the growth of M0 has fallen from its earlier peaks, it is likely to start the year above the range, and it may be some months before it falls within it.
    In this re-examination of policy, I have also looked closely at the case for reintroducing a target for broad money. I can understand why some favour this. At times, broad money has given a useful indication of the build up of inflationary pressure. The difficulty is that its message has always varied in quality: its growth can represent money that is about to be spent, or money that is very definitely being saved: savings which I wish to encourage, as will become apparent later this afternoon. Although we will monitor M4 carefully, and give it weight in our decisions, I do not intend to set a target for the year ahead.
    I have also reviewed whether there should be any changes in the Government's funding policy. The objectives must be to manage public debt in a way that supports monetary policy in bearing down on inflation, without distorting financial markets. I have concluded that, in general, policy should continue to be guided by the funding rule followed in recent years, with the public sector avoiding sustained under or overfunding.
    However, I am also clear that, in practice, the rule cannot and should not be operated rigidly. In particular, in recent years there has been an increase in the size of the Treasury bill issue, largely as a result of a change in the financial position of local authorities. I therefore announced to the House on 15 February a range of measures intended to limit local authority borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board. This change should, in due course, allow a reduction in the Treasury bill issue, but in the meantime, the Government will adjust their funding operations if necessary, increasing gilt sales or reducing gilt purchases, to take account of the overall situation in the money market.
    Progress on reducing inflation is also a vital precondition of our commitment to take sterling into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. Our commitment to do so was set out at Madrid.
    1016
    It remains firm, and the conditions for entry remain unchanged. When we join the exchange rate mechanism, it will provide a new framework for interest rate decisions, but even then, no one should suppose it will bring a dispensation from the need for strong domestic monetary control—indeed, quite the reverse. Commitment to the one will reinforce the commitment to the other.
    To sum up, interest rate decisions will continue to be made on the basis of the growth of monetary aggregates, and a range of other evidence, most notably the exchange rate. This matters because it provides important information about domestic monetary conditions—quite apart from having an effect on prices. Therefore, I favour a strong exchange rate. However there is, as I have made clear, no single lodestar to guide us in monetary policy. Life would be simpler if there were, but it simply does not exist, so judgment is unavoidable.
    My judgment is that interest rates will stay high for some time to come. The moment I judge I can safely lower them, I shall, but to reduce them prematurely only to increase them again would be extremely damaging. When I bring them down, it will be because I believe that they are likely to stay down.
    In chapter 2 of this year's Red Book, I have provided a much longer and more comprehensive account than usual of how monetary policy, including funding policy, is to be operated over the years ahead. I hope that this will be helpful to the House and, in particular, to members of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service when they come to examine the Budget documents in detail.

    FISCAL POLICY
    Although monetary policy must play the main role in tackling inflation, a tight fiscal policy is also essential. It cannot do the work of monetary policy, but it can and must support it. The dramatic improvement in the state of public finances over the past 10 years under the stewardship of my right hon. Friends is an achievement of which they can be rightly proud. For decades, successive Governments had spent more than they were prepared to raise honestly from taxation and they made up the shortfall by borrowing. They left that bill to be picked up by future generations. Over decades, it mounted to very considerable levels. Today, just paying the gross interest on the accumulated debt accounts for 10p on the basic rate of income tax.
    Over the past 10 years, we have reversed that trend and in the past three, we have repaid around £25 billion, reducing the burden of Government debt to levels that we have not seen since before the first world war. The rewards of this repayment will be felt by future generations, but they bring also an immediate benefit. As a result of the debt repayments, we are saving over £2,500 million a year in debt interest. That is sufficient to meet the annual cost of around 150 district general hospitals.
    The very large Budget surplus in 1988–89 owed much to cyclical factors. In the current year, as I told the House some months ago, we expect the surplus to fall back. The position, as usual, will remain uncertain until the year is complete, but our best estimate is that the debt repayment this year will be around £7 billion.
    The fall in the surplus owes less to the slowdown in growth than to a number of special factors. We have seen a fall in privatisation proceeds from the very high level

    1017
    achieved in 1988–89. There has also been a sharp and unwelcome increase in local authority spending. This has been particularly marked in their capital spending, as local authorities have sought to forestall the new controls which will take effect in April. As a result, we now expect the public expenditure planning total this year to be overshot by £2·25 billion. Central Government expenditure remains well under control.
    Another, but much more welcome, factor reducing the surplus has been the higher national insurance rebates which have resulted from the huge success of personal pensions. This extension of choice is a considerable tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Over 3·5 million people have now taken out personal pensions. As well as benefiting the individuals concerned, in the long term this will reduce public spending, but it also reduces national insurance receipts, by £2·5 billion this year.
    Next year, some of these factors will be partially reversed, but we will see the effect of slower growth on the debt repayment. In particular, corporation tax receipts are likely to fall a little after six years of rapid growth, not least because of the higher investment of recent years which can be offset against tax. These allowances will be worth more than £10 billion to companies next year, as opposed to £9 billion this year.
    It is against the medium-term fiscal prospect that I have framed the Budget judgment, for fiscal policy is not, in my view, a flexible instrument which should be altered to meet short-term contingencies. Fine-tuning fiscal policy is not only disruptive to the public sector, to business, and to taxpayers, but its effects on the economy are uncertain and often destabilising.
    Accordingly, I am budgeting next year for a further public sector debt repayment of £7 billion—the same as this year. Looking further ahead, I expect our fiscal position to move towards the medium-term objective of a balanced Budget—an objective that I reaffirm today.
    The overall effect of the Budget measures that I shall announce today will be to maintain a tight fiscal policy by modestly increasing the yield from taxation by about £500 million next year and just under £1 billion in 1991.

    BUSINESS TAXATION
    I now come to the detailed measures in this year's Budget, and I shall begin with the taxation of business. Everyone in this country benefits from the success of British enterprise. Tax reform cannot create success, but it can help and encourage it. Within the tight fiscal position that I judge necessary, I am able to make some changes that should help small and medium-sized companies.
    Cash flow is particularly important to new and growing companies of this size. I have two measures that should help to improve it.
    At present, traders pay value added tax on all their sales, even if their customers do not actually pay the bill. They can claim VAT relief for a bad debt only when the debtor has been declared formally insolvent. As a result, the trader, who has dealt in good faith, can be out of pocket, in some cases for years, and often for large sums.
    This has long been resented by businesses and the time has come to deal with it. I therefore propose that, from April next year, all debts that are over two years old and
    1018
    written off in the trader's accounts will qualify automatically for relief from value added tax. This will be worth about £150 million to business next year.
    I also propose to help smaller companies by simplifying the rules for traders registering for value added tax. At present, whether or not a trader has to register depends on quarterly and annual turnover thresholds. One only has to say that to realise how difficult it is. Businesses also have to peer into the future to see whether these limits might possibly be exceeded within the next year.
    That complication is unnecessary, so, as from today, I propose a simple rule for VAT registration. This will be based on actual turnover in the preceding 12 months and not unknown turnover in the distant future. It will bring certainty and simplicity in place of uncertainty and complexity. It has a second benefit for businesses: because they will, in general, register later than they otherwise would have done, it will save them £35 million in 1990–91 and £75 million the year after.
    I have two further value added tax changes. First, I propose to increase the VAT threshold to £25,400, a modest sum, but the maximum permitted under European Community law.
    The second change will affect companies that provide accommodation for their own directors. As things stancl, the company can reclaim the VAT that they pay on this—for something that is more a fringe benefit than a legitimate business cost. Frankly, I do not believe that this generous treatment is justified. I therefore propose that VAT paid on directors' accommodation should no longer be deductible. This will take effect from Royal Assent.
    I also have some changes to corporation tax. While the main rate of corporation tax will remain at 35 per cent., I propose to reduce the burden of tax for smaller companies.
    At present, companies with profits below £150,000 pay a reduced rate of corporation tax of 25 per cent. I propose to raise this ceiling by one third, to £200,000. This amounts to a doubling in two years of the profits level for the reduced rate. This will be of special benefit to smaller growing companies.
    For companies with profits above this limit, the average rate of tax gradually rises until their profits reach the upper profits limit of £750,000 a year. I propose to raise this limit, again by a third, to £1 million. This means that no single company will be liable for the full rate of corporation tax until its profits reach £1 million a year. These changes will mean that we will have the most favourable structure of corporation tax for small companies anywhere in the European Community.
    I also have a specific tax change to help training. One of the most welcome features of the last few years has been the massive sums of money being invested in training throughout the economy by employers in both public and private sectors, large firms and small. Our estimate is that in total this amounts to £20 billion a year.
    In addition, the Government are spending £2·5 billion a year on training programmes; and the value of tax relief on companies' spending must be at least as much again.
    In future, over £2 billion of our public expenditure on training will be spent through training and enterprise councils, or TECs as they are known, most of which will be coming into operation over the next year. I have no doubt that TECs will do much to improve training in skills and that we shall see the benefits of this in future. They

    1019
    give employers a genuine opportunity to determine their own needs and will provide generous cash help to meet them.
    The Government have already promised to match local business donations to TECs pound for pound within certain limits. I now propose to encourage business to maximise the money they put into training by providing tax relief on business donations to TECs for five years until April 1995. I propose to extend the same concession to local enterprise agencies until the same date.
    My next announcement has implications for one in four of the adult population, for that is the number of people—nearly 11 million—who now own shares in the United Kingdom. That remarkable figure—a new record—is published today in the annual stock exchange survey of share ownership.
    Over the next few months, the stock exchange will be taking crucial decisions on its plans for a new share-dealing system, affectionately known as TAURUS. This will cut costs, eliminate paper forms, and provide a modern computerised system for transferring shares. Decisions on the design of the new systems for TAURUS will have to be taken shortly. We need, therefore, to decide what stamp duty regime to apply to paperless transactions.
    As we approach 1992, we can expect even sharper international competition in financial services, much of it from other European centres. Competitive and practical arguments point in the same direction. I have therefore decided to abolish stamp duty on securities late in 1991–92 to coincide as closely as I can manage with the introduction of paperless trading. Stamp duty reserve tax will also be abolished at the same time.
    Both the abolition of the tax and the introduction of a more modern dealing system will help to secure the United Kingdom's position as a leading financial centre in an increasingly competitive world market. They will also reduce transaction costs and permit higher returns for 11 million holders of occupational pension schemes, over 3·5 million personal pension holders, and the many millions of people who hold life assurance policies or unit trusts. It will also be of considerable benefit to small shareholders.
    The assumption in the Red Book is that abolition will be at the end of 1991, at a revenue cost of £120 million in 1991–92. This date will be subject to confirmation later, when I have fuller information about the progress of TAURUS. However, although there is some flexibility about the timing, there is no doubt whatsoever about the decision to abolish stamp duty on shares. I have made the announcement now for two reasons: to remove uncertainty, and to make it clear that there is no need to plan for stamp duty within TAURUS. I should add, for the avoidance of doubt, that stamp duty on land and property will be unaffected by this measure.
    The Finance Bill will also include a number of measures on life assurance, announced by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last December. These measures, which flow from the changes in the Finance Act 1989, followed extensive consultation with the industry. They put the taxation of life assurance companies' unit trust holdings on a sounder footing, and make a number of technical improvements. They will yield £50 million in 1990–91. A further measure will be introduced to ring-fence long-term business assets. Without this measure, there could be a significant loss of tax.
    I also have a measure to announce that will clarify the tax regime for banks. Tax relief is rightly available to
    1020
    banks, as it is to other lenders, for bad and doubtful debts, but this has given rise to two problems. First, in recent years, the banks have increased very substantially the amounts written off for their lending to Third-world countries. That has been widely welcomed, but sudden increases do have an adverse impact on the public finances. Over time, the tax cost of the 1989 increases could come to an amount going on for £1 billion.
    Secondly, although the principle is clear, it is less clear how to implement it in practice. That is because the relief available depends on the extent to which the debts are estimated to be irrecoverable—and that is often far from clear-cut. This difficulty is magnified when the debts in question are those of sovereign nations rather than of individuals or firms.
    This is an extremely unsatisfactory position for the banks, for the Inland Revenue, and for the taxpayer. I have therefore decided to resolve it and to remove the uncertainties in the present law. Banks will continue to be able to offset their losses on sovereign loans fully against tax, but under a clearer mechanism than previously, which will be broadly based on the Bank of England's present guidelines. There will be a limit on future increases in the cost of this tax relief between years.
    For the 12 months starting today, banks' tax relief on such provisions will be limited to the same high proportion of debts as this mechanism indicates for 1989. Thereafter, the ceiling will be increased in steps of 5 per cent. a year, so that the banks will, in time, get all the tax relief to which they are entitled. If the banks sell their debt to a third party and crystallise their losses, their tax relief on them will be similarly phased, but where the debt is sold back to the foreign state, to reduce its debt once and for all, tax relief on that loss will be available in full and immediately. This measure will produce a yield of around £200 million in 1991–92, compared with what might have been expected if I had taken no action.

    TAXES ON SPENDING
    I turn now to taxes on spending. Given the need to keep a tight fiscal position, I have decided that the excise duties, taken as a whole, must rise broadly in line with inflation. Within that overall constraint, however, I have some modest adjustments to make.
    First, for vehicle excise duty, I propose a number of changes to remove anomalies in the taxation of different types of lorries. These changes will also dramatically reduce the present vast number of different VED rates. Last year's Budget removed 80 different VED rates, and I propose to eliminate a further 188 today. This will greatly simplify the system.
    Vehicle excise duty on cars—the tax disc—will be unchanged once again this year at £100. Nor will there be any change in VED for public or private sector buses, coaches, taxis and many lorries.
    I will recoup the cost of this by increasing petrol and DERV duties by rather more than strict revalorisation would justify. These will rise by 10 per cent. This will add 9p to a gallon of DERV and almost 11 p to a gallon of leaded petrol. For unleaded petrol, the cash increase will be smaller, at around 9p per gallon. This will widen the tax differential even further in favour of unleaded petrol. This will now amount to almost 16p a gallon. The market share

    1021
    of unleaded petrol has increased fivefold, to 30 per cent. since the changes in the last Budget. I hope and expect to see it increase even further.
    For alcohol, with one exception, I propose to raise the duties in line with inflation. This will put 7p on a bottle of table wine, but only 2p on a pint of beer. Spirits, however, have enjoyed a duty standstill since 1985. I propose therefore an increase of 10 per cent., which will increase the price of a bottle of spirits by 54p.
    Cigarettes also were not increased last year. This year I propose a 10 per cent. increase in duty, which will put 10p on a packet of 20 cigarettes. The duty on cigars will rise similarly, and will add 5p to the cost of a packet of five small cigars. But I do not this year propose any increase in duty on pipe tobacco. This at least will be one measure which should command the total support of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Neil Kinnock: But not of my wife.
    Mr. Major: In that case, I shall make my apologies to Mrs. Kinnock separately.

    FOOTBALL
    I now turn to football. The tragedies at Bradford and Hillsborough football grounds shocked us all. The report by Lord Justice Taylor made recommendations to improve comfort and safety in our football league grounds over the next 10 years.
    Implementing the programme of work envisaged in the Taylor report will place a significant burden on football clubs, which many of them will find extremely hard to bear. For many are in a weak financial position, and only a handful are profitable. I recognise this problem, but I believe there is an acceptable way to overcome it. The first priority is to ensure that vital improvements in safety and comfort can be made, and the second is to avert what would otherwise be the closure of many of our grounds. If we help football now, I am confident that football will itself contribute to the improvements in facilities that are necessary.
    Let me say first that much of the expenditure required to meet the Taylor recommendations is eligible for capital allowances or for full offset against tax. I know that there has been some confusion about this, and I have asked the Inland Revenue to provide urgent guidance to clarify the tax position.
    However, tax allowances cannot help where there is no profit to set costs against. This is the case with many clubs. I have therefore reviewed the rate of pool betting duty—the tax which is paid by the pools companies on the stakes they receive. This currently stands at 42·5 per cent. I propose to reduce it to 40 per cent., on the clear understanding that the full amount saved is passed by the pools promoters to the Football Trust, and is used by it to improve the safety and comfort of fans at English and Scottish football league grounds.
    I am confident that such an arrangement can be negotiated with the pools promoters and the football authorities. Provided that we do so, the duty will be reduced, in the first instance for five years. At the end of that period we shall review the position again. [HON. MEMBERS: "You will not."] At the end of that period, I will review the position again.
    This reduction will yield around £100 million for football over five years. This is in addition to the £75
    1022
    million that the Football Trust has already said will be available over the next 10 years. These sums represent very large contributions towards making sure that football league clubs can implement the Taylor recommendations and bring their grounds up to the safety standards both we—and they—want to see. Millions of people watch football every year. With better and safer grounds, I hope that many more will join them.

    INCOME TAX
    Next, I turn to income tax, before turning to other matters. I have no change to announced to either the basic or the higher rate of tax. They will remain at 25p and 40p respectively. Notwithstanding that, I reaffirm our objective of moving towards a basic rate of 20p when it ns possible to do so.
    I turn now to personal tax allowances. This year, I propose to uprate the main income tax allowances by the statutory indexation factor of 7·7 per cent., rounded up. The personal allowances will rise by £220 to £3,005. The new married couple's allowance will be set at £1,720, as will the additional personal allowance for single parents and the widow's bereavement allowance. However, the basic rate limit, the level at which higher rate liability begins, will be unchanged, at £20,700 of taxable income. This means that a married man with a £30,000 mortgage will not begin to pay higher rate tax until his income is over £30,000.
    The allowances for the elderly will similarly be fully uprated in line with inflation. For those aged 65 to 74, the personal allowance goes up by £270 to £3,670 and the married couple's allowance goes up by £160 to £2,145. For those aged 75 and over, the personal allowance goes up by £280 to £3,820 and the married couple's allowance will rise to £2,185. The income limit for these allowances will also be fully indexed to £12,300.
    I also propose to raise the inheritance tax threshold by £10,000 to £128,000, in line with inflation.
    The capital gains tax exemption—that is, the amount of real capital gains free of tax in any one year—currently stands at £5,000. However, from April, the introduction of independent taxation means that married couples will be entitled to not one but two exempt amounts rather than having to share one between them as at present. I have therefore decided to leave the exempt amount at £5,000 per person, which effectively gives a married couple an exemption of £10,000 in total.
    I also have to set the scales for the taxation of the private use of company cars. The tax treatment of this benefit remains generous, although less so than previously, as a result of the significant increases in these scales in recent Budgets. I therefore propose an increase—but a smaller one than in previous years—of 20 per cent. The yield from this will be £160 million in 1990–91. There will be no change in the fuel scales.
    In the tax system there is one allowance, the tax allowance for the blind, that, although anomalous, has long been accepted as a proper recognition of the special difficulties faced by blind people. The allowance is modest, but welcome, at £540 a year. I propose to make it less modest and more welcome and to double it. From 6 April, it will stand at £1,080.
    Before I leave income tax, I have a small supply side measure to announce that will help the labour market to work better. We have always made it clear that it is not for

    1023
    the Government to encourage or discourage women with children to go out to work. That is rightly a decision for them to take, and one in which the Government would be wise not to interfere. However, it is undeniable that an increasing number of mothers do want to return to work, and many employers, in private industry and in public services such as health and education, are keen to encourage them to do so.
    If an employer provides a nursery for his staff in order to recruit and retain skilled people, he can set the full cost against corporation tax. However, any employee who benefits and who earns more than £8,500 a year is required to pay tax on the value of the benefit in kind. Many employers have argued that this is an obstacle to the growth of nursery provision and has created recruitment difficulties for them, and many women see that as a positive disincentive to return to work. For those reasons, therefore, I have decided to exempt the value of workplace nurseries and playgroups from taxation as a benefit in kind. That will take effect from 6 April this year.

    CHARITIES
    I said at the beginning of this speech that this Budget would include incentives both to save and to give. I shall come to saving in a moment, but I want first to deal with giving. I have a number of proposals to help. We are by instinct a generous nation to causes that appeal to us. The tax system already offers a great deal of help to charities. It offers reliefs on their income and on their expenditure, and it provides incentives to encourage charitable giving. There is a relief for charitable covenants that has now been in operation for many years and is worth almost £200 million to charities every year. We have been considering how covenants can be made easier for charities and donors to use, and the Inland Revenue will therefore be issuing new guidance today to simplify them.
    Since 1987, relief for covenants has been complemented by the payroll giving scheme, a very user-friendly way to relieve regular giving from tax. The scheme has been doing well since its launch, and I now propose to increase the annual limit from £480 to £600.
    These reliefs are focused mainly on regular giving, which is of great importance to charities. However, they are ill suited to encourage the one-off gift which, for a variety of reasons, many people find more convenient. Over the years, that has been a persistent source of concern to charities. This year, I propose to go some way to meet that concern.
    I propose a gift aid scheme that will, for the first time, give tax relief for large money donations. It is simply not practical to operate a relief for all small one-off gifts—and in any event, I do not wish to undermine regular giving through the payroll scheme and covenants, which are very important to some charities. Therefore, this scheme applies to larger donations.
    The lower qualifying limit for gift aid will therefore be £600 per donation—the new ceiling for payroll giving. The relief will be available on one-off gifts up to an annual ceiling of £5 million per individual donor. The tax relief will be reclaimable by the charity, and payable to it at basic rate. As with covenants, the donor will get any higher rate tax relief that is due direct from the tax office.
    This relief, which will apply to gifts by both individuals and companies, will come into operation from 1 October this year. I am confident that it will maintain and
    1024
    strengthen the growth of charitable giving, and I very much hope that charities will promote it actively. It will, of course, be open to the whole range of charities, from social causes to those whose activities are devoted to the arts.
    I have a further measure to help charities. This is a package of value added tax reliefs, giving help especially to organisations engaged in sea rescue, medical care and research. These will come into effect on 1 May and give an additional benefit of about £5 million a year to charitable work. Full details are set out in a Customs and Excise press release issued today.

    SAVINGS
    I now turn to the taxation of savings, where I have a number of measures to announce. As I do so, I am conscious that the majority of personal savings are the fruits of earnings that have already been taxed.
    I start with saving in shares. The development of the personal equity plan, which stands to the immense credit of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), has been an important boost for share ownership. I am pleased to report to the House that last year was a record one for PEPs, with 300,000 plans taken out, to the value of some £750 million. To build on this success, I propose to raise the overall annual limit on investment in PEPs by a quarter, from £4,800 to £6,000. Within that, the annual limit on investment in unit and investment trusts will be increased by the same percentage to £3,000.
    I am also sympathetic to the problems that investment and unit trusts face in qualifying for PEP treatment. This arises from the requirement that 75 per cent. of their portfolio should be invested in ordinary United Kingdom equities. I propose therefore to relax this rule to 50 per cent. I also propose to raise the PEP limit for those trusts that do not satisfy this rule from the present £750 to £900.
    Last year, my right hon. Friend put employee share ownership plans, or ESOPs as they are known, on the statute book. ESOPs are a vehicle for giving employees a direct stake in the business for which they work. They are an attractive option and deserve further encouragement. One impediment to their growth has been that the transfer of shares to the work force can mean that the company owner faces an immediate tax charge. To prevent this, I propose to introduce a rollover relief from capital gains tax for sales of shares to ESOPs. I believe that this will remove an obstacle to their development and give this form of employee share ownership the fillip that it deserves.
    In a moment, I will turn to some new and significant tax changes for savers, but first, I wish to discuss a reform which was announced in the 1988 Budget and which comes into effect next month—independent taxation for women. There is too little understanding yet of what this change will mean, but it will fundamentally change the financial affairs of women.
    At present, the taxation of married women's income is wholly inconsistent with their role in society. In tax law, their income is still considered to belong to their husbands. The effect of this is twofold: it denies married women any privacy or independence in tax matters, and too often it results in heavier taxation than is fair. It is time for the system to go, and go it will from April.
    In future, a husband and wife will be taxed entirely separately. Every married woman will have a tax

    1025
    allowance of her own to set against her income—whether this income is from earnings, pension or savings. Three and three quarter million people will gain, of whom two million have incomes of less than £5,000 a year. One million elderly married couples will pay less tax, and 200,000 pensioner couples will be taken out of tax altogether.
    No one will be sorry to see the old system go. One of its worst features was its treatment of the savings of married women. Whether they had other income or not, the interest on their savings was added to their husband's income and taxed at his rate. This was a clear penalty on thrift. From April, all that will end. This may well be the area where the reform has its greatest effect and will be most welcomed.
    However, independent taxation has thrown into sharp relief another aspect of the tax system that affects all savers, and which no longer deserves to survive.
    Some women will see the benefit of independent taxation automatically, if they have their money invested in national savings, or other accounts which pay interest gross of tax, but many women with only small savings prefer to save with high street banks or building societies, and so, frankly, do many other small savers. For all these savers, income tax—or rather, a proxy for it, called the composite rate—is deducted before the interest ever gets to the saver, and whether or not the saver is liable to pay tax.
    Composite rate tax was introduced originally in 1894, and put on the statute book in 1951. It currently stands at just under 22 per cent. It is deducted at source. It cannot be reclaimed in any circumstances. This means that basic rate taxpayers gain by about 3 per cent.—the difference between the composite rate and the basic rate of income tax, which is what they should pay. And it means that non-taxpayers are worse off by 22 per cent.
    The attraction of composite rate has always been that it allows small amounts of tax to be collected with ease from very large numbers of people. It is very convenient and very cost-effective, but the fact remains that, with composite rate tax, we tax people on low incomes who should not be taxed.
    It has, of course, always been possible for these people to avoid taxation entirely, by saving in accounts that pay interest gross or tax-free, or where tax can be reclaimed, but the convenience of using banks and building societies has meant that many of them have not done so.
    The scale of the problem is compelling. Once independent taxation is implemented, there will be 14 million people—nearly one quarter of the population—who have savings income that does not merit taxation, but which will be taxed under present legislation. They include some 5 million married women with little or no other income of their own, 4 million pensioners, 2·5 million other adults, and 2·5 million children with small savings accounts—often funded with small gifts of money from grandparents, or savings from pocket money.
    There is no way out of this problem other than to abolish composite rate tax entirely. This I propose to do with effect from 6 April 1991, the earliest practicable date. From then on, tax will fall on those who should pay it, and will not fall on those who should not pay it.
    We shall discuss with the banks and building societies how to effect this enormous organisational change. I envisage a scheme of self-certification that will allow non-taxpayers to be paid their interest without deduction of tax. For other savers, tax will continue to be deducted
    1026
    at source, but at basic rate. However, unlike composite rate tax, any tax deducted will be reclaimable by any non-taxpayers who, for any reason, may not have been able to self-certify for gross payment.
    This change will significantly reduce the amount of tax paid by millions of married women, pensioners, children and others with small savings, and by removing the penalty of composite rate tax, it will play an important part in encouraging the savings habit. Meanwhile, the Department of National Savings also has a part to play in encouraging the savings habit. I am therefore announcing today a 1 per cent. increase in the interest rates paid on national savings investment account and income bonds, where interest is already paid gross. This too will help encourage saving, particularly by non-taxpayers.
    However, as well as removing the tax impost for non-taxpayers, I wish to do more to encourage the saving habit among taxpayers—all of them.
    In the 11 years that we have been in office, a series of Budgets have removed penal rates of tax, abolished the investment income surcharge and introduced important new schemes to encourage saving and investment. I intend now to build further on those measures, for everyone, and that means going beyond the incentives to saving that we have built up so far. These schemes have been immensely successful in spreading share ownership, and will continue to be so in the future, but I now want to extend savings incentives to the mass of ordinary taxpaying savers—and potential savers—who prefer to put their money in the familiar security of high street banks and building societies.
    My next measure is addressed precisely to them. I propose to introduce a wholly new tax incentive which will reward saving and encourage people to build up a stock of capital. The scheme will work as follows. Every adult will be entitled to one tax-exempt special savings account, TESSA for short. All commercial banks or building societies will be able to offer such an account. The essence of the scheme is to encourage people to save regularly over a five-year period. The incentive for them to do so is that all the interest earned on their capital will be entirely free of tax, provided only that the capital itself is left undisturbed over the five-year period.
    The annual limit on the amount that can be invested will be £1,800 or £150 a month. In the first year, anyone who has capital that they are willing to tie up for longer can put this money in their account from the outset, up to a limit of £3,000, but the overall limit of £9,000 for the whole plan applies nonetheless.
    To cope with the circumstances of many small savers—particularly pensioners—who use the interest on their savings for their everyday expenses, it will be possible to withdraw interest as it accrues, but only up to the net-of-tax level. At the end of the five years, the depositor then gets a bonus representing the money which would otherwise have gone in tax. The depositor will get this provided none of the capital has been withdrawn before the five years is up. They can, of course, withdraw the capital at any time, but without tax relief.
    This scheme is convenient, flexible and simple. It extends a form of PEP treatment to ordinary savings. It caters for those who want to save monthly, annually, or in irregular amounts. It represents a substantial incentive to save, and I am confident that it will play its part in reviving the culture of thrift. I also believe that it is both desirable and fair to reduce tax on small savings.
    This new relief will be available from next January. Its cost will depend on take-up, but could be at least £200 million in the first full year, and rising thereafter.
    This Budget has contained a whole range of savings incentives. It has done so because I believe it is economically right to encourage savings, and because I believe also that it is socially right—not least because of the independence and security it offers to savers as they build up capital of their own. However, there is little point in encouraging savings if we leave in the system an over-severe penalty for doing so. I turn, therefore, to the social security system and to what has become known as the capital rule.
    As the House knows, people with capital over £3,000 start to have their benefits reduced, and those with more than a certain level of savings—£6,000 in the case of income support and family credit and £8,000 in the case of housing benefit and community charge benefit—become completely ineligible for all means-tested benefits, however low their incomes.
    There must, of course, be some upper limits above which help is no longer given, but the present limits are widely resented as a penalty on thrift and self-provision. [Interruption.] This is particularly so in the case of elderly people with some capital but only modest incomes. They believe it is unfair that they must use the money carefully saved during their working lives while others, less provident, have immediate access to the benefit system.
    I have therefore reviewed the present limits with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, and we have decided that they should be raised. The limit for income support and family credit, where the stress is less great, will rise from £6,000 to £8,000, but the problem is most acute for those whose savings disqualify them from housing benefit and from community charge benefit. [Interruption.] I propose therefore, to double the capital cut-off for both these benefits, from £8,000 to £16,000—for housing benefit and for community charge. This new limit will be of particular help to couples, but it will also apply to single people and therefore extend help to some widows and widowers who would otherwise continue to be excluded.
    This measure will benefit—
    Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
    Mr. Major: No.
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, the Chancellor is not giving way.
    Mr. Dewar rose—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but an important concession is being announced at the beginning of the introduction of the poll tax system in England and Wales. The system has been running for over a year in Scotland—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is clearly not a point of order for the Chair. Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Major: This measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—will benefit about a quarter of a million people, two thirds of them—
    Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are in the Chair, as Chairman of Ways and Means. Important tax concessions and changes are being made. A principle of taxation in this country—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for me to deal with. I am anxious to hear what the Chancellor has to say.
    Mr. Major: This measure will benefit around a quarter of a million people, two thirds of them pensioners who are at present—
    Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much hope that it is. It does the House's reputation little good to have the Chancellor's speech interrupted by points of order which are not matters for the Chair.
    Mr. Wilson: It is precisely in the interest of the House's reputation that I ask, on a point of order, whether the Chancellor will make clear immediately whether the concessions that he has announced will be retrospectively applied to Scotland.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. Points of order must be for me and not for Ministers.
    Mr. Major: This measure will benefit around a quarter of a million people, two thirds of them pensioners who are at present wholly excluded from benefit—
    Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that many of us, especially Opposition Members, were unable to hear what the Chancellor said because of the noise, would it be in order to get him to repeat the last two passages to see whether that tax concession will be retrospective in Scotland, which got the poll tax a year earlier?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not going to listen to any more bogus points of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares my anxiety to hear what the Chancellor has to say.
    Mr. Major: For the avoidance of doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall repeat that this measure will benefit around a quarter of a million people, two thirds of them pensioners who are at present wholly excluded from benefit. The total cost will be £120 million a year, which will be met from the reserve and will not increase the public expenditure totals.
    To avoid delay, my right hon. Friend is laying the necessary regulations today—[Interruption.]—so that the limits will be increased when benefits are uprated at the beginning of April. He will discuss the operational implications of this change with local authorities immediately.

    PERORATION
    This is a saver's Budget. It takes no risks with inflation. It further strengthens the public finances. It helps the less well-off. It gives women a better deal. It offers help to charities and sport, and it reduces the tax burden on growing companies—[Interruption.]
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Major: It is the right Budget for this year, and it sets the right course for the '90s. I commend it to the House, and the country.
    Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will allow me, I shall put the Question before I take points of order.

    PERORATION

      PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
      Motion made, and Question,
      That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

      (a) Spirits (motion No. 2);

      (b) Beer (motion No. 3);

      (c) Wine and made-wine (motion No. 4);

      (d) Cider (motion No. 5);

      (e) Tobacco products (motion No. 6);

      (f) Hydrocarbon oil (motion No. 7);

      (g) Vehicles excise duty (rates) (motion No. 8);

      (h) Vehicles excise duty (exemptions) (motion No. 9);

      (i) Value added tax (registration) (motion No. 10).—[Mr. Major.]

      put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means Motions), and agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall now call the Chancellor to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the law". It is on that motion that the Budget debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week, and then they will he decided without debate.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description—[Mr. Major.]

  [Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 9487/89 on the Annual Economic Report 1989–90 and the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 31st January 1990 on the final version of the Report as adopted by the Council.]
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friends and to the House for the delay to the proceedings, but we are constantly told by the occupants of the Chair, including yourself with respect Sir, that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. However, what should we do when, as hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, we find ourselves in the position we have been put in today by the Chancellor—we have been betrayed by the Secretary of State and by Scottish Tory MPs—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Scotland is governed under the terms of the Act of Union, passed by this House of the United Kingdom Parliament. Under the terms of that Act, taxation and benefits should be applied equally. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland make a statement—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for interpreting the Act of Union.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: I shall begin by following two customs of the House. The first is an ancient custom which requires me to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the way in which he delivered his Budget statement. I shall do that gladly, although I shall say at this early juncture, that—and I am sure he will share my feeling—at the earliest possible opportunity he should make it clear to my hon. Friends, and in particular my hon. Friends from Scotland, whether the change that he announced towards the end of his speech will be extended retrospectively to elderly people in Scotland with retirement incomes of more than £16,000. I am certain that he will want to give thought to that, and I hope that he will make a positive response, because it would be a terrible shame if that was to mar an otherwise excellent maiden Budget performance.
  I think that everyone will have enjoyed the way in which the Chancellor said what he had to say, even if there will be disagreement over fairly extensive parts of it.

  1031
  The second custom is quite recent and was established only 12 years ago by the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister, when she was Leader of the Opposition. In 1978, when the first Budget to be broadcast live on radio was debated, the right hon. Lady pointed out that she, like everyone else outside the Cabinet, had had neither sight nor sound of the Budget before the Chancellor made his speech to the House. That system has some disadvantages, but at least it means that Parliament and nation share the same sense of unspoiled expectation—that is not without its virtues in this democracy.
  In the Budget statement, the Chancellor announced much that the Opposition welcome and support. Naturally we shall want to scrutinise it in detail, but there is a fair spectrum of agreement on many of the measures and changes that the Chancellor announced. For instance, we welcome the value added tax reliefs for bad debts, especially as they affect small businesses. We welcome the differential—which I believe has increased slightly—between the duty payable on leaded and unleaded petrol. The Chancellor will enjoy support in all parts of the House for that move, as he will for the increased tax allowance for blind people.
  There are many other changes which I shall not deal with now, but three merit attention. The first is the Chancellor's proposal that help should be given to users of workplace nurseries. He will remember that the Opposition were extremely hostile to the imposition of what we thought of as penalties on users of workplace nurseries. We are glad that he has responded to our pleas over a number of years to reverse that change.
  Secondly, I am grateful, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, for the additional help that is to be given to the Football Trust. I am sure that, in return, the Chancellor will want to acknowledge the significant contribution that was made to the negotiations with the football authorities and the Pools Promoters Association by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). A development of this kind was announced during an Opposition day debate a few weeks ago, but it is good to have it solidly confirmed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Thirdly, we are very glad—this is a slight repetition, but it does not suffer from being repeated—that the Chancellor has raised the limits on the savings of retired people, thus enabling them to qualify for a poll tax reduction. I hope that he will be forthcoming concerning my request that he should review the position of elderly Scottish people.
  Those three changes are ones for which we have called recently. Equally, they are all changes that in recent times the Government have turned down. Who knows, despite the Prime Minister's preferences, just a tiny corner of the Government may be starting to listen. Unfortunately, however, it is just too late to save them.
  Other interesting changes have been made. The Chancellor told us, not to our surprise, that interest rates will remain high for some time to come. However, he then said, interestingly, that when they are brought down they will stay down. That is a major change of policy. Throughout the last 11 years, interest rates have come down only just before a general election. Their reduction had nothing to do with the wider economic considerations.
  1032
  The Chancellor has made it clear in his first Budget speech that he will re-examine several areas. Knowing him as we do, we believe the complete authenticity of his intention to re-examine credit controls, the measurement of money supply and funding policies so that they are not too rigid—perhaps another little preparation for a future election. He gave a further commitment to participate in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. He truly showed himself in all these respects to have approached them with a new broom. The problem is that that will not be terribly convincing so long as the broomstick is ridden by the Prime Minister. Consequently, I plead with the House not to devalue the Chancellor's contribution.
  We understand the circumstances that produced a Budget of this kind. It is something of a bits and pieces Budget. It is something of a stop-gap Budget. It could not be otherwise, given the policies, and the policy failures, of the Government. There was not much else that the Chancellor could do. He could not announce, for instance, that interest rates would be cut, because that would send credit up and the pound down. He could not announce that interest rates would go up, because that would have plunged the economy into recession and the Tory party into oblivion. About the only thing that he could do was to maintain the position. He certainly could not cut taxes, despite the pleadings of some in the City and some in his party. That would have been evidence of complete irresponsibility and would have sent the market into a spin.
  There is a real irony in that. It will be within the memory of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and of the much wider public outside, that for years the Conservatives have preached that large income tax reductions, especially on higher incomes, were the energiser of the economy and the spur to enterprise and dynamism. However, when all the difficulties associated with a huge balance of payments deficit mean that the Government most need energy, dynamism and a spur to enterprise, they do not even think of cutting income tax because of the devastating effect that that would have on their fortunes in the markets.
  How very different from the giveaway Budget of two years ago, when the current Chancellor of the Exchequer was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I well remember that on the day after the Budget he denounced Opposition Members for their temerity in warning, as he put it,
  "that cutting taxes will damage the balance of payments."
  He declared boldly in the same passage:
  "It is hardly surprising that we should have a current account deficit when growth in the United Kingdom economy is far stronger than that of most of our trading partners."—[Official Report, 16 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1129.]
  It was during that same month that the Prime Minister described a £1 billion balance of payments deficit in one month as a "freak". That was £40 billion-worth of deficits ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us then that it was growth that was generating the balance of payments difficulties. It made some sense. If there is high growth, it is not surprising that the country should experience some balance of payments difficulties. But what sense does it make now, when our current account deficit is at record levels and when our growth rate is the slowest among all the major industrial countries? For us to go into deficit and debt with high growth is perhaps defensible, but to go into

  1033
  deficit and debt with low growth is a shambles, especially when it is the direct consequence of the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
  We have not got a huge deficit just on current account. In 1989, £28 billion-worth of long-term capital came into Britain. In the same year, £57 billion-worth of long-term capital went out of Britain. That represents a long-term capital outflow of £29 billion. The deficits—which are of some significance to this economy, which must compete and make its way out of the current problems—total more than £45 billion, compared with the remainder of the world. What a mess. What a way to meet the challenges of the 1990s, as the Chancellor put it in his speech.
  He could say, "It is not really my fault. I have been in the job for less than half the financial year." That is true. Midway through the financial year, the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who I am glad to see is in his place, left the field. He went off at half time, having been tackled from behind by his own captain. It is a tribute to the resourcefulness of the right hon. Member for Blaby that, after he left the Government team, he still managed to get a six-figure transfer fee, even as a part-time player. Come to think of it, perhaps that is what he meant all the time when he said that he was going to achieve an economic miracle.
  There is not much in the way of miracles elsewhere, unless we consider it miraculous to make £65 billion-worth of oil revenues disappear, leaving hardly any trace. That is supernatural indeed. The imposition of interest rates that are higher for longer than ever before in British history is the stuff of which legends are made.
  Despite interest rates being higher for longer than ever before, demand has still increased, retail sales have still risen, indebtedness has still soared and, as the Chancellor acknowledged, prices have continued going up. The high interest rate policy that was supposed to cure inflation is now a major cause of inflation. It adds to production costs, it adds to living costs, it provokes higher wage demands and, as the Chancellor acknowledged, high interest rates make lenders more willing to lend. The Chancellor tells us that he is striving to reduce demand in order to combat inflation, yet with every mail delivery, in every newspaper and in every car showroom there are offers of interest-free finance and easy credit.
  It is a paradox, and it has perplexed people. It has certainly confused the Prime Minister. On Tuesday, the Chancellor told us that he was determined to be firm in pressing down on demand and spending. On Sunday, in the Sunday Express, the Prime Minister was dismissing talk of a squeeze and rejoicing in
  "the amount of retail sales, the amount of spending and the amount of overseas holidays."
  The Prime Minister was boasting about high consumer spending without appearing to realise that that is what is causing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lose sleep at night. It is so bad that it even makes the deputy Prime Minister lose sleep in the day.
  It also makes a lot of other people lose sleep. People running businesses, especially medium-sized and small businesses, know that high interest rates are hitting their costs, their custom and their investment plans. The high interest rate policy with the resulting mortgage rate burden devastates family budgets.
  On the Friday after the mortgage rate went up to 15·4 per cent., I met a young family man in my constituency whose mortgage had gone up from £185 to £290 a month
  1034
  in 18 months—and that was before the latest increase. He saw me in the street in Blackwood and said, "15·4 per cent.! I wanted to buy my house but I didn't want to buy the building society." That is the reaction of many people. They can make no connection between their desire to buy a house and the way in which the cost of trying to fulfil a natural and normal ambition, for which they are prepared to pay, is being made prohibitive by Government policies.
  Millions of people are struggling with punishing mortgage bills. Such people greet the Conservative claim to be the party of the family with bitter derision. They bear the burden of huge mortgage repayments, they see what the Government have done to the pensions and housing benefits of elderly people in their families, they know that their child benefit is frozen, and now, on top of everything else comes the poll tax.
  That tax is despised and detested across the country, not only because of its cost but because of its fundamental injustice. There is not a single Member on either side of the House who does not understand that, yet yesterday the Secretary of State for the Environment was saying that the principles of the tax were going to stay.
  What principle is there in a tax that makes the shop assistant pay the same as the stockbroker? What principle is there in a tax that makes the nurse pay the same as the consultant? What principle demands that a single person aged between 25 and 60 on £64 a week pay the same as someone on £6,000 a week? What principle makes someone with retirement savings of £16,000 pay the same as someone with retirement assets of £16 million?
  Although we are grateful for the concession that the Chancellor has made this afternoon, £16,000 in retirement savings is not exactly a prince's ransom. It is certainly not a level of savings put together after a lifetime of work that should in any way disqualify people from assistance in their retirement years. I hope that those thresholds will be further examined, because among the greatest and the most justifiable resentments that are voiced is that people think that they have been conned, betrayed and had, because thrifty people who have set money aside and have lived frugal or simply careful lives carry the same liability as people who have fared much more fortunately. I plead, as I am sure will certain Conservative Members, for a further examination of those levels.
  Of course a flat rate tax that affects people regardless of their ability to pay can represent no principle that we recognise as acceptable in a democracy. However, to hear some Conservative Members, one would think that the poll tax and all that it implies was an aberration, a sudden surprise inflicted on the Tory party out of the blue by some malign act of fate. I suppose that is one way of looking at the Prime Minister. I particularly enjoyed the television performance which many of my hon. Friends will have seen by the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) a couple of weeks ago, when he told an interviewer on BBC television:
  "Had we known that the charge would be the level that it is, then I don't think the Bill would have had the same sort of passage through Parliament."
  As I watched him, I wondered whether I was witnessing the first historic instance of a fox leaving a sinking ship.
  The poll tax is not a Conservative aberration; it is not an accident to modern Toryism, it is the epitome of modern Toryism. Because it is a flat rate, like other Tory

  1035
  charges it is regressive; it is an inflationary and centralising tax. In short, the poll tax is not the exception to Tory policy, it is the rule and now the British people know it.
  Against that background, is it any wonder that the majority of British people believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction and that major changes are needed? Of course that is not strange. People know too that there are practical and progressive alternatives to what the Government are doing. We put those alternatives, the CBI and the TUC almost identically put those alternatives as did the Engineering Employers Federation.
  The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) put alternatives to Government policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I think that he was here earlier this afternoon. I see the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) pointing skywards. I did not expect such an elevation to be awarded to the right hon. Member for Henley, but I understand he is in a place where I or any other right hon. or hon. Member should not be able to see him. Doubtless he is putting forward his alternatives. Equally doubtless, the Treasury is probably costing his programme at this very moment. Then they will send it to No. 10 Downing street to have the noughts added on to the end of it.
  I know that the Prime Minister hates the concept of contemplating the idea of a spectrum of alternatives and agreement about alternatives, but she has to face the fact that there is a broadening consensus among the British people for those alternatives. It is a consensus that favours incentives for investment, including the greatest incentive of stability in the currency and interest rate regime.
  There is a consensus that Britain should now be negotiating entry of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. There is a consensus that there has to be increased investment in education, which the Government have cut in real terms, in training, which the Government are cutting by £300 milliion, in research and development, which is still underfunded, and in the rail and road systems. All those are recognised as essentials as the completion of the single market approaches.
  Of course nobody who is part of that consensus believes that such policies would be a panacea or would offer an instant cure for inflation or for the balance of payments deficit. Everyone who is part of the consensus knows that the only dependable way to reduce inflation, to combat endemic inflation and to close those payments gaps is to produce more, to produce better and to sell more competitively. They know that, if that is to happen, long-term investment must take precedence over short-term consumption and that a modern Government have responsibility for actively promoting the objective of a commitment to long-termism.
  The Budget yet again completely fails to address that necessity, yet we know that it is the course that must be followed, not only because it makes such sense for our under-invested and debt-ridden economy but because commitment to the long term so obviously works in practice for competitor countries.
  Even the Prime Minister stumbles into recognising that sometimes. Three weeks ago, she told the Sunday Times that her
  "ambition is that we catch up with France and then we catch up with Germany."
  1036
  There is a fair bit of catching up to do. When the right hon. Lady came Prime Minister in 1979, our trade deficit with France was just over £900 million, but now it is over £1,300 million; with Germany, it was just over £1,500 million, but now it is nearly £10 billion. Even without oil, those countries are known to have better systems of investing in research and development, in training and in transport by road and rail than Britain.
  Germany has a Conservative Government and France has a Socialist Government, but they have in common a willingness to work in partnership with industry. They do not have the prejudices of the British Government. They do not think that the dogma of withdrawal and non-intervention is practical, any more than they think that the dogma of domination and perpetual interference is desirable.
  After 11 years in power, the Prime Minister says that she wants to catch up with those countries. We all want and need that, but to do so will take a partnership in work, planning and investment. That is necessary and unavoidable in a modern economy. None of it will come from this Government; certainly none of it will come from this Budget; but it will come from us, and for the sake of our country, the sooner the better.
  5.22 pm
  Sir Neil Macfarlane: I shall not follow too closely the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor most warmly not only on the quality of his presentation but on the competence that he displayed in confounding the critics who said that this would be a dull Budget. It was resourceful and it certainly carries on the work of the past decade in reforming our taxation system. Overall, I am quite certain that this is a fair Budget that is equitable for everybody, and there is something in it for growth over the next few years.
  I welcome the removal of 2·5 per cent. from the pools betting duty, which I am certain will be widely supported by all hon. Members because it has concentrated the minds of many hon. Members for a considerable time. I certainly applaud my right hon. Friend's decision to revert the rate to its 1980 level of 40 per cent.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to make a note of one or two points that I shall make, because the Chancellor's speech touched on taxation in sport and how it might affect sports other than association football. The excellent Taylor report has thrown into sharp focus the problems not only of soccer but of major spectator sports facilities. Many people associated with sport would say that excessive taxation in the post-war years is a prime cause of poor facilities, poor stadiums and a poor expectation among those who attend spectator sports. There is much truth in that, and it is precisely what the governing bodies of sport have been saying for a long time.
  West Germany, the United States, France, Italy and Spain have made enormous progress since the war in developing first-class facilities. Almost all, with the exception of the United States, have been helped by their Governments with capital spend, and generous tax exemptions have been offered in the United States. We, alas, have forgotten just how important for national and civic pride are modern and safe facilities for all sports.

  1037
  Most stadiums have been partly modernised over the past five or 10 years, but most of our stadium stock is the better part of 70 to 75 years old.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury must consider the merits of sports governing bodies and representative bodies, including the British Olympic Association and the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which are non-profit-making distributing public benefit bodies. Ministers must assist more with the growth, viewing of and participation in sport in the United Kingdom. Surely it should be a Treasury objective to consider total tax exemption of the internal profits and gains of governing bodies. Such a move would command considerable political success, as well as falling in line with most other western industrialised nations.
  Sadly, in recent weeks it has become clear that a number of sports clubs will suffer an additional burden as a result of the community charge. Although several sports and recreation clubs will benefit from some reductions, alas, others will experience a considerable percentage increase, and I commend to Treasury Ministers the CCPR national survey on present and future rates. The burdens are considerable, and as a result of our policies many sports clubs will have to pay increases in excess of 30 to 40 per cent., and many may go to the wall.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor knows only too well the problems facing sports governing bodies. He has taken a close interest in sport over the years and knows in detail how the Test and County Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union and the Football Association operate. I know from correspondence with him when he was a Back Bencher that he takes a close interest in sport. For the first time since Rab Butler, we have a Conservative Chancellor who understands the importance of sport and its politics. I was interested when he said that there was undoubtedly a need for the Inland Revenue closely to consider how capital allowances apply to the development of new stadiums.
  There have been many increases over the years, not just in value added tax and in the burdens of the community charge and the rating system. We return time and again to the problems of gains and taxation within the financial systems of non-profit-making distributing bodies. Most of those involved in the running of sport believe that the Government do not always understand the impact of taxation on sport, leisure and recreation, which is the focal point of the life of the nation.
  In recent weeks, I have had one or two letters from old friends. I want to quote from them because I want to send them on to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor himself will take a personal interest in the matter because my correspondents cover a wide electoral college. Mr. Dudley Wood of the Rugby Football Union says:
  "we made a provision for £530,000 for Corporation Tax"—
  that is, in 1988–89.
  "We also paid some £450,000 in VAT during the year … We take no exception to the relatively low level of the Sports Council grant since it is our aim to be self-financing but, as an amateur, non profit distributing body"—
  again, we come back to that—
  "it is disheartening to find ourselves penalised by this heavy burden of tax. The harder we work to produce money to finance our game and our facilities, the more tax we pay. Well before Hillsborough and the Taylor Reports, we took a decision to modernise our national ground to bring it over a period of years to a capacity of 75,000, all seated in a well equipped stadium and the rebuilding of the North Stand at a
  1038
  cost of £15 million is well advanced. This will be ready in time for the 1991 World Cup which will be one of the most prestigious and largest world sporting events ever held in this country … no tax relief is granted in respect of capital expenditure on ground improvements, although some allowance is made where safety factors are involved. Having said that, the present taxation arrangements are a positive disincentive to our efforts to be self-supporting"
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will take close note of that because it echoes the generous comments that, I think, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made earlier.
  The chief executive of the Football Association writes on similar lines. He says:
  "Tax allowances on capital spending and in particular, on seating and on any cover or roof"
  are not eligible for any form of tax relief in the form of capital allowances. It is not available
  "unless the expenditure is on plant and machinery … or is in relation to work which is necessary under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975."
  That point requires close examination. The association also urges an exemption from corporation tax and suggests that we
  "grant the governing bodies of sport a special status similar to charitable status. This would enable sports organisations to enjoy the same benefits as arts bodies organised as charities."
  That point is worth considering, but I shall not detain the House much longer on this issue.
  The Test and County Cricket Board writes along similar lines. It says:
  "Our First-Class County Cricket Clubs and Test Match Grounds depend very much on a successful Australian Tour once every four years to keep them afloat financially during the intervening period. The salaries we are able to pay to cricketers and the money we are able to invest in youth development and the recreational game reflect that the income derived from International cricket has to be spread over a very wide base."
  The writer of the letter goes on to talk about the "context of cricket finances". He says:
  "VAT is the area where the greatest taxation burden is borne by cricket. The VAT burden on gate receipts, sponsorship, broadcasting income and box hire involves cricket in a net cost somewhere in the region of £3m a year."
  I could highlight many other points. The chairman of the TCCB echoes the problems that the RFU, the Football Association and the Lawn Tennis Association have pointed out to me before about the rebuilding of major stadiums and the incentives that are needed. The TCCB talks about unearned income, but time and again, it comes back to the element of disincentive.
  I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will urge those points on our right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who made a most commendable and brave speech today—his first of what I hope will be many to follow. There are many points at which we could justifiably look closely in Committee and when the Finance Bill returns to the Floor of the House in the next few months. Those are important issues. It comes down to one thing. It is a matter of national and civic pride that we should upgrade and improve our stadiums which are such a vital part of many regions of the United Kingdom.
  5.34 pm
  Dr. David Owen: The Budget will, I suspect, take a few weeks to settle in before a fair judgment can be made on whether the Chancellor has grappled successfully with the deeper problems of the British economy. In many ways, it was a characteristic Budget. We all agree that the Chancellor is a likeable

  1039
  Member of the House. He does not have much flamboyance, but he is a kindly person and, within the limits of his brief, he has tried to act fairly. Many people will welcome some of the details of the Budget.
  First, however, I must pose the core question, which will be asked not only in this country but in many countries. For all the words and all the rhetoric, has the Chancellor grappled with the basic problem of the British economy, which is the underlying rate of inflation? There is no question but that if, when the dust has settled and the glitter subsided, the judgment is that inflation is still riding through the system and will not be curbed, there will be continued pressure on the pound sterling and continued uncertainty about the Government's resolve to raise interest rates. In all, there will be four or five months of considerable uncertainty.
  The Chancellor has chosen—or, more likely, has been told by the Prime Minister—not to say what the markets wanted to hear, and what many hon. Members wanted to hear, about a firm date and intention to enter the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. I do not believe that that automatically provides an instant cure for our inflation problem, but I believe that it sets a disciplined framework within which British economic policy must go ahead. The Chancellor has used no new words and has expressed no new sentiments about the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. In that sense, he made a deeply disappointing speech.
  The Chancellor says that the question is "when", not whether, but in view of the emphasis that he laid on inflation, many people will ponder if it is to be postponed until 1991. We know of the Prime Minister's anxiety about a run-up to the general election with the issue of the exchange rate mechanism still not resolved and of the fear that the prospect of a Labour return might give rise to speculation and that the Government might have to put up interest rates in the run-up. The suspicion must remain that the Prime Minister will insist that we do not enter the exchange rate mechanism this side of the general election.
  If that suspicion becomes a fear, I worry about exchange rates in the next few weeks and months. I believe that present exchange rates will firm up slightly. Most Budgets, especially one with new ideas and with a welcome emphasis on savings, have a reasonable reaction in the exchange markets for the first couple of days. I assume that the strategy behind the Budget is to encourage more private saving and giving so as to dampen consumer spending, and I strongly support that. Our savings ratio is disgraceful and the Social Democratic party has long urged the Chancellor, and previous Chancellors, to have a savings Budget. In almost every particular, the measures that the Chancellor has introduced to encourage more saving and more giving are welcome, but—and it is a big "but"—it takes some time for such schemes to have an impact on current consumer spending.
  I can only believe that the Chancellor's advisers think that there is already sufficient dampening within the system because of existing interest rate policy. However, they have got that prediction wrong before and many of us now wanted a firmer and clearer fiscal tightening. In January, when the SDP produced its Budget proposals, we warned against overkill on a fiscal stance. We thought that it was possible to have a neutral Budget, but as the
  1040
  statistics began to show increased consumer demand over and above expectations and as the date of a throttling back of the economy seemed to be consistently postponed, we grew more anxious. Added to that was the anxiety about the retail price index.
  In the absence of a firm and clear statement on the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, and with no obvious wish on the Government's part to increase interest rates—and understandably so—much of the world's attention will focus on Britain's underlying inflation rate and in particular on the retail price index. That will also be the case on the purely technical ground that, although the Chancellor was rightly sceptical about monetary aggregates, he announced a somewhat looser monetary target of 1 per cent. to 5 per cent. instead of the 0 per cent. to 4 per cent. in the previous Budget. He also implied that he thought that, for most of the period, the figure was likely to be in the higher ranges. The Chancellor also indicated a public sector debt repayment level half the size of that projected in the pevious Budget. That means that in the short term certain questions arise.
  The House would do well to ponder the statement on page 44 of the Red Book that the RPI
  "is due to rise quite sharply in the next few months."
  It is noteworthy that the Chancellor gave a figure of more than 7 per cent. only for the last quarter of 1990. It is incumbent on the Government to come forward immediately with their estimate of the peak that the RPI is likely to reach in the next few months because that will be one of the key factors in wage bargaining. We are already witnessing underlying pressure for wage settlements higher than can possibly be justified in present circumstances.
  In addition, by placing so much stress on excise duties, the Chancellor has added a full 0·53 per cent. to the RPI. Moreover, he has readily acknowledged that the poll tax will add a further I per cent. to the RPI. That means that, on present levels, there will be a considerable surge in the RPI.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: I shall happily give way if the Minister wishes to give us the RPI figures for the second and third quarters, as that would help us in our discussion.
  Mr. Ryder: The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the target M0 figures for next year were different from those that we have followed in the past 12 months. He quoted from the Red Book, but paragraph 2.34 on page 15 of the Red Book states:
  "The Government will continue to set a target for M0 as a yard stick for its monetary policy. A target range of 1–5 per cent. is being set for MO in 1990–91, the same as in 1989–90."
  Dr. Owen: I accept the correction. I may have been wrongly advised on that. In that case we shall not have a looser target, although we must still remember the warning that the figures will be bumping up off the upper limit.
  I know that the former Chancellor did not use excise duties to their full extent last year but left them largely as they were. My own judgment this year, given my anxiety about the retail price index, would have been to favour the adoption of a tighter fiscal stance—by adding 1 p to the standard rate of income tax or by increasing the national insurance contribution—rather than placing the full

  1041
  weight on excise duties. By doing that, the Chancellor has taken a considerable risk with the major statistic and a statistic which causes the greatest concern at present. It is on that principle that I fear that his whole Budget strategy is likely to come unstuck.
  The Treasury forecasts admit a margin of error of 1·25per cent. If, in the last quarter of this year, we found the RPI approaching 9 per cent. or more than 8 per cent., there would be considerable cause for anxiety about the exchange rate. I keep coming back to that question. The Chancellor has let the exchange rate slide in the past few months—an open invitation to manufacturers to pass on high wage demands. One of our anxieties must be that, if we have a weak exchange rate at a time of high interest rates, we may undermine the capacity of the British economy and, in particular, our anti-inflationary stance.
  In view of the economic figures of the past couple of months and also because of world instability—the rise in the deutschmark following the East German elections and the fragility of the Japanese stock market—the Chancellor should have gone for a tighter fiscal stance or, failing that, he should have shown a greater readiness to enter the exchange rate mechanism earlier and accept the discipline of a firm exchange rate. Time will tell what the result will be, but the only justification for the present strategy would be a readiness on the Chancellor's part, given pressure in the next couple of months, to increase interest rates again. Regrettable though that would be, it would be far better to do that than to allow a further slow erosion of the exchange rate.
  The Prime Minister's reluctance to enter the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system is no longer even a joke or a subject for badinage between the political parties. If there were a free vote at the end of the Budget debate, there is no question but that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members would vote in favour of a clear decision to enter no later than the autumn. Indeed, there would probably be a majority in favour of going in immediately.
  People have grown increasingly anxious about the Prime Minister's so-called Madrid conditions. After all, only a few weeks ago we were being told that the reason why we could not enter the exchange rate mechanism was that the Federal Republic of Germany had a low inflation rate. Yet in the background briefing over the past few days we have heard that one of the reasons for not entering is the danger of a high inflation rate in the Federal Republic arising from its commitments in relation to unification. The ground rules are constantly being changed.
  There is also a personal reason why the Chancellor should make a clearer statement. A former Chancellor has resigned on this very issue and it is essential that we should have the feeling that the present Chancellor is master at No. 11 rather than his mistress at No. 10—figuratively speaking, of course. When he winds up the Budget debate, the Chancellor would be wise to find a form of words that is far more generous in recognising the virtues of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, far clearer about his intentions concerning the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system and far more revealing of his personal wishes concerning the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. Without such a commitment, all the fine provisions in the Budget will be seen to be no more than
  1042
  useful fine tuning. We readily acknowledge that they will be useful; many of them have been advocated by the SDP for many years.
  I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but I shall leave this Budget debate with a gnawing sense of anxiety. We have listened to the speech of a bank manager—that is not a term of abuse, as there are many enlightened and capable bank managers—who has recognised the specific problems and produced a large number of useful and sensible measures but who has brought to the question no overall vision and no firmness of purpose.
  I am left without the feeling that the Chancellor's hand is on the tiller of the economy and with the nagging fear that the Prime Minister's hand is still on the tiller—and that it is the Prime Minister rather than the Chancellor who is the dominant member of the Government in matters of economic strategy. If that is the true interpretation, the chances of achieving by 1992 the recovery on which the Government's political fortunes rest will not have been increased by the Budget.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. John Lee: I am grateful for this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his maiden Budget, and, I should like to thank the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) for his generous and kind tributes to my right hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has maintained the family tradition of successfully performing on the high wire. This was a cautious Budget but, as we all appreciate, this is only the first act; act 2 comes this time next year. He rightly concentrated on controlling inflation and on savings.
  I was interested that my right hon. Friend acknowledged that he had given considerable thought to and had had a hard look at the possibility of controlling credit and consumer borrowing other than through high interest rates. I am not wholly convinced that there is no alternative to high interest rates. They are a blunt weapon that hurts borrowers and businesses, especially small businesses.
  Although I freely acknowledge that the financial community these days is much more international and, unquestionably, some would get round any imposed new credit controls, I cannot believe that the clearing banks, the major lenders and the credit card companies would riot respond to requests from the Bank of England or to Government directives, with consequent reductions in credit. Interest rates are now at painful levels, and I sincerely hope that they will not rise any further. They are already causing real hardship to mortgage payers and to businesses.
  I welcome a number of the specific measures on savings. The abolition of stamp duty on share transactions is welcome, as is the abolition of the composite tax rate in 1991. The new tax-exempt special savings accounts—or TESSAs—for personal savings are an interesting concept that I am sure will be built on.
  The doubling of the capital limits from £8.000 to £16,000 for benefit eligibility will considerably help those who face substantial community charge payments, especially in areas that traditionally have been low-rated, such as in my own area of Pendle and north-east

  1043
  Lancashire, and beyond. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is listening. He may well have to deal with that specific problem shortly, but we shall have to see what happens with future ministerial changes.
  I very much welcome the Chancellor's determination to allow a £5,000 limit on capital gains tax to both husband and wife, with separate assessments coming through. However, the 40 per cent. top rate of capital gains tax, which still applies, is unacceptably high. I believe that I am right in saying that that is the one tax on savings that our Government have increased. I believe that it causes inactivity in portfolios and often subordinates investment decisions to tax considerations. I hope that that 40 per cent. rate will be reconsidered in our Budget next year.
  In conclusion, I should like to welcome a few individual measures. The abolition of the benefits-in-kind taxation on nurseries will be appreciated. Charity giving should be given a substantial boost by the help announced by my right hon. Friend. Tax relief on donations to local enterprise agencies is welcome. Such agencies do excellent work. I have seen that locally in the work of the Pendle Enterprise Trust. My right hon. Friend's anouncement can only give their work a boost. The VAT reliefs and the lowering of the ceiling for corporation tax will substantially help the liquidity of many of our small firms, which, as I said earlier, are suffering because of high interest rates.
  Overall, I commend my right hon. Friend's Budget to the House and wish him well.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for this early opportunity to speak in the debate and to make some brief comments on the Budget. Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and like the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), I add my congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the manner in which he made his speech. It was a friendly speech, well put across, and it gained the sympathy and commended the general support of the House.
  If we look at the wider issues of the Budget and its context, however, we see that this is not and could not be a consensus Budget. As has been said, the Budget had a 1950s edge. We can agree to a lot of it, but it does not go far enough. The Chancellor did not go far enough in reversing some of the giveaways introduced by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) two years ago.
  The Chancellor has taken £0·5 billion out of the system—not enough in the context of the Budget—and there is to be a further £1 billion next year, but that will not necessarily be satisfactory to the markets. Since the resignation of the former Chancellor, the markets have been testing the Government and the Chancellor and pushing the exchange rate down. The exchange rate has fallen gradually. Although it has risen from time to time, it is still falling, but we have not seen the application of a further rise in interest rates. One can well understand that, and I am not suggesting that increasing interest rates would be a positive policy.
  Clearly, the Government's policy of using interest rates as the only mechanism to determine the exchange rate and
  1044
  to combat inflation leaves a great deal to be desired. It has left the Chancellor unable to raise too much money for fear of reversing the policies of his predecessor, while not satisfying the markets either. My great dread and worry about this Budget is that a further rise in interest rates may be inevitable in the coming months. The Government may even have reconciled themselves to that fate. The business men of Cleveland and my constituents in Middlesbrough would be horrified if that were the ultimate consequence of the Budget, however well it may be disguised today.
  The Chancellor declined to use the words "consumer credit". He went to great lengths to talk about the banks sending out unsolicited loan offers and documents to various people. He referred to a warning given to the banks and to a code of conduct both for banks and for building societies, warning them that they should not continue their unsolicited offers of credit. I hope that the banks will take that salutary warning. Perhaps it is the Government's way of introducing credit control in another form.
  The great trouble with our economy is burgeoning credit. We give twice as much credit as the French and Germans. As a nation, we are living far beyond our means. It is for the Government to bring that under control, to bring the economy back into kilter and to reverse the trends of the past 10 years.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury intervened to correct the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport on the target range of M0 in the last Red Book, which was from 0 to 5 per cent., but he did not say whether that target had been met. My assumption and understanding is that it has not been met and that the Government have not controlled our country's money supply.
  The Chancellor said that there was no lodestar of monetarism. After 10 years, we have seen the consequences of the medium-term financial strategy. One of the interesting aspects of the Chancellor's speech was that he mentioned the medium-term financial strategy only once, when referring to his predecessor. I have a feeling that, as we turn the corner into the 1990s, we shall hear less and less about the medium-term financial strategy.
  Small business men in Cleveland and particularly in my constituency of Middlesbrough will welcome the changes in value added tax write-offs on bad debts and the bringing of what the Chancellor describes as certainty and simplicity to the VAT rules.
  I welcome also the Chancellor's statement about the Football Trust and the fact that there will be an extra £100 million for the improvement of football grounds. My football club—Middlesborough, which on Sunday will be playing at Wembley for the first time in 114 years—has worked well with the Football Trust over the past few years and we look forward to working with it in relation to ground improvements.
  It was rather churlish of the Chancellor—again, no doubt, in deference to the Prime Minister—actually to fine the major banks some £200 million for writing off their sovereign debt. When the write-off took place, we heard that the Prime Minister was incandescent with fury. Making the banks pay £200 million is perhaps some kind of revenge.
  I end by repeating that I enjoyed the Chancellor's speech very much. However, I fear that this Budget will not advance our economy in any way. There may be many penalties yet to pay for his being a little on the modest side for the age in which we live.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. David Knox: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bell). I think that in last year's Budget debate he followed me, so perhaps it is right that we should be speaking in reverse order today.
  I join all hon. Members who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the delivery of his first Budget speech. His predecessor set very high standards with his Budget speeches over the years. They were always well constructed, to the point, and commendably brief. My right hon. Friend has maintained those very high standards. He has produced a very skilful Budget in what I consider to be extraordinarily difficult and tight circumstances. Although I may have one or two critical remarks to make, I think that overall it is a balanced, cautious Budget and a great credit to my right hon. Friend.
  There are four items that I welcome especially. The first is the change in the capital rules affecting income support and family credit, and particularly housing benefit and community charge benefit. The £16,000 upper limit in the case of the latter is obviously more sensible. In the past few weeks especially, all Members of Parliament—apart from those who represent constituencies north of the border—have come across pathetic stories of people, not terribly wealthy but whose savings exceed £8,000, who have not been able to obtain community charge benefit. It is to be hoped that the arrangements announced today will provide some relief for those people as they face what in many cases is a very substantial increase in the amount that they have to contribute to local authority revenue. I welcome the change very much indeed.
  I welcome also the tax relief for people using workplace nurseries. This will be increasingly important in the years ahead, with the decline in the birth rate, fewer young people coming on to the labour market and therefore more women having to return to work. I hope that this measure will encourage women with families to return to work. It is to be welcomed very warmly.
  As a football fan, I also strongly welcome the reduction in the pool betting duty. It is something for which those of us connected with the all-party football committee have been pressing the Government for some years. It would be churlish not to welcome the proposal. The money thus made available will help the football clubs to implement the recommendations of the Taylor report by improving their grounds. I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend's conceded that most football clubs are losing money and that very few are making large profits.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about football clubs. Does he agree that, in the context of the Taylor report, bodies such as Rugby League clubs are being given no consideration at all, and that they really ought to be considered?
  Mr. Knox: Obviously, I do not know as much about Rugby League clubs as the hon. Gentleman knows. As I have explained, I am an association football fan. However, if what he has said is correct, there is obviously a case for having something done about Rugby League clubs also.
  The fourth aspect of my right hon. Friend's Budget that I commend is the incentives to savings. That is very important indeed. One of the very worrying features of
  1046
  developments in the British economy in the past few years has been the fall in personal savings. It is true that in the last 12 months there has been a slight rise, but overall the level of personal savings is still much too low. I hope that the measures that my right hon. Friend announced today will encourage the rise that has started to take place and that we can look forward to a much higher proportion of the gross domestic product being devoted to personal savings in the years ahead. My right hon. Friend said that his purpose was to encourage the culture of thrift—I particularly liked that phrase—and no doubt Members in all parts of the House would wish to encourage thrift.
  This Budget will be judged not on its detailed proposals but on its effect on the British economy over the next 18 months. At present, this country faces two very serious economic problems—a massive balance of payments deficit and over-high inflation. Those two problems, like all economic problems, are related. I have no doubt that the balance of payments deficit is the more serious of he two, and that failure to correct it soon will do irreparable long-term damage, as it will transform us from being a creditor country into a debtor country. The fundamental cause of our balance of payments problem and of our inflation problem is excessive demand in the British domestic economy. The high level of home demand has resulted in increased imports and reduced exports. It has resulted in too much money chasing too few goods and, as a consequence, an unacceptably high rate of inflation.
  Clearly, the level of domestic demand must be reduced if those two problems are to be overcome. This can be done in three ways—by increasing taxes, by increasing savings, and by high interest rates. All those measures reduce consumption, although probably the most sensible course is to have a combination of all three. So far, Government policy has tended to concentrate on high interest rates. Unfortunately this has not been terribly successful and it has had serious adverse side effects. High interest rates attract money into London and force sterling up to an artificially high level. As a consequence, British exports are dearer than they should be and therefore more difficult to sell in world markets, while imports are cheaper than they should be and therefore easier to sell. In such circumstances it is extremely difficult to reduce, let alone eliminate, the balance of payments deficit.
  For those reasons, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not indicate that he intended to place less emphasis on interest rates as a means of resolving our economic problems, which suggests that interest rates are likely to remain at too high a level for too long. That is regrettable not only because of the effect on the balance of payments but also because of the effect on house purchasers, who are being hit particularly hard by the present level of mortgage interest rates. There should be less emphasis on interest rates and much more emphasis on taxation and saving if we are to achieve a balanced approach to the solution of our economic problems.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the fact that higher taxation and higher saving have a part to play in dealing with our current problems. At least he is moving in the right direction, although I wish that he had gone much further in both respects. No one likes higher taxes—I am no exception, and I wish that they were not necessary but in my view they are necessary at present as a contribution to the reduction of demand, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has moved at least a little in that direction in the Budget. I wonder, however,

  1047
  whether he was right to concentrate the increases on excise duties, which in effect are a form of indirect taxation. The disadvantage of increasing indirect taxes is the effect on inflation. There is an advantage in increasing direct taxes because there is no inflationary effect. Given our present inflationary problem, it would have been much better to leave indirect taxes alone and to increase direct taxes only.
  I wonder also whether my right hon. Friend has gone far enough with tax increases. As they are, in effect, a substitute for high interest rates, it seems that a bigger rise in taxes would permit an earlier fall in interest rates. After all, direct and indirect taxes are a fairer means of reducing demand than interest rates, the impact of which tends to be felt disproportionately by those who are purchasing their houses by means of a mortgage. Nor do direct or indirect taxes have as great an adverse effect on investment as interest rates, and investment is, of course, in the medium and long-term interests of the country.
  In current conditions, an increase in savings can have only beneficial economic results. There are no adverse side effects. The decline in savings in recent years, to which I have referred already, has been a worrying feature of our economic performance. It has aggravated both the balance of payments deficit and inflation. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced several measures to encourage higher savings, and we must all hope that they will have the desired effect. I only wish that he had gone a little further. Saving is the least painful way of righting the balance of payments and fighting inflation. A dramatic rise in saving—involving, as it would, lower consumption—would lessen the necessity for high interest rates and high taxes.
  A persistent and alarming feature of the British economy is the rise in earnings above the increase in output, with its consequent inflationary effect. Despite the comparatively high level of unemployment and the freeing of the labour market which has resulted from the Government's trade union legislation, we have an overheated labour market. As unemployment has fallen—it has fallen sharply over the past three years—the overheating has intensified. It is alarming that this has happened with more than 1·5 million people out of work.
  Obviously, we need better training and more measures to improve the mobility of labour. Irrespective of what action is taken, it seems inevitable that the labour market will continue to suffer from overheating even in times of high unemployment. I am afraid that we are no nearer solving the great unsolved economic problem of the past 45 years, which is how to control wage and salary cost inflation.
  I know that incomes policies have their weaknesses and deficiencies, but we seem not to get on very well without such policies. Is it not time that the Government took a less doctrinaire view of incomes policies? Might not an incomes policy make at least some contribution to reducing wage and salary cost inflation?
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: It is always a pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox).
  One of the claims to fame of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is his family's connection with the circus. I am
  1048
  reminded of the words of the late President Harry Truman, who said, "If you can't ride two horses at the same time, you shouldn't be in the b—circus." By common consent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a difficult ride today, and in preparing his Budget after being handed the poisoned chalice by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The City does not appear to be happy. Its attitude was summed up on the front page of The Daily Telegraph on Saturday. It appears that Mr. Peter Warburton of Robert Fleming and Co. Ltd. said that we have a grim picture of stagnant output, rising labour costs, destocking and falling profits. It is in that context that we can consider the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Most significant, perhaps, was the concession for the poll tax. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, £16,000 in savings is not exactly a king's ransom. I feel certain that the tax will need to be greatly refined before it becomes acceptable to the British people. I welcome the concession on lead-free petrol, for environmental reasons alone. The continued differential is imperative. Likewise, I welcome the tax concessions for workplace nurseries. Married women who go out to work are now an established part of our system, and the trend is likely to continue in the years ahead.
  Financial assistance is to be given to the Football Trust. Such action was vital after the Hillsborough tragedy. The additional revenue of £100 million will be most welcome. It will encourage provision to be made for more comfortable sports grounds.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was restrained this afternoon. To return to my circus reference, he was restrained because he has three, not two, difficult horses to ride. First, there are the trade figures; secondly, there is inflation; thirdly, there are exceptionally high interest rates. In 1989, Britain had its largest ever balance of payments deficit, of over £20·4 billion. Compare that with the £50 billion surplus of West Germany.
  As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition reminded the Prime Minister, there is a great deal of catching up to be done. There seems to be little improvement in 1990. The January figures show that imports were flooding in. We had the highest ever level—£10,569 million—in one month alone. Concern has been caused, too, by invisible trade, which for the last quarter of 1989 showed a deficit.
  There are the joys also of Common Market membership. In 1989, we had a trade deficit with the EEC of £14·4 billion. This year, we shall contribute £4·6 billion to that organisation. That is 15 per cent. of its total revenue. There must be a moral there somewhere.
  To tackle the terrible dilemma that the Chancellor of the Exchequer faces, he, like his predecessor, has relied exclusively on interest rates. That is what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has described as the one-club approach. By contrast, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), has consistently urged temporary credit controls and a limit on bank lending. That would be a means of curbing excess domestic demand.
  The solution, nevertheless, to the trade deficit is essentially a long-term one. Investment in manufacturing industry is vital if Britain is to prosper in the decade ahead. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) now recognises this fact. It is a pity that he

  1049
  did not realise the error of his ways way back in 1981, when he was Chancellor and so much of British industry was razed to the ground. This Government, like no Government before them, have enjoyed the untold bounty of North sea oil revenues, but the opportunity for investment has been wasted. In fact, manufacturing investment has only just returned to the level achieved by the last Labour Government.
  We have had a tight Budget today, but of course it remains the Chancellor's ambition to create an economic upsurge next year to try to save the Conservative party from defeat at the polls. His announcement today certainly points in that direction. It is not difficult to realise, though, that such a short-term strategy is not in the long-term interests of this country. What the Chancellor has tried to do today is simply paper over the cracks. I repeat that the Government, and the Chancellor in particular, should directly encourage investment in manufacturing industry, new technology and the undoubted skills of our people.
  Then there is inflation, which the Chancellor's predecessor called the judge and jury. It now stands at 7·7 per cent.—higher than that of any of our major competitors. For example, in Germany it is 3 per cent. and in France 3·6 per cent., while the EEC average is 5·4 per cent. This is not a happy picture, but the Government are not helping. I will give some examples.
  Prescription charges have gone up again. Do hon. Members remember that, in 1979, they were 20p? On 1 April this year they will be £3·05. What a contrast that is. Then there are domestic water supplies. In 1990–91, there will be a 16 per cent. increase on the previous year's figure. Bus, tube and rail fares have all been raised above the inflation rate. Rents will rise substantially in the next months. Many Conservative-controlled authorities are imposing increases above the Government's maximum guideline of £4·50 a week. Electricity charges, on average, are up by 7·7 per cent. but in South Wales, an economically weak region, the charges are up by no less than 12·9 per cent. The poll tax is expected to raise the retail price index by 1 per cent.
  I notice, too, that wages are up 9·25 per cent. for the fourth consecutive month. Last Friday, the Secretary of State for Employment was warning that big pay rises could cost jobs. Even the Prime Minister is now urging wage restraint. Yet what do we find? The bosses—by that, I mean top chairmen and chief executives—have awarded themselves salary increases of nearly 28 per cent. in the past year. That is nearly four times the rate of inflation. Some would consider that leadership is best shown by example, but here again it would appear that there is one law for the rich and another for the rest of us.
  After his appointment less than five months ago, speaking of his economic medicine, the Chancellor said: "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working." There is now a more up-to-date version of those words it is hurting but it is not working. For industry, a 15 per cent. interest rate is simply calamitous, as the Confederation of British Industry readily admits. Mortgagors are facing a terrible dilemma. They just cannot meet the rocketing repayments demanded.
  There are two major side effects of this situation. First, there is debt. A recent study by the Policy Studies Institute showed Britain to be drowning in a sea of debt. Nearly 2·5 million households had difficulty paying their bills last
  1050
  year. Wales has been particularly badly hit by mortgage misery. Cardiff city council has had to set up a special advice centre to deal with the situation.
  Secondly, according to Shelter, which knows about these things, homelessness has been increasing for some time, and when the poll tax is introduced in a few weeks' time, there could be an explosion. Poll tax is a story in itself. To me it was best summed up in the words of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Prime Minister's likely successor, who said:
  "I cannot remember a discussion of the option of the poll tax in which it was not rejected as expensive, ineffective and unfair."
  It is for those reasons, of course, that we have had this very limited concession in the Chancellor's statement this afternoon.
  But it is not only poll tax; the whole range of this Government's policies are now being rejected by the electorate. The Mid-Staffordshire by-election on Thursday will be an indication of this.
  I repeat that all that the Chancellor has tried to do today is paper over the cracks, in the short-term interests of the Conservative party. The Prime Minister is now under constant threat from inside her own party. There has been no economic miracle. A £20 billion trade deficit, inflation at 7·7 per cent. and interest rates at over 15 per cent.—these figures, together with the opinion polls, spell a story of disaster for the Government. The ship is sinking fast. The faster the process is completed, the better it will be for the people of this country.
  6.27 pm
  Sir Alan Glyn: This is a sensible Budget and one that has been produced against a very difficult background. Nobody knew which way the deutschmark would go and and that is one of the factors that have made it extremely difficult to prepare the Budget. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has concentrated on the important things—first, the reduction of inflation and, secondly, the building up of a strong economy in this country. To do that he needed to encourage savings, and many of the measures that he has produced will do that.
  I am particularly pleased that he has raised the threshold to £16,000 for poll tax. It always seems to me to be quite incredible that we should encourage people to save and then, at the end of their lives, tell them that they cannot have any benefit because they have saved. That is a positive disincentive to saving. Savings are of the utmost importance to the country. Before the war we were always dependent on our invisibles—in other words, our investments abroad—and the same principle of savings applies today.
  I am also pleased to see that my right hon. Friend has at last provided for taxing husband and wife separately and that he is encouraging the small investor and encouraging people to put more money into charities. The VAT changes will help small firms, but they will not match the increase in value that will be placed on the properties and the increase in other taxation.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has not been able to repay quite so much national debt as was repaid last year. People do not attach much importance to the repayment of national debt, but it saves about £150 million in interest. Reducing the debt means paying less interest, and my right hon. Friend explained how that money could

  1051
  be better spent. I have always believed that restrictions on credit cards and credit generally would be helpful, but I have been told that that would make only a small difference. The loans by big banks to South American countries are of far greater importance and should be carefully considered. My right hon. Friend has paid attention to that point.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) mentioned the exchange rate mechanism. I do not believe that we should move from the position that we took in Madrid, which was that we should enter the mechanism only when it suited us to do so and not when it suited others. It is for us to judge the moment when we should join.
  I especially welcome the increased allowance for the blind to about £1,000. We all know the difficulties that they face and the increased allowance will make a great difference to them.
  I am rather divided on the question of workplace nurseries. There are two ways to view the question—first, family life, and secondly, working women. Whether we like it or not, because there is a smaller work force we must accept that there will be more women in employment, so I have no alternative but to welcome my right hon. Friend's proposal.
  I say to the House, never mind the petrol, the wine or the beer: what is most important is that the Budget will lay the foundations for a nation which believes in saving, encourages people to work and at the end of their days allows them to enjoy their savings. The taxation system that we have been promised is an encouragement for the future. I am grateful to hon. Members for listening to my speech.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I join other right hon. and hon. Members who have thanked the Chancellor for the way in which he presented his Budget, and I congratulate him on his manner in doing so.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that he regretted the fact that the Budget contained no commitment to join the exchange rate mechanism immediately. I agree that it is a matter for regret and I hope that it will be rectified before too long. Unlike the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), I have an enthusiasm for the ERM as I believe it to be the correct structure and discipline within which to order our economy. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the necessity to encourage saving and shall focus most of my remarks on that.
  It is a curate's egg of a Budget—we all welcome parts of it, but there are other parts which will not help our constituents. The House will not be surprised to learn that I am especially pleased about the decision on pool betting duties. I represent part of the city of Liverpool, where the two major pools promoters—Littlewoods and Vernons—are based, and it will be good news for them, not least because they have supported the Football Trust for many years. I am sure that they will use their good offices to ensure that much-needed improvements are undertaken to grounds—something that Liverpool, having experienced the Hillsborough disaster, will want to see carried out with great expedition.
  1052
  I also welcome the proposals for charitable giving. It is the right approach to encourage personal generosity. Many people want to give more and it is right that the state should match that giving.
  As I have said, the Budget is a curate's egg. It is scandalous that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to explain what the poll tax exemption would mean to those who have been paying the community charge in Scotland for the past year. The exemption is also of little use to those who do not have any savings. Many of my constituents face poll tax charges of almost £500. For them, the community charge is a regressive form of taxation. Exemptions alone will not ease their minds—they want the community charge replaced by a more equitable form of taxation based on local income tax. The absence in the Chancellor's speech of anything about collecting this tax on the basis of a person's ability to pay is an unfavourable judgment on the Budget which will be made throughout the country.
  I welcome what the Chancellor said about reviving the culture of thrift. That is desperately needed. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a Budget for savers, but it must be said that many of the problems of insidious debt which he says have to be met have been created by the very people now offering solutions.
  The Chancellor said that he hoped to pay off £7 billion of public debt in the next 12 months. No hon. Member would oppose meeting some of our debt payments, and it will certainly save on interest charges, but we must contrast this with the position of local authorities. Their rate support grant—and now the community charge grant—has been reduced year by year. As a result, local authorities are encumbered by massive corporate debts. In Liverpool, a 1 per cent. increase in the interest rate means a staggering £500,000 increase in corporate debt, which now stands at more than £700 million.
  The Chancellor mentioned that banks had been paying off some of the debts of Third world countries unable to meet debt charges. Again, I welcome that, but the fact is that we have been drawing more from Third world countries than we have been giving them in aid as they struggle to pay off the debt charges with which they have been saddled for so many years. Small movements in interest rates cripple those countries. The one way to stabilise our interest rates is to move rapidly into the exchange rate mechanism, and the sooner the better.
  Debt is insidious and destructive—in the Third world, in many of our local communities, and nowhere more so than in its effect on family life, which in many parts of the country is collapsing. One in three marriages now ends in divorce. Marriage breakdown is 600 per cent. higher than it was in 1961, with 150,000 couples divorcing each year. It is clear that many families have great difficulty making ends meet while preserving their marriages. A major contributory factor in the corrosion of family life has been the strain imposed by crippling debt. Last November, in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that Britain's debt now stands at a staggering £378 billion. The fact is that, the poorer the person, the more debt he faces.
  Last year, more than 2 million households in England, Scotland and Wales fell behind payments and found themselves in debt. Together, their arrears amounted to £2·9 billion. Our nation of savers, as the Chancellor described it, has become a nation of debtors. What has that meant for families? Last year, more than 23,000 gas

  1053
  supplies and 73,000 electricity supplies were disconnected, 13,780 homes were repossessed and 70,480 households were in mortgage arrears by six months or more. A recent survey showed that debt led to emotional and physical problems, ranging from feelings of isolation to marital break-up and suicidal tendencies—according to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children it is even one of the stress factors involved in child abuse.
  The Office of Fair Trading says that 3·6 million people feel over-committed with credit, 4·5 million have had difficulty in the past five years with repayments and 8·2 million have taken on commitments that they now regret. Millions of families are living in the hope that something will turn up, pressurised as they are by loan sharks and greedy money-lenders charging usurious rates of interest. A court case under way in Birmingham involves an extortionate annual percentage rate of interest of 1,192 per cent.
  What of the household names? Big high street stores offer their own credit arrangements. This month the annual percentage rates of credit at a sample of stores reveals that John Lewis is charging 23·8 per cent., Habitat 34·4 per cent., Marks and Spencer 34·5 per cent. and Next 39·9 per cent. Credit cards range from 22·4 per cent. on Lloyds Gold Card, plus a £30 annual fee, to 31·3 per cent. on the TSB Trustcard/Visa. Advertising continues to stimulate the demand for more credit which in turn will lead to even more indebtedness.
  If, along with his Budget today, the Chancellor were forced to present to Parliament an impact statement, detailing how his policies would affect families and communities, he would have to address those fundamental questions. It is families and neighbourhoods who are the foundation and cornerstone of society, not the Dow Jones index or sterling's relative strength against the deutschmark. It would stop this high street daylight robbery and help to curtail spending if we set an interest rate limit on retail sales.
  I am also sorry that there was no mention in the Budget speech of credit unions, which I passionately believe should be supported. They establish saving and financial disciplines, promote saving and strengthen communities.
  The Government should also consider making provision in the national curriculum for money management education. The younger people are, the more likely they are to be in debt. We should also impose a levy on institutions such as banks and building societies, forcing them to contribute to the cost of setting up proper financial counselling services. Young people especially are simply not given adequate advice. They run up massive debts which, like an albatross round their necks, encumber them for years.
  Perhaps politicians should also consider how much worse matters are going to be made by the imposition of the community charge and by student loans. Taken together, these also create a situation in which people simply have to borrow—always borrowing in order to fend off the worst. That in turn puts pressure on communities and families.
  The Chancellor sat down at the end of his Budget oration having presented yet another Budget largely geared to the needs of money markets and financial institutions. Economics should be made to serve the people, not the other way round. Success or failure should be measured and judged in relationist terms, not merely materialistic ones. They should be judged by the impact
  1054
  that policies will have on families, communities and ordinary people. By that measure, today's Budget has not addressed any of the fundamental problems in Britain today—it has merely tinkered with the numbers.
  6.43 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to the Chancellor's speech as being like the curate's egg, good in parts. I should like to apply the same description to the hon. Gentleman's speech because I agree with some of the things that he said and disagree with others. I wholly disagree with him on local income tax, which I happen to think a nonsense, but I have a lot of sympathy for what he said on the exchange rate mechanism.
  Because banking and insurance were mentioned in the Budget, I should at once declare an interest in Barclays Bank and Bowring UK Ltd. I shall be making no direct references to those companies although they may well be affected by the Budget, as will many others, I have no doubt.
  I should like to pick up a point raised by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maindenhead (Sir A. Glyn) on credit card indebtedness. As has been well acknowledged by the present Chancellor and his predecessor, it represents only 2 per cent. of total borrowing, the overwhelming majority of borrowing being represented by loans to businesses and loans for house purchase. It is as well to understand that and keep things in perspective.
  The Budget is both responsible and sensitive. It was brilliantly and lucidly presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As a neighbour of his in Cambridgeshire, I was particularly proud of the way in which he undertook this daunting task, his first Budget, under the glare of the television lights and in extremely difficult times. He resisted the temptation to take the easy option; on the other hand, he refrained from indulging in what I call the British disease.
  Our press and media and, if I may say so, our Opposition—it does not matter which party is in Opposition; we did the same when we were in Opposition—have a unique knack of denigrating and running down our country. That is immensely damaging, because it is always misunderstood overseas. The Chancellor was right to stress in his opening remarks the important factors about our economy, which is basically much stronger than some jittery folk would have one believe. He did us a great service in putting it in perspective. Nevertheless, in view of the international situation, he had to tiptoe delicately along a tightrope.
  The Government have used the crude interest rate policy as their main weapon in the battle against inflation. No one in the House or outside it with any sense of responsibility would deny that our major battle is with inflation—it is a curse and a cancer, affecting everybody, from the greatest firms to the humblest citizen in the land—but when it comes to the method used to deal with it, I myself have been publicly critical of the excessive use of the interest rate policy. I dislike high interest rates, even though I recognise the necessity for them, because too great a burden is placed upon three groups of people who

  1055
  have borne the brunt of the battle against inflation. In other words, the have-nots have suffered more than the haves.
  Those who suffer particularly from a high interest rate policy are the small firms, which, unlike big firms, have been unable to build up large profits and which work on very tight margins; the small farmers, as I know from my experience in East Anglia, who depend very much upon credit and borrowing from banks; and the new home owners, the people who bought their houses quite recently. Those are the people who have to bear a very heavy burden. So I was glad that to some extent the Chancellor recognised, with great sensitivity and sympathy, the problems suffered by those groups.
  I was pleased that the Chancellor recognised the problems because, after all, inflation is the responsibility of Government. I recall very well the economic gurus of the 1970s, always telling us that inflation was Government's responsibility, that it was Government who caused it, not ordinary individuals. That being so, it is right that Government should accept a fair share of responsibility in that respect. The Chancellor himself recognised that in what he did for small firms. I was pleased with the value added tax measures, which are particularly welcome. The other tax exemptions will give great encouragement to that immensely important sector of our economy.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave encouraging news. After all, this is the first time in history that I can recall when 1,500 net new firms have been starting up each week. That is not the sign of an economy in depression and decay, but a sign of buoyancy and enthusiasm. It has happened under no previous Government. I was the first Minister responsible for small firms. We were David against Goliath; we were the Cinderellas. We had little support—none at all from the Opposition or the Confederation of British Industry. In those days, nothing approaching that number of people were starting up and successfully pursuing small businesses. The Chancellor has recognised that, and I welcome what he has done to support small firms.
  I am also delighted that my right hon. Friend has abolished stamp duty on share transfers. If I have a regret, it is that he could not make a reduction in stamp duty for house purchase, as that might have given a little fillip to the housing market. Stamp duty is a ridiculous tax, and I have not the faintest idea why it was ever introduced. I know that it raises considerable revenue for my hon. Friends in the Treasury, but the sooner it finally goes the happier I shall be.
  Let me touch on the macro-economic position. I accept that interest rates must stay, and I appreciate the Chancellor's point that he did not want to suddenly bring them down and then have to put them up again; that would create instability. Likewise, I hope that he has got the position right in believing that his fiscal measures are sufficient to sustain interest rate monetary policy as it is. I respect his judgment that there was no need for any stronger taxation measures than he imposed to avoid putting up interest rates in the future. I profoundly hope that that is right, but it is a tightrope along which he tiptoed with great elegance and skill, as one would expect of someone with his family background.
  1056
  For two reasons, I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) when he said that it would be better not to have increased indirect taxation, but that we should have increased direct taxation. First, that would have put the basis of direct and indirect taxation out of balance, which is the last thing that we want to do.
  Secondly, ever since the Government came to power, our policy has been to switch from direct to indirect taxation. Direct taxation is a tax on effort, enterprise and work, whereas indirect taxation is a tax on spending. At this time it was necessary to curb spending, but not necessary to impose a burden upon work and enterprise. Therefore, I support the Chancellor's increase in excise duties—quite apart from the alleged effects on health of smoking and drinking.
  The Chancellor described this as a savings Budget, and it was right and proper for him to do so. At a time such as this—when there was room for manoeuvre, and when taxation was constrained and had to be neutral—the onething that we had to do was encourage savings. He has done that splendidly, with some novel ideas. I am especially attracted by the tax-exempt special savings account, known as TESSA—I know that that will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—which will be especially attractive to small or first-time savers. It will appeal to a wide range of people who perhaps had not thought of saving hitherto.
  I was especially pleased with what the Chancellor did for unit trusts and employee share ownership, as I was a founder member of the wider share ownership movement before I entered the House. With the late Maurice Macmillan—the son of Viscount Stockton—I formed the movement, and we had a great deal of help from Lord Lever and Richard Wainwright. It was an all-party movement. We struggled desperately to get it going, as successive Governments put more burdens in the path of those who would like to invest in shares. We bumped along against a lack of Government enthusiasm, but our philosophy always remained the same: a desire to spread the wealth of the nation throughout the people.
  Many Opposition Members do not understand the need to spread wealth, wanting to collect it into the hands of the state. My desire is always to distribute it, and that is why I support the privatisation programme and home ownership. I hope that that continues and has not been damaged too much by high interest rates. When people acquire savings and earners are turned into owners, they acquire a degree of independence and a stake in their country that they could never have if everything were vested in the central hands of the state. I congratulate the Chancellor on doing what he did.
  One of the most creditable features of the Government is that, for the first time in living history, there are more individual shareholders than trade union members. That is a most healthy development, as it has given independence to people, enabling them to stand tall and to own a bit of our economy. That should be encouraged. I wonder whether the Chancellor had a chance to study—if not for this Budget, then perhaps for a future one—the work of the Invest in Britain Campaign. A phrase from the memorandum that it sent him said:
  "They sought tax relief on U.K. equity investments up to an agreed ceiling held for a minimum of 12 months and the rollover of capital gains tax liability while the funds remain in U.K. equities."

  1057
  Perhaps the Chancellor did not go as far as the organisation would like, but his thinking was along those lines. I hope that that will be the theme for the future: the spread of ownership is essential if we are to remain a free society.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Mossley Hill on the exchange rate mechanism. We are already in the European monetary system, I understand, but the exchange rate mechanism is the question mark. I understand that a decision was made at the Madrid summit to which the Chancellor, the Government and the Prime Minister are committed. Nevertheless, the sooner we can join the exchange rate mechanism the better it will be for Britain, for our economy and for business generally.
  When I talk to business men, I find above all that they want stability of currency. As our erstwhile colleague Sir Leon Brittan—now a European Commissioner—said in a remarkable speech, it is heartbreaking for businesses to work out their activities, to produce things at the right cost, to allow for a sensible profit, to have people working on a scheme and to arrange exports, and then suddenly to find that they are blown off course by a weird movement of currency over which they have no control. As the CBI says, they would welcome an early entry into the exchange rate mechanism. They would accept that there is a discipline attached, and that it is not an easy, soft option.
  When the late Lord Stockton urged entry of the Common Market, he said that it was not a warm Turkish bath, but a cold bracing shower. However, for the sake of stability, a degree of discipline is acceptable. So we should look again at the Madrid summit conditions and, if they seem excessively rigid, reconsider the situation, if that means a chance of us getting early into the exchange rate mechanism and securing stability for the future.
  I believe that this will prove to be a remarkably successful Budget in difficult circumstances and that the Chancellor will prove to be one of the great Chancellors of our age.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill is promoted by the council of the London borough of Redbridge. It would authorise the establishment of a market on a site near Ilford town centre. Following a long local inquiry, the council in 1980 adopted a local plan for the town centre.
In accordance with the proposals in that plan, the council has revitalised Ilford town centre by the construction of a relief road diverting the A118 round the town centre, providing service roads and the pedestrianisation of part of the High road. As a consequence, a pleasant environment has been created in Ilford town centre for workers, residents and shoppers.
That has led to considerable investment in the town centre, and the Prudential Corporation and the Norwich Union Insurance Group are currently constructing a £100 million retail development, known as the Exchange at Ilford. That will provide 51,000 sq m of new shopping floor space together with a 1,200-space car park.
The plan proposed the development of a site in Ilford town centre for a substantial shopping development, to be combined with an expanded and more attractive covered retail market as a vital feature of the improved shopping centre. Since the adoption of the plan, about 250 people have shown a desire to take stall holdings in the market.
The council believes that a market established on the proposed site, which it owns, in Ilford town centre would provide an additional and attractive facility for shoppers and would complement the Exchange at Ilford development. The council has the support in that matter of the Redbridge chamber of trade and commerce, the Ilford Traders Association, the Prudential Corporation and the Norwich Union Insurance Group. Planning permission will be sought separately for the establishment of the market if the Bill is successful.
The London borough of Havering has two markets at Romford, one on a Wednesday and one on a Friday, which I believe are protected by charter or lost modern grant within a distance of six and two thirds miles and that it would be in contravention of that protection to establish the proposed market at Ilford. Havering has a third market at Romford, operated by it in exercise of its powers under part III of the Food Act 1984. The Romford markets contain about 600 pitches on each of those days.
Havering council petitioned against the Bill, and the issues between the two councils were dealt with by an Opposed Bill Committee. Evidence was brought by the two parties and the Committee decided on a compromise by which the Bill was allowed to proceed, subject to certain amendments for the benefit of Havering borough council, including a special provision for compensation.
The Bill having reached this stage, it having been properly contested in an Opposed Bill Committee, and the House having allowed the measure to proceed thus far., I hope that hon. Members will tonight grant it a Third reading so that it may proceed on its way.
7.4 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: To hon. Members who are not acquainted with Redbridge or Havering, the events which we are now discussing will appear to contrast with the preceding debate. Indeed, some hon. Members may find it difficult to relate the importance of this measure to the international importance, as it were, of the previous matters with which we were concerned.
Hon. Members whose constituencies come within the area of the Bill accept that we are dealing with extremely important matters, as I shall show. The Bill could also have a major impact on many other constituencies not specifically mentioned in the measure. Those constituencies, by clear and obvious linkage, would be affected by similar legislation, were it to be introduced.
I begin, not for the first time, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the way in which he has conducted the proceedings on the Bill. He knows that my opposition to it in no way affects my personal friendship with him. It is simply a question of each of us seeking to do our duty, as we see it, by our constituents.
I must also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, within whose constituency is situated Romford market, around which the resistance to the Bill coalesces. He is prevented, by his duties in government, from contributing to these proceedings, but he has been present on each occasion when we have debated the Bill.
We are at the final stage of a hard-fought battle over the measure. It may be worth at the outset detailing the main changes that have occurred compared with the version of the Bill that was originally deposited, because those changes highlight a central message that I am anxious to convey to the House. Most important among the changes has been the removal of the possibility, originally set out in the Bill as deposited, of having two markets unlimited as to size and certainly not tightly drawn as to location.
Havering welcomes the fact that the compensation provisions have been substantially rewritten, to the benefit of the existing Romford market. The transfer or disposal of market rights created by the Bill can now take place only with the consent in writing of Redbridge council.
I could detail other changes, but in fairness to the House and the wish that hon. Members must have to proceed, I shall limit myself to those three main ones, which are all significant and which set out clearly the fact that the opposition of Havering council has secured a transformation in the original Bill.
Mr. William O'Brien: I understand that compensation is a matter for negotiation between the two boroughs. Is there any information about the way in which compensation money may be spent by Havering borough council? Will that money be regarded as revenue or capital, and could it be used, for example, to offset poll tax charges?
Mr. Squire: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would ask me a question that I could answer. I cannot answer, because, while I understand that the money would go to the London borough of Havering and could be spent as a revenue item, I cannot be sure of that and would not wish to mislead the House.
1060
I am reminded, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned compensation—which is a central part of the Bill—that hon. Members must bear in mind the fact that there is a world of difference between arriving at a figure of compensation with a measure passing through Parliament in the background, and negotiations taking place at arm's length, so to speak, between councils, with, in this case, Havering, which has existing rights, seeking new rights from the other council. The difference will be clear to hon. Members, and I need not spell it out further.
Mr. Martin Redmond: I understood from previous discussions on the Bill that the question of compensation had been agreed between the two authorities and that, in the first year, it would be "X Y or Z" amount, and in the second year some other amount. Am I correct in that assumption?
Mr. Squire: The hon. Member is right, in as much as the form of words suggested by the Committee was agreed to by the London borough of Havering. If the Bill had not existed and the borough of Redbridge had approached the borough of Havering—as has always been its right—to discuss reasonable compensation for Redbridge opening a market within the statutory distance of six and two thirds miles, it is likely that very different terms would have been agreed—if it were possible to agree any terms. I think that the hon. Member will agree that there is a world of difference between that and agreeing a form of words in Committee, which were suggested to the two parties by the Committee.
The key point about this legislation is that it emphasises the dangers inherent in private legislation, when one tries to take away the established rights of another body, unless the circumstances are unique. However, in this case they are not unique and can be applied in other areas, which leads me directly to the borough of Havering's central concern.
Since 1247, charter markets have enjoyed statutory protection in this country and they have survived with that protection through centuries of legislation—such as the Shop Acts—that has affected other areas of retail trade. The reforms have left the rights of charter markets untouched.
I am not just talking about Romford market. On Saturday, I was in Colchester. I was not part of the mob that ransacked the hall there, although I addressed a meeting in the damaged building one hour later. It is the first time that I have created such an impact before I have spoken rather than as a consequence of my words. In Colchester high street was a sign saying, "Welcome to Colchester, Britain's oldest open-air market," or words to that effect.
Markets are a matter of pride. They give people something to identify with in their community and they are a major selling point, popular with ratepayers and shoppers. They are a major commercial attraction. Charter markets are not just a matter for nostalgia. There are practical common sense reasons why the rights and duties imposed by this age-old legislation are important. If there is a reason to modify the existing rights, it should be done by Government legislation that will affect all such markets.
During an earlier stage of the Bill, it was suggested that the distance of six and two thirds miles is an anachronism—my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South

1061
emphasised that in his brief speech. We were told that originally it was the distance that one person could reasonably walk in a day. These days, not many people walk six and two thirds miles—most people have wheels on their four corners. Therefore, there may be a need to review that. Surely there should be an overall change after an analysis by the Government or by Select Committee of all the drawbacks and benefits of such a change.
In 1891, a royal commission recommended the abolition of the rules for the protection of markets' rights. Since then, there have been a variety of Governments of differing political persuasions—I am talking about a time when we still had Liberal Governments—but not one has sought to implement the commission's recommendations. To the contrary, the Food Act 1984 specifically reserved the existing rights of markets against rival markets. If we ponder the reason, we may conclude that it was because this is a complex issue and because there was concern about whether compensation rights could be accurately and fairly calculated.
With more than 250 markets dotted around the country, this issue may have been brought to the attention of the House many times since the original report was produced, but apparently not in such a way as to convince any Government of the necessity of such legislation. To make the analogy perfect, it seems to me that, if angels fear to tread—although I hesitate to apply the word angel to any Government—we should be fearful in case we turn out to be fools rushing in.
Mr. Redmond: I think that the hon. Member is making a valid point. Because of the effect that the Bill will have, perhaps the Government should consider overall legislation. A Select Committee could study the matter in greater depth. We may be discussing one small insignificant market, but it has great importance to the borough. I am not sure that we should destroy something that has existed for centuries and has proved such a useful place for people to congregate and to do their work. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could convince his hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) who is sponsoring the Bill, to withdraw it at this late stage. I am sure that the House would appreciate that.
Mr. Squire: I share the sentiments behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Obviously I am not privy to discussions that might have taken place between my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). I can only guess at them, but I hope that even at this late stage the Under-Secretary may feel able to contribute to the proceedings in a marginally more lengthy fashion than he has done on previous occasions.
To give some idea of the scope of the Bill, Ilford and Romford are major shopping centres which attract a substantial number of people. We are talking about a new market, which would have 80 stalls and would be open for six days a week—which is equivalent to 480 stalls. The market does not have to open six days a week, but the Bill allows it.
At an earlier stage in our consideration of the Bill, we discussed how many days it would be open, and it has been broadly agreed that it would be for six days. That will have a substantial impact on the market in Romford, which has 600 spaces—although, as we have said before, it has nearer
1062
300 traders—and is open for three days a week. There will be two large markets. The new market will be smaller, but by any standards it will make a significant change in the existing situation.
I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that, despite changes to improve the Bill that I have mentioned, Havering council remains totally opposed to it. Some hon. Members may have received a note from the council this week. Unlike so many matters discussed in the Chamber or by local authorities, the council is not divided on party lines on this issue. The letter from the borough of Havering is signed by the leader of the council and the leader of the opposition. I know for certain that if the council had so chosen, it could have got the leaders of other groups within the council to sign the letter—for example, the ratepayers and the SLD. There is unanimity.
That is quite different from the position in the London borough of Redbridge. Technically, it is not covered by the Bill, but it is important to refer to Redbridge when we analyse the thinking behind the proposal and the relative strength of opinion in Redbridge and Havering. The London borough of Havering, which covers Romford, believes that the market is bad news. However, such an opinion could be dismissed by people saying, "You would say that, wouldn't you? You are arguing on behalf of rights that you hold and you are trying to defend them." There is nothing wrong in that; I am sure that others would do the same. However, in this Third Reading debate—the last time that it will be possible to put this on record—it is important to underline the views of the National Market Traders Federation.
Mr. Alan Meale: One of the main reasons why the council is opposed to the market relates to the standards that have been achieved in the market and the protection that that affords to consumers and ratepayers. The National Market Traders Federation believes that consumer protection, which it took many generations of market traders to achieve, will be diminished. The hon. Gentleman ought to consider whether the benefits of die present system should be preserved.
Mr. Squire: It is unquestionably true that in no small way the value of the market has been built up by means of the skill and care exercised by the existing market traders. There are complaints from time to time; it would be unusual if there were not. However, a high reputation has been built up over the years. It is jealously guarded as a sign of quality. The market traders want to preserve that high reputation. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair and reasonable point. He has underlined the fact that there is more to this than simply trying to hold on to what one has. Certain standards have been created. There is no guarantee that, in the new market, the same standards would necessarily apply.
Mr. Meale: The consumer standards that have been achieved, in co-operation with local authorities, have protected the consumer. If he has either a major or a minor complaint, he knows that it can be sorted out under the existing arrangements. A relaxation of the rules could change all that. Illegal Sunday markets afford no protection to consumers, who in general are the ratepayers in the area and need local authority protection.
Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman has made another good point. During a previous stage of the Bill's

1063
consideration, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said that the Bill would not damage, let alone destroy, Romford market. A number of people in that market may not share his confidence. They are worried that, if there were a downturn in market trade as a result of the Bill, an inevitable consequence would be a drop in standards in Romford market, whatever happened in Ilford market.
Mr. O'Brien: If the promoters of the Bill believe that Romford market would lose trade, what is the position of small shopkeepers who fear that they could be affected by traders in Romford market? They are concerned about their future. Is their future being considered?
Mr. Squire: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking about the small traders in Romford or in Ilford?
Mr. O'Brien: In Romford.
Mr. Squire: The small traders in Romford wholeheartedly welcome the market. They believe that it adds to the attractions of Romford in general and that therefore it benefits them. I do not know what the small shopkeepers in Ilford think. A few small traders in Ilford may not want a market, but it would be wrong if I were to suggest what the small shopkeepers in Ilford might or might not think.
The views of the National Market Traders Federation are important. It would welcome an opportunity to increase its membership, just as a trade union official would welcome an opportunity to increase membership. He would take every opportunity to do so, unless the circumstances were so unusual that he would be justified in not doing so.
The National Market Traders Federation represents market traders throughout the country. It says, "We don't want it; we don't like it." It recognises the direct link between the Bill and any future legislation. It has pointed to some of the complications. Both British Rail and London Underground are rumoured to be interested in setting up Saturday and possibly Sunday markets. They would use as marketplaces car parks that during the week are available for commuters' cars. In isolation, that sounds perfectly reasonable, but one ought to think for a moment about the considerable impact of such a proposal.
A Bill could be introduced for the establishment of a market on each car park. The arguments that could be advanced against such a proposal could not be advanced if the Bill were passed. Exactly the same principle is involved. It would not be just local authorities that might seek to take trade from existing market traders. Other bodies would be provided with a similar opportunity: their motives might be neither more nor less worthy. I do not understand how one could support one and oppose the other, as the principle is the same.
Without stretching comparisons with British Rail and London Underground too far, British Coal, British Steel and Associated British Ports also have land which could be used for a similar purpose, and presumably could tackle the central defences of the market charter rights by dint of the Bill.
Mr. Vivian Bendall: Is that not the whole reason for placing a Bill before the House?
Mr. Squire: I am not sure that I quite follow my hon. Friend. If he was implying that in each of those cases a Bill could be brought before the House, and, subject to detailed changes on compensation and everything else, would be passed because it seemed to be the natural thing to do, that would destroy market rights throughout the country. Many hon. Members on either side of the Chamber would hesitate before considering that to be good or the way to change those market rights, assuming that they needed changing.
Mr. Meale: It is not a question of Romford and Ilford alone: it affects any market anywhere in the country. If the Bill were enacted it would have a severe detrimental affect on the quality of markets around the country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that, in responding to that, the hon. Gentleman will remember that we are on Third Reading and we must deal only with what is in the Bill.
Mr. Squire: I recognise your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have sought to stick within the strictures that you have rightly laid down.
Mr. O'Brien: Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Second Reading debate on 6 June 1989, when the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) said:
"I hope that that will be the case in other parts of the country, too, in future."—[Official Report, 6 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 81.]
He was referring to the development of markets in other parts of the country. Even on Second Reading, it was not clear that the Bill would ensure protection. The hon. Gentleman who was sponsoring the Bill stated categorically that he hoped that that would happen throughout the country in future. Therefore, there are dangers, and t he hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) is right to draw them to our attention.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On Second Reading of a Bill, it is in order to discuss the broad principle, which clearly has implications in other parts of the country. We are now on the Third Reading of the Bill. The debate on Third Reading is much more restricted and must relate to what is actually in the Bill.
Mr. Squire: Clause 3 deals specifically with the establishment of a market which previously would not have been possible without the approval of the House, if it gives its approval, and is central to the entire debate. I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) an example that he will recognise immediately. At present, black cabs are restricted in number and there is a value attached to having a black cab. Among many reasons, that protects the users of black cabs, as my hon. Friend, who is a good spokesman for that industry, knows very well. A similar principle is attached to market rights which have a value and which are being tackled piecemeal rather than by an overall reform of market rights.
Mr. Bendall: I am not going to get involved in a debate on black cabs, as we shall probably have a debate on them in the not-too-distant future. Anybody wanting to establish a market will have to bring legislation before the House if a local authority refused it on planning grounds. Therefore, the House would have the opportunity to say

1065
yes or no to that Bill. Clearly, if such a proposal would interfere with too many markets close at hand, the House in its wisdom would reject it.
Mr. Squire: I am not quite sure that I have my hon. Friend's faith that a debate which might not be packed out would necessarily embrace the full wisdom of the Chamber. I prefer to rely upon statutes or laws that we pass with general rather than specific application.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it would be a fine irony if London Underground decided that it wanted to establish a market at Redbridge station, which I am sure would be a very suitable place for one? I am not sure that my hon. Friends who are sponsoring the Bill would be able to come back to the House, put their hands on their hearts and say that there was any good reason whatsoever for such an application to be refused.
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend's point needs no comment from me.
I am sorry that we have strayed but a fraction. I shall sum up the genuine opposition and concern of those of us who seek to defend the existing rights. My best friends here—I may have one or two—would not expect me to defend a totally free and unfettered market. In practice, very few Conservative Members defend a totally free and unfettered market. They may think that they do, but there is usually reason to interject some restraint or protection. I do not have any embarrassment about saying that that is my view, and I apply it here.
If there is no broad need to modify existing rights, how do we justify piecemeal reform? I and others—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor)—have tried to point out that central lacuna. Members of Parliament unconnected with either borough have come to realise the wider impact of the Bill and to support our opposition to it. Quite simply, we are talking about the compulsory extinction of market rights that have been enjoyed for centuries. We are talking about potentially identical legislation in 285 other constituencies—the constituencies where there is at least one charter market with similar rights. That makes it a bigger issue, and the House would be ill advised to pass the Bill tonight. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the chamber to join me in voting against it.
7.37 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: It has been outlined to us that the borough of Redbridge wishes to establish an open market in the township of Ilford. That is not the headline-catching business of the day, and I am sure that the media will be more interested in interviewing those who took part in the previous debate, but we are discussing an important issue that affects local government. It is based on what is happening, what will happen and what could happen in local government if the Bill is enacted in its present form.
The borough of Redbridge wishes to establish a market, and the borough of Havering has the right to a market in the township of Romford, decreed by royal proclamation in 1247 by Henry III, and has the protection of that long-established royal order that no other market can be established within six and two thirds miles of the market
1066
at Romford. That is basically the issue before the House. Hon. Members are being asked to annul that ancient order, thereby allowing the market in Ilford to proceed.
It is alleged that Redbridge borough council is being denied its statutory rights by the ancient law that applies to Romford. Will the sponsor outline the statutory powers that are being denied to Redbridge borough council? I have read the reports, followed the debates on the Bill and considered the evidence submitted to the Committee that considered it, but the statutory powers that are being denied to Redbridge need further clarification.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) said that it is proposed that the market should be located within one mile of Ilford town centre, but there are further proposals that it should be established within one mile of Ilford town hall. Concern was expressed that the provisions to establish a market within one mile of Ilford town centre could apply to more than one market, but I understand that assurances have been given that only one market will be established. The hon. Gentleman should give further assurances and should answer hon. Members' questions before they take a final decision about the Bill. I therefore ask him what statutory powers are being denied and to state that no more than one market is proposed.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the line that he is taking, with which I entirely agree. Unless I have not read the Bill properly, it does not specify exactly where the market must be held, which could be significant. I know where the promoters plan to hold it, but nothing in the Bill states exactly where it should be held. The promoters must assure us that they will not subsequently move it closer to Romford market than is currently planned.
Mr. O'Brien: That is important to the people of Ilford, because the House is being asked to accept legislation establishing a market within a mile of Ilford town centre, or is it Ilford town hall? The sponsor should answer that question. Will he give the specific location of the market, which is an important issue that we should consider?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As we are trying to discover the location of the market, the Bill says, for what it is worth,
"The Council may establish a market of not more than 80 stalls on the land shown coloured pink".
Where is the pink-coloured land? Can the market be shifted around? It is on a piece of pink paper. I find it odd that those two Right-wing Tories are promoting a market that is on a piece of pink paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) rightly says that the Bill does not specify the location of the market.
Mr. O'Brien: I hope that we shall receive answers to my original question and to hon. Members' supplementary questions.
Mr. Redmond: It is important that the location of the market is clarified. If it was not clarified in Committee, it should be this evening, because it could have an impact on the area. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) knows better than my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) the exact location of the market. Hon. Members cannot pass the Bill without knowing where it will be.
Mr. O'Brien: My interpretation of the Bill is that the market will be located within a mile of Ilford town centre, but a further version has been given stating that it will be within a mile of the town hall. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South will clarify that.
Mr. Thorne: The Opposed Bill Committee considered the matter and approved the site marked in pink on the plan. At present, it is used for car parking. It adjoins council offices and is partly under a flyover across a railway line. As was explained in earlier debates, approval has been given for that site.
Mr. O'Brien: Is the site a mile from the town hall or a mile from the town centre? It is important that hon. Members know the exact location of the market because there is a division of opinion about where it will be established. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South will clear up that point.
Mr. Thorne: The new £100 million development by Norwich Union and Prudential Assurance is almost opposite the town hall, which most people accept is located in the town centre. The site is about 300 yd east of the town centre and the town hall.
Mr. O'Brien: That at least gives us some idea of the location of the market.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Ilford, South said that, if the House gives the Bill its Third Reading, the planning authority will have to consider planning approval for the market. Therefore, the location of the market must be on record, the planning authority will be aware of it and there will be no opportunity to move it.
Mr. Meale: Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has just said to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), the matter is not clear, but is more complicated than it was before. I have here the statement on behalf of the promoters. It says that the last meeting concerned with planning Ilford town centre was held in 1980, following a long public local inquiry. From the statement, it seems that considerable changes have been adopted since 1980, even to the extent of pedestrianisation and a new bypass link road around the area. I do not know whether the people who attended the long public local inquiry, which was concerned with establishing such a planning opportunity, were aware of what could be done. I do not know whether the pink part of the plan has ever been agreed by the people in the locality.
Mr. O'Brien: I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that the statement to which he referred is the statement that we had when we discussed amendments to the Bill. There are many inaccuracies in that statement, especially on the number of markets that are recorded. I cannot judge or comment on the accuracy of the statement or on whether the people who attended the public hearings are aware of where the site will be. I thought that my question to the hon. Member for Ilford, South was satisfactory, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has raised a further question, which I hope will be clarified before we move on from this subject. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South will clear up that point.
Mr. Thorne: The Opposed Bill Committee considered the plans. The pink colouring on the plan shows exactly where the site is to be. That plan has been signed as
1068
approved in front of the Chairman of the Committee, who is a Member of the House. Obviously, the outline planning application did not specify a particular site. The narrowing down of the site chosen was not clear in 1980, but it has now become clear because of the development undertaken by Norwich Union and Prudential Assurance, which, at that time, were not party to this enterprise. They appeared on the scene subsequently. It is partly as a result of their request that the street market is being incorporated.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for that explanation. It is a pity that we do not have the plan on the Table. It would have been helpful for it to be available to hon. Members so that we could look at the issue in detail.
Mr. Skinner: Is that right?
Mr. O'Brien: We do not have the plan before us and I do not know whether there is a copy in the Chamber. If we had had that detail, it would have helped hon. Members' understanding.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance in this matter. Surely when a document is specifically mentioned in a Bill that reaches a Third Reading debate, it should be on record or at least lodged in the Library of the House so that we have an opportunity to make the inspection that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) seeks.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the promoters, and not for the Chair.
Mr O'Brien: That is why we have been requesting the information.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is a matter not for the Chair but for the promoters, will you tell the House how hon. Members who are not the sponsors and who are not associated or involved with the promoters are to know what we are talking about? It seems wholly illogical that the Chair can dissociate itself from a fundamental aspect of the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of information. It is not for me to say whether the House knows what it is talking about.
Mr. O'Brien: I understand that there is no copy of the plan in the Library, although I should have to check that with the Library. It is of paramount importance for hon. Members who are not familiar with Ilford or with Redbridge borough that the plan should be made available so that we can study the location of the market.
My particular interest is that the Bill raises a local government issue. The broad principle involved is that we want to ensure that all the relevant issues are explained and dealt with before any decision is taken. Hon Members who are taking part in the debate do not have all the information before them. It is difficult to make a judgment on this issue on Third Reading.
Mr. Meale: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I am worried now, especially as he has not yet had an answer from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) about the value of the promoters' statement. My hon. Friend has said that the statement is fairly inaccurate. We do not have a copy of the plan and we do not know where the pink marks are. We have a statement that has been

1069
found to be very inaccurate. Surely we cannot consider giving the Bill a Third Reading without any accurate information. Surely we cannot continue at all.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have heard from several of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members that there is something missing and that the plan is not here. You have said that it is none of your business whether the plan is here or not. However, it seems that the Bill is inaccurate. Surely we need to look at the plan. There is only one way in which we can collectively look at the plan. There may be only one plan—who knows, there may be none. Let us assume that there is a plan and that the promoters have it. I reckon that it would be a good idea to adjourn the sitting so that we can examine the plan. That seems sensible, otherwise we shall be talking in riddles about the little pink pieces and all the rest of it. Let us adjourn. You will get your name in the history books, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that you have made such a decision before. You will be in "Erskine May" for ever.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate on Third Reading is quite in order and we should get on with it.
Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have said that the plan is not a matter for the Chair. However, we have not seen the plan and we do not know where the little pink area is. I know that the pink area is referred to in the Bill, but how do we know that the area is within the curtilage of the borough? It may be on the edge of the borough and it may have implications for other boroughs. The House cannot be assured that the piece of land is even within the borough of Ilford until we see the plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made a good point. It is best that we adjourn and consider the Bill another day.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are perfectly legitimate points to be made during the debate, but they are not points of order.
Mr. O'Brien: That does not change matters much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are being asked to approve the Third Reading of a Bill and a market in Ilford whose exact location no one, apart from the Bill's promoters, knows. We have been told that the location is marked on a piece of paper and that it is 300 yd east of the town hall, but that could be 300 yd east of Westminster town hall as far as we are concerned. If we cannot obtain satisfaction, we should return to that matter.
Mr. Redmond: I note that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is in his place. I am not sure whether he should be here or in Sheffield. Perhaps he ought to go to Sheffield to try to determine who should be manager of Sheffield Wednesday.
I want to deal with the planning aspect of the Bill. If the market is to be located in a specific place, we must assume that outline planning permission has been sought, although clearly the application would come up for more detailed consideration later. If no outline planning permission has been sought, who is to say that the local planning authority will not veto the site? Unless there has been some discussion to determine whether the planning committee is likely to accept the location of the market on
1070
that site, the piece of land we are talking about is surely irrelevant. That has a major impact on the debate. Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify that point.
Mr. O'Brien: The problem we face is that Redbridge borough is both the planning authority and the promoter of the Bill. Although we have heard that there is a plan with a location on it, I have not seen it and other Opposition Members have not seen it, although the planning authority is the same body as the promoter of the Bill. That is why I register my concern that we have not been able to look at the location of the site.
Mr. Meale: It appears that we are in a dilemma. Why should we take it for granted that the plan exists? As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has pointed out, a statement from the promoters has been found to be inaccurate. Everyone knows that that is inaccurate. Is it not possible that assertions about the plan are also inaccurate? Surely we need access to the plan before we can proceed with the Bill.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. You have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a matter for the promoters and not for you. Perhaps I may put it to the promoters that they should place a copy of the plan on the Table before we proceed further with the Bill. That will give them the opportunity to discharge their responsibility—which you Sir, identified—to provide the necessary information. If they fail to provide it, how can they, or anyone else, say that we should support the Bill? It is important that we should have all the details before us.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has long experience of local government, as do one or two other hon. Members. Let us assume, drawing an analogy, that we have an application for a market in a local authority area. Along come the promoters of the plan. We say, "Can you show us where it will be?" What would happen in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, London or anywhere else if the chief executive of the council said, "I am awfully sorry. We don't know where it is going to be"? He would be a laughing stock. What is more, the local press would go to town and attack that local authority if it considered the project for a moment.
Yet here in Parliament, the promoters, having managed to dodge ordinary planning applications, come along and tell us that they do not know where the market is. If a Labour-controlled local authority had been involved, the plan would have been thrown out within seconds of its appearing on the desk. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have said, "Sorry, it has nothing to do with me." The promoters say, "We do not know where it is." Judging by their answers, we cannot tell whether they are on this earth or on Fuller's earth. They are supposed to be knowledgeable, but they tell us nothing. Yet the passage of the Bill continues. I think it is high time it was stopped. It is a charade; we should finish it.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asks a question that no one is prepared to answer. Matters do not improve when further questions are asked, but perhaps a messenger is bringing the plan now.
Mr. Bermingham: There is a plan with a pink square on it, which we cannot see because no one will show it to us. We have been told that, since that plan was drawn, the

1071
Norwich Union has built a large building and another firm has built a large building nearby. There is no guarantee that they have not built on the pink piece of land because those buildings had not been built in 1980 when the public inquiry was held and people at the public inquiry had no way of knowing what would or would not be built. We now have a flyover as well.
How can we know that the bit of land still exists? My hon. Friend will bear it in mind that the traffic problems will have changed and that markets create traffic problems and give rise to access flow and goods delivery flow problems, policing problems and goodness knows what else. Does my hon. Friend believe that the promoters know what they are talking about?
Mr. O'Brien: The mystery continues. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South now has the information that we seek. If so, I am happy to give way to him.
Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is making rather heavy weather of this. Clause 2 clearly states:

"In this Act—

'the Act of 1984' means the Food Act 1984;

'the borough' means the London Borough of Redbridge;

'the Council' means the Council of the borough;

'the signed plan' means the plan signed in triplicate by Mr. George Buckley the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Commons to whom the Bill for this Act was referred, one copy of which has been deposited at each of the following offices:—

(a) the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, House of Lords;

(b) the Private Bill Office, House of Commons; and

(c) the office of the Director of Administration and Legal Services of the Council."

If hon. Members wish to see that plan, it can certainly be seen in the Private Bill Office. If they wish me to try to obtain the copy from the Private Bill Office, I shall try to do so. If, on the other hand, they want a sketch plan to show where the market is, I can show them that straight away. I can certainly help the hon. Member for Normanton, if that is what really concerns him. I have gone to considerable trouble in the past to explain exactly where the site was located. I think that the original debate was last June.
Mr. O'Brien: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are making heavy weather of this. I consider planning by local authorities, which are the planning authorities, to be very important. I imagine that, if not in Ilford, in many other areas throughout the country and in many hon. Members' constituencies, planning matters are raised with hon. Members because of the conflict that arises when planning applications are submitted to the local planning authority.
If I want detailed information on this matter, it is because I consider planning issues—the location of sites for buildings, especially commercial buildings and markets—of paramount importance. The market in question may not be operated by the local authority. It could be operated by a private party, nominated by the local authority. If that were to happen, who knows what influence that third party could have on the location of the market? That is why I am insisting that we have more information about the location of the market.
1072
The hon. Member for Ilford, South has told me where the plan is, but I must advise him that there is not one in the Library. Hon. Members who want to inspect the plan have to go to the Private Bill Office to do so. That is a change of our procedures in the House. I had always thought that any information that hon. Members required, relating to both private and Government Bills, had to be lodged in the Library. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you have suggested that there may be a copy of the plan in the Library, we have now been told that it is not in the Library. We have been told that it is in the Private Bill Office or in the offices of the borough of Redbridge. Perhaps we should adjourn to Redbridge to see the plan. It is important that the plan is made available to us.
Mr. Bendall: The Bill has been published in its present form since 23 November 1989, and there has been a plan in the Private Bill Office. Any hon. Member could have gone to the Private Bill Office at any time since last November to inspect the plan.
Mr. O'Brien: This matter has arisen because I read in the report that the market is to be located within one mile of the centre of the town of Ilford or within one mile of the town hall. The hon. Member for Ilford, South has clarified that point, but there has been some confusion about the actual location. We have been told that the market will be located 300 yd west of the town hall, but we have also been told that a further development might be involved. When I came to the House tonight, I thought that the location of the centre of the market was clear and understood. However, since being given answers to some of our questions, we find that the matter has become more complicated. That is why the location or ordnance plan should be made available.
Furthermore, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have pointed out, if the promoters were sincere about providing information on this matter, all the details would have been laid on the Table. However, that is not the case, so we must register our strong objections about the fact that the information that is necessary for the promotion of the Bill has not been presented to us tonight.
Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is right to be worried about this serious point. If we were to give the Bill its Third Reading tonight without seeing the plan or ascertaining where the pink spot actually is, we might be pre-empting a major planning decision in the borough. We must remember that, in 1980, that council held a long public inquiry. Perhaps things have changed and the pink spot actually lies on the Prudential or Norwich Union buildings. Unless we get this absolutely right, we might be pre-empting a planning decision.
As my hon. Friend knows, a developer could insist on the right to site the market wherever he likes simply because we do not know exactly where the pink spot is. That is ludicrous. We could pass something tonight that would mean that the local authority did not have a right to appeal against a decision of the Department of the Environment. That could cost it tens of thousands of pounds in appeal costs.
Mr. O'Brien: I share the serious concerns that have been expressed. I want our anxiety placed on the record.

1073
We consider the fact that the information has not been available to the House to be a serious diversion from the important issues raised by the Bill.
Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Ilford, South about the statutory powers that the borough of Redbridge is being denied. He has not attempted to answer that question, so I repeat it—
Mr. Redmond: Before my hon. Friend leaves the planning aspect, I must defend the Private Bill Office. We have recently had cause to take advice and guidance on several occasions from the staff of that Office, who have been excellent. Although I disagree with the way in which private business passes through this place, the Clerks in the Private Bill Office are most helpful.
As little was understood about them, many private Bills were passed virtually on the nod. However, perhaps we should now consider ensuring that plans and drawings are placed in the Library in future, so that hon. Members can study them at their leisure instead of taking up the time of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office. I repeat that I have always found the Clerks there most helpful in providing information.
If you were to follow the point of order that was raised earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and adjourn the House to enable hon. Members to inspect the plan, I am sure that the Clerks would be happy to oblige.
Mr. O'Brien: I do not want to appear to be critical of the Private Bill Office. I am simply saying that that is not where such information should be lodged. It should be lodged in the Library as you suggested earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should make this clear. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to drag the Chair into this matter. I said that in this case the production of documents and where they are lodged is a matter for the promoters, not for the Chair.
Mr. O'Brien: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I want to move on, because we must consider other aspects and ask some questions before making a decision. When questions about who would run the market were asked earlier, we were told that the market might not be run by the local authority, that a third party, a private operator, might be given the franchise to run the market. Does that principle still apply? The local authority is on record as saying that when—or if—the Bill is passed, the planning application approved, and the market established it might not be run by the local authority. There is a strong feeling that a third party might run the market instead of the local authority. If a third party is to run the market, we must ask why the market will be located one mile from Ilford town centre. Is there something significant about the fact that that is near where the insurance companies are developing a large commercial area?
As the market is being fought for and its promotion by Redbridge borough is costing a lot of money—there is also the question of compensation—there is, therefore, general commercial involvement in the operation of the market. If the market is not to be operated by the borough but by a third party, I must ask the hon. Member for Ilford, South whether the principle of the seven day market also still applies.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is making a good point. Third-party ownership is becoming very prevalent. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Redbridge market can be compared to Harrods. We all know that Harrods was supposedly taken over by the Al-Fayeds, but some of us—at least on the Opposition side of the House—know that the real money came from the Sultan of Brunei, who happened to be a "friend" of the Thatcher family.
My hon. Friend has referred to the doubt as to whether the site is a mile from the town centre or a mile from the town hall. That is the kind of variable which will enable the third party to say, "Never mind the local authority—we are the boys who are moving in here." A lot of that goes on in the Tory party. It may be that there will be money in this for the Tory party—money from one of these local entrepreneurs making a killing before the Government are kicked out at the next election.
Mr. O'Brien: We must have some clarification of who will run the market. When the matter was discussed previously, the question of the council's having a third-party option was raised. The point was made that, if the council were to change politically, the decision could be reversed and the whole issue would be in the melting pot. Can the hon. Member for Ilford, South tell me whether that principle still applies? Does the local authority contemplate offering the franchise to the highest bidder? There is some doubt.
We want to be sure that markets are run properly. The hon. Member referred to markets which had been run badly and to communities which, as a result, had been let down. He said that stalls must be allocated fairly, that there should be no favouritism or nepotism. If there is to be a third party, what kind of vetting will there be? In view of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, it is very important that this be established.
The majority of markets in boroughs and other towns are run by local authorities. Why is Redbridge council hesitant about running the market? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer that question. On Second Reading he said:
"Well run markets are an encouragement."
If that is correct, why does not Redbridge council intend to run this market? On Second Reading, referring to the demand for a market in Redbridge—this is a very important point—the hon. Member said:
"I hope that this will be the case in other parts of the country, too, in future."
In other words, he hopes that if the Bill is passed it will be the pattern for future developments throughout the country.
What is being proposed is the abolition of ancient market rights. If that is the principle behind the Bill, I want to be very cautious about it. In several constituencies the ancient order is protected. If what the hon. Member for Ilford, South has said is correct, that protection would be removed. Having listened to his comments, I fear that that is one of the purposes of the Bill. I wonder what he meant when he said:
"I hope that this will be the case in other parts of the country, too, in future."
If there is any question of abolishing ancient market rights, the Bill involves something much wider than the boroughs of Redbridge and Havering.
I should like to know whether the Minister believes that the issue is much wider. As he and other hon. Members know, local authorities are the main providers of markets

1075
in cities, towns and rural areas. We must be assured that there is not behind this Bill any purpose other than the Redbridge promotion. Hon. Members must be clear about the purpose of the Bill and about what its outcome is likely to be.
On 6 June, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, the hon. Member for Ilford, South said:
"As I said before, the chamber of trade and local shopkeepers have indicated that they are in favour. They find that an open-air market, especially one of modest size, encourages trade because it encourages people to come into the local area."
But we were told earlier tonight that this will be a covered market. In other words, there has been a change of plan already.
On 6 June the hon. Member for Ilford, South continued:
"we can expect shopkeepers in future to view open-air markets in a different light. I am certainly not saying that every single shopkeeper in Ilford is in favour, but I have not had my attention drawn to any who have indicated dissent, whereas I have confirmation from the chamber of trade and others that they are very much in favour. After all, it was the chamber of trade that set out to raise the petition, and it has now collected 6,500 signatures. That was its own idea. I believe, therefore, that the whole tempo is changing in that regard. I hope that this will be the case in other parts of the country, too, in the future."—[Official Report, 6 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 81.]
The sting in the tail i the hope that this practice will be extended throughout the country in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clarify his remarks of 6 June. I suspect that the Bill has implications for markets in all local government areas.
The present Government have attacked local government. They are not local-government-friendly. Is this an extension of that attack? Is this a means of reducing local government influence, especially in respect of markets? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to clarify the point.
The hon. Member for Upminster drew attention to the reference in the Bill to the Food Act 1984. As I asked earlier, if substantial compensation is to be paid will it be possible to use the funds to reduce the poll tax in the borough? If so, the principle could be applied throughout the country. Market areas could be sold with a view to using the proceeds to reduce the poll tax. If that is not the position, I ask the Minister to provide us with some assurances.
There are several issues before us which will have a far-reaching effect on the future of local government. For example, compensation will not be paid to the traders or stall holders who may suffer in the township of Romford. Instead, compensation will be paid to the local authority. It has been suggested that the authority will decide how the money will be spent. That shows that there is not just one view to be taken. We understand from the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) that the payment of compensation will be in lieu of the interruption of the lost modern grant. Even the hon. Gentleman could not explain that until he obtained an interpretation. It seems that other local authorities could lose their right to ancient markets for the payment of compensation. If compensation is paid, for what will it be used?
1076
We are not following a precedent. We are not mirroring what has gone before. There is not a simple negotiation between one local authority and another. We are seeing the making of history, inasmuch as the Bill will lead to the royal writ issued in 1247 by Henry III being overturned by Parliament. That precedent can then be applied to any authority which has had similar protection.
Mr. Graham Allen: Is my hon. Friend aware of the numerous representations received from Nottingham city council about the ramifications of the Bill? Mansfield council has also expressed considerable reservations about the implications of the Bill for many other areas. Perhaps my hon. Friend will say something about those representations.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has set the scene for a matter to which I intended to refer. In St. Stephen's hall, there is a wall full of coats of arms of ancient boroughs. All those boroughs are likely to be involved in legislation of the kind before us today. As I have said, we are not following a precedent.
The Bill will have an important effect on local government, in which I have considerable interest. I understand that Redbridge councillors are divided on the issue. Some Tory councillors are opposing the location of the market and the way in which it would be run. In other words, there is opposition to the privatisation of the market. I want to know more about that from the hon. Member for Ilford, South. It has been reported that the market is to be placed under a flyover, which raises safety and hygiene considerations. That is one of the many issues that I have raised and to which I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will respond.
When we considered the Bill in Committee we were given an assurance that the market would not operate seven days a week. The Committee was told that the application for seven-day trading had been withdrawn. At a later stage, however, we were told that consideration is to be given to Sunday trading. That is my final question to the hon. Member for Ilford, South. Are we to have a seven-day market? If so, why has the borough gone back on its word, which was given when the Committee considered the Bill? I hope that we shall receive answers to all my questions before the debate comes to an end.
8.36 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I spoke at some length on the Bill on Second Reading and I did so again when it was considered on Report. That being so, I do not wish to detain the House for long.
There has been enough to demonstrate that the Bill should not have proceeded to Third Reading in its present form. Before you entered the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had a substantial discussion on whether plans had been lodged in the Library or the Private Bill Office and on the adequacy of those plans. I have been told that there are two plans in the Private Bill Office. That will be of relief to some Labour Members as it is of relief to me and, no doubt, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). There, unfortunately, the good news stops.
Mr. Skinner: Are the plans different?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not know whether they are different, but the scales are different. I am told that one of

1077
the plans bears no scale, which means that it is difficult to determine the area that we are talking about. The second plan has a scale of 1 in to 50,000 in. It is so detailed and so huge that it is almost impossible to grasp the scale of the operation that we are considering. The information That has been prepared and produced to enable the House properly to consider the Bill on Third Reading is woefully inadequate. We were told by Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly, that that is a matter for the promoters and not for the Chair, but it is a matter that the House must take into account. The promoters have grievously failed to keep us properly informed.
That is the thin edge of the wedge, because the Bill is a shambles from start to finish. I return to an issue that I raised at the beginning of the saga, when the Bill came to the House on Second Reading. I drew attention then to subsection (2), which states:
"It would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of a market in the part of the borough known as Ilford notwithstanding the infringement of noncompliance thereby with any rule of law or enactment."
That is an appalling subsection to have in any Bill. I said on Second Reading that it is extremely bad that the private Bill procedure should allow the rights of a local authority or another party to be taken away.
If that is to be done, it should be by way of a Government-sponsored measure, with all the departmental paraphernalia behind it. Such a removal of rights should not be sneaked in under the hem of the House by the use of a procedure that does not provide the review to which a Government Bill would be subject. It is unfortunate that the attention of the House is not focused on the important issues that are raised by Bills that pass through the House under the private Bill procedure.
Following on from subsection (2), it is claimed as a matter of fact that it would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of the market. I challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to demonstrate how it would be to the public advantage for Ilford to have a market that would be in competition with that which has been established in Romford for 750 years.
I have not been able to find—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, who is now looking through his papers to assist me, will be able to help—in my Acts that I have looked at today the words "public advantage" interpreted in legal terms. Yet we are asked to accept blindly that this Bill is to the public advantage. The House should not contemplate passing such a Bill without being informed what these words are supposed to mean. I am accustomed, as a former practicising lawyer, to the phrase, "in the public interest". In so far as public advantage and public interest are the same, the Bill must be alleging that it is, in the wide sense of the phrase, in the public interest that the Bill should be put on the statute book. My hon. Friend will be in the gravest of difficulties if he fails to establish that that is indeed the case.
As all hon. Members will know, in English law the preamble to the Bill is not part of the statute. Therefore, in the English courts, Havering will not be able to take the point against it that that phrase is meaningless and has not been established as an original and necessary part of the Bill. That is not the case under European legislation, where the preamble is part of the legislation and is interpreted by the courts as part of the Act.
1078
The European convention on human rights states that no one should be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law. I take no issue on the second half of that, because, if the House is so foolish as to allow the Bill to proceed to the statute book, clearly that will be satisfied and the provisions of the law will be provided for. But I challenge my hon. Friend to satisfy us that it is in the public interest that the Bill should proceed. I warn him that, if he fails to do so and if Redbridge should fail to do so later, it may well be that the European Court of Human rights and not the House will decide whether the Bill has any legal importance or should be ignored.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it was decided in Committee that 10 per cent. of the profits of the market should go to Romford as compensation. One must consider how that will be calculated. My understanding of markets is that it will be immensely difficult to decide what the profits are. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman represents Romford's interests, and so is keen for all that money to go to Romford, but does he not agree that there might be a case for the 10 per cent. to be divided among the surrounding boroughs of the Ilford market, in which case my borough of Waltham Forest would get a share? Does he not think that that is a good idea?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman always comes up with some extremely interesting and stimulating thoughts whenever he intervenes in the House, but I cannot always agree with them. I can see absolutely no justification for Leyton receiving any of the compensation that my borough will receive.
However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he refers to the difficulty of establishing the amount of compensation that should be paid. I am sure that my Friend the Member for Ilford, South will clarify that position, because I cannot see that the 10 per cent. can be assessed on a fair and proper basis as Romford's compensation for the loss of this right, even if I were to accept that 10 per cent. is the proper figure.
While I accept that Havering borough council has negotiated that figure and therefore, in so far as I represent its interests, I cannot quibble, speaking as an individual Member of Parliament I have to say that I am not sure that 10 per cent. represents anything like adequate compensation for taking away rights enjoyed for 750 years, in the way that the Bill seeks to establish. This seems to me to be a sneaky and underhand way of getting underneath and behind what the House has done on the broader issue.
Mr. Redmond: While it is true that the council will get 10 per cent. in compensation, it is not clear to me what the council intends to do with it. If the new market takes off and starts attracting business away from the old market, the surrounding shopkeepers will suffer from loss of trade. It might be appropriate to look into the future, to see whether they should be covered by some form of compensation. Given that the vast majority of traders live on the borderline between survival and failure, consideration should be given to compensation for the possible long-term effects.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, I cannot speak for the council as to how it will use the money, and it would be wrong for me to do so. Just

1079
as, when the council sells something voluntarily, it is not for me to tell it how it should use the proceeds, so it would not be proper to speculate at this stage on how the council might use the money. Anyway, there are council elections coming up, so whatever assurances I might give for the current Conservative-led council, I could not be 100 per cent. Certain—99 per cent. perhaps, but not 100 per cent.—that the council that will run Havering after the elections will be of the same mind as the present council. But I have no doubt that whatever council is in power at the time will bear in mind the needs of those who are being deprived of trade because of the market.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that that is an inevitable consequence of allowing the Bill to proceed. I shall come back to that later, but, as it has been raised, I must say that I find it very strange that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South attempted in previous debates to give the impression that this market will not harm the Romford market at all. Having a market that could be open six days a week six miles away is bound to hurt the Romford market.
So my first point is that the Bill is a shambles and is in a very poor form, that the preamble is a disgrace to draftsmanship and that the Bill should not have come back on Third Reading in a form that was heavily complained about on Second Reading, and having been altered not a jot.
But the principle is much wider than that. It was touched upon on several occasions earlier, so I need do no more than stress it. That this will set a precedent on which other markets will be threatened is, I think, unchallengeable. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South earlier how, if British Rail or the Underground decided that it wanted to put a market somewhere on its land in Redbridge, he could come back to the House and say that there was any good ground for challenging it. That applies to anybody else who might want to set up a market in Redbridge.
Unless there is a proper balance between the rights of traders to trade where they wish to trade and the rights of the councils and the operators of the markets to protect the traders who are trading in their area, clearly we shall go through a swing of supply and demand, whereby markets are put out of business because there is a surfeit, and then there are not enough markets, and neither the consumer nor the market trader can conceivably benefit from that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs supports the proposal, and the Government have shown, certainly in principle, that they do not particularly like charter markets and would like to see more markets set up, and that is where the mistake is being made. As with any shopping area within a council's district, it is important that a balance of trade be maintained. It is no good having nothing but greengrocers all the way down the high street. That is why the council's position is defended by its having the right to refuse a change-of-user application for a shop currently used for a specific purpose.
Much the same applies in this case, but on a much grander scale. A 750-year-old established market is being threatened by a proposed new market within the same
1080
trading area. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South would not dispute that it is within the same area. Indeed, he could not do so, because that very fact formed part of the case put by Redbridge council. Its counsel said in evidence to the Committee:
"Fifty seven per cent. of people who are Ilford shoppers, that is people who are shopping in Ilford, go to Romford to shop in its market."
How can my hon. Friend claim that the proposed market will not hurt Romford market when 57 per cent. of those who shop in Ilford use the Romford market? If the proposed market opens, that 57 per cent. of shoppers will, understandably, switch their allegiance to the Ilford market.
I do not dispute that it is in the interests of those shoppers to have a market in Ilford, assuming that that market could match the standard that the Romford market has established—a rash assumption. Although the proposed market might be in the interests of the Ilford shoppers, at what cost—not only to my constituents and those who shop in Romford and do not live in Ilford, but to the traders at Romford? If the Bill is passed, it will have a deep and damaging effect on the trading area which includes Ilford and all the boroughs around it, including that represented by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
It is important that the House understands that we are talking not only about the interests of Havering and Ilford, but about a vast number of people, all of whom have cars and all of whom shop in Romford market to their great advantage. It is a market of supreme quality which operates in a way that could not be matched and it would be severely threatened by the new competition that would be introduced by Redbridge.
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but I wish to clarify his views. If the proposed market were established, does he think that there would be over-provision of shopping facilities in that area of London, which would result in some of those markets and traders going broke and jobs being lost?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is certainly my view. I do not doubt that a new market would hit traders who are currently trading profitably in Romford, and who could not obtain a stall in Ilford because there would be fewer of them. Their businesses would be eroded to a point where neither stalls in Romford nor competing stalls in Ilford could operate profitably. That would not be in anybody's interests.
I fear that Ilford market, with its 80 stalls, will open with a great fanfare of trumpets, trade for six days a week, then four days, then two, and then close because it will not be a profitable enterprise. It cannot survive on the 57 per cent. of Ilford shoppers who currently use Romford market. The Romford shoppers, who form a much larger number, will not go to Ilford. Unless there is a centre, as there is now, where everyone in the area goes to shop, neither market will survive in the long term, and certainly not if they are to provide the present quality.
That is why the charter market rights were originally granted. Many things change over the centuries, but the fundamentals of trade do not. The protective rights were given precisely because markets could not otherwise operate profitably. The king of the day realised that in order to have properly operating markets serving the people of the country and established at the right points

1081
around the country, he had to grant protective rights so that those markets could not he undermined in the way that the House is likely to allow today.
Mr. Bendall: Can my hon. Friend explain why there are so many successful markets in close proximity to one another in east London? I have asked that question before.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: There is sufficient demand in east London, but that is not the case in Romford or Ilford. The figures that I have given prove that. If the 57 per cent. of Ilford shoppers who currently come to Romford market cease to do so, that must damage Romford. If only 57 per cent. of Ilford shoppers shop at Ilford market, that will not be sufficient to sustain that market.
It may be that in a few years I shall be proved wrong. If the Bill is passed today, I hope that that will be so, but there has not been enough research into the matter. The House is being asked to do something that has never been done before, and it has not been given sufficient information to make such a major decision.
The only other occasion on which a market has had its rights undermined was in Bexley in 1977, and that was by mutual consent. There was no challenge from the market whose rights were being undermined. It withdrew its petition and—probably because of enormous compensation, although I do not know the facts—felt that it could live with the removal of its rights. However, that is entirely different from what we are being asked to agree to today. It is the difference between a voluntary marriage and a shotgun marriage. If the House knew the full facts, I am sure that it would not contemplate proceeding on the basis that the Bexley matter was resolved satisfactorily.
Another point which has come out of our debates is that the procedure for private Members' Bills must be reformed. It is unacceptable for one local council to make such a move against a well established market and proceed through the house with most hon. Members having no idea of the implications. My Hon. Friends and I have attempted to alert people to that fact but, as with so many things, the British people tend to shrug it off until it actually hits them in the solar plexus.
If the Bill is passed, and if—as I suspect—another similar Bill is brought before the House, I gaurantee that there will be an outcry because the second time around people will be alert to the danger and will realise that it is not just a one-off application. I am afraid that most hon. Members do not understand the implications—
Mr. Skinner: There are not many hon. Members here.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Indeed, but there were even fewer on Report, when we were trying to make some sensible changes to the Bill, and fewer still on Second Reading, when we might have had a better opportunity to stop the Bill in its tracks.
Mr. Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman speculate on the cost of this private Bill procedure to date, and on its likely cost when it is completed? Does he agree that that money would be better spent keeping down rent levels in Redbridge, which are currently rising by £15-plus per week? That is way above the national average.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Not only do I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I find it hard to imagine any way in which money could have been worse spent. There has been enormous expense of time and trouble in the House, and
1082
the petitioners and everyone else involved have had to pay large sums because of the procedure that has been implemented. I hope that if we do not succeed in stopping the Bill from proceeding in this House, the job will he done in the other place, in which case even more money will have been expended and the whole thing will have been a thorough waste of parliamentary time and of a huge chunk of community charge payers' money.
The procedure whereby private Bills can go through the House in this way should be reviewed, but it would be uncharitable of me not to concede that some changes were made for the better when the Bill was in Committee, to four of which I draw the House's attention.
The first is that only the council can now establish the market. There was originally the threat that anyone could establish the market and the council would be unable to stop it; now at least the council can stop it, although I am not at all sure that there are adequate safeguards to prevent the council from assigning its rights and allowing the market to be improperly run by a third party at a later date. That is a worrying aspect, which should be considered at some stage—it may well have to be in the other place.
Secondly, the market can no longer be put anywhere. We examined that substantial worry at length earlier. The pink blob on the map, when we have deciphered the extent to which the scales can be read, will, I hope, show that at least the market can be established only within a fairly narrow area and cannot be moved later to a place that might cause more damage to local interests.
Thirdly, the compensation is better than it was, but the hon. Member for Leyton raised a good point about that, and there is no doubt that it will be extremely difficult to assess the proper figure, of which 10 per cent. will come to Havering council. Finally on the plus side, there can now be no disposal of those rights without the consent of Redbridge council.
It is essential to defeat the Bill. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in making sure that it proceeds no further.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 43

Division No. 138]

[9.01 pm

AYES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Irvine, Michael

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Jack, Michael

Beith, A. J.

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Bendall, Vivian

Kilfedder, James

Boswell, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Bright, Graham

Knox, David

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

Mans, Keith

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mitchell, Sir David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Monro, Sir Hector

Chapman, Sydney

Paice, James

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Riddick, Graham

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

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Dykes, Hugh

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Fookes, Dame Janet

Stevens, Lewis

Forth, Eric

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Franks, Cecil

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Thorne, Neil

Harris, David

Thurnham, Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Twinn, Dr Ian

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Holt, Richard

Waller, Gary

1083

Wood, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Mr. Allan Stewart and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

NOES

Allen, Graham

Illsley, Eric

Alton, David

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Atkins, Robert

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Battle, John

Loyden, Eddie

Callaghan, Jim

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

McWilliam, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Martlew, Eric

Crowther, Stan

Meale, Alan

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Neubert, Michael

Dixon, Don

O'Brien, William

Eastham, Ken

Patchett, Terry

Flynn, Paul

Pendry, Tom

Foster, Derek

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Fraser, John

Redmond, Martin

Gill, Christopher

Short, Clare

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Squire, Robin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Widdecombe, Ann

Gregory, Conal

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hawkins, Christopher

Haynes, Frank

Tellers for the Noes:

Home Robertson, John

Sir Nicholas Bonsor and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Hood, Jimmy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

Penzance South Pier Extension Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.12 pm
Mr. David Harris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope that this will prove not to be a controversial measure. Its objects are set out in the explanatory statement, which has been made available to hon. Members, and the plans for the proposed works have been properly deposited according to the Standing Orders of the House applying to private business.
The Bill is sought by Penwith district council, which operates and owns Penzance harbour. The measure has two objectives. It was found some time ago that the structure of the south pier was in a poor state, and I regret to report that it has deteriorated further owing to the recent storms. It was thought that, when shoring up and improving the structure of the wall, it would make sense also to build works which could be used for a car park with 320 spaces.
The council decided to promote the Bill last year and to authorise its director of housing and public services to draw up detailed plans and proposals to bring forward this joint enterprise.
The estimated cost of the whole project is some £1,750,000. The director of housing and public services has consulted widely—with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Cornwall Trust for Nature Conservation, Cornwall county council's surveyor and with English Heritage.
Mr. Martin Redmond: I wonder whether the hon. Member can answer the following questions in his preamble to the Bill. Can the facilities be used for the import of coal? Why was it necessary to have so many Lords amendments to the Bill? Why is the director of housing involved when one would have expected the project to come under some other local authority committee?
Mr. Harris: To answer the hon. Gentleman's last point, the director of housing is also the director of public services. I suppose that he fulfils the role of what used to be, to use old-fashioned council terms, the borough surveyor when Penzance had a council of its own. He now fulfils joint roles. Penwith district council is extremely efficiently run and has combined a number of posts.
I had intended to mention coal later. The harbour works can in no way be used for the importation of coal, so I can reassure the hon. Member about that.
Mr. James Hill: Thank you, I can leave the Chamber now.
Mr. Harris: I urge my hon. Friend to hang around a little longer.
As I was explaining, the council has consulted widely and no petitions were presented. In reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) about Lords amendments, I think, with respect, that he may be confusing this Bill with another Bill promoted by Penwith distist council which received Royal Assent a few weeks ago and to which there were a number of amendments in the other place. The Bill that we are discussing today has not yet been to another place. I hope I have reassured him about that.

1085
No petitions have been lodged against the Bill, although I received one letter from a constituent, Mrs. Primrose May, who wrote to me on 29 January saying that she opposed the Bill. Mrs. May is an officer of the Penzance Waterfront Society. Unfortunately, her letter arrived on 30 January, which was the last date for presenting petitions against the Bill in this place. However, I wrote to Mrs. May explaining that she would have an opportunity to petition against the Bill in another place when the Bill goes there, as I hope that it will, and I have fully informed her of her rights.
The society that Mrs. May represents has been concerned about the council's plans to redevelop the harbour area. The Bill is not connected with those plans. As I explained earlier, it is primarily concerned with the safety of the pier and the provision of car parking spaces.
The hon. Members for Don Valley and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have tabled the motion
"That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months."
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Don Valley that this project could not be used for the importation of coal. I believe that to be his primary concern.
Mr. Redmond: I am concerned about the importation of coal. Jobs in my constituency would be affected. The importation of coal would also affect the national interest; the country cannot afford large imports of fuel. After I became interested in two other private Bills, I noticed that a series of private Bills was going through this place on the nod. I am convinced that 95 per cent. of them ought to be the subject of local planning procedures. There are two aspects to the objection. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand it.
Mr. Harris: I do not misunderstand the objection. I had intended to say that in addition to the hon. Gentleman's objection to certain Bills, I recognised that both he and other hon. Members are concerned about the private Bill procedure. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has drawn attention to its drawbacks. He knows that assurances have been given by the Lord President of the Council to review the private Bill procedure. Let me say, not as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Lord President but as the Member of Parliament for St. Ives, that I share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the handling of private legislation.
Hon. Members may think that the private Bill procedure is a means of circumventing the normal planning procedures. I therefore draw their attention to the provisions in the Bill which make it crystal clear that the normal planning procedures will have to be gone through before the works can be carried out. There is a further safeguard—that before any works can be carried out the council must obtain the Secretary of State's approval. He will have the power to lay down all sorts of
1086
conditions. A planning application has been advertised in the last few days, or is on the point of being advertised, which will give local people, particularly Mrs. May and the members of her society, the opportunity to make representations about the Bill.
My objective is to try to ensure that the Bill is given a Second Reading. Those who object to it will then have an opportunity to object in the proper manner and, if they wish to exercise it, the opportunity to object to the planning application. With those safeguards, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
9.24 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond: I wish to raise just one point for clarification. Why did the House of Lords seek to amend the Bill? I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman would intervene and clarify that point.
Mr. Harris: I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that he is confusing this Bill, which has just started its procedure through the House, with a previous Bill published by Penwith district council—the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill. That Bill was amended in the House of Lords. This Bill has not yet gone to the other place. It has just started its procedure through this House and will go to the other place later. The hon. Gentleman is confused between the two Bills.
Mr. Redmond: It says here, "Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill, Lords amendments."
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We are dealing with the Penzance South Pier Extension Bill. "South Pier Extension" are the operative words. Mr. Harris, you have the floor.
Mr. Harris: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Don Valley that there are two Bills. One is now an Act. It has completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent about a fortnight ago. That is the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman is referring—the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill. This is the Penzance South Pier Extension Bill. There are two Bills and two piers and two quite different schemes. One was amended in the House of Lords, but the one that we are dealing with now has just started its proceedings through Parliament and has not yet reached the other place.
Mr. Redmond: I apologise. I asked the Vote Office for the Bills and was given them. I was not interested in the previous private Bill and I did not check it as I should have done. I humbly apologise.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: There being no Member of the Committee of Selection present, the two motions on employment and foreign affairs are not moved.

BISF Houses (Nottingham)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
9.26 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: While we are in the mood for apologies, this is the first time that I have spoken since the count at the end of the debate on Members' interests. I should like to apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for any discourtesy deemed to have taken place on that occasion.
An adjournment debate is extremely valuable for a Back-Bench Member. I have been fortunate enough to have raised a couple of Adjournment debates in my brief time in the House, and I have chosen subjects that I felt were important—a written constitution and the role that the House of Commons should play in our democracy. Tonight, fortunately, I have drawn the Adjournment debate again, and I have chosen a different topic, but one of great importance to many of my constituents and to constituents in a number of other places throughout the land.
A large number of people throughout the country live in steel-framed homes either as residents, having purchased those homes, or as council tenants. In my constituency, people were advised, encouraged and cajoled by the Conservative Government to buy the council houses in which they were existing tenants. For many, the knockdown prices under the right-to-buy legislation meant a windfall and a dream come true, which enabled them to buy their own homes.
For my constituents who bought those BISF houses, the promises have proved to be hollow. They are the victims of the Conservative Government's right-to-buy policy. They have bought a pig in a poke. Many wish to move but cannot do so. Even when willing buyers are found, they are not regularly being granted mortgages by local building societies because of widespread suspicion among people, including building societies, that the properties are defective.
That is the nub of the problem, about which the Government should clearly state their view. If the houses are defective, they should be put on the list of designated designs, thereby enabling the payment of grant to bring them up to scratch. If they are not defective, the Government have a moral duty to ensure that building societies are told in clear terms that they should lend on them so that they can be sold.
Currently, neither option is being put into effect. Thus, my constituents and thousands of others throughout Britain are trapped. They are prisoners in their homes, unable to move or to sell. They are caught with houses of which the widespread view is that they contain serious defects. I underline the fact that those people do not share the Conservative dream of home ownership. Indeed, for many of them it has become a nightmare from which they cannot wake and escape.
Far worse than that is the problem that those people are being denied any hope of changing their circumstances. That is largely due to the behaviour of the Government and—I make no apology for saying—of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I believe that he has behaved appallingly, and I hope that tonight, having been dragged to the House by the award of this Adjournment debate, he will make his position quite clear.
1088
I shall substantiate my view, and if the Minister is magnanimous enough to change his mind, I shall be the first to praise him in Nottingham and elsewhere. If he does not do so, I promise him that this campaign will continue until he does justice by my constituents and people elsewhere.
Having encouraged people to buy their council homes, the Government have walked away from the problem. Their attitude is, "You bought, it's your fault, you take the blame and we shan't help." The Minister has refused to meet not merely me but other Members of Parliament and peers. [Interruption.] He is chuntering from a sedentary position, but if he disputes my comments, I shall gladly give way to him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): Will the hon. Gentleman refer to the meetings that he had with the then Under-Secretary with responsibility for housing, who considered the subject exhaustively with him? I hope that he will do so quite soon and put the matter in context. It has been discussed frequently by him and my Department, and offers have been made. One of his colleagues accepted an invitation to visit the building research establishment, but he refused that invitation. He is now making wild allegations and trying to throw mud not only at the Government but at me. I hope that he will play fair this evening.
Mr. Allen: I will take no lectures from the Minister about playing fair. However, I shall put the record straight. I have made no wild allegations. I have made specific charges against the Minister and he has refuted none of them in his intervention. If he wishes to refute any charge, I shall gladly give way and he can then substantiate his accusation about "wild allegations".
The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), was most generous and magnanimous about giving his time to meet the people who are suffering the dire consequences of having bought these properties. He could not give the guarantees that I sought for those residents, but he took time out of his busy schedule when he paid a visit to Nottingham and when he saw me and some of the residents at his own Department. I thank him publicly for that, as I did at the time.
However, the current Minister has not had the courtesy to agree to such meetings, despite having come to Nottingham and despite me, several peers and residents having made offers to meet him at any time of his choosing. That offer still stands. If the Minister believes that I am making "wild allegations", I suggest that he looks at his English dictionary.
The Minister's decision not to meet those who have suffered the consequences of his policy has now, unfortunately, been supported or abetted in writing by the Prime Minister, who has excused her Minister from meeting these people. That does not reflect well on the Prime Minister, but I am not surprised that the Government are ashamed to meet many Members of this House and the other place and the residents, given their record on the issue. If I had done what the Government have done, I should be anxious to dodge direct talks with people who know the truth.
Even at this late stage I plead with the Minister-not with any great relish, but with whatever it takes. Once

1089
again, whether it involves writing, attending meetings or appearing at his convenience—wherever he chooses and at whatever time he chooses—I, other hon. Members and peers who wish to meet him and all the residents offer to meet him. We ask the Minister please to meet us to hear what we have to say. The Minister need not give any undertaking to act after having met them, but we ask that he listens to the people who suffer because of the policies pursued by this Government and to their solutions on a way out of the problem. Those people feel that they have been sold a pup. It is the political and moral responsibility of the Government to do something about that. Thousands of people need assistance in this matter.
There is now a national campaign by residents of steel-framed houses. At one time, there were many small, isolated campaigns in every area where these properties had been built, but in the past year, as a result of the campaigning efforts of people such as Jane Locke, who has been the unpaid secretary of the campaign in my constituency, and as a result of her committee and its executive having pulled together at tremendous personal cost in terms of money and time, a national campaign to try to get some action to make the homes decent for the families has been established.
The campaign's most outrageous demand has been to be allowed to meet the Minister to put its point of view. We have been assisted ably—again, I must express my gratitude—by unpaid advice from professional people, such as surveyors, who have tried to help the campaign locally and nationally. We have also been assisted by the expert and helpful coverage given to the problem by the TV programme "Advice Shop". That was especially useful, because it helped people throughout the United Kingdom to realise that they were not alone. They had felt that they alone were getting a raw deal; suddenly they realised that many others were campaigning to try to get some justice done.
The Minister has said of BISF homes that they only need a lick of paint. Without wishing to criticise the Minister personally, I have to say that I feel that that was a most inappropriate comment given that people have been struggling for five years or more to try to get their problems solved. They know, and the Minister knows, that a lick of paint will not help if the cladding is falling off a house. That comment is an insult to those who have worked hard to rectify matters, often at great personal expense. It may have made the Minister feel good for a few passing moments but it did not help those who had to go back to BISF homes.
Apparently, the Minister sees fit to chuckle about it; he thinks that it is funny. I understand that in his own city the properties have been renovated at a cost of £20,000—
Mr. Frank Cook: Each?
Mr. Allen: Yes, £20,000 each. Perhaps in the Minister's constituency that is the price of a lick of paint, but that is certainly not the case in Nottingham.
Perhaps, now that the problem has been solved on his own patch, the Minister can afford to smile from ear to ear, but I would ask him to face up to his wider national responsibilities in this case and to bear in mind all those throughout the country whose houses need more than a lick of paint and who would welcome the prospect of £20,000 being spent on their properties to bring them up to the standards that they deserve.
1090
This issue is not local to the Minister's constituency or, indeed, to mine. A meeting held in the Palace was jam-packed with representatives of the campaign from Scotland, Wales, the midlands, the south, the north-east and the north-west. The meeting was addressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker) also put in a brief appearance, despite his other duties in the House, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
Numerous other hon. Members, who wished to attend but could not, sent letters to say that they fully supported the campaign. Members of the other place—notably Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Dormand—also appeared, not to speak but to show their support. It is a widespread national campaign that will not go away. Will the Minister please look at the matter afresh, take cognisance of residents' views and meet those who attended the meeting, who seek to represent their constituents' views?
The Minister may say that the building societies are lending on the properties. In my constituency, only the Abbey National and the Halifax have lent on the properties and they have done so on a specific, one-off basis. They have lent money on the properties but not at market value. They have been prepared to lend on them only at knockdown prices—sometimes £20,000 less than the real market value of the properties. Building societies are not treating those properties as ordinary homes. Even if the Minister seeks to convince the House that these properties are not defective, building societies are talking with their money. They are saying, "We will not lend the full market value for these properties. We have enough suspicions to feel that these properties should be valued at far less than their market price—sometimes at £20"000 less."
I ask the Minister to bear in mind the Scottish Office report stating that there are inherent defects in such properties. This is not a recent development. That Scottish Office report was published in 1976. The Minister may try to convince us that the building research establishment is fully cognisant of what is happening in relation to these properties and that it feels that there are no defects. I ask it and him to explain the Scottish Office report and to accept that the properties, allegedly have a history of defects and problems.
That is why the Britannia building society has stated that it is "not a long-term security" for any loan. That is why the TSB has stated:
"We cannot grant a mortgage because of the construction"
of the properties.
That is why, when the Bilborough residents, other people in my constituency and the national representatives visited the headquarters of the Woolwich Equitable building society, they were told that the Government were to blame for this because the right to buy was initiated by and rests with the Government. The Woolwich said that BISF homes should be on the housing defects lists under the Housing Defects Act 1984. Those views were expressed directly to the representatives of BISF home owners by a major building society.
What do the residents want? Do they want to be completely rehoused at public expense? Do they want

1091
some sort of outrageously extravagant treatment? No. The most that they are asking for is that the Housing Defects Act should include their homes on the list of defective houses, on what is called the "designated list".
What effect would it have if those houses were included on the list? It would mean one of two things. First, it could mean that the council could repurchase those homes at 95 per cent. of the defect-free value, if it chose to do so. Of course, many councils would not choose that option, especially in the light of the cuts in expenditure on the housing revenue and housing investment programmes that the Government have instituted. The second option under the Act would be a 75 per cent. reinstatement grant, most of which, I understand, would be met by the Government and a percentage of which would be met by the council.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has now joined us in the Chamber. He was one of the most vociferous of those attending the meeting to which I have referred, defending his constituents' interests. Several individuals, delegates and representatives came down to the meeting from his constituency and have been extremely active in maintaining the national organisation. I thank my hon. Friend for his continued interest in this matter.
I should like to refer to another matter that aggravates the problems of people who live in these steel-framed houses. In my constituency, those that are still owned by the council have been the subject of a number of repair programmes. People well into advanced age became home owners when they were offered apparently cheap houses, which they could resell or pass on to their children. A dream was held out to them: "Put something aside. Buy now, and you will be able to pass on a marvellous asset." Many people aged 70, 75, or even older, who bought their homes now find that the roof is inadequate, the cladding is falling off, and the structure is exposed and is being eaten by corrosion. Next door, they see council workmen renovating and repairing. Perhaps painters are providing what the Minister would describe as a lick of paint—perhaps even a £20,000 lick of paint, as in Southampton.
Suppose that the owners of such a house put an estate agent's sign in their garden. Somebody driving past sees on one side a sparkling, renovated, polished-up council home that looks brand new, and on the other side a shabby, shambling wreck that has no hope of attracting a mortgage? What would be the reaction of a prospective buyer? Clearly a very large number of people have bypassed these properties, have gone elsewhere. Even if someone offers to buy, there remains the question of securing a mortgage.
Almost without exception the parties involved in this very sad tale have done their level best to achieve a solution. I do not normally name civil servants, but I have to say that Mr. Godfrey Meynell has done his level best to secure justice for these people. The city of Nottingham council has also done its best to secure a just deal, and I hope that I have managed to make a small contribution to the campaign. Even the Minister's predecessor—the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen—did all he could at least to explain the Government's position to the people trapped in these homes. Had he managed to retain his
1092
post, we might have made more progress. The current Minister must accept much of the responsibility for the current inactivity.
I ask the Minister again to consider the problem afresh and to offer these people some hope. I will continue to raise the matter. It was raised during the debate on the Third Reading of the Housing Act 1988, and it has been raised in a number of other places. When the Minister's predecessor was involved, there was at least an attempt to understand the difficulty, rather than a gruff, stark refusal to consider any of the ways forward that are being offered by tenants and residents. The then Minister for Housing and Planning, in a letter of 11 July 1988—quite a long time ago, since which time we have seen a number of changes—said:
"I know that you have been in correspondence with Marion Roe"—
then a Minister—
"on this subject and that her last letter to you dealt very fully with the ways in which we are trying to ensure that surveyors and valuers have proper technical information on non-traditional houses on which to base their survey reports. Often, we find that where there is uncertainty a meeting with BRE experts and officials from the Department can help move things forward, so when the owners have supplied you with details of the lending institutions who appear to be taking this attitude, we shall certainly do all we can to help."
That was in response to my letter of 4 July.
In his brief intervention, the Minister mentioned that he had written to me and had offered a visit to the BRE. He omitted to mention—it is something of a habit of his to give half the story, and I feel that it is incumbent upon me to give the other half—
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Why is that?
Mr. Allen: The Government Whip is muttering. I shall explain why I have to put my case in this way. For the past three or four years, I, as a parliamentary candidate and as a Member of this place, have sought to help my constituents, as all my right hon. and hon. Friends do. Unfortunately, in the past six months or so there has been a change of policy. There has been a change of heart on the Government Benches, and especially from the Minister.
The Chamber is the forum in which these issues should be aired. If the Minister were to seek to be helpful, courteous or generous, he would find an ample response from Opposition Members. It is no wish of mine to have to drag the Minister to the House to participate in an Adjournment debate, he having refused consistently to meet Members of this place and of the other place. An Adjournment debate is a Back-Bencher's last resort. I hope that those comments help to put the position into perspective.
It is no joy to me to have another Adjournment debate, to be talking about this matter again and to have a three-inch-thick file of correspondence from my constituents who are in BISF houses. I wish that the Minister would do the decent thing, meet my constituents in those houses and explain his position. Perhaps we could then make progress. Until we have a meeting, discussion and consultation, it will be difficult to make progress.
I hope that the other half of the Minister's story can now be told. When he wrote, he offered a meeting for myself with the building research establishment. My reply, which the Minister did not quote, was that I would be pleased to go to the BRE to examine its scientific basis for

1093
saying that BISF houses were not defective, provided that I could be accompanied by one or more representatives of the residents of those houses. I do not intend to go to the BRE without the very people who asked me to take up the matter.
I hope that the Minister will acquiesce in my going to the BRE with, if it helps him, only one representative of the residents in the BISF properties. That is one person who has to live every day in such a property, one person who has studied the technical detail, one person whose house is falling around his ears, one who can cross-examine the expert at the BRE, whose representatives say that the properties are not defective.
On that basis, I tell the Minister that we could get into my car tonight to go to the BRE, if that would help. I shall not go without those who have raised the initial query. The full story should be told. That having been done, Members of this place might come to a slightly different judgment on the Minister's smear attempt earlier this evening.
There are many other areas where problems could be highlighted, and there are some simple things that could be done. First, there could be a review of the designated houses. Will the Minister consider the possibility of further designation where it can be proved that houses are defective? If that cannot he proved, it is incumbent upon the Government, they having encouraged people to buy these properties, to take strong steps to ensure that companies which offer mortgages do so on an even-handed and open basis where properties are not defective. It is an either/or situation and I feel that the Ministers should be able to come forward with one proposal or the other. I believe that either, while far from ideal, would satisfy many of the residents.
Mr. Allen McKay: It should also be taken into consideration that the Department not only encouraged people to buy but originally encouraged councils to build.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I feel that it is one on which he may wish to elaborate—
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
Mr. Allen: I was in the process of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on his intervention. I feel that it is perhaps one that he may care to repeat when the Minister gets to his feet, in order to get some kind of sensible explanation from the Minister as to the current policy in respect of building council houses, because that is certainly the other part of the pincer in which people in my constituency, and I am sure in his, are being squeezed.
The Minister has not, in my view—I state it openly in the House—carried out his duties in a manner befitting his office. I ask him to reconsider his position—he may think that this is a laughing matter, but as we speak tonight there are thousands of people living in these places—in respect of meeting the people who are desperate for assistance because they have to live with these defects.
I finish on the point of what these defects mean to those people. Here is a brief list: corrosion on the main frames of these houses, obvious corrosion on the outside of these homes; roofs which are at the end of their natural life; and
1094
lower cladding on the steel frame houses much of which is falling. I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) present, because he and many of his Scottish colleagues with steel-framed homes in their constituencies have supported this campaign throughout the whole of Scotland—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, who came along and presented a very strong case on behalf of his constituents facing similar problems.
The defect list continues. There is a strong suspicion of a fire risk in these properties which it could cost thousands of pounds to eliminate. One estimate is that simply to eliminate the fire risk could cost up to £20,000. That is not necessarily my view as an individual; I claim no expertise in the surveying field. But certainly the Nationwide Anglia Building Society, before granting a mortgage, requested the following changes: the removal and replacement of a roof; fire stops between dwellings; the replacement of corroded steel frames and bolts and a number of other steel parts; the replacement of flues and cowlings where corroded; a vapour barrier to prevent further corrosion. That was all before consideration of the offer of a mortgage.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. That is a clear list of the major defects from which some of these properties are alleged to suffer. I ask the Minister not to take my word for it, but to meet with the residents from my constituency in Bilborough and elsewhere throughout the country, and/or to meet Members for constituencies that I have named this evening and peers from the other place who have sought to represent the interests of those in their areas, and to hear from them at first hand.
It may be a lost cause, but I appeal to the Minister, finally, to listen to those people and to do so with an open mind. If he agrees to do that, he may begin to earn the respect of a wider audience than he currently has.
10.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am afraid that we have been treated to a rather intemperate speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), which has extended to almost 40 minutes. I hope that, in the time remaining, I can do something to redress the balance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect carefully on whether his comments will help or hinder the position of home owners on the Bilborough estate.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must say that he has rasied no new points. He referred to the work on this issue carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), who was then the responsible Minister and is now the Minister for the Environment and Countryside. I share the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of my hon. Friend's work.
However, I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to be prepared to accept either the findings of the building research establishment or the fact that my hon. Friend secured a splendid undertaking from the Abbey National and the Halifax building societies, confirming that their national lending policies made no distinction between BISF houses and those of traditional construction. The hon. Gentleman made some allegations about those building societies, so I must tell the House that

1095
they are prepared to lend on such houses on normal terms. To suggest otherwise can only be counter-productive and make those houses less marketable.
I wish to set out the wider background to the issue, and to place the concerns of this particular estate within the overall context of non-traditional housing in the United Kingdom. There are just over a million dwellings of non-traditional construction built to named systems. The majority of them are houses, built after the second world war in response to the overwhelming need for new homes and the desperate shortage of traditional building materials and skilled craftsmen. When built, those houses set new standards of space and layout. Some of them, like the BISF, incorporated novel features such as central heating and improved insulation. At the time they were built, they were novel features. As a result, they have generally proved popular with tenants, who appreciate their generous space standards and often sizeable gardens. They have exercised their right to buy in fairly large numbers.
However, in the early 1980s the building research establishment discovered serious problems with a number of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses designed before 1960. Those problems related to changes in the chemical composition of the concrete, and although in most cases there was no immediate risk of structural failure, it meant that the useful life of those houses was now known to be significantly shorter than when they had been valued for sale under the right to buy.
As a result, owners who had bought in good faith experienced a substantial loss in value, and in 1984 the Government, with all-party support, brought in the housing defects legislation to ensure that they could be assisted, either by reinstatement work, or by repurchase. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill. I took a great interest in the issue, because a number of my constituents occupy such houses.
Although those houses represented less than a fifth of the total non-traditional stock, lending institutions understandably reacted at the time with considerable caution to mortgage applications for any non-traditional house. Their surveyors were, by and large, unfamiliar with the systems of construction employed and with methods of inspection and assessment that would allow them to consider them on their individual merits.
The Department asked the BRE to conduct a comprehensive study of all types of non-traditional dwelling, in order to provide authoritative advice to owners and building professionals on methods of construction and on good practice in inspection, asessment, maintenance, repair and improvement. That study is now drawing to a close. The BRE has looked at all the major types, representing some 90 per cent. of non-traditional houses in the country, and has concluded that, overall, their performance in use is likely to be much the same as that of brick-built houses of the same age.
Of course there are exceptions, but such isolated types, with serious inherent defects which could not have been known at the time they were sold, have all long since been designated under the housing defects legislation. With
1096
other types, we expect owners to make proper provision for repair, maintenance and improvement, just as they would for houses of more traditional construction.
The legislation was never intended as an escape route from the normal responsibilities of home ownership. Where owners have genuine problems in coping with the cost of essential repairs, and are unable to finance them through bank loans; say, or re-mortgage, the new house renovation grant scheme should help, but we see no need for special treatment simply because a house does not happen to be made of brick.
Mr. Allen McKay rose—
Mr. Chope: I will give way in a moment, but not just now.
It is in this context that we need to look at the situation of owners of BISF houses like those on the Bilborough estate. These houses are now over 40 years old. In common with other, traditional, houses built at that time, their heating, insulation, kitchen and bathroom standards are lower than we would expect in houses built today. They need regular maintenance and renewal like any other houses, and their roofs, in particular, are coming to the end of their useful life.
However, the valuations at which they were sold would have taken into account all these factors, which were readily apparent on survey; and in general across the country we find that these houses have found their level in the open private sector market without much difficulty. Indeed, I understand that the chairman of the Bilborough Owners Association, Jane Locke, far from buying under the right to buy, bought her own house in just this way, presumably with the benefit of a survey. She bought that house in the open private market.
Like other non-traditional houses elsewhere, BISF houses in Nottingham were affected for a time by uncertainties in the market. The city council did its best to help by stripping down half a dozen of its own properties to show that they had no structural problems; and in 1987 the building research establishment published a comprehensive report which showed that the majority of BISF houses were structurally sound, and that, where repairs were needed—chiefly in areas of high exposure near the coast—these could be carried out in a relatively straightforward and cost-effective manner. On the basis of their findings, we saw then, and see now, absolutely no reason to designate under the housing defects legislation.
I fear that it is the report from the building research establishment which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and some of his constituents are still not prepared to accept, yet it is the report of experts on this issue. I hope that in due course it will be accepted, even perhaps by the hon. Gentleman.
By the end of 1988, it seemed clear that market confidence was returning, and it was therefore with some surprise that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen learned from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that there were apparently still difficulties with mortgageability on the Bilborough estate. He undertook to sound out the major lending institutions, and in May of last year he was able to announce to the House that the Halifax and the Abbey National had confirmed that they continued to lend on BISF houses in

1097
Nottingham, as elsewhere, on normal terms, and to re-mortgage where repairs and improvements were needed.
However, they had also pointed out that market sentiment could be badly affected by inaccurate statements about health and safety made in the media and elsewhere—a concern that the hon. Gentleman then, at least, seemed to share; to judge from his letter to my hon. Friend dated 19 December 1988, in which he deplored loose talk about "defects" and "designation". It is, unfortunately, a fact that the Bilborough owners association has seen fit to circulate a stream of highly misleading material, suggesting that BSIF houses are fire traps, an allegation repeated tonight by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, that the existing asbestos-cement roofs are a health hazard, and that prospective purchasers would be ill advised to buy. I cannot stress too strongly that there is not a shred of evidence to support these claims, and that it is foolhardy in the extreme for owners who wish their houses to achieve a proper market value to talk down their properties in this way. For any hon. Member to aid and abet that is also irresponsible.
Mr. Allen: Will the Minister specify where I have sought to label these houses fire traps? Is he not really falling into his trap of talking down these properties by using such extreme language? I have not referred to these houses as fire traps, and it is rather ill advised of the Minister to come up with such language. Does he not realise that we should all be trying to seek a solution to this problem?
Mr. Chope: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's amazing change of mood, and I am glad that he now sees the need to be responsible about the matter. The record will show exactly what he said in his speech about the fire hazards associated with such houses.
Mr. Allen: We do not need the record. I will tell the Minister again what I said, as obviously he was not listening—or he was having a joke with one of the Whips, as he did several times during my speech. I said that, before considering a mortgage on a given property, the Nationwide Anglia building society had requested that a firebreak be put into the property, at great expense. That is different from saying that all the houses are fire traps. They are not, and should not be so portrayed.
Mr. Chope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. One of the difficulties has been that a fire had taken place in one of the houses on the estate. People suggested that it was because of the structure of the building. The hon. Gentleman will know that a detailed report was carried out by Howard Ward Associates for Nottingham city council, which concluded that there was no structural problem with the house. It said:
"We see no structural reason why the property should not be considered as suitable security for mortgage purposes. There are no above-average structural and fire insurance risks in the property. The steel frame in fact provides better protection against superstructure damage in the event of foundation movement and subsidence damage risk may therefore be lower than average. There are no reasons to suspect that the structural condition of the property is other than typical of that found in the BISF houses elsewhere."
That report is apparently not accepted by everyone on the estate. That is a pity, as it has only resulted in the houses having a lower value in the marketplace than they would otherwise have had.
Mr. Allen McKayrose—
Mr. Chope: I must continue, as it is the hon. Member for Nottingham, North's Adjournment debate, but if there is time at the end, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
One of the allegations is that owners face substantial repair bills—the hon. Gentleman said that they amounted to some £20,000. That is nonsense. Any unimproved house over 40 years old, whatever its construction, could well need substantial expenditure to bring it completely up to modern performance standards. But Professor Hollis, who surveyed one of the Bilborough houses on behalf of the owners, has confirmed to the Department that no structural repairs were found to be necessary—apart from those needed to cope with injudicious alterations carried out by the owner—and that he would expect to see essential renewal and maintenance work to any house of that age cost no more than £7,000. That, of course, is exactly what Nottingham city council has found in work to its own houses on the estate.
Indeed, after my hon. Friend's announcement, one of the major clearing banks approached the Department expressing some concern that the question of designation under the housing defects legislation had even been raised. Like other lending institutions, the banks treat mortgage applications for steel-framed houses like the BISF on their merits, just like traditional houses, and can see no justification whatsoever for suggestions that they are defective.
That is the position today. BISF houses generally command a fair price in the market. At Bilborough, major lending institutions stand ready to advance mortgages. The estate is an attractive one, and the city council is showing its confidence in the houses by an improvement programme to its property in which it is replacing roofs, windows and guttering. It has offered owners the opportunity to join in with the once-for-all chance to catch up on past maintenance at a specially low price of just over £6,000.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the contrast between a house that had been improved by Nottingham city council and one that had not. If the owner of a house adjoining one owned by Nottingham city council wishes to participate in the scheme, participation comes at the relatively modest price of just over £6,000. A number of owners have already expressed interest in that offer. For those owners with low incomes a further opportunity exists: if their houses require it and their means warrant it, they could qualify for grant-aided repairs under the new system of house renovation grants.
Owners generally need to avoid problems of their own making. They must care for their properties and take the opportunities when they arise to enhance them and not to run them down. The city council, the lending institutions and my Department all take a positive view of these houses. Only a small and vociferous group of owners, for reasons best known to themselves, apparently wish to encourage blight. If they think that by doing so they can attract large sums of taxpayers' money, they are severely mistaken. I hope that, as a result of this debate, they will think carefully about the consequences of their actions.
I have invited the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion to organise a visit of parliamentarians to the building research establishment, where they would have

1099
the opportunity to talk to the technical experts who carried out research on BISF houses and on whose advice the Government's policy is based.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take up that invitation. His hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) went on such a visit and found it helpful. He did not find it necessary to take anybody with him from the estate. He went there and used his own judgment as an intelligent Member of the House. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North is perfectly capable of assessing the expert advice that he would receive if he went to the BRE.
I fear—I speculate on this point—that the hon. Gentleman is frightened that, when he goes to the BRE, he too will be convinced of the case that the BRE has made and that the onus will then be on him, as the hon. Member for the constituency involved, to pass that judgment on to some owners who have resolutely resolved not to accept the BRE advice under any circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, like his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West, take up the offer to visit the BRE.
Mr. Allen: Why is the Minister afraid of his officials at the BRE meeting residents of the Bilborough estate, with or without my presence, to discuss their differing views on the technical problems of these homes?
Mr. Chope: I am not afraid of anything. The BRE is an independent technical establishment and time is very much at a premium, and if the hon. Gentleman visits the BRE he will appreciate that. When he is making his visit, he can, if he is not satisfied or wants additional information—bearing in mind that the report of the BRE has been published and is available to tenants—glean it from the BRE.
He can discuss with the officials there whether they would be minded to discuss, and see any merit in discussing, matters further with some of the tenants. I do not rule out what might happen if he visits the BRE and discusses this matter with the officials there, because I do no know what new points he will try to raise, but at this stage it would be better for him to accept the invitation that has been offered to visit the BRE, as his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West did, and to discuss with the experts the report which they produced.
Mr. Allen: I am anxious to get this absolutely clear for the record. Is the Minister once again precluding me from going to the BRE accompanied by a representative of the people who are suffering this problem?
Mr. Chope: I am saying that the invitation for him to visit the BRE is for him to go as a parliamentarian with any other parliamentary colleagues he wishes to take with him, but that the invitation does not extend to ordinary members of the public. As I said, if he goes to the BRE, he can no doubt discuss with the experts there the relative reasons why it may or may not be desirable for other people to be brought forward on a subsequent occasion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take up that offer. His hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West did not seek to put conditions on his visit to the BRE.
Most hon. Members—indeed, most members of the general public—have a high regard for the work of the BRE and would be glad of the opportunity to go there and
1100
discuss the technical side of the matter with the experts. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so far turned down that offer. I am sure that in due course he will respond to it because, if he does not do so, I do not see how he could communicate to his constituents the discussions that he would have been able to have with the BRE.
Mr. Allen: Since the Under-Secretary seems to be coming to the end of his remarks, will he consider the suggestion that I made earlier—that he should meet hon. Members who have such problems in their constituencies—both Members of this House and of the other place? Would the Minister, at his own convenience, whenever he chooses, meet those people?
Mr. Chope: The answer to that has been clearly set out in the letters that I have written to the hon. Gentleman and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written. Obviously, if new issues were raised, Ministers are prepared to have meetings to discuss them. However, nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said tonight, or in his correspondence, suggests that he has any new points to raise. He merely wishes to go over old ground—over matters which he discussed with my predecessor. There is no point in my having meetings to go over ground that was explored a short time ago with a former Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Allen McKay: I do not think that any hon. Member here tonight has said that the houses we are discussing are fire hazards because they catch fire more quickly than any other house. However, it is a fact that fire spreads more quickly in such houses, and that is the reason that architects have advised that a fire stop should be put into the apex of the house to ensure that fire does not spread from one side to another.
The Under-Secretary concentrated in his speech on the structural defects of such houses. I do not know whether he has seen any of the houses which are in the worst condition. It is no fault of the tenant through lack of maintenance. It is sheer lack of finance that has caused the condition. They bought something, but they did not realise that it would be a considerable drain on their finances.
In 1971, architects in my constituency, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, realising that they were throwing good money after bad, stripped down a number of these houses and bricked them through instead of cladding them on the inside. Cladding can cause grave problems and does not foster good housekeeping, and the best people can get depressed living in such conditions.
I believe that the Government must consider what help they can give. Perhaps a partnership between the local authority, central Government, the householder and if necessary the building society would be a possibility. Unless we do something, the problem will remain with us.
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a fire stop. That is also covered in the report by Howard Ward Associates. They said:
"with regard to the combustibility of the property and the risk to occupants this does not appear to be significantly different from that found in traditionally built modern houses and, bearing in mind the effectiveness of the firestop, is undoubtedly better than in many other properties where party walls frequently do not extend into the roof voids."

1101
Therefore, those independent experts, who were producing a report for Nottingham City council, found that there was no need for people to become alarmed about fire stops.
I hope that the past will be put behind residents who live on the estate, and that they will see that there is a good future for them, for their houses and for the marketability of their houses if they accept the findings of the building research establishment, and perhaps take advantage of the offers made by Nottingham city council. That council has behaved very responsibly in this matter at all times. I hope that the problem can be resolved happily for everyone, including the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I hope that he will be more content in future.
I do not see any point in having meetings to discuss old ground unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to discuss the matter with the BRE first. As a gesture of good will, if he goes to discuss the subject with the BRE and has points arising from that meeting that he wishes to discuss with me, I shall happily meet him.
10.29 pm
Mr. Allen: I would like to conclude the last minute of the debate by saying how disappointed I am that, despite the gesture made by the Under-Secretary in the last sentence of his speech, he has rejected a meeting with hon. Members from this House and from the other place. I would gladly attend the BRE accompanied by someone who has suffered from this problem but, unfortunately, that visit has also been rejected by the Under-Secretary. In other debates, I might say that I would raise this matter in the Adjournment, but we are on the Adjournment and unfortunately we will have no satisfaction until there is a new Government.
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deputy Secretaries
  Mr. Torn Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the numbers and ranks of staff reporting to each.

  Mr. Waddington
  The responsibilities of the deputy secretaries and the numbers of their staff are as follows:

  Responsibilities

  Number of staff1

  Broadcasting and miscellaneous department, equal opportunities and general department, immigration and nationality department, and passport department

  5,100

  Criminal justice and constitutional department, criminal policy department, research and statistics department

  500

  Establishment department, finance and manpower department, fire and emergency planning department

  2,000

  Legal adviser's branch

  27

  Police department

  2,400

  Prison service

  32,400

  1 To the nearest hundred, except for legal adviser's branch.

  The deputy secretaries have staff reporting to them in a wide variety of grades; detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Secure Unit, Wakefield
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued on the practice of courts sending offenders to the Newton Lodge, Wakefield secure unit; what information he has on the current practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Courts have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 to authorise the detention of accused and convicted persons in hospital if the relevant requirements of the Act are met. The Home Office has issued circulars on the provisions of the Act in 1983 and 1984, but we do not provide guidance on the use of these powers in relation to individual secure units. We maintain regular contact with the Newton Lodge unit whose management is the responsibility of the district health authority.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests or instructions have been given to the Metropolitan police by the Government concerning development of revenue-earning potential.

  Mr. Waddington
  No such approach has been made to the Metropolitan police by the Government. However, the Commissioner announced in his strategy statement for 508
  1990 that he has initiated a study of the scope for increasing receipts to the force as part of his concern to see that the best possible use is made of available resources. Any proposals which emerge will be put to me as police authority.

  Car Clamps
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis on what steps are being taken to end unlawful parking in Green street and Katherine road in the London borough of Newham and as to how many parking offenders had their cars clamped in the London borough of Newham in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Waddington
  I understand from the Commissioner that traffic wardens patrol the area daily and these roads are among those in the area targeted for enforcement by the area traffic unit. Vehicle removal teams are also deployed in the area from time to time. Wheelclamping may take place only in areas where it has been authorised by order by the Secretary of State. It has not been authorised in the borough of Newham.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of violence have been reported as having occurred at Wandsworth prison during each of the years 1984 to 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The table shows numbers of charges of assault on which prisoners were found guilty on adjudication:

  Year

  Staff

  Assault on inmate

  Other

  Fighting

  1984

  151

  30

  3

  —

  1985

  146

  26

  1

  —

  1986

  78

  31

  —

  —

  1987

  61

  30

  —

  —

  1988

  65

  30

  —

  —

  1989

  87

  17

  2

  62

  The figures include cases of gross personal violence. which ceased to be a separate offence on 31 March 1989. and charges of attempt—and also, since 1 April 1989, incitement and assisting another prisoner—to commit an offence. The new offence of fighting also came into force on 1 April 1989. The 1989 figures are provisional.

  In the following numbers of other incidents, acts of violence by a prisoner on a member of staff or another person were reported:

  Year

  Escape/ attempted escape from escort

  Hostage taking

  Concerted indiscipline

  Miscellaneous other incidents

  1984

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1986

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1987

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1988

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1989

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Private Interest Registration
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the requirements laid down for members appointed by him to bodies such as the Independent Broadcasting Authority to register their private interests; and where the register of interests is kept.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the Broadcasting Act 1981, I have to be satisfied, before appointing a person to be a member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, that he has no financial or other interest likely to prejudice the discharge of his duties as a member. This applies in particular to interests in programme contractors, advertising agencies and manufacture or sale of wireless or other telegraphic equipment.

  Assurances are sought from potential new members and repeated annually for existing members. Other broadcasting bodies are generally covered by comparable arrangements.

  Uncharged Prisoners
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been placed in custody without being charged with any offence for more than a year in(a) the last five years and (b) the last 10 years, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  All persons in prison service establishments are held following a charge, conviction or sentence for a criminal offence, except for persons committed to prison for contempt of court and for certain civil debts and those detained under the Immigration Act 1971 and for a maximum of seven days under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976. Information for all years on non-criminal prisoners held in prison service establishments could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, according to records held centrally no non-criminal prisoners in prison service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 1979, 1984 or 1989 had been held for more than one year.

  The information requested on persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 in immigration detention centres is not available. However, no person currently detained solely under Immigration Act powers in the United Kingdom has been held for more than a year. Such cases are very rare.

  Persons held in police custody prior to charge are subject to the provisions of either the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which places an upper limit of 96 hours on the period of detention; or the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which enables them to be detained for up to 48 hours on police authority and for up to an additional five days on that of the Secretary of State.

  Fire Precautions
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish his comprehensive Guide to Fire Precautions in Existing Places of Public Entertainment and Like Premises.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our "Guide to Fire Precautions in Existing Places of Entertainment and Like Premises" was published on 8 March. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the subject matter of the internal audit report that was drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department in 1989.

  Mr. Waddington
  The internal audit report was of a systems review of Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate.

  Crime (London)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many crimes involving indecency were reported to the police in London during 1989; and if he will give the number in each of the categories used by the police force;

  (2) how many crimes of malicious damage and vandalism were reported to the London police during 1989;

  (3) how many crimes of violence against the person (non-sexual) were reported to the police in London during 1989; and if he will give the number in each of the categories used by the police force;

  (4) how many drugs offences were reported to the London police during 1989;

  (5) how many thefts by housebreaking and attempted housebreaking were reported to the London police during 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information about crime in London in 1989 will be available later this month when the regular annual statistical bulletin on recorded crime is published. The corresponding information for 1988 was published in table S3.1 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary tables 1988, Vol/", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Risley Remand Centre
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the dates on which Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons or any member of his staff has visited Risley remand centre since the inspection of February 1988; what reports were compiled following such visits; and whether copies of such reports have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Mellor
  Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has not visited Risley remand centre since his full inspection in 1988. One inspector visited Risley on 20 April 1989 as part of his review of the working of remand centres. He briefed Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons on his return, but no report was submitted either to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) or to my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Pensions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the pension that an inspector in the police force will receive, having completed maximum years' service, on retirement at the end of March; and what is the pension currently received by inspectors with similar service who retired in March 1980 and March 1970;

  (2) what is the value at current prices of the average pension received by police of all ranks on their retirement in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;
  511
  (3) what is the value at current prices of the average pension received by fire brigade personnel on their retirement in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (4) what is the value, at current prices, of the pension received by an ex-police inspector with maximum years' service who retired in (a) March 1970 and (b) March 1980;

  (5) what was the average pension paid to fire brigade personnel who retired in 1989; and what is the average pension currently received by fire brigade personnel who retired in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (6) what was the average pension paid to police of all ranks who retired in 1989; and what is the average pension received currently by police of all ranks who retired in (a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Waddington
  Particulars of average police and fire service pensions are not held centrally and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information requested about the relative pension position of police inspectors retiring at certain dates is given in the table.

  Retirement date

  Current annual pension

  £

  31 March 1970

  7,337

  31 March 1980

  9,023

  31 March 1990

  13,238

  Police Consultative Committees
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which London boroughs are not members of the local police consultative committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Five London borough councils have refused to nominate representatives to their local police-community consultative group: Brent, Ealing, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth.

  We deplore the fact that these five groups are obliged to operate without the support of their local council and without the resources which other councils make available. I hope that they will reconsider their position. The fact that these groups nevertheless operate effectively reflects great credit on all of those involved.

  HIV
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male and female prisoners in England and Wales have been found to have contracted the human immuno deficiency virus since monitoring commenced in March 1985; and how many prisoners are currently HIV positive.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 19 March 1991) the prison population of England and Wales included 61 male and seven female prisoners reported as having been identified as HIV antibody positive. On the same date the numbers of identified cases reported since March 1985 were 242 males and 42 females.

  Prisons (Syringes)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many needles or syringes., contrary to prison rules, have been found in prison establishments in England and Wales during the past three years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following numbers of finds were reported by prison service establishments in 1987–89:

  Needles

  Syringes

  1987

  49

  92

  1988

  77

  114

  1989

  98

  187

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional funding will be allocated for health and social services boards in Northern Ireland for the financial year beginning on 1 April; what is the basis of the calculation on which the allocations are made to the separate boards; and how much will be allocated to the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1990–91 the health and social services boards will have available to them an extra £55 million. In addition they will have the proceeds of their cost improvement programmes amounting to some £9 million. These resources are being allocated to boards to enable them to cover the forecast level of inflation, to advance services in a number of priority areas and to continue progress towards the regional strategy objectives through their operational plans. The 1990–91 allocations also continue the process of progressive equalisation of resources between boards.

  The Eastern health and social services board's allocation for 1990–91 will be £386,804,000. In addition it will receive the major share of some £5·85 million which has been reserved for key developments including regional medical services.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the code of practice mentioned in his reply of 21 February,Official Report, column 768, to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has been agreed with the Fair Employment Commission.

  Mr. Cope
  Although the code of practice has not been agreed with the Fair Employment Commission, which came into being on 1 January 1990, it was agreed with its predecessor, the Fair Employment Agency in 1985.

  Railways
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost of police and Army time spent in protecting, checking and clearing explosives from the tracks of Northern Ireland railways in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The Northern Ireland Civil Service is considering with the trade unions whether child care facilities for under five-year-olds can be provided for its staff. Two holiday playschemes, which were funded by parental fees and grants from the Northern Ireland Civil Service, were established on a pilot basis during the 1989 summer holidays and one scheme in the 1989 Christmas holiday. These schemes are now being evaluated to gauge their success and to consider if further playschemes should be developed.

  The small home Civil Service part of the Northern Ireland Office which comprises about 200 staff divided between London and Belfast, does not provide child care facilities of its own. Staff can, however, link into schemes already set up by larger Departments, both in London and Belfast and we hope to continue to be able to take advantage of any new schemes.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: It is the policy of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and home Civil Service that all eligible persons shall have equal opportunity for employment and promotion on the basis of their ability, qualifications and aptitude for the work.

  The detailed policy statement on equality of opportunity issued by the Northern Ireland Civil Service makes it clear that any advertisements, whether internal or external, must not indicate or appear to indicate any intention to discriminate in selection for recruitment and promotion. It also states that opportunities to obtain information on careers in the Civil Service must be readily available to all existing and potential applicants and that the eligibility criteria for recruitment should be formulated to ensure that they are related to job performance and are non-discriminatory.

  There is no age limit for recruits except in the case of administrative trainees (age limit 36) and direct entrant executive officers II (age limit 50). These limits are necessary in order that recruits can realise the career expectation associated with recruitment to the grades in question.

  There are no age limits which preclude officers from considerations for promotion. In pursuance of its equal opportunity policy, an equal opportunities unit has been established within the Department of Finance and Personnel. The unit has introduced a detailed monitoring system which includes recruitment and promotion. Details of its work are contained within three published reports; copies of which are available in the Library.
  514
  Equal opportunity policy in the small home Civil Service element of the Northern Ireland Office is kept under regular review. An equal opportunities guide for staff which emphasises its commitment, is near completion. Internal promotion procedures for this group are also currently under review.

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

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The proportion of staff who are female in each of the following grades in the Northern Ireland Civil Service is:

  Grade

  Per cent. Female

  7

  6·0

  6

  7·9

  5

  5·5

  4

  —

  3

  2·9

  2

  —

  1

  —

  With regard to the home Civil Service part of the Northern Ireland Office, female staff account for 4 to 5 per cent. of the total at grade 7 level; there are currently no female staff at grades 1 to 6.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Cope
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The information is as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  Nil

  1980–81

  Nil

  1981–82

  Nil

  1982–83

  Nil

  1983–84

  Nil

  1984–85

  Nil

  1985–86

  52,380

  1986–87

  4,298

  1987–88

  2,411

  1988–89

  1,549,937

  11989–90

  2,760,488

  11990–91

  1,800,000

  1 Estimated

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will refer the circumstances surrounding the case of Colin Wallace to the Security Commission under Lord Griffiths of Govilon or the security services tribunal under the chairmanship of Lord Stuart-Smith.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Arts Institutions
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Prime Minister which arts institutions she has visited officially since 1 January.

  . Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister which arts institutions she has visited officially since 1 January.

  . Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Prime Minister which arts institutions she has visited officially since 1 January.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Prime Minister which arts institutions she has visited officially since 1 January.

  The Prime Minister
  On 24 January I visited the Tate gallery, and on 28 February I went to the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television in Bradford. On 1 March I attended a performance of "Don Pasquale" at the Royal Opera House, and the following day I visited the Arts Council. I also visited the Burrell collection in Glasgow on 10 March.

  Scottish Islands
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister when last she travelled officially on a passenger ferry between the Scottish mainland and one of the Scottish islands; and if she has any plans to undertake such a journey in the near future.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to do so if a suitable opportunity arises.

  Quangos
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister how many quangos were in being in June 1979; and how many there are at the present time.

  The Prime Minister
  On 1 April 1979 there were 2,167 non-departmental public bodies and on 1 April 1989 there were 1,555.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since 1980 Her Majesty's Government have made representations of concern to the Zimbabwean Government about the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe; and what has been the cause of this concern.

  The Prime Minister
  We are opposed to abuses of human rights wherever they occur. We have made a number of representations since 1980 on behalf of individuals detained without charge in Zimbabwe, including most recently Mr. Lewis-Walker, Mrs. Brown, Mr. Clive Harding and Mr. Ivor Harding, all of whom were subsequently released.

  Foreign Bases
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will state the Government's policy in relation to the use of bases in the United Kingdom which are in control of other countries for military purposes elsewhere in the world and on prior consultation concerning such use.

  The Prime Minister
  Under long-standing arrangements, the use by the United States of bases in the United 516
  Kingdom in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. No other country has operational military facilities made available to it in the United Kingdom.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure including for privatisation of her Department and public bodies for which she has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure for 1979 is not available except at disproportionate cost. The estimated total expenditure on publicity and advertising by the Cabinet Office and those public bodies for which I am responsible in 1989–90 is £2,543,290. None of it is for privatisation. Over 84 per cent. of the total represents recruitment advertising by the Civil Service Commission.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to a National Health Service hospital.

  The Prime Minister
  I have visited various National Health hospitals eight times during the past year including Dewsbury hospital last month.

  New York
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to New York.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to visit New York.

  Engagements
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 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 the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

WALES

  Cancer
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what target date it is his policy to set for the publication of the figures for the incidence of leukaemia, lung cancer,
  517
  colon cancer and stomach cancer (a) for Wales generally and (b) for each district in Wales following the end of each year.

  Mr. Grist
  As indicated in the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 15 March there is no set target date for the publication of this data. The Department is, however, considering what steps might be taken to ensure prompt publication of this information in future.

  New Dwellings
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of new dwelling units which will be built in 1990–91 in(a) the private sector and (b) the public sector.

  Mr. Grist
  No estimates are available for the number of new dwelling units to be built in 1990–91.

  Teachers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission a study into the number of mid-career teachers in primary and secondary schools in Wales giving notice of their resignation in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. The Department of Education and Science maintains records of the number of mid-career teachers in primary and secondary schools in Wales who have actually resigned.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission a study into the numbers and percentages of head teachers, deputy heads and teachers in primary and secondary schools in Wales who applied for early retirement in 1990, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. The Department of Education and Science maintains records of the number and percentages of head teachers, deputy heads and teachers in primary and secondary schools in Wales who have actually left on early retirement terms.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will institute a study into the numbers of applications for deputy headships and headships in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales in 1990, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most up-to-date estimates available to him of the numbers of teachers applying for vacant deputy headships and headships in(a) primary and (b) secondary education in Wales covering the period 1985 to 1990.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on implementing the licensed teachers and articled teachers schemes.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Although education support grant was made available to support the training of licensed teachers in 1990–91, no local education authority in Wales 518
  submitted a bid. One authority in Wales has shown an interest in the articled teachers scheme, but it was not possible to support the consortium of which it was a member. We are currently considering whether to make local authority training grant money available to support these schemes in 1991–92.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what allowance he proposes to make in the setting of tests for children at seven, 11, 14 and 16 in pursuit of the national curriculum where education has been disrupted for six weeks or more by natural or man-made disasters affecting the availability of school buildings.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council is currently considering the range of circumstances in which exceptional arrangements may need to apply and its further advice is awaited.

  Flats Porthcawl
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the Stoneleigh Club and Dunraven Court flats in Porthcawl; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No representations concerning the Dunraven Court flats in Porthcawl have been recorded since the Dunraven (Porthcawl) Housing Society Ltd. went into voluntary liquidation in July 1984. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the Stoneleigh Club.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary school Welsh language units are currently recognised in each county in Wales; and what is his Department's policy relating to(a) Welsh medium units and (b)> Welsh medium schools as a means of providing Welsh language education.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There is no standard definition of a Welsh language unit. The number of schools having classes where Welsh is the sole or main medium of instruction of first and second language pupils in each county is set out in the table:

  Numbers

  Clwyd

  32

  Dyfed

  117

  Gwent

  6

  Gwynedd

  138

  Mid Glamorgan

  29

  Powys

  20

  South Glamorgan

  9

  West Glamorgan

  17

  Welsh Office policy on Welsh medium education was set out in the publication "Welsh in Schools" (July 1981) which encouraged local education authorities to make available bilingual education for pupils whose parents desired it for them. The means of making this provision would be a matter for individual local education authorities to determine.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a review of the funding of Welsh medium schools and units in Wales.
  519
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Funding of schools is a matter for the LEAs. The publication of school budget and outturn statements under LMS will help in identifying any extra costs associated with bilingual education.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Polytechnic Designations
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which higher education establishments have expressed an interest in receiving polytechnic designation; which are likely to meet the new criteria which he has issued; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has accepted the criteria proposed by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council for the designation of new polytechnics and has invited the council to advise him before the end of May whether any colleges currently meet, or whether there is a clear prospect that they will meet within the next two years, its criteria for polytechnic designation. It is now for the council to consider evidence from individual institutions and advise my right hon. Friend.

  The higher education establishments which, I understand, have expressed an interest in receiving polytechnic designation are as follows:

  Anglia Higher Education College

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education1

  Derbyshire College of Higher Education

  Dorset Institute of Higher Education

  Ealing College of Higher Education

  Humberside College of Higher Education

  Luton College of Higher Education

  Southampton Institute of Higher Education

  Thames Valley College of Higher Education

  1 To he formed by the merger of Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology (HE) and the College of St. Paul and St. Mary, Cheltenham on 1 April 1990.

  The London Institute has expressed an interest in receiving the status of a polytechnic, but not the name.

  Parenting
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the Government's policy on promoting the teaching of parenting skills and the care of children in schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Section 1 of the Education Reform Act places a duty on the Secretary of State, local education authorities, school governors and head teachers to ensure that the curriculum as a whole prepares young people for the responsibilities and experiences of adult life. The science order within the national curriculum, being implemented under the Education Reform Act, requires that pupils should understand the factors necessary for the well-being of young children in the early stages of their development.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to ensure that there is sufficient time available for schools to include in the curriculum parenting skills and the care of children.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Section 4(3) of the Education Reform Act precludes the Secretary of State from requiring schools to allocate particular periods of time to any aspect of the national curriculum.

  Secondary Admissions (Bromley)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will obtain details from the London borough of Bromley of its secondary schools admissions policy.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has received some details from the London borough of Bromley about its school admissions policy and these are currently under consideration.

  Training Grants
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date in 1989 he published the amount of the training grants available for each local education authority; when he expects to publish the figures applicable to the financial year 1990–91; and what advice he has given to these authorities in respect of determination of their education budgets and related revenue decisions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Indicative maximum amounts of expenditure which my right hon. Friend had it in mind to support in each priority area in each local education authority (LEA) under the LEA training grants scheme in 1990–91 were first set out in a circular issued on 18 August 1989. Final allocations were notified in letters to each LEA sent on 15 December 1989. The financial arrangements governing the training grants scheme for 1990–91 were explained in the August 1989 circular.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the primary and secondary school pupil-teacher ratio for 1979, 1983, 1987 and the most recent year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The pupil-teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in England in 1979, 1983 and 1987 and 1989 were as follows:

  Primary

  Secondary

  1979

  23·1

  16·7

  1983

  22·3

  16·5

  1987

  21·9

  15·6

  1989

  22·0

  15·3

  The pupil-teacher ratio in both primary and secondary schools has improved since 1979. It is for local education authorities and schools to make the best use of the available teacher resources.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of how much it would cost to provide full-time nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in the United Kingdom in 1991–92.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend's responsibilities for schools do not extend beyond England. The Department has not attempted detailed costings of the introduction of universal, full-time nursery education for
  521
  three and four-year-olds in England. However, a broad extrapolation from the estimated cost per pupil for all forms of provision made by local education authorities for the under-fives1 suggests an annual recurrent cost of the order of £1·65 billion in 1989–90 prices. In addition there would be a substantial capital cost; and costs would also be incurred in training or retraining the additional teaching and ancillary staff who would be needed.

  1Table 11.2, DES Chapter of the Public Expenditure White Paper 1990 (Cm 1011).

  Food Research
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has made an assessment of the implications for that element of food safety research, which may be of benefit to the consumer but is unlikely to offer a worthwhile return to industry, of the Government's decision to withdraw from near-market funding.

  Mr. Jackson
  The policy decision to withdraw from funding near-market research has not altered the Government's commitment to basic and strategic research in the area of food safety. Funding for such research has been increased in real terms.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he held with the Agricultural and Food Research Council in respect of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research, prior to the decision by the Agricultural and Food Research Council to close it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Agricultural and Food Research Council is an independent body which is grant-aided by Government. The council announced its intention to concentrate physical restructuring of its institutes, including the Institute of Food Research, in its corporate plan 1989–94, published in February 1989. The council kept the Department informed of its consideration of proposals for restructuring but the evaluation of those proposals and the decisions taken concerning it were entirely a matter for the council.

  School Education, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of children being educated in first, middle and upper schools in the metropolitan district of Bradford in the current academic year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of pupils on roll in January 1989 in first, middle and upper schools in Bradford was 78,555, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the subject matter of the two internal audit reports that were drawn to the attention of Ministers in his Department in 1989.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The internal audit reports covered controls over adult education grants and education support grants both of which were taken into account in policy reviews.

  Middle Schools
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local education authorities intend to retain middle school systems; and which have proposals to change status from middle school systems to transfer to secondary provision at 11 years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The local education authorities that operate middle school systems are listed in the table:

  Barnsley

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Ealing

  East Sussex

  Hampshire

  Harrow

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Kirklees

  Leicestershire

  Leeds

  Merton

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Norfolk

  North Tyneside

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Rochdale

  Sheffield

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Wakefield

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  Of these authorities, only Leeds has published statutory proposals to change to a system of primary-secondary provision which are currently under consideration. In addition, the Secretary of State has approved proposals for Shropshire, Humberside, Rochdale and Barnsley LEAs which are still to be implemented, all in September 1990.

  University College of Wales (Grant)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his most up-to-date estimate of the date, terms and conditions of the repayment of the repayable grant made by the University Grants Committee to University College of Wales, Cardiff in 1988;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the date and terms of repayment of the £4·4 million repayable grant made by the University Grants Committee to the University of Wales College at Cardiff in 1988;
  523
  (3) if he will review the terms of the special £4·4 million repayable grant made by the University Grants Committee to the University of Wales College at Cardiff in 1988.

  Mr. Jackson
  A repayable grant of £4·4 million was made available by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science to University College, Cardiff in September 1988. The covering agreement requires the college and its successor to apply the net proceeds from the disposal of surplus assets towards repaying the grant. To date some £270,000 has been repaid. My right hon. Friend has received no representations about the agreement, and has no plans to review it.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he estimates will be the cost of student loans in Scotland in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: I have been asked to reply. The estimated cost of loans for Scottish domiciled students is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  15·7

  1991–92

  25·5

  1992–93

  25·6

DEFENCE

  Holy Loch
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what approaches have been received from the United States authorities concerning the deployment of a United States Navy submarine tender ship to Holy loch certified to handle, load, store and maintain nuclear and conventional Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles;

  (2) what discussions have taken place, or are under way, concerning the continued use of Holy loch by the United States Navy after the date when United States Poseidon ballistic missile-carrying submarines based at Holy loch are decommissioned;

  (3) what information he has on the effect of United States plans for the future of its Poseidon SSBNs on the future of the facility at Holy loch.

  Mr. Neubert
  The long-term use of the Holy loch facility is a matter for discussion between the United Kingdom and United States Governments. No decision has yet been taken.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities exist at Holy loch for the maintenance, repair, storage and transfer of Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Neubert
  A normal range of facilities exist at Holy loch for the logistic support of United States Navy nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if current agreements between the British 524
  and United States Governments require the United States authorities to seek permission or inform his Department before a visit is made by a United States Navy attack submarine to the Holy loch submarine facility;

  (2) if the current agreements between the British and United States Governments concerning the use of the Holy loch submarine facility require the United States authorities to seek and obtain the permission of the British Government before the replacement of the current submarine tender with another vessel certified to load, maintain and store submarine-launched cruise missiles;

  (3) if the United States authorities informed his Department before replacing the previous submarine tender at the Holy loch with the USS Simon Lake.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States maintain the closest links over the use of the facilities at Holy loch.

  Nuclear Weapons (Transportation)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running costs for the transportation of nuclear weapons in road convoys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of nuclear weapon movements is kept to a minimum. However, it is the long-standing policy of this and previous Governments not to comment on the methods of transportation of nuclear weapons.

  Running Costs
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running costs of storing and maintaining the Chevaline nuclear weapon and the air-launched WE177 weapon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  It would not be in the national interest to reveal such information.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library the relevant extracts of the contracts, or a summary of them, relating to the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment which relate to intellectual property rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. The contracts are commercially confidential.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what date he expects the proposed contractorisation of atomic weapons establishments to commence and to be completed.

  Mr. Neubert
  The invitations to tender for the interim AWE management contract due to commence later this year will be issued shortly. The timing of the subsequent transfer to full contractorisation is dependent on the passage of legislation but will not be before 1992.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions his Department has had with the
  525
  trade unions representing personnel in the atomic weapons establishments; and if he will guarantee their pension rights when these establishments are contractorised.

  Mr. Neubert
  A consultative document was issued to trades unions on 5 December 1989. Although no formal response has yet been received, a preliminary consultative meeting with the non-industrial trades unions took place on 11 January and joint consultative committees are being set up to discuss the Government's proposals for the future of AWE.

  Staff who are transferred out of the Civil Service cannot remain in the principal Civil Service pension scheme (PCSPS). It is the Government's intention to make available to AWE staff at the time of contractorisation new pension arrangements which would provide benefits which, taken as a whole, would be no less favourable than those of the PCSPS. Proposals for future pension arrangements will be subject to full consultation with trades unions.

  MOD Vehicle (Road Accident)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident in January between a Ministry of Defence vehicle carrying radioactive material and a bus on the Dumfries-Annan road.

  Mr. Neubert
  We have no knowledge of any such incident.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Test Ban
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current proposals there are for hearings on a comprehensive nuclear test ban in the United Nations permanent conference on disarmament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Discussions are under way at the conference on disarmament about the possible establishment of an ad hoc committee on a nuclear test ban.

  Namibia
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Namibian independence constitution abides by the principles formulated by the western Governments on 12 July 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have only just received a copy of the constitution as passed by the Namibian constituent assembly and are still studying it. The United Nations Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on 16 March that he was satisfied that the constitution complied with the constitutional principles.

  Sudan
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic exchanges have taken place with the Government of the Sudan on humanitarian matters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are in frequent touch with the Sudanese Government about humanitarian issues. We continue to press, together with other donors, for an early and effective resumption of the relief operation in Sudan.

  Coto Donana National Park, Spain
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EEC infraction proceedings against Spain in relation to the Coto Donana national park.

  Mr. Maude
  We strongly support the work of the European Commission in ensuring that EC environmental legislation is respected throughout the Community. We welcome the recent decision to publicise the record of member states in this area. But, except where United Kingdom interests are directly at stake, we would not wish to comment on individual cases.

  European Bank
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total capital investment currently proposed for the European bank for reconstruction and development; and when it is expected to commence operations.

  Mr. Maude
  We hope that the articles of the bank will be agreed in the near future and that the bank will commence operations as soon as possible thereafter. The size of the capital stock is still under discussion, but the figure currently under consideration is 10 billion ecu, 30 per cent. of which might be paid in.

  Privatisation (Eastern Europe)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the progress of privatisation of industries in (i) Poland, (ii) Czechoslovakia and (iii) Hungary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We understand that legislation is in place in Hungary enabling state enterprises to be transformed into private companies: some privatisations have taken place. In Poland privatisation legislation has been approved by the Government and is now being considered in parliamentary committee prior to submission to the full Parliament. The Czechoslovak Government are considering legislation.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the subject matter of the internal audit report that was drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The contents of the report are the subject of investigations which are not yet complete.

THE ARTS

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure of his office and its predecessor and public bodies for which his office, and its predecessor, has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Luce
  Press and publicity work for the Office of Arts and Libraries and the Office of the Minister for the
  527
  Civil Service is carried out by the Cabinet Office press office, whose budget for 1989–90 is £205,650. My office did not incur any expenditure on advertising in 1989. Comparable information is not available for 1979. Nor is such information available for public arts bodies.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Obligations to the Crown
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to his answer of 5 March, what action he is taking on the issue of the obligations to the Crown in Parliament, as a result of the meeting on 7 February, when the head of the home Civil Service met the Civil Service unions.

  Mr. Luce
  No such action is necessary. The constitutional position of civil servants remains unchanged; civil servants are responsible to Ministers and Ministers are responsible to Parliament.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Capital Allowances
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the tax relief granted on capital allowances granted in the financial year 1987–88 on(a) plant and machinery, excluding private use motor vehicles, and (b) in respect of investment incurred in the first year for which capital allowances were due.

  Mr. Lilley
  The direct revenue cost of capital allowances for plant and machinery, including vehicles, claimed in accounting periods ending in 1987–88 is provisionally estimated at £6·6 billion. No separate estimates are available for private use motor vehicles, or for new investment in the year.

  Beaulieu Group of Companies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 27 February,Official Report, column 104, what stage proceedings against four directors of the Beaulieu Group of Companies have reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Jan De Clerck, Dominiek De Clerck, Luc De Clerck and Francis De Clerck are next due to appear upon a remand before the Harrogate justices on 26 April 1990. The prosecution will seek to pursue committal proceedings on a date to be fixed by the court following representations by the parties at the remand hearing.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 160, to whom the European investment bank loan was made.

  Mr. Ryder
  The European investment bank loan, referred to in my reply of 13 March, was made to Eurotunnel Finance SA and Eurotunnel Finance Ltd.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether European investment bank loans which are not repaid can be written off against tax as bad debts.
  528
  Mr. Lilley
  The European investment bank is exempted from all direct United Kingdom taxes by virtue of articles 3 and 22 of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The question of relief for bad debts does not therefore arise.

  Czechoslovak Finance Minister
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to meet Mr. Vaclav Kaus, Czechoslovakian Finance Minister.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has no plans to meet the Czechoslovak Finance Minister.

  Rateable Values, Lancashire
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information was collected for each of the Lancashire district councils at the last revaluation on the number of rateable domestic dwellings at rateable values of (i) up to £50, (ii) £51 to £75, (iii) £76 to £100, (iv) £101 to £125, (v) £126 to £150, (vi) £151 to £175, (vii) £176 to £200, and up to (viii) £250, (ix) £300, (x) £350, (xi) £400, (xii) £450, (xiii) £500, and (xiv) £500 plus.

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

  Civil List
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the total amount payable under the Civil List Acts to the royal family in the calendar years 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Major
  The information on amounts payable to the royal family in the present and previous calendar year is as follows:

  1989

  1990

  £

  £

  The Queen's Civil List

  4,658,000

  5,090,000

  HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

  404,000

  439,500

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  225,300

  245,000

  HRH The Duke of York

  155,400

  169,000

  HRH The Prince Edward

  20,000

  20,000

  HRH The Princess Royal

  140,400

  154,500

  HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

  136,700

  148,500

  HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

  55,400

  60,500

  HRH The Duke of Gloucester

  110,000

  119,500

  HRH The Duke of Kent

  148,500

  161,500

  HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy

  141,600

  154,000

  Total

  6,195,300

  6,762,000

  Refunded by Her Majesty The Queen

  400,100

  435,000

  5,795,200

  6,327,000

  Mortgages
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total loss or gain to the average mortgagor who is(a) a one-earner couple with two children and (b) a two-earner couple with two

  529
  children claiming mortgage interest relief resulting from changes since the 1988 Budget in (i) direct taxation (ii) increases in the rate of interest on mortgages and (iii) interest payments net of mortgage tax relief in all cases counting child benefit as a negative tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 8 March 1990]: Information for a one-earner married couple with an average mortgage was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 26 February, Official Report, column 13 The changes in income tax and NIC for a two-earner married couple with an average outstanding mortgage of £17,000 in 1987–88 and with average gross earnings of £22,500 are given in the table on the same basis as my previous reply. There has been no change in child benefit since the 1988 Budget.

  11987–88

  1989–90

  £ per year change

  Income tax and NIC2

  6,141

  5,444

  −697

  1 After indexation.

  2 Before relief due under MIRAS and assuming that the income is all earned with the husband earning £18,000 and the wife £4,500, that no allowances or reliefs are available other than the married man's allowances and the wife's earned income allowance, that they are both contracted into SERPS and that the post-October 1989 NIC rates and limits apply for 1989–90.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total loss or gain to the average new mortgagor in 1988 claiming mortgage interest relief resulting from changes since the 1988 Budget in(a) direct taxation, (b) increases in the rate of interest on mortgages and (c) interest payments net of mortgage tax relief.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 8 March 1990]: I regret that information is not available on the changes in taxation of the average new mortgagor in 1988. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 26 February, Official Report, column 13, for the gain to the average mortgagor.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gain to the average family on an average mortgage from changes made in the Budgets of 1988 and 1989; and what is their estimated increase in mortgage repayments, on the basis of the same assumptions used in the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, of 13 February,Official Report, column 128.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 26 February, Official Report, column 13.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in tabular form and at constant prices the amounts which would be payable each month at 15·4 per cent. on a standard repayment mortgage repayable over 25 years of each of the regional average new mortgages listed in his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 518 to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The monthly interest payments, after deduction of basic rate tax relief, are given in the table.
  530

  Region

  Average new mortgage1

  Monthly payment2 15·4 per cent, interest rate

  £

  £

  Northern

  28,400

  273·35

  Yorks and Humberside

  29,600

  284·90

  East Midlands

  34,700

  349·07

  East Anglia

  44,600

  476·12

  Greater London

  60,900

  685·30

  South East

  53,200

  586·48

  South West

  43,700

  464·57

  West Midlands

  33,800

  337·52

  North West

  31,300

  305·43

  Wales

  30,200

  291·32

  Scotland

  26,500

  255·06

  Northern Ireland

  24,200

  232·93

  United Kingdom

  38,300

  395·27

  1Third quarter 1989.

  2 Assuming endowment mortgage.

  Taxation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what level of income(a) a single person and (b) a married man currently pays a greater proportion of their income in income tax and national insurance contributions than they did in equivalent circumstances in 1978–79.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: Since income tax rates have been reduced and the main personal allowances increased by substantially more than the rate of inflation, taxpayers will now pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than in 1978–79 unless their incomes have risen even more rapidly than allowances. Average earnings have risen rather more than this.

  For taxpayers of working age whose incomes have increased in line with average earnings, average rates of income tax and national insurance contributions are lower than in 1978–79 for everyone except some married men with earnings up to and including three quarters of the average. On the same basis, real take-home pay is higher than in 1978–79 at all levels of earnings.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on(a) company car taxation and (b) company car parking places taxation.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the taxation of the benefit to employees of the private use of a company car and the use of company car parking places.

  BFS Tenancies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what monitoring his Department conducts of the(a) range and (b) average rental cost of BES tenancies per month; and what information he has on the proportion of tenants in BES properties who receive housing benefit (a) in inner London, (b) in outer London, (c) in other metropolitan areas and (d) in the country as a whole.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available at present. The Department has, however, commissioned research into

  531
  BES funded assured tenancy schemes, which will investigate, inter alia, the rents charged and the characteristics of tenants, including their incomes, savings and the benefits they receive.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  County Courts
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Attorney-General what financial resources will be made available to the county courts to enable them to take over High Court work under the Courts and Legal Services Bill.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has already announced his intention to increase the number of court staff by around 350 in the next financial year and subsequently by up to a further 100 during the transitional period while new initiatives are being introduced. In addition the introduction of a computerised summons production centre in January and, from next month, the curtailment of the county court banking function will, over time, release staff time savings equivalent to around 350 staff.

  The injection of resources will take place during 1990–91 and will put the courts in a strong position to implement from 1991 onwards the new case allocation arrangements, and other reforms flowing from the civil justice review and the Children Act.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure of the Overseas Development Administration and public bodies for which it has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures are as follows:

  1979–80

  1989–90

  ODA

  215,000

  820,000

  Crown Agents

  —

  95,000

  CDC

  —

  267,000

  EC Aid
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by how much has the European Community aid to developing countries increased from the 1989 to the 1990 budget; how much European Community food aid has been provided to eastern Europe in that period; and from which budget it was taken.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Provision for aid spending in the 1989 European Community budget was just under 980 mecu (about £660 million). The corresponding figure for 1990 was 1,102 mecu (£742 million). These figures exclude aid to developing countries under the Lome convention, which is financed direct by member states and not from the Community's budget. This rose from 1,299 mecu (£875 million) in 1989, to 1,319 mecu (£888 million) in 1990.

  In 1989 and 1990 the European Community has also provided free food worth 158 mecu (£106 million) to
  532
  Poland and 40 mecu (£27 million) to Romania. This has been financed from the agricultural guarantee fund of the European Community budget.

  UNHCR (Budget)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget in the period 1980 to the nearest available full year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures are as follows:

  US$ million

  1980

  497

  1981

  474

  1982

  407

  1983

  398

  1984

  444

  1985

  458

  1986

  441

  1987

  460

  1988

  552

  1989

  570

  Source: UNHCR.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the British contribution to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures are as follows:

  £ million

  1980

  6·98

  1981

  9·21

  1982

  7·50

  1983

  10·80

  1984

  13·52

  1985

  15·24

  1986

  16·90

  1987

  17·72

  1988

  21·94

  1989

  19·37

TRANSPORT

  East London Assessment Study
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in collating and analysing the(a) letters, (b) petitions, (c) signatures on those petitions and (d) other representations he has received about the east London assessment study; and when he expects to be able to report how many were in favour and how many against.

  Mr. Atkins
  The responses on all four assessment studies are being reviewed as quickly as possible and an announcement on the way forward will be made soon.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals have been made by the European Community Commission for(a) railway policy, (b) combined transport and (c) transport infrastructure.

  Mr. Portillo
  The European Commission's most recent proposals for railways policy and combined transport are
  533
  contained in its document COM(89) 564 final (Council reference 4478/90), "Commission Communication on a Community Railway Policy", dated 5 February 1990.

  For transport infrastructure, the latest proposals are set out in COM(89) 238 (Council reference 7435/89), "Communication on the concentration of budgetary means in the field of transport infrastructure, including a modified Proposal for a Council Regulation for an action programme with a view to the completion of an integrated transport market in 1992", dated 16 June 1989.

  Copies of both of these papers have been deposited in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a noise standard level for existing railways, before the opening of the Channel tunnel and the Channel tunnel links.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am about to establish a departmental committee to recommend a noise insulation standard for new railways which is comparable to the standard currently set by regulation for new highways. The aim is to provide equity of treatment for those affected by noise from railways and those affected by noise from roads. Since noise insulation is not provided for intensification of use in the case of roads, the committee's terms of reference will not take in the intensification of use of existing railways.

  A6 Disley-High Lane Bypass
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many objections he has now received from individuals and organisations who are opposed to the line of route of the A6 Disley-High Lane bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  Some 250 representations have been received from local councils and members of the public. Most expressed concern about the decision to proceed with the shortened brown route.

  East London Roads
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it his policy urgently to implement and finance traffic calming and displacement measures in Bow, east London, proposed by his consultants in the east London assessment study;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the emergency services in London with regard to their policies on traffic calming and displacement measures in residential areas; and what were the results;

  (3) what funds he will make available for traffic calming and displacement measures in Bow, London E3.

  Mr. Atkins
  All these matters must await decisions on the assessment studies.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on morning peak traffic flows westbound leaving the northern Blackwall tunnel approach road at its junction into Tredegar road.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department does not collect data on the numbers of vehicles making these turning movements. However, the relevant local authority (Tower Hamlets) has estimated that in the morning peak period about 1,000 vehicles per hour turn from the Blackwall tunnel northern approach road, A102(M), into Tredegar road.

  A580
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) by how much it is intended to widen the A580 east Lancashire road envisaged in the recently published roads report;

  (2) what is the objective of the plan to widen the A580 east Lancashire road as outlined in the recently published roads report.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are considering widening the surface of each carriageway by about 1·5 m, without taking extra land, as one element of the £15 million improvement scheme. The other element covers work on improved drainage, lighting and accesses, further safety fencing, and refurbishment of the central reservation and the cycleway/footpath.

  The objective of these various improvements is to bring this heavily trafficked major route up to modern day standards and to improve its safety and traffic flow, particularly during maintenance operations.

  Roads, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road schemes for which he has responsibility in the Greater Manchester county, and the stage which each has reached.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  Scheme

  Stage reached

  M56

  Widening between junctions 4–6

  Early stage of preparation

  M62

  Widening between junctions 12–17

  Preferred route announcement soon

  M62

  Widening between junctions 17–18

  Detailed design nearly complete

  M62

  Widening between junctions 18–21

  Commission not yet let

  M62

  Improvements of junction 20 (A627(M))

  Publication of Orders expected Winter 1990–91

  M63

  Widening between junctions 7–9

  Early stages of preparation

  M66

  Manchester Outer Ring road (Denton to Middleton section)

  Line fixed. Supplementary Orders and Compulsory Purchase being prepared.

  Greater Manchester Western and Northern Relief Road

  Section 1, M6 to M56

  Public Consultation completed

  Section 2, M56 to M62

  Alternative routes under consideration

  Section 3, M62 to M66

  A6(M)

  Stockport North South Bypass

  Line fixed. Supplementary Orders being prepared

  A57

  Mottram, Hollingworth, Tintwistle Bypass

  Consultants appointed recently

  A58

  Wigan Hindley and Westhoughton Bypass

  Preferred route announcement soon

  A580

  Liverpool-Manchester corridor improvements

  Early stage of preparation

  535

  Scheme

  Stage reached

  Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road (M56-A6(M) Link)

  Scheme now responsibility of Cheshire, Stockport MB and Manchester MB with section 272 grant

  The Department is also responsible for a number of minor improvement schemes in the area including the A6 Windlehurst road improvement scheme which is due to go out to tender soon.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the results of his commissioned research concerning the proportion of car miles travelled in central London roads where costs are met by sources other than the taxable income of their owners or drivers referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South of 13 January 1989 on traffic in London,Official Report, column 800; and what information he possesses on that matter.

  Mr. Atkins
  I expect to receive the final report on the research into company-assisted travel within the next few months, and to publish the results shortly thereafter.

  A428, Bedford
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the most recent figures available about the number of vehicles using the A428 in Bedford and destined(a) to pass through the town for destinations elsewhere and (b) to move within the town itself; and if he will publish similar figures for the A6.

  Mr. Atkins
  The one-way traffic flows in autumn 1989 were of the order shown in the following table:

  Vehicles per day

  Trunk road

  Through Bedford (all exits)

  With destination in Bedford

  A6: from north

  2,600

  7,600

  from south

  2,200

  5,900

  A428: from east

  4,500

  5,500

  from west

  2,200

  3,100

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures he has for the number of(a) fatal road accidents and (b) other road accidents involving learner drivers where the supervising driver has been (i) under 21 years of age, (ii) in possession of a full driving licence for less than three years or (iii) both.

  Mr. Atkins
  The police records of accidents, on which national statistics are based, do not include information on the qualifications of supervising drivers. However, I continue to receive letters about accidents involving learner drivers who were under the supervision of young and only newly qualified drivers.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he received in response to 536
  his consultation document on the qualifications of those accompanying learner drivers; and when he expects to bring forward proposals for a change in the law.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received over 230 responses. I am now considering my proposals in the light of all the comments received from interested organisations and individuals.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken by his Department as to the practice adopted in other European Community countries for the supervision of learner drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply given on 21 December 1989 (Official Report, Vol. 164, column 359).

  Local Traffic Area Offices
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reach a decision on the future of the Leeds local traffic area offices and other such offices; what representations he has received expressing opposition to the closure of local traffic area offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to close the Birmingham local traffic area office at Five Ways, Birmingham.

  Mr. Atkins
  In view of the reducing workload for traffic area offices, the organisation is under review. Decisions on individual offices will be based on the need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation as a whole. A number of representations have been received about particular offices and I have explained that decisions are expected after Easter.

  Road Building Programme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made a quantifiable assessment of the increase in road traffic likely to result from the improved road conditions arising from the Government's road building programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Increased traffic demand is primarily a function of economic growth rather than road building. Given an established road network, the total amount of traffic growth is unlikely to be influenced measurably by road improvements. However, there will be redistribution effects as traffic transfers to the improved routes from other, less suitable roads.

  British Rail (Grant)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an announcement about the public service obligation grant to the British Railways Board for 1989–90.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail's 1989–90 claim for public service obligation (PSO) grant, which constitutes the central Government support for Network SouthEast and provincial services, has been settled at £488 million before adjustment. The cash ceiling on the final grant settlement for 1989–90, announced last April, will be increased from £496 million to £504 million. This additional £8 million
  537
  will be available only to accommodate the grant-aided sectors' share of additional safety-related expenditure, particularly that arising from Sir Anthony Hidden's report on the Clapham Junction rail accident.

  Fast London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many residential properties his Department has so far acquired in connection with the east London river crossing; how many are currently in use; and how many more will need to be acquired before construction can be started.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: By 14 March 1990, the Department had acquired 111 residential properties in connection with the east London river crossing scheme. Of these 102 are currently let to local councils, housing associations and individual tenants. The Department is in the process of acquiring a further 11 properties. Another 150 will need to be acquired to enable construction of the scheme to start.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the most up-to-date estimates of the cost of the east London river crossing for each of the individual elements of the project.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The latest estimate of the total cost of the scheme at average 1984 prices is approximately £195 million, of which the Thames bridge would cost approximately £62 million. When converted to mid-1989 prices the estimates become £300 million and £98 million respectively.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest anticipated starting date for the construction of the east London river crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: Assuming the remaining statutory procedures are completed satisfactorily and without undue delay, construction could start in autumn 1992.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the second public inquiry into the east London river crossing to be opened; and how long he anticipates it will last.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The public inquiries into the proposed design changes to the section of the east London river crossing between the A13 and A2016, including the proposed changes in the design of the Thames bridge, are planned to begin on 3 July 1990. The inspector plans to hold two pre-inquiry meetings in April and May to consider procedural and other arrangements for the inquiries. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate how long the inquiries will last.

  "Action for Cities"
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report for each of the "Action for Cities" target areas the amount of transport supplementary grant allocated for schemes in those areas in 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The amount of transport supplementary grant (TSG) allocated
  538
  for major schemes over £1 million in each of the "Action for Cities" target areas in 1990–91 is given in the table. TSG for programmes for minor works is also listed.

  Transport supplementary grant for action for cities target areas in 1990–91

  Major schemes

  Minor works

  £'000

  £'000

  Bristol

  5,042

  1144

  Plymouth

  971

  2148

  Birmingham

  7,540

  355

  Coventry

  1,286

  188

  Dudley

  460

  116

  Sandwell

  926

  127

  The Wrekin

  288

  373

  Walsall

  2,694

  58

  Wolverhampton

  3,052

  116

  Blackburn

  1,250

  4330

  Bolton

  270

  94

  Burnley

  74

  4330

  Manchester

  4,283

  450

  Oldham

  1,050

  139

  Preston

  5,516

  4330

  Rochdale

  0

  189

  Salford

  2,350

  199

  Halton

  0

  5147

  Knowsley

  717

  180

  Liverpool

  1,550

  100

  Sefton

  282

  87

  St. Helens

  2,818

  124

  Wigan

  0

  167

  Wirral

  1,023

  102

  Gateshead

  895

  152

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,722

  191

  North Tyneside

  0

  153

  South Tyneside

  625

  100

  Sunderland

  1,125

  147

  Hartlepool

  0

  6121

  Langbaurgh

  0

  6121

  Middlesbrough

  3,595

  6121

  Stockton on Tees

  1,807

  6121

  Bamsley

  832

  188

  Bradford

  3,203

  240

  Doncaster

  773

  159

  Kirklees

  15

  120

  Leeds

  2,811

  221

  Rotherham

  1,116

  128

  Sheffield

  5,299

  298

  Kingston upon Hull

  2,645

  7216

  Derby

  0

  8156

  Leicester

  1,780

  9200

  Nottingham

  670

  10247

  Brent

  0

  182

  Greenwich

  554

  140

  Hackney

  0

  186

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  148

  Haringey

  2,780

  116

  Islington

  0

  168

  Kensington and Chelsea

  461

  149

  Lambeth

  0

  154

  Lewisham

  2,418

  170

  Newham

  2,376

  191

  South wark

  1,201

  199

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  91

  Wandsworth

  1,100

  461

  1 Total grant for minor works, Avon county council.

  2 Total grant for minor works, Devon county council.

  3 Total grant for minor works, Shropshire county council.

  4 Total grant for minor works, Lancashire county council.

  5 Total grant for minor works, Cheshire county council.

  6 Total grant for minor works, Cleveland county council.

  7 Total grant for minor works, Humberside county council.

  8 Total grant for minor works, Derbyshire county council.

  9 Total grant for minor works, Leicestershire county council.

  10 Total grant for minor works, Nottinghamshire county council.

  Cars (Pollution)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department's representatives at the recent Geneva motor show obtained any new technological information on the use of electronic controls to reduce pollution discharges from cars.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The Department was not formally represented at the Geneva motor show, although officials did visit while in Geneva on other business. No new technological information on this subject was obtained. However, electronic controls are likely to be used extensively in the future to reduce emissions, in conjunction with catalysts.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many people in his Department are involved in planning and safety issues in(a) roads and (b) railways;

  (2) how many people in his Department, including regional officers, are involved in all matters relating to (a) roads, (h) railways and (c) other.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: I regret that the information is not available in precisely the form requested. However, the Department's staff are deployed broadly as follows:

  Staff

  Highways (including Buses/Taxi Policy)

  550

  Road Safety

  100

  Freight (including Traffic Examiners)

  300

  Regional Offices

  1,500

  Traffic Area Staff (excluding those counted elsewhere, for example driving examiners)

  1,000

  Railways (including Railway Inspectorate)

  200

  Transport and Road Research Laboratory

  600

  Driving Standards Agency

  2,000

  Vehicle Inspection Agency

  1,600

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  5,500

  Aviation

  350

  Shipping

  950

  Others (includes senior staff; management support services, personnel, economics and statistics, international work etc.)

  1,800

  Broad Total1

  16,500

  1 Rounded to nearest 500.

  The numbers of staff engaged in safety or planning-related work cannot readily he assessed. However, it should be borne in mind that in addition to its general policy responsibilities the Department has an executive function in relation to trunk roads which it does not have for railways and other forms of transport, for which the operators are themselves responsible.

  Consultation
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations which he or his officials regularly meet to discuss road transport matters.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: Road transport matters concern a wide range of interests, with which there are regular contacts. The list of such interests is long but includes industry associations such as the Bus and Coach Council, CBI, freight transport, motor manufacturers, road haulage and chemical industries
  540
  associations, the police, British Standards Institution, trade unions, training board and the local authority associations, various road safety and environmental organisations and the motoring associations.

  Road Tolls
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which European countries have implemented a policy of charging tolls for use of public roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: European countries which have recently constructed toll-financed roads, bridges or tunnels, or are planning to do so, include Austria, France, Irish Republic, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. In Switzerland, access to the motorway network requires a supplementary licence (vignette), which may be regarded as a form of toll.

  Road Numbers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will take urgent steps to ensure that all road signs indicating the former A361 road from junction 25 of the M5 through Taunton to Barnstaple now show its new road number of B3227.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: Following the completion of the new north Devon link road in July last year, the former A361 trunk road from junction 25 on the M5 through Taunton to Barnstaple was reclassified and renumbered B3227. Signs on this road are the responsibility of the highway authorities—Devon and Somerset county councils—which assure me that all signs on it now show its new number.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects a decision to be taken on Essex county council's highway committee's application of October 1988 to extend the 30 mph and 40 mph speed limit zones in Danbury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: Following a protracted correspondence with Essex county council we now have all the information that we require. We expect to be able to process the application shortly.

  Road Programme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding funding of his Department's road programme.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: We received a steady stream of representations about the programme and its funding, and the Transport Select Committee has commented on the subject in its recent report, "Roads For the Future".

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent studies his Department has undertaken on the possibility of transferring vehicle excise duty to petrol.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The arguments for and against replacing vehicle excise duty with an additional duty on fuel are well understood and are kept under review.

HEALTH

  Abortifacient Drug
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the abortifacient drug RU486.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Some in favour, some against and nearly as many seeking information.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy not to license for use in the United Kingdom the abortifacient drug RU486.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All medicinal products in the United Kingdom are subject to the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968. Before licensing any individual product the licensing authority must be satisfied as to its safety, quality and efficacy.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now review his policy of charging for dental checks.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now review his policy of charging for dental checks.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now review his policy of charging for dental checks.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy).

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about charges for dental treatment.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over the period from December 1989 to the end of February 1990, we have received 32 letters from Members of the House raising questions about charges for dental treatment, and have answered six questions in this House. In the same period, we have received 15 letters from members of the public on the same subject, and one from the chairman of the general dental services committee of the British Dental Association.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of local authority residential care for the elderly.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of local authority residential care for the elderly.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of local authority residential care for the elderly.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of local authority residential care for the elderly.
  542
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have always stressed that we are seeking a mixed economy of care and within that local authority residential care for the elderly has a vital part to play. With private and voluntary residential accommodation, this will provide a wide choice for clients and a value for money service.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that individuals in need of care are not asked to leave residential homes because of their inability to meet the required fees.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that individuals in need of care are not asked to leave residential homes because of their inability to meet the required fees.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that individuals in need of care are not asked to leave residential homes because of their inability to meet the required fees.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that individuals in need of care are not asked to leave residential homes because of their inability to meet the required fees.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For people under pension age, local authorities can already top up other sources of income to meet fees in independent residential homes. They can also at present sponsor people of any age and meet the full fees in such homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced in the House on 13 March that he is considering whether there are further steps he could take in relation to social security payments towards the cost of residential care in independent homes.

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what indications he has as to the proportion of eligible general practices which is applying for budget-holding status.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Over 850 practices have registered their interest in the practice funding scheme. While not all of these practices are likely to meet the full eligibility criteria and opt to take part in the scheme, we are clearly on course to meet our target of a few hundred practices choosing to participate from April 1991.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners have applied to manage their own indicative budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All general practitioners are intended to have indicative prescribing budgets from 1 April 1991 unless they choose to become practice fund holders and meet the eligibility criteria for that scheme.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on competitive tendering within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on competitive tendering within the National Health Service.
  543
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on competitive tendering within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on competitive tendering within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over 40 per cent. of support services in the NHS—to a value of £1¼ billion a year—are now routinely subject to some form of competitive tendering. The White Paper "Working for Patients" provides a framework for further widening the scope for competition. Within that framework it is for each health authority to determine where the most fruitful opportunities arise for using competition to achieve increased effectiveness and value for money at local level.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts awarded through the competitive tendering process within the National Health Service have not been renewed at the end of the period concerned.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts awarded through the competitive tendering process within the National Health Service have not been renewed at the end of the period concerned.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts awarded through the competitive tendering process within the National Health Service have not been renewed at the end of the period concerned.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts awarded through the competitive tendering process within the National Health Service have not been renewed at the end of the period concerned.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not held centrally on the results of routine renewal of the wide range of NHS contracts which are subject to competitive tendering. This is a contractual matter for the health authority concerned.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on cervical cancer screening.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on cervical cancer screening.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on cervical cancer screening.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) earlier today.

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire DHA
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to visit Portsmouth and South East Hampshire district health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Not at the present time. I am, however, always willing to consider an invitation.

  Core Services
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out his powers in relation to core services provided by National Health Service trusts.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his powers in respect of specifying the core services.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I do not anticipate any need to use powers of compulsion to secure the provision of necessary local services by National Health Service trusts. Nevertheless, as a last resort, paragraph 6(1) of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill provides me with the necessary powers of direction to secure contractual provision.

  Huddersfield Health Authority
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of money allocated to the Huddersfield health authority in 1979 and 1989; arid what was the percentage change in that period.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally. Only expenditure figures are available to the Department centrally. These can be obtained from annual accounts. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority for the proper answer.

  The Huddersfield health authority was established on 1 April 1982. Total revenue expenditure recorded in the authority's annual accounts for 1982–83 was £36·3 million and in 1988–89 was £52·4 million representing an increase in real terms of 7 per cent. (measured at 1988–89 prices by the use of the gross domestic deflator).

  Hospital Medical Staffing
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the contents of the interim report on patterns of hospital medical staffing.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the contents of the interim report on patterns of hospital medical staffing.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the contents of the interim report on patterns of hospital medical staffing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No written representations have been received regarding the contents of the interim report on patterns of hospital medical staffing, but reference has been made to it in recent meetings I have had on the subject of junior doctors' hours.

  Wessex RHA
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what increase there has been in resources to Wessex regional health authority since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Total revenue expenditure recorded in the annual accounts of the health authorities comprising the Wessex region increased in cash terms from £223·6
  545
  million in 1978–79 to £671 million in 1988–89, representing an increase in real terms of 36·5 per cent. (measured at 1988–89 prices by use of the gross domestic product deflator). The figures exclude expenditure on family practitioner services which is accounted for by family practitioner committees and which cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 20 February at column 1172.

  AIDS
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current action is being taken in the fight against AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government continue to attach great importance to action to prevent the spread of HIV infection. We are supporting a wide range of programmes to achieve this through local authorities and health authorities, voluntary bodies and the Health Education Authority, whose latest mass media campaign was launched on 14 February 1990. Further details of the Government's approach can be found in "AIDS: Response by the Government to the Seventh Report from the Social Services Committee Session 1988–89" (Cm 925), published last November, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on developments in hospital independent trust proposals within the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 191 National Health Service units have, to date, expressed an interest in National Health Service trust status and I understand that some 80 units are currently undertaking preparatory work with a view to submitting applications for National Health Service trust status at an early stage. Subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, we intend to invite formal applications for trust status shortly after Royal Assent. We intend that the first trusts should become fully operational in April 1991.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how may district health authorities have resolved to have a ballot on the question of the formation of self-governing trusts.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities have resolved to have a ballot on the question of the formation of self-governing trusts.
  546
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities have resolved to have a ballot on the question of the formation of self-governing trusts.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities have resolved to have a ballot on the question of the formation of self-governing trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Formal consultation on proposals to establish NHS trusts cannot take place until applications are made; that is after the necessary legislation has received Royal Assent. I am aware that self-governance and other NHS review issues will have been discussed by health authorities, but the results have not been formally requested or recorded by the Department. When details become available and formal applications are prepared, regional health authorities will ensure that they are given local publicity and will seek the views of all those with an interest including health authorities, staff, patients, GPs, CHCs, and the local community. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State shall consider these views alongside the application. However, no one group will have a veto.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units have now expressed interest in becoming National Health Service hospital trusts.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest he has now received from hospitals or units wishing to obtain National Health Service hospital trust status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 191 units have, to date, expressed an interest in NHS trust status.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the status of National Health Service trusts within the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The National Health Service and Community Care Bill provides for NHS trusts to be established as separate bodies corporate. They will remain an integral part of the NHS.

  Newcastle DHA
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next proposes to meet members of the Newcastle district health authority; and what he proposes to discuss.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet members of Newcastle district health authority.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the availability of day care facilities for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the availability of day care facilities for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the availability of day care facilities for the mentally handicapped.
  547
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the availability of day care facilities for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over the last 10 years there has been a 26 per cent. increase in the number of day centre places for people with a mental handicap. We look to a continued expansion of such places as resources allow and commend to social services authorities the recent social services inspectorate report "Inspection of Day Services for People with a Mental Handicap" as a useful guide to good practice.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the provision of services for the mentally handicapped since 1978–79.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the provision of services for the mentally handicapped since 1978–79.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the availability of day care facilities for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  Considerable progress has been made in developing community-based services for mentally handicapped people.

  Net expenditure by local authorities on residential accommodation and adult training centres increased by 88 per cent. in real terms to £271 million in 1987–88, and overall the number of places in residential homes, including those provided by the private and voluntary sectors, has doubled over the period (to 28,500), while the number of places in adult training centres and day centres has increased by 26 per cent. (to 53,000). The number of mentally handicapped people in hospital fell from 46,900 in 1978 to 27,700 in 1989 and by that year 11 out of the 14 regions had no mentally handicapped children in long-stay care in hospital. Despite this reduction, expenditure on hospital and community health services had grown by 11 per cent. in real terms (to £497 million) by 1986–87, the last year for which information is readily available, reflecting improved standards.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any assistance will be given to health authorities for the provision of community services for the mentally ill and handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  Regional health authorities will make provision for community health services for the mentally ill and handicapped from within their main allocations together with any resources made available from the planned run down and closure of long-stay mental hospitals.

  NHS Reform
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there will be any changes in doctors' rights to refer patients for treatment as a result of the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will have on general practitioners' freedom to refer patients for the most appropriate treatment.
  548
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will allow the introduction of contract funding of health care. This will bring GP referrals and the allocation of resources more closely into line. For example it will avoid problems that arise currently where the choices open to GPs may be constrained if the preferred hospital is a victim of its own success and cannot accept additional patients because of budgetary constraint.

  In future district health authorities will be expected to let contracts which secure the referral patterns which their local GPs prefer, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. In this way resources will be directed to the units which GPs and their patients wish to use.

  GPs who take part in the new practice funds scheme will have resources for certain hospital procedures which they can deploy directly.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in implementing the National Health Service review changes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For a detailed explanation of all the progress we have made in putting into action the changes outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients" I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 20 February at columns 714–15.

  Since then, other important steps have been taken towards implementing our proposals. First, on 27 February I announced the funding of a further 65 consultants for the NHS between now and 1992. This fulfils our commitment in the White Paper to the creation of 100 new consultant posts over three years. These posts will help reduce waiting times in districts and specialities with particularly long waiting lists. They will also help reduce the working hours of junior doctors, and improve the career structure in the respective specialities.

  On 1 March, further information was published about how the new contracting system will operate.

  On 14 March, Duncan Nichol, NHS chief executive, launched a new management development drive for 80,000 NHS managers and professionals, including doctors and nurses, with management responsibilities. The 14 regions are committed to developing their own support programmes with particular emphasis on improving the skills needed to implement the major changes that will be required in the post-reform NHS.

  The chief executive also announced the next phase of the management communication programme to improve communications with staff. This is based on the results of a survey of communications carried out among general managers with particular emphasis on those at unit level where most staff are employed and most patients are treated.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from the British Medical Association on the implementation of his White Paper.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have not received recent representations from the British Medical Association on the White Paper "Working for Patients". There is, however, a growing understanding among the medical profession and others of the positive benefits to patients that will flow from these reforms.
  549
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of local authority associations to discuss the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of local authority associations to discuss the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of local authority associations to discuss the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of local authority associations to discuss the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I met with representatives from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities (AMA) and Association of County Councils (ACC) on 5 February to discuss implementation of community care. Officials have also been meeting with officers of the local authority associations over recent months to discuss a range of community care issues. We shall continue to engage in consultation with the local authority associations as we carry forward our plans for implementation.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors in Cornwall have indicated their support for the Government's National Health Service reforms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received many comments on the Government's proposals to improve the Health Service from a wide variety of sources. Many ask questions, many support all or some of the proposals, and some only refer to specific points. It is not possible to distinguish them in the way the hon. Member requests.

  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will have on the distances patients will travel for treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Surveys have shown that a majority of patients are willing to travel to get earlier or better treatment. Under the new funding arrangements for hospital services, the financial problems previously associated with accepting patients from outside the home district will be alleviated because hospitals will be funded directly for the patients they treat, wherever they come from. No patient will be made to travel long distances for treatment against his will.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will have for current prescribing policies by general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  When the proposals for indicative prescribing budgets contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill are implemented, GPs will remain free to prescribe all medicines which are clinically necessary for their patients. Indicative prescribing budgets will encourage GPs to examine their prescribing habits and costs more closely and to prescribe more effectively.

  Regional Chairmen
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met regional chairmen; what matters he discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I last met regional health authority chairmen on 17 January. I shall be meeting them again tomorrow morning for our regular bimonthly meeting when we shall be discussing a range of Health Service issues, including the ambulance dispute, rehabilitation services, income and expenditure in the NHS and the continuing progress of the NHS reforms.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to include cancer sufferers within the categories of people exempt from prescription charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Over 75 per cent. of prescriptions are now dispensed free. The Government's policy is to direct help with prescription charges to those who are likely to have difficulty in paying charges on financial grounds. To extend the small list of medical conditions which confer exemption from charges would not be making the best use of NHS resources.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to make any further increases in prescription charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I announced on 1 March that the NHS prescription charge will be increased to £3·05 with effect from 1 April. There are no immediate plans for a further increase in the charge.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the level of prescription charges.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number have been received from hon. Members and others.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of a prescription in 1979; how many subsequent increases there have been; and what has been the percentage increase overall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Currently over 75 per cent. of all items dispensed in the National Health Service are free from prescription charges. In 1979, the figure was around only 60 per cent. The number of items attracting the standard prescription charge has fallen from around two in every five items to less than one during this time. In 1979, a total of 304·6 million items were dispensed at an ingredient cost of £592·1 million. In 1989, some 352 million items were dispensed at a cost of around £1,883 million. The average cost per item rose during this time from £1·94 to about £5·35.

  On 16 July 1979, the National Health Service prescription charge was increased to 45p. Since then the charge has been increased on 10 occasions to its present level of £2·80. This represents an increase of 522 per cent. in cash terms or 209 per cent. in real terms.

  Childhood Immunisation
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of childhood immunisation; and if he will make a statement.
  551
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of childhood immunisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 8 March at columns 825–26.

  General Practitioner Contracts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from general practitioners and the British Medical Association on effects on general practitioner services arising from contractual charges in general practitioner conditions of service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There have been some 4,000 letters concerned with the general practitioners' new contract. No accurate breakdown of this total can be provided, but most of these representations have been made by general practitioners.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to revise the general practitioner contract in the light of representations he has received from doctors and patients regarding the cost of long-term care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We received no representations dealing directly with the effect of the general practitioners' new contract on the cost of long-term care. However, if the hon. Member has in mind the supply of medicines to patients under the general medical and pharmaceutical services, I can assure him that prescribing budgets will not prevent general practitioners prescribing all the medicines needed by their patients, including those requiring long-term care.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioner contract on services will affect patients.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effects the new general practitioners' contract will have on services to patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The general practitioners' new contract will promote higher standards, a wider range of services and more choice for patients in the family doctor services. Specific changes which will improve services include regular check-ups, particularly for children and people aged 75 and over, greater emphasis on preventative care such as childhood immunisation and screening for cancer of the cervix, more health promotion clinics, more minor surgery in the general practitioner's premises to save patients having to attend hospital and the extension of practice teams to include the services of counsellors, chiropodists, physiotherapists and other health professionals.

  Hospital Meals
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per day of a patient's meals in hospital; what was the comparable figure for each of the last two financial years; and how much Bexley health authority is spending per patient per day at the present time.
  552
  Mr. Freeman
  It is for individual health authorities to determine how much they will spend per day on feeding patients. Information on health authorities' catering costs is not collected in-year. The following information is derived from annual financial returns submitted to the Department:

  Total cost of meals per patient day1

  1987–88 £ (Cash)

  1988–89 £ (Cash)

  Bexley Health Authority

  Bexley Hospital

  2·87

  3·47

  Queen Mary's Hospital

  4·25

  3·22

  England

  Average for hospitals

  3·45

  —2

  1 Catering costs include provisions, labour and energy

  2 Not yet available.

  Medical Care
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology: "Priorities in Medical Care".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government published their response to the Committee in December 1989. This announced the creation of a new post of chief of research and development for NHS and Department of Health research. An advertisement for that position has recently been published.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses and midwives were working for the National Health Service in March 1990 and May 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There were 241,800 wholetime equivalent qualified nurses and midwives (excluding agency staff, learners and unqualified staff) employed in the National Health Service in England in September 1988. This compares to 192,000 wholetime equivalents at 30 September 1979. The 1979 figure has not been adjusted to take account of the reduction in the nurses' working week from 40 to 37·5 hours introduced during 1980–81.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made in the provision of training for nurses and midwives since 1978–79.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On training for nurses, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 20 February 1990 at column 701. There have also been important changes in the education and training of midwives.In 1981, as a result of the implementation of EC midwives directives, post-registration midwifery training was lengthened from 12 to 18 months, and pre-registration midwifery courses from two to three years. The Department has provided pump-priming funds for the development of more pre-registration midwifery courses; it is hoped that seven schemes will begin in the autumn of this year. The last decade has also seen the establishment, at Oxford, of the first pre-registration degree course for midwives.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the ambulance dispute.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am very pleased that the ambulance dispute has now ended. I would like to pay tribute to the chief ambulance officers and those of their staff who remained in post, the armed forces, the police and voluntary services who have helped to maintain accident and emergency services for the public in many parts of the country during this difficult period.

  The cost of the settlement can be afforded by the National Health Service without damage to the continued expansion of patient services. It widens the differential between paramedically trained staff and other staff which is a sensible improvement in the pay structure that the management wished to introduce. The settlement will also make it easier for management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the service at local level by introducing local pay flexibility that will enable managers to devote part of savings actually achieved to improvements in local pay.

  Child Care
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that social workers are allocated to all statutory child care cases.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that social workers are allocated to all statutory child care cases.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that social workers are allocated to all statutory child care cases.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that social workers are allocated to all statutory child care cases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that their statutory duties in relation to child care cases are properly fulfilled. The social services inspectorate monitors the situation and offers advice and assistance where difficulties arise.

  Home Helps
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the home help service.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the home help service.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the home help service.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the home help service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The home help service is already being developed by some local authorities into a home care service which can provide more personalised care adapted to the needs of the individual.
  554
  These services will continue to be an important part of the range of domiciliary and day care services needed to enable people to continue to live in the community.

  As the White Paper "Caring for People" said, there is great scope for establishing clear policy framework and guidance for resource use, and for increasing the provision of more flexible and intensive personal care services for people who would otherwise need institutional care.

  The social services inspectorate's report "From Home Help to Home Care", a copy of which is in the Library, includes useful guidance on the development of home care services.

  GPs (Computers)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish his proposals relating to the ownership of data held on computer by general practitioners.

  Mr. Freeman
  We plan to issue a health circular for consultation at the beginning of April.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the recently announced scheme to provide reimbursement for computers in general practice.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friends and hon. Members that the new direct reimbursement scheme which I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) on 28 November 1989, at columns 228–31 will commence from 1 April 1990. From that date, general practitioners will be able to claim up to 50 per cent. direct reimbursement of the costs of purchasing, leasing, upgrading and maintenance of their computer systems, together with 70 per cent. of the initial costs of setting up the systems. These payments will be subject to upper limits based on a sliding scale according to practice list sizes and will take account of systems obtained in 1989–90. The balance of these costs will be reimbursed indirectly. An advance copy of an amendment to the statement of fees and allowances payable to general practitioners giving details of this scheme has been placed in the Library. Additional assistance will be announced shortly for GPs who choose to be fund holders to reflect their special computer needs.

  Sheffield Health Authority
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Sheffield health authority; and if hospital closures will be discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet the chairman of Sheffield health authority.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future role of community health councils.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future role of community health councils.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future role of community health councils.
  555
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future role of community health councils.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We see no fundamental change in the future role of community health councils. We are considering how that role should be clarified following the proposals for change in the White Paper.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual cost of community health councils in England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  The summarised accounts of regional and district health authorities in England for 1988–89 record revenue expenditure on community health councils totalling £8,004,257. The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Smoking
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current annual number of deaths attributed to smoking.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to be precise. Most deaths associated with smoking arise from three diseases: lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and "heart attacks" due to obstruction of the arteries of the heart. However, the proportion of deaths attributable to smoking from each of these diseases varies. Furthermore, smoking is also implicated in certain other conditions where no estimate of the numbers of the deaths caused by smoking is available—for example, obstruction of the arteries of the lower limbs. It is estimated that at least 90 per cent. of deaths from cancers of the lung, lip, oesophagus and larynx, and 90 per cent. of deaths from chronic bronchitis, obstructive lung disease, chronic pulmonary heart disease and aortic aneurysm are attributable to smoking. The total number of deaths from these conditions is given in the table.

  England and Wales—1988

  ICD1 code

  Cause

  Deaths

  162

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung

  35,302

  140–149

  Malignant neoplasm of lip, oral cavity and pharynx

  1,687

  150

  Malignant neoplasm of oesophagos

  4,884

  161

  Malignant neoplasm of larynx

  844

  416

  Chronic pulmonary heart disease

  695

  441

  Aortic aneurysm

  7,914

  490–492, 496

  Bronchitis and emphysema, chronic airways obstruction, not elsewhere classified

  25,993

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision.

  In 1983, the Royal College of Physicians in its report "Health or Smoking" estimated that perhaps 20 per cent. of deaths due to obstruction of the arteries of the heart were related to smoking. The medical term for this condition is "ischaemic heart disease", but it is commonly referred to as "coronary heart disease". The total number of deaths from this condition for England and Wales is as follows, but the proportion directly attributable to
  556
  smoking is less certain as this is only one of a number of causes that give rise to obstruction of the arteries of the heart.

  England and Wales—1988

  ICD1 code

  Cause

  Deaths

  410–414

  Ischaemic heart disease

  153,084

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision.

  Supra-regional Funding
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on implementation of the increase in supra-regional funding.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1990–91 we are allocating approximately £61 million to the supra-regional services in England, a cash increase of over £10 million on the current financial year. As in earlier years, funds will be allocated as earmarked amounts within health authority cash limits. A copy of the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been placed in the Library.

  Drug Budgets
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances a general practitioner will be penalised for exceeding his or her indicative drug budget.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  General practitioners who exceed their indicative prescribing budget will not face sanctions on that fact alone. Only where, as now, there is clear evidence of excessive prescribing will the matter be referred for consideration by a professional committee. If the professional committee decides there has been excessive prescribing, the FPC will decide what, if any, financial withholding should be applied. We expect that the application of sanctions will be a process of last resort and will not be commonplace. We intend to publish shortly a second document about the operation of indicative prescribing budgets. This will include detailed information on the sanctions process.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the costs of elderly and chronically ill patients will be reflected in the proposed indicative drug budgets.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Indicative prescribing budgets will take full account of the costs of elderly and chronically sick patients. Indicative prescribing budgets will, initially, be set largely on historic prescribing patterns which already reflect the fact that elderly and chronically sick patients need greater quantities of medicines than others. Practices will be able to discuss their individual budget requirements, including the needs of their elderly and chronically sick patients, with the FPC's medical adviser in advance of the budget being set. This will ensure that the budget is set at a level which takes full account of the needs of the practice and its patients. There will be no financial disincentive for practices to treat such patients or to accept such patients on to their lists.

  Demographic Changes
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about the need to have more up-to-date information on demographic change to areas served by district health authorities when assessing their funding needs.

  Mr. Freeman
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Health met my hon. Friend and the chairman of Hereford health authority earlier this month to discuss population estimates, among other issues relating to that health authority's funding. Additionally, the Department has received a small number of letters on this subject.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the length of hospital waiting lists in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on 18 January at columns 403–4. The information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in reducing patient waiting lists in the northern region.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waiting lists in the northern region have fallen from 47,000 in 1979 to 36,800 in March 1989, a fall of just under 22 per cent.

  Next year northern region has been allocated £1·45 million from the waiting list fund. This is in addition to the £5·362 million in the three years to March 1990, which has been used to treat an additional 16,000 in-patients and day cases and 48,000 additional out-patients.

  A management team led by John Yates of Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy is examining waiting lists in three northern districts (Newcastle, Durham and East Cumbria). If the team recommends additional funding, allocations will be made in 1990–91 from the £12 million reserved for problem waiting lists.

  In addition, we have approved and funded five new consultant posts in northern region from the 100 new consultant posts targeted at districts with long waiting lists.

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of funding of the South West Thames regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  South West Thames regional health authority's initial revenue cash limit for 1990–91 is £932,831,000, representing a cash increase of 7·7 per cent. over 1989–90.

  HIV Infection
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on compensation for patients who are not haemophiliacs who have been affected by HIV through National Health Service treatment.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on compensation for 558
  patients who are not haemophiliacs who have been affected by HIV through National Health Service treatment.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on compensation for patients who are not haemophiliacs who have been affected by HIV through National Health Service treatment.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding non-haemophiliac National Health Service patients who acquired the AIDS virus through routine blood transfusions during surgery.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on compensation for patients who are not haemophiliacs who have been affected by HIV through National Health Service treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The basis for seeking compensation for injuries alleged to have been suffered through medical treatment is through litigation in the courts. There has never been in this country under successive Governments a general scheme of no-fault compensation for such cases.

  The ex-gratia payments for haemophiliacs with HIV recognise the exceptional combination of circumstances of those persons. There are no plans to extend those arrangements to others infected with HIV.

  Medical Services Contracts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the introduction of contracts for medical services within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The introduction of contracts for services provided by National Health Service hospitals and community units is one of the most significant reforms proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients". Good progress has been made in preparing for the implementation of this major change once it has been approved by Parliament. On 1 March, I announced the publication of "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts". This builds on and supplements guidance issued in September last year in "Contracts for Health Services: Operational Principles". In particular it contains specimen contracts which have been developed within the National Health Service, largely with financial support from the Department. These specimens show what can be achieved already in specifying the nature and quality of services to be provided for patients. Publishing them with the guidance will assist clinicians and managers across the country to develop useful forms of contract for every part of the service. We intend contracts to be in general use from April 1991.

  Health Authorities (Resources)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give further details of the operation of the new system for distributing resources to health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr.
  559
  Shepherd) on 23 January at columns 673–74.Copies of the exposition booklet giving details of the calculation of 1990–91 allocations to regional health authorities have now been placed in the Library.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now review his policy of charging for eyesight checks.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now review his policy of charging for eyesight checks.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now review his policy of charging for eyesight checks.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to change the current policy on entitlement for free NHS sight tests. We believe it right that those people who can afford to do so should pay for their optical costs. Provision has been made for the more vulnerable in the community, such as children, those in receipt of income support or family credit and people with special medical needs to continue to receive free sight tests under the NHS.

  Clinical Regrading
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet with the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority to discuss clinical regrading.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Northumberland Health Authority
  Mr Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of Northumberland health authority: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet met the chairman of Northumberland health authority.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on working paper No. 11 on information and information technology in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Seven written responses have been received to date to the consultation, which closes on 30 March 1990. In addition, since publication of the working paper and the associated consultation documents, officials have given a series of presentations in the regions at which views generally supportive of the proposals have been expressed by NHS staff attending. These views will be taken into account in reaching conclusions on the way forward for information systems post-NHS review.

  Mental Health Care
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the central bridging funds provided for health authorities to provide new community services for the mentally ill and handicapped.
  560
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the capital loan fund for mental health projects.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of the £50 million capital loans fund were announced by me on 23 January 1990 at column 672. Health authorities have been invited to bid by 30 March for the first tranche of £10 million in the coming financial year (1990–91). Additional sums of £15 million and £25 million will be made available in the second and third years of the rolling programme. To date there have been 14 informal inquiries.

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The names of the committee members are as follows:

  Chairman

  Professor A. W. Asscher

  Members

  Professor C. L. Berry

  Professor S. S. Bleehen

  Professor T. G. Booth

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge

  Dr. R. G. Finch

  Professor A. T. Florence

  Professor E. C. Gordon-Smith

  Professor F. Harris

  Professor H. S. Jacobs

  Dr. W. A. Jerrett

  Professor M. J. S. Langman

  Professor D. H. Lawson

  Mr. F. E. Loeffler

  Professor A. E. M. McLean

  Professor J. M. Midgley

  Dr. S. A. Montgomery

  Dr. Celia Oakley

  Professor M. D. Rawlins

  Dr. D. A. J. Tyrrell

  Professor M. P. Vessey

  Health Authority Deficits
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities expect to be in deficit at the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities expect to be in deficit at the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not collect information about the financial position of individual district health authorities centrally.

  Cochlear Implants
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about progress on the recently announced cochlear implant programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities were asked to submit applications for funding of up to six centres overall for cochlear implants by 28 February. Fifteen applications have been submitted, and are now being considered. I would hope to be able to make an announcement about which centres have been chosen early in April.

  Alcoholics
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received to ring-fence community care funding for the rehabilitation of alcoholics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations about the special needs of problem drinkers within the proposed community care arrangements including a paper from Alcohol Concern, the national voluntary agency on alcohol misuse. Local authorities will be responsible for drawing up plans to meet community care needs of all groups requiring such care; where appropriate we would expect them to include problem drinkers as one of these groups. Effective planning will require that local authorities respond flexibly to local needs and circumstances.

  Inflation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate for the level of inflation which will be experienced within the National Health Service in 1990; and what funding will be available to cover the additional costs incurred.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government do not make estimates of inflation in the National Health Service before the end of the financial year concerned.

  Funding for the NHS, as for most other areas of public expenditure, is based on cash plans agreed in the context of the public expenditure survey and detailed subsequently in the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm. 1013).

  In 1990–91 the NHS in England alone will have additional resources equivalent to nearly £2·5 billion compared with 1989–90; this includes an extra £166 million announced on 1 February to help meet the additional costs of the 1990 review body pay awards for doctors and dentists and nurses and midwives.

  DHA Contracts
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals for contracts within the National Health Service on services to patients.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on provisions for new district health authority contracts with hospitals outside their area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The proposals for contract funding for hospitals by district health authorities within the National Health Service will result in better standards of care and more choice for patients. They will enable the district health authorities to use their resources to obtain the best value for money in terms of high quality consumer-responsive services for their population. Districts will have a clear responsibility to ensure that a full range of health care services is available. They will specify the services required from each hospital or other unit, whether or not it is under their direct managerial control. More important, they will also specify the quality standards expected and ensure that these are met.

  Social Work
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not yet met the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. However, I met the chairman and director on 27 November 1989 at the annual review meeting of the council.

  Hospital Projects
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital capital projects have been completed or programmed since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally shows that 448 health building schemes each costing over £1 million have been completed in England since 1979. There are currently 516 such schemes in regions' capital programmes with a total value of over £5 billion of which 141 are under construction. This represents the largest sustained capital investment ever in the NHS.

  Resource Management
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the implementation of resource management.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 20 February at column 695.

  NHS Service
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on action being taken to improve the quality of service being given by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to improve the quality of service being given by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to improve the quality of care given by the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 20 February at column 712.

  Voluntary Groups
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what help is being given to voluntary groups working with under five-year-olds.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what help is being given to voluntary groups working with under five-year-olds.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) earlier today.

  Intensive Care
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he directs regional health authorities to maintain a ratio of intensive care beds per thousand of their population.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. It is for health authorities to determine the facilities required in the light of local needs.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals for the future funding of an educational campaign for hepatitis B high-risk groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department recognises the seriousness of hepatitis viruses. A new edition of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisations' memorandum "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease" will be published shortly and this includes advice on hepatitis B. The Health Education Authority is also reviewing its educational material about sexually transmitted diseases, including hepatitis B.

  We are pleased to note a welcome decline in the incidence of hepatitis B from 1,785 reported cases in 1985 to approximately 600 cases in 1989.

  Medical Audit
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the proposals for medical audit.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Good progress is being made towards medical audit with the support of the profession. A total of £31 million has been allocated to the National Health Service and national professional bodies.

  Draft health circulars setting the organisational framework required for the successful implementation of medical audit programmes in hospital and general practice have been widely circulated for consultation.

  Crown Immunities
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the removal of Crown immunities in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Crown immunity was removed from hospital kitchens and the health and safety legislation was applied to the National Health Service in 1986. We are committed to the extension of this policy to other areas of National Health Service activity wherever it is practicable to do so and provisions to this effect are contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  The Government propose to retain Crown immunity in only a few areas relating to insurance and finance matters, where it makes sense to do so and, where abolition would impose an additional administrative burden on the Health Service without any extra benefit accruing to patients or staff. In all other matters, for example relating to building
  564
  standards, health authorities and National Health Service trusts will be legally obliged to meet legal standards and requirements.

  Health Care (Southend)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is Southend health authority's budget for health care; what is the average for other health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The initial revenue allocation to Southend health authority for 1989–90 was £57,555,200. The district's gross revenue expenditure rose by over 66 per cent. in cash terms between 1982–83 and 1988–89, equivalent to 23 per cent. in real terms. Financial allocations to district health authorities are decided by regional health authorities. Overall, resources for the National Health Service have risen by £2·5 billion this year. Next year they will rise by nearly £3 billion more. That is a 20 per cent. cash increase in two years, bringing the total spending on the Health Service up to £29·1 billion for 1990–91. This includes £19 billion for hospital arid community health services throughout the United Kingdom—some £15·2 billion in England alone.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the recruitment arid maintenance in post of speech therapists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Improving recruitment and retention are essentially local issues, but health authorities have been encouraged to consider part-time employment, flexible hours and job sharing. The recent pay settlement gives across the board increases of 9 per cent. over an 18-month period commencing 1 April 1989 and provides for a review of the grading structure to be brought forward with any changes to be implemented from 1 October 1990.

  Health Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health ( 1) if he will publish for each health authority in Humberside and Yorkshire(a) the net income from private patients and clinics and (b) the amounts written off as bad debts in each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will publish for each Yorkshire health authority (a) the net income from private patients and clinics and (b) the amounts written off as bad debts in each year since 1979.

  (d) Mr. Freeman
  Following are figures recorded in the 1985–86 to 1988–89 annual accounts of the district health authorities providing health services in Yorkshire and Humberside. The income shown arises from charges to private patients under sections 65 and 66 of the National Health Service Act 1977 and is recorded under each heading net of sums written off in each financial year (which sometimes include amounts due from earlier years). Separate write-off figures for income due under sections 65 and 66 were not collected centrally.
  565

  Income from private patients (under Sections 65 and 66 of the National Health Service Act 1977) and related losses

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Income

  Amounts written off

  Income

  Amounts written off

  In-patients (Section 65)

  Out-patients (Section 66)

  In-patients (Section 65)

  Out-patients (Section 66)

  In-patients (Section 65)

  Out-patients (Section 66)

  In-patients (Section 65)

  Out-patients (Section 66)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  District health authorities

  Hull

  112,339

  30,434

  0

  0

  81,385

  34,250

  0

  0

  East Yorkshire

  95,924

  16,011

  0

  0

  62,261

  14,248

  2,685

  33

  Grimsby

  109,282

  49,598

  485

  1,287

  98,694

  54,149

  2,019

  1,969

  Scunthorpe

  119,830

  22,889

  440

  81

  92,448

  27,063

  427

  379

  Northallerton

  57,741

  10,153

  0

  34

  64,384

  12,081

  0

  25

  York

  99,517

  53,182

  0

  86

  132,768

  47,794

  180

  157

  Scarborough

  14,149

  6,029

  0

  12

  9,588

  10,309

  0

  157

  Harrogate

  209,620

  16,717

  0

  67

  175,271

  19,753

  790

  190

  Bradford

  110,416

  54,209

  175

  294

  96,515

  51,423

  583

  159

  Airedale

  303,969

  28,730

  237

  2,098

  370,736

  36,782

  164

  117

  Calderdale

  239,727

  26,808

  0

  394

  94,241

  22,280

  0

  3,721

  Huddersfield

  71,107

  24,604

  0

  622

  9,745

  28,263

  31

  208

  Dewsbury

  39,844

  26,939

  0

  228

  27,550

  21,310

  0

  0

  Leeds Western

  1,012,402

  95,536

  0

  0

  996,810

  108,550

  0

  0

  Leeds Eastern

  275,225

  43,550

  0

  0

  220,309

  55,795

  2,151

  0

  Wakefield

  53,895

  17,286

  6

  960

  52,634

  20,316

  0

  197

  Pontefract

  14,969

  10,400

  0

  170

  16,035

  10,973

  258

  60

  Barnsley

  41,703

  16,799

  0

  16

  30,465

  17,481

  0

  112

  Doncaster

  39,260

  22,679

  0

  0

  43,502

  27,307

  0

  257

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  212,775

  76,659

  718

  320

  208,298

  75,013

  2,681

  885

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Income

  Amounts written off

  Income

  Amounts written off

  In-patients (Section 65)

  Out-patients (Section 66)

  In-patients (Section 65)

  Out-patients (Section 66)

  In-patients (Section 65)

  Out-patients (Section 66)

  In-patients (Section 65)

  Out-patients (Section 66)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  District health authorities

  Hull

  120,678

  37,096

  1

  137

  128,204

  41,128

  48

  528

  East Yorkshire

  64,148

  11,915

  84

  0

  63,423

  9,326

  0

  144

  Grimsby

  75,777

  42,578

  2,769

  1,644

  52,457

  46,376

  0

  1,175

  Scunthorpe

  110,150

  37,073

  1,014

  247

  194,781

  37,496

  0

  74

  Northallerton

  76,737

  12,176

  1

  73

  97,298

  11,690

  0

  14

  York

  202,275

  41,305

  645

  257

  77,257

  32,977

  167

  86

  Scarborough

  10,304

  9,707

  0

  246

  6,161

  10,526

  0

  90

  Harrogate

  186,485

  19,084

  956

  183

  242,649

  23,584

  0

  189

  Bradford

  55,456

  61,304

  655

  508

  58,011

  61,187

  1,892

  0

  Airedale

  341,600

  48,814

  4,420

  963

  432,680

  68,115

  0

  2,115

  Calderdale

  43,396

  19,269

  620

  656

  21,057

  15,403

  3,261

  124

  Huddersfield

  16,354

  23,185

  680

  358

  12,152

  30,556

  0

  0

  Dewsbury

  18,697

  15,318

  0

  0

  10,549

  11,087

  0

  0

  Leeds Western

  1,128,573

  143,212

  2,290

  466

  1,249,793

  190,012

  2,563

  493

  Leeds Eastern

  301,276

  52,699

  2,055

  446

  348,600

  87,460

  1,634

  787

  Wakefield

  50,935

  21,146

  8,366

  658

  53,102

  22,865

  147

  377

  Pontefract

  12,267

  14,356

  0

  156

  13,527

  7,157

  0

  106

  Barnsley

  32,344

  18,807

  0

  7

  39,065

  22,343

  0

  138

  Doncaster

  33,525

  27,861

  0

  226

  38,038

  29,531

  43

  56

  Rotherham

  0

  3,872

  0

  0

  0

  4,708

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  222,972

  70,923

  11,923

  3,260

  313,542

  131,734

  3,520

  269

  Notes to the table:

  1. The table includes all the district health authorities comprising the Yorkshire health region with the addition of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield health authorities which form part of the region.

  2. The table excludes income due under Section 58 of the NHS Act 1977 (which arises mainly from services provided to private health care establishments) and which for the authorities shown totalled some £236,800 in 1988–89. Separate write-off figures for this category of income are not collected centrally.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from Act Now on full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986;
  566
  (2) what representations he has received on full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and in particular on section 3 of that Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since the beginning of this year hon. Members have addressed five parliamentary questions on
  567
  this issue to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. In addition, an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was put down in Committee, the effect of which would have been to implement the remaining sections of the Act. Over this period, the Department also received four letters on the subject, one from Act Now. In two instances, representations made particular mention of section 3.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to complete his consultation on sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is too soon to give a precise date. Officials wrote to the local authority associations, asking for their comments by 31 May. This will be followed by discussions, the number and length of which will depend on the initial response.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Minister in his Department is responsible for full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will take steps to ensure that all correspondence and representations concerning the Act reach the same section of the Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has ultimate responsibility for decisions on implementation of legislation relating to health and personal social services. Correspondence and representations concerning the Act are normally directed to designated officials within the Department.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with which organisations he is consulting on implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are currently consulting the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and the Association of Directors of Social Services.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the chief medical officer's annual dental health report published last month.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the dental section of his annual report the chief medical officer noted that in common with many other industrialised countries, a substantial improvement in dental health had taken place in the United Kingdom in recent years. This had been manifested particularly in children where a marked decline in dental caries had occurred since the early 1970s. The report went on to detail the changes that had occurred and to consider demographic variations in current levels of disease. Reasons for the changes were discussed and some international comparisons on caries levels were presented. In discussing future prospects for further improvements in the dental health of the population, the report stressed the importance, among other things, of the dissemination of more information to guide the public on dental care, including the labelling of food products to show their sugar content.
  568
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to what national or international medical studies on dental caries have suggested concerning(a) the frequency of sugar consumption and (b) the amount, in contributing to tooth decay; and which studies have recommended a reduction in sugar consumption.

  Mr. Freeman
  Scientific literature on the relationship between sugar and dental caries was extensively reviewed by an expert panel of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy in its report "Dietary Sugars and Human Disease" which was published in late 1989. The section devoted to sugars and dental caries contained no fewer than 61 references to world literature. We are not aware of any official report which has not recommended a reduction in sugar consumption.

  Regional Functions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what functions his Department carries out at the regional level; where the regional offices are located in each of the regions; what staff are employed and at what grades; what proportion of his Department's budget is spent in each of the regions; and what geographical boundaries determine his Department's regions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health is not organised on a regional basis. Three functions are, however, provided from a number of locations across England chosen so that the functions may be performed effectively and economically. These are the regional medical service (RMS 170 staff), provided by senior medical officers and medical officers; social services inspectorate (130 staff) provided by assistant chief inspectors and inspectors: and NHS audit (about 200 staff) provided by 10 statutory auditors at principal level and scheduled to become part of the Audit Commission at 1 October 1990. All of these functions are also supported by administrative staff who are included in the figures quoted. The functions of the RMS will progressively be transferred to regional health authorities, family practitioner committees and the Department of Social Security from 1 April 1990. The transfer of responsibility will be complete by 1 April 1991.

  In addition some 700 DH headquarters staff work outside London. The regionally based staff account for approximately 12 per cent. of the DH's manpower budget. Non-manpower costs are not identified separately.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from the medical profession on measures to reduce infant mortality at birth.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's reply to the first report from the Social Services Committee Session 1988–89 on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality (Cm 741) reflected medical advice. The main measures announced in the report were:

  (i) the establishment of a working group to report to the Chief Medical Officer on introducing a form of confidential inquiry into stillbirths and infant deaths;

  (ii) a requirement for all Regions to have at least one paediatric pathologist in post by April 1991 and to have reviewed their need for further posts by 1992;

  569

  (iii) the introduction in all regions where they do not already exist of epidemiological surveys of stillbirths and neonatal deaths;

  (iv) The Medical Research Council to undertake a major review of the literature relating to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and advise on what new research is needed.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies, funded by his Department, are being undertaken into infant mortality.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Medical Research Council, which receives grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science, is the Government agency responsible for the promotion of bio-medical research.

  In addition, the Department of Health funds research on public health and health management issues. Expenditure from these funds on maternity and neonatal services is currently running at about £400,000 per annum. The largest single allocation is to the national perinatal epidemiology unit at Oxford whose programme of research consists of three main elements:

  (i) surveys to describe the characteristics of people using the perinatal health services, the care they receive and the mortality and morbidity they experience;

  (ii) randomised control trials to assess the relative merits of alternative forms of perinatal care;

  (iii) formal syntheses and dissemination of the results of research evaluating the effects of care.

  Health Authorities (Capital Charges)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is now in a position to publish updated estimates of the capital charges for health authorities under his Department's proposals.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are still making good progress in compiling asset registers in preparation for capital charging. Estimates of capital charges will be available when these have been completed and valued, which should be early in the next financial year.

  NHS Employees (Outside Interests)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Bridgend may expect to receive a substantive reply to his letter of 8 February to the Minister of State in his Department concerning the answers given by her on National Health Service employment on 5 February,Official Report, column 489.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As the hon. Member will know, I passed his letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and a reply was sent on 12 March. I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 5 February at column 489 and on 16 March at column 383 concerning further guidance.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are in psychiatric care(a) currently, (b) five and (c) 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is estimated that there were 56,200 in-patients under the care of consultant psychiatrists in National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units in England on 31 March 1989. This compares with 77,300 at the end of 1979 and 66,000 at the end of 1984.

  Management Consultants
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on management consultants by(a) the Department of Health and (b) National Health Service regions and districts in England in each of the 10 years 1979–89; and what quality controls were used by (a) the Department of Health and (b) the National Health Service to ensure that these expenditures are good value for money.

  Mr. Freeman
  We cannot apportion expenditure between the Departments of Health and Social Security prior to 1985–86. The estimated expenditure for each succeeding financial year from 1985–86 on fees and expenses for management consultants on health matters is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  0·479

  1986–87

  2·103

  1987–88

  1·244

  1988–89

  1·584

  1989–90

  4·870

  The figures are approximate since expenditure up to and including the 1988–89 year was from a joint health and social security budget. In some cases expenditure has been apportioned where consultants have been engaged on both health and social security matters. The figures also include social services consultancy and some computer consultancy where these cannot be identified separately.

  The figure for 1989–90 is estimated expenditure.

  The Department of health controls and monitors the use of management consultants in line with the requirements laid down from time to time by the Treasury.

  The employment of management consultants by the NHS is a matter for individual health authorities. Their accounts do not separately identify any expenditure incurred.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in the light of clinical and economic evidence produced since the publication of the Forrest report on breast cancer screening, what is the current cost/quality adjusted life year estimate for this procedure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 16 November at column 432. We have received the report describing the computer model that has been developed as part of the economic evaluation of the United Kingdom trial of the early detection of breast cancer. We understand that one further specific report is planned: on the use of diagnostic resources and costs of treatment. The various elements will then be incorporated into a final report on the economic evaluation of the trial.

  In the interim the Department has been looking at the mortality reductions reported in the trial. These suggest that the cost per quality adjusted life year quoted in the Forrest report was of the correct order.

  Pensioners (Monitoring)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken and what conclusions reached on whether annual monitoring of the over 75-year-olds is cost effective.
  571
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is wide support for the over-75s being seen regularly, at least once a year and preferably in their own homes; the objective being to establish whether there are any medical or social conditions which would otherwise go unreported, but are easily remediable.

  Such interventions are intended to minimise disability and hence improve the quality of life and to attempt to avoid "crisis" admissions to hospitals.

  There are clear cost-effective benefits if the well-being of patients is maintained or improved as a result of the marginal costs involved.

  In introducing the requirement in the new contract for general practitioners to offer an annual check-up and a home visit for their patients aged 75 and over, we considered the extensive literature in the field of care of the elderly that is available both in this country and internationally.

  Mersey Regional Health Authority
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to increase the budget of Mersey regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Mersey regional health authority's initial revenue cash limit for 1990–91 is £722,571,000. This is an increase of £42,291,000 over that authority's initial 1989–90 revenue cash limit.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on press and public relations and publicity material in connection with "Working for Patients"(a) since it was launched and (b) estimated for 1990–91.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: We spent £ 138,000 on the production of leaflets informing the general public about the White Paper. No further expenditure on public information has been incurred since. The press office of my Department has handled press relations on the subject as part of its ordinary responsibilities.

  I do not regard expenditure on communications with and information for the staff of the National Health Service about the implications of the proposed changes for them and their hospitals, as expenditure on press and public relations or publicity.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Benzene
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the presence of benzene in irradiated beef.

  Mr. Maclean
  Benzene is present quite naturally in a wide range of common foods. Information on its presence in irradiated food is limited to one report on beef, which found minute quantities to be present. The levels reported were not only well below those occurring naturally in other foods but were found in a study using a much higher dose level than is proposed for the commercial treatment of foodstuffs.

  Animal Medicines
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it remains his policy not to charge industry for the EEC review of the pre-1984 product licences for animal medicines.

  Mr. Maclean
  No licence fee is charged for a veterinary medicinal product submitted for re-assessment under the terms of the licence review, but the cost of ensuring that these older products meet current standards is recovered through the graded annual fee.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial resources are presently devoted to each environmentally sensitive area in England and Wales; and what is the annual expenditure on the scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Total payments to farmers throughout the United Kingdom under the environmentally sensitive areas schemes (ESAs) in the financial year 1989–90 is forecast to be £12·6 million. The total costs of agreements signed by 31 December 1989 in individual ESAs in England and Wales are:

  £

  England

  Broads

  1,741,000

  Pennine Dales

  946,000

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  814,000

  South Downs

  578,000

  West Penwith

  340,000

  Breckland

  457,000

  North Peak

  687,000

  Shropshire Borders

  555,000

  Suffolk River Valleys

  871,000

  Test Valey

  26,000

  Wales

  Cambrian Mountains

  646,000

  Lleyn Peninsula

  249,000

  Total financial resources devoted to the schemes are a combination of payments to farmers and administration costs. The latter, which include a substantial element attributable to ADAS advice, cannot be calculated separately for each ESA without disproportionate effort.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his Department's and Agricultural Development Advisory Service staff are allocated to each environmentally sensitive area in England and Wales; and what is the total staff allocation for the scheme nationally.

  Mr. Curry
  None of our staff is wholly allocated to a specific environmentally sensitive area. Details of the total manpower expected to be deployed (in man years) in 1989–90 is shown in the table:

  MAFF Unit

  ESAs Designated in Region

  Man years Admin

  Man years ADAS

  Eastern Region

  The Broads Suffolk River Valleys Breckland

  5·9

  12·5

  Midland and Western Region

  North Peak1 Shropshire Borders

  3·2

  10·3

  Northern Region

  North Peak1 Pennine Dales

  3·2

  10·9

  573

  MAFF Unit

  ESAs Designated in Region

  Man years Admin

  Man years ADAS

  South East Region

  South Downs Test Valley

  3·5

  8·9

  South West Region

  West Penwith Somerset Levels and Moors

  6·4

  10·5

  Wales

  Lleyn peninsula Cambrian Mountains

  2—

  11·2

  Sub-total

  22·2

  64·3

  Headquarters

  aspects of all ESAs

  6·0

  4·7

  Total

  —

  28·2

  69·0

  1 The North Peak ESA is administered by two MAFF regions.

  2 Administrative staff in Wales are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  British Nutrition Protection Board
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the role and functions of the British Nutrition Protection Board.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no knowledge of this organisation, its membership, its role or its functions.

  Salmon Dealers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the Government's reasons for not introducing a salmon dealer licensing scheme in Great Britain.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 6 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler)Official Report, column 575.

  Agro-food Industry Conference
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department participated in the conference on energy innovation and the agro-food industry, in Amiens on 21 to 23 March.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for the farming industry of the legal protection afforded to biotechnological inventions.

  Mr. Maclean
  Discussions are still taking place on the European Community proposal for a directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. We expect consumers and the food and farming industries to benefit from the introduction of such inventions in the same way as they have already benefited from other new technology.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the appearance of symptoms similar to those 574
  exhibited by cattle affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy in antelopes in British zoos; and if he has any plans in the light of this development to take further action to eliminate bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  Five antelopes in British zoos have been confirmed as being affected by a spongiform encephalopathy. The disease occurred in a nyala in 1986 and a gemsbok in 1987, both of which are mentioned in the published report of the Southwood working party on BSE, and in an oryx, a kudu and an eland in 1989. The probable source of infection was via commercial feedstuffs. The use of ruminant protein in ruminant (which includes animals of this kind) feedstuffs has been prohibited since July 1988.

  Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for amending the dairy produce quotas regulations.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have laid before Parliament today the Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1990.

  The regulations provide a basis for making additional allocations of milk quota to producers with outstanding tribunal awards, small family farms and producers in remote areas, as described in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 13 March (Official Report, columns 192–93). These allocations are intended to help those categories of producer who have suffered disproportionately from the introduction of quotas and subsequent cutbacks in production.

  The proposals which we originally put to the Commission contained provision for the loan of quota to new entrants. The Commission's view, however, is that no satisfactory basis exists in Community law for the issue of quota to new entrants on temporary and conditional terms. We have considered whether quota should instead be granted outright to new entrants but have decided against this course. In reaching this conclusion we took into account the strong opposition of the National Farmers Union to the gift of quota to new entrants. We have therefore decided to allocate the 22·5 million litres of quota originally earmarked for a new entrants scheme to family-type farms, which will now receive an increase of 4 per cent. of their existing wholesale quota, and to holders of development awards, which will be made up to approximately 80 per cent. of the original figure after abatement to take account of subsequent across-the-board quota cutbacks.

  By ensuring that almost all of the quota is allocated before the end of the current quota year we shall also reduce the potential burden of supplementary levy on all over-quota producers. This represents a potential saving to the industry of £29 million.

  The amendments also provide for priority treatment to be given to producers affected by restriction orders served because of the lead contamination of animal feed. Many of those affected will have had to keep animals on farm longer than they otherwise would and their milk production will have increased accordingly. Provision is made for them to receive a priority reallocation of unused quota at year-end subject to the same conditions as producers affected by restriction orders served for animal health reasons.

EMPLOYMENT

  Respiratory Illness
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information his Department has on the connection between work within the steel industry and development of chronic respiratory illness.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive is aware of reports suggesting a link between work in the steel industry and the development of chronic respiratory disease, but is not satisfied that there is conclusive evidence that the link is causal rather than due to other non-occupational factors.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about his draft proposals to cut funding for training allowances paid in respect of training and enterprise council allowances.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received a number of representations from training and enterprise councils (TECs) on general funding issues. TECs will receive agreed resources to carry out their plans and my officials are currently in discussion with individual TECs about the resources that will be made available.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people working in education have been appointed to the board of training and enterprise councils; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Eggar
  A number of people working in education have been put forward as prospective training and enterprise council (TEC) board members. Each TEC will list in its corporate plan its final board of directors and this will be a public document once the plan is approved.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much Deloitte Haskins and Sells was paid for work in connection with the sale of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amounts, paid to Deloitte Haskins and Sells as at 16 March 1990 were £132,425 for the initial feasibility study, £124,229 for work by Deloitte Corporate Finance as the Secretary of State's main sale adviser, and £42,903 for accountancy work by Deloitte Haskins and Sells. The figures exclude expenses and VAT.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response the Minister of State has had about his offer to meet representatives of the trade unions about position papers prepared by bidders for the Skills Training Agency, together with assessments by the Government Actuary's Department of the successful bidders' pension proposals.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representatives of the STA trade unions have indicated they would like to take up my offer to meet them. I hope that a date for a meeting can be fixed very shortly.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many young people aged over 18 years are on YTS with special needs (STN) endorsements;

  (2) if he has any plans to introduce an increase in the YTS allowance, age-related for 18-year-olds and over, in line with the principle set in April 1988 for income support claimants when rates liability was introduced.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 15 March 1990,Official Report, column 340.

  Workplace Health and Safety
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accidents involving three or more days off work due to back strain or injury were recorded in each year from 1979 to the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is given in the table:

  Numbers of reported1 occupational back injuries2 to employees and self employed persons in Great Britain resulting in absence from work for more than three days3

  Number

  1979

  44,012

  1980

  37,746

  1981

  74,097

  1982

  66,634

  1983

  5

  1984

  5

  1985

  5

  41986–87

  29,635

  41987–88

  30,002

  6 41988–89

  29,783

  1 Injuries reported to Health and Safety Executive's factory and Agricultural Inspectorates for the years 1981 to 1988–89 and to the factory inspectorate only for 1979 to 1980.

  2 Injuries notified under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR) for 1981 to 1982, and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR) for 1986–87 onwards. Data for the years 1979 to 1980 are based on reports made under various legislation. Because of the changes in reporting arrangements data for these three periods are not directly comparable.

  3 Includes non-fatal major injuries as defined under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations which are assumed to involve absence from work for over three days. Also includes other injuries causing absence from work for more than three days reported directly to enforcing authorities for the years 1979 to 1980 and 1986–87 onwards, and injuries resulting in claims for industrial injury benefit for the years 1981 to 1982. Figures for 1983 to 1985 not available owing to the cessation of industrial injury benefit.

  4 Years beginning 1 April.

  5 Not available.

  6 Provisional.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will introduce legislation to remove the discrepancies between maximum weights lifted by agricultural workers and textile workers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the position regarding manual handling guidance notes; when he expects these to be issued by the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission issued a consultative document in October 1988 proposing
  577
  new regulations and guidance to protect all workers from injury during manual handling of loads. The effect of these proposals would be to remove discrepancies between the treatment of workers in different industries.

  Also in that year the Commission of the European Communities published a draft directive to set minimum standards of protection for workers engaged in manual handling. The directive reached common position on 30 October 1989 and adoption is expected during 1990. The consultation on its proposals helped the Health and Safety Commission in formulating a view on the draft directive and it has now incorporated its own work, including the preparation of guidance, into its plans for implementation of the directive which the current draft requires by 31 December 1992.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been paid by Astra Training Services Ltd. to the Government for skill training centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The sale of the training business to Astra Training Services Limited will involve a payment from the Government to Astra of some £11 million. This is a price determined in the sale process after open competitive bids and subsequent negotiations. It reflects the costs of turning around a business which is currently unprofitable and creating training businesses with good prospects of viability.
  579
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what terms of the information memorandum issued by Deloitte Corporate Finance on his behalf the skill centres have been disposed of by his Department; what revenue is expected from sites in the three categories A, B and C; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the agreed terms of sale, at 42 skill centres and the Sheffield head office the training business purchaser will take the Government's interest in the site, or a new lease from the landlord. At 10 skill centres the purchaser will take a type A, B or C lease along the lines set out in appendix IV of the information memorandum (a copy of which was placed in the Library on 19 December). These leases will provide for rents to be phased in as set out in the information memorandum, with the total rent for all 10 leases reaching £1,098,600 p.a. in year three. I propose to sell the Government's interests in these 10 sites, subject to the leases to be granted to training business purchasers, later this year, so expect to receive the rental revenue from the leases for only a period of months.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of advertising and securing the sale of skill centres; what fee was received by Deloitte Corporate Finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost of advertising the offer for sale of the Skills Training Agency was £13,337. Fees paid to Deloitte Corporate Finance as at 16 March 1990 were £124,229 for its work as the Secretary of State's main sale adviser. In addition, fees of £132,425 had been paid to Deloitte Haskins and Sells in respect of the initial feasibility study, and £42,903 in respect of accountancy work associated with the sale. The figures exclude expenses and VAT.

  Figures for the total fees payable to Deloittes and other advisers in respect of the sale will become available once the sale has been concluded and final invoices have been agreed.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when those directors of Astra Training Services Ltd. w ho are civil servants will be expected to assume full-time duties with the company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The three directors of Astra Training Services Limited who are civil servants will cease to be civil servants and assume full-time duties with the company at the time the sale to Astra is completed. I expect this to be in April or May.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who conducted negotiations with his Department for the purchase of skill centres by Astra Training Services Ltd.; and if they were civil servants at the time of the negotiations.

  Mr. Eggar
  Negotiations for the purchase of a training business by Astra Training Services Limited were conducted between Astra's professional advisers and the Government's main sale advisers, Deloitte Corporate Finance. A t the time of the negotiations the directors of Astra were civil servants; their professional advisers were not.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the subject matter of the three internal audit reports that were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department in 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  The three areas drawn to attention of Ministers through senior management were the accuracy of payment of unemployment benefit, employment training overpayments and section 4 tourism grants.

  Schools (Wood Treatment Chemicals)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will review the guidelines for the use of lindane, tributyltin, and other anti-rot wood treatment chemicals for use in the construction of schools and other buildings for subsequent occupation by children, subsequent to the problems at Ysgol Gymraeg Treganna, Radnor road, Canton, Cardiff in 1989;

  (2) if he will issue new guidelines to education authorities in Wales regarding the use of lindane, tributyltin and other similar anti-rot wood treatment chemicals in the refurbishment of the timbers of old school buildings, following the problems at Ysgol Gymraeg Treganna, Radnor road, Canton, Cardiff in 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wood preservatives are approved by Ministers subject to rigid conditions of use which appear on the label of the product. Ministers are advised by the independent advisory committee on pesticides, which, as part of an on-going programme, is currently undertaking reviews of lindane and tributyltin oxide in wood preservatives. I understand that investigations at Ysgol Gymraeg Treganna were unable to establish a link between incidences of sickness and the use of wood preservatives at the school.

SCOTLAND

  Law Courts (Television Links)
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the provision in Scottish courts of law of live television links from abroad.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has recently carried out a consultation on whether a provision should be enacted for Scotland to enable evidence to be given in Scottish criminal trials direct from other countries by live television links. There was general support for this proposal. Accordingly an amendment enabling this procedure was tabled on 15 March for consideration at the Committee stage in the House of Lords of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  Fish Farms (Crown Estate)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Crown Estate Commissioners fish farming advisory committee was established; when it was first convened; how many times it has sat; how many cases it has heard; what the outcome of those cases has been; and how many times statutory bodies have called for a case to be referred to the advisory committee.
  581
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced the establishment of the fish farming advisory committee by way of written reply on 19 December 1988. He announced the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman in May 1989. I understand from the Crown Estate Commissioners that the advisory committee was formally constituted in December 1989 following the nomination of representatives by the statutory authorities in Scotland, and will meet on 19 March to agree procedures. I also understand that there were requests for cases to be referred to the committee before it was formally constituted but none since.

  Lowland Airports
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in Scottish lowland airports policy on economic development in Scotland; and if he will make available the evidence on which it is based.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Many of the responses to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport's consultation paper on Scottish lowland airports policy addressed in detail the possible economic effects of the policy options. All points made were assessed and taken fully into account in the review, and it was concluded that the "open skies" decision as subsequently announced would offer greatest benefit to the Scottish economy.

  We do not intend to publish the submissions made in response to the consultation paper.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what planned improvements in road and rail services to Prestwick airport he had approved before 6 March; and whether any changes are now being considered.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend gave approval, in September 1989, to proposals for the Ayr road route scheme. This is a joint project between Strathclyde regional council and the Scottish Development Department and, when it is complete, it will be possible to drive from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Prestwick airport entirely on motorway, dual carriageway or four-lane carriageway. I understand that Strathclyde regional council plans to start advance works on its section in June this year. Two further schemes are planned which will upgrade the remaining four-lane sections to dual carriageway.

  Discussions will continue between the Scottish Office, Strathclyde passenger transport executive and British Rail about the possibility of building a new station at Prestwick airport. No decision will be taken, however, on whether such investment would be justified until we are in a position to assess the trends in passenger numbers at Prestwick in the light of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport's recent announcement of the outcome of the review of Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the figure for the estimated yield of I p on the basic rate of income tax for Scotland used in the written answer on local income tax to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on 27 February,Official Report, columns 117–19.
  582
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figure was £106 million.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those general practitioner practices which have declared an interest in applying for budgetary status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Forty-one practices in Scotland have so far indicated an interest in the GP funding scheme. Detailed information is not centrally available but the breakdown by health board is given in the table. This is firm evidence that this policy initiative is widely supported by the profession at large.

  Health Board

  Number of Expressions of Interest

  Ayr and Arran

  3

  Argyll and Clyde

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  Forth Valley

  1

  Grampian

  12

  Lanarkshire

  3

  Lothian

  6

  Greater Glasgow

  3

  Tayside

  7

  41

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the subject matter of the internal audit report produced in the Lord Advocate's Department and drawn to the attention of the Minister in 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject matter of the internal audit report which was drawn to the attention of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was the revision of procedures for the collection of and accounting for fines and fixed penalties imposed in Scottish district courts.

  New Dwelling Units
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of new dwelling units which will be built in 1990–91 in(a) the private sector and (b)the public sector.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such estimates are made by the Scottish Office. Regional and islands councils in Scotland are responsible for making forward projections for housing in their areas through their structure plans.

  Western Scottish Omnibuses Limited
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Clydewest 2000 employee buyout group is treated as a legitimate potential bidder for Western Scottish Omnibuses Limited; and whether it is allowed the same free access to financial information for the employee buyout bid as is being allowed Western Scottish Omnibuses Limited.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is the responsibility of the Scottish Transport Group to implement the
  583
  Scottish Bus Group disposal programme. After Western Scottish Omnibuses Limited is advertised for sale in due course, an information memorandum, which will include financial information, will be made available to all prospective purchasers of that company who can demonstrate that they have sufficient financial backing, or the prospect of sufficient backing, to mount a serious bid and provided that they have signed and returned a confidentiality undertaking in relation to the use of the information memorandum. I understand that Clydewest 2000 has registered its interests in Western Scottish with the Scottish Transport Group, and the group will therefore contact Clydewest 2000 when the company is being offered for sale.

  EC Aid for Rural Areas
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from the European Economic Community Commissioner about the levels of aid for rural areas after 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for industry and enterprise. The Scottish rural areas eligible for assistance are the Highlands and Islands and Galloway. My hon. Friend the Minister and I will make further representations as necessary in an effort to secure adequate and acceptable EC funding for the areas concerned.

  Schools (Assisted Places)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the statistics for the assisted places scheme in the 1989–90 school session in Scotland and the income scale which will apply to the scheme in school session 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  At the beginning of the current school session there were 2,689 pupils receiving assistance under the assisted places scheme. Additional pupils will be admitted to assisted places throughout the 1989–90 session and I expect that the final total will be about 2,800. This is in line with our plans to increase the total number of pupils benefiting to about 3,000 by the 1991–92 school year. Eighteen new schools were admitted to the scheme in the current school session, which has widened significantly the choice of school available to parents seeking assistance from the scheme.

  The scheme continues to concentrate assistance on lower-income families. In 1989–90 1,106 pupils (41 per cent. of those in the scheme) will be receiving full fee remission because they have a family income of £7,584 per annum or less. A further 179 pupils (7 per cent.) have family incomes between £7,585 and £8,500 per annum and 183 (7 per cent.) between £8,501 and £9,500.

  For school session 1990–91 I propose to lay regulations before the House in due course providing for progressive parental contributions for one assisted pupil in relation to family income as follows:
  584

  Part of relevant income to which the specified percentage applies

  Parental contribution (percentage)

  That part (if any) which exceeds £8,034 but does not exceed £8,735

  9

  That part (if any) which exceeds £8,735 but does not exceed £9,449

  12

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,449 but does not exceed £10,865

  15

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,865 but does not exceed £13,043

  21

  That part (if any) which exceeds £13,043 but does not exceed £15,885

  24

  That part (if any) which exceeds £15,885

  33

  The relevant income scale is open ended, but the remission can of course be given only where the parental contribution is less than the school tuition fee.

  Earnings
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish tables showing the proportion of (i) manual, (ii) non-manual and (iii) all full-time employees earning less than(a) £160, (b) £150, (c) £170, (d) £120 and (e) £110 per week for (1) men, (2) women and (3) all full-time employees, excluding overtime pay, in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Distribution oj average gross weekly earnings (excluding overtime) of full-time employees on adult rates, whose pay was not affected by absence, April 1989

  Scotland

  Percentage earning less than

  £110

  £120

  £150

  £160

  £170

  Males

  Manual

  8

  14

  37

  45

  54

  Non-manual

  4

  6

  12

  15

  19

  All

  6

  10

  26

  31

  38

  Females

  Manual

  41

  52

  80

  86

  91

  Non-manual

  17

  25

  47

  54

  59

  All

  22

  31

  55

  62

  67

  All

  Manual

  15

  21

  45

  53

  62

  Non-manual

  10

  15

  29

  35

  39

  All

  12

  18

  36

  43

  49

  Source: New Earnings Survey: April 1989.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for improving the supply of speech therapists in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 March 1990]: A new manpower planning steering group has been set up; regular staffing surveys are undertaken; employment initiatives to improve the retention and recruitment of staff are being developed; limits on the recruitment of students have been lifted and the provision of places is regularly monitored; refresher courses for returners are planned. Regular meetings are held with the profession about training and other manpower issues.

  Gaelic Language
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is available, following analyses of the 1981 census on(a) the marriage of Gaelic speakers

  585
  and non-Gaelic speakers to Gaelic-speaking and non-Gaelic-speaking partners, (b) the incidence of Gaelic-speaking ability amongst the children of Gaelic and non-Gaelic-speaking parents and (c) the incidence of Gaelic language speaking abilities in each socio-economic group; and what plans there are to publish such information.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: Information from the census is either included in reports laid before Parliament and subsequently published or is produced at the discretion of the Registrar-General in response to a request from a customer, who is required to pay the cost of production.

  No information of the type mentioned was included in the published Gaelic report and there are no plans for further publications. I understand that the Registrar-General has received a customer request for such information and is currently considering the technical and resource implications. Provided there are no insuperable difficulties and agreement can be reached on the cost, the Registrar-General will provide the information.

  District Councils (Borrowing Powers)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on increasing the borrowing powers of district councils which have no further disposable assets to sell.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: In determining non-housing capital allocations to district councils my right hon. and learned Friend takes into account all factors known to him, including councils' patterns of receipts raised in recent years and their own forecasts of receipts likely to be raised in future.

  Glasgow District Council
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Glasgow district council seeking further general services capital allocation to meet commitments given by the council at the request of the Office of Arts and Libraries.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: My officials have received a letter from the City of Glasgow district council about its general services capital consent allocation which mentions, among other things, commitments made by the council in 1986 when it accepted nomination as the European City of Culture.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money would not have been spent on Scottish education if regional councils had kept to Government guidelines in each of the years since 1979–80.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The guidelines which the Government issued to local authorities for the greater part of this period were in respect of their total expenditure. Spending decisions on individual services, such as education, are as they always have been entirely a matter for local authorities themselves.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make extra child care facilities available in Scotland to meet the need for extra women workers.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The Government are encouraging employers to consider provision of child care as part of their measures to attract women into employment, as numbers of young people becoming available for work decline. Private sector employers may themselves provide child care facilities, which are allowable against corporation tax, or act in partnership with other employers, public authorities and voluntary organisations.

  We continue to give grants to voluntary organisations concerned with child care and through revenue support grant we contribute to the provision made by local authorities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy to include in the annual report published by his Department in accordance with section 729 of the Companies Act 1989(a) details of the non-departmental inspectors appointed by him and (b) the cost of each published report.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no objection in principle to including in the companies annual report the names of inspectors appointed by me, in those cases where the appointment is announced, together with the cost of each published report. Such information will be considered for inclusion in the next report.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to amend section 15 of the Companies Act 1989 to require all summary financial statements to include a warning to investors that such financial statements cannot be relied upon for making investment decisions.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to regulation 5(e) and (f) of the Companies (Summary Financial Statement) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/515) which were laid before Parliament on 9 March.

  Accounting and Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration his Department has given since June 1979 to setting up an independent body to regulate the accounting and auditing industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  A comprehensive review of departmental papers since June 1979 has not been attempted. However, in 1986 the Department issued a consultative document which made a number of suggestions on how the eighth EC company law directive on the qualifications of auditors might be implemented in the United Kingdom. Among these was the possibility that a statutory body broadly along the lines of the General Medical Council
  587
  might be created and have conferred upon it the task of supervising professional accountancy bodies and ensuring that they complied with the directive.

  In the light of the responses to that document, the Government decided that the legislation implementing the directive should confer the necessary powers on the Secretary of State, but that he should be able to set up a statutory body and transfer to it many of those powers. Part II of the Companies Act 1989 provides for this arrangement. As the Government made clear during the passage of the Companies Bill, however, we have no present intention to set up a statutory body.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to bring into operation section 121 of the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  Section 121 will come into force on 1 April. We plan to make regulations under the new section 390B of the Companies Act 1985 (which is inserted into that Act by section 121) in the summer.

  Waste Water and Waste Disposal
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department will he represented at the international trade fair on waste water and waste disposal on 22 to 26 May.

  Mr. Forth
  There will be no ministerial visit to the ninth international trade fair for waste water and waste disposal: sewage, refuse, recycling, public cleansing, street maintenance and winter road service (IFAT '90), Munich, 22–26 May 1990. However, official representatives from my Department will be attending.

  House of Fraser
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to(a) clear demarcation of responsibility, (b) knowledge of one's client, (c) appropriate procedures for advisers, (d) relationships with the media, (e) relationships with the regulatory authorities and (f) loopholes in the code: 25.1.3 (p503).

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers to her questions Nos. 111 to 134 and 137.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to false evidence to inspectors: 1.29, p. 11.

  Mr. Ridley
  The giving of false evidence orally on oath or under affirmation is an offence under section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911. Similarly where false information has been submitted in written form but is subsequently adopted under oath, there is also an offence under section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911.

  There is no present need to amend the legislation.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the Companies Act 1985 as amended that the statutory language needs to be reconsidered in the context of the power to require oral evidence: 1.26 p. 10;
  588
  (2) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the powers of inspectors to require the production of documentary evidence: 1.26. p. 10;

  (3) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the powers of inspectors to require the production of documentary evidence.

  Mr. Ridley
  Contrary to the implications of these questions, the concerns expressed by the inspectors in paragraph 1.26 of their report have been met by section 56(3) of the Companies Act 1989.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to take any action in response to the House of Fraser Holdings plc report which—25.1.2 p. 503—concluded that to give Government clearance to a controversial hid, such as that for the House of Fraser, put intolerable strain on the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am satisfied that under present legislative and administrative arrangements both my Department and the Office of Fair Trading are equal to the demands placed on them in scrutinising mergers, controversial or otherwise, which qualify for investigation.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to advisers who give evidence or references to the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry: 25.6.3. p. 515;

  (2) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the role and responsibilities of parties appearing before the Office of Fair Trading: 25.6.3. p. 515;

  (3) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the Office of Fair Trading time and limits for the provision of evidence on identified public interest issues: 25.6.3. p. 515.

  Mr. Ridley
  With regard to the recommendation on time limits in paragraph 25.6.3(ii), there is always a balance to be struck between allowing enough time to weigh up the facts and acting quickly to remove market uncertainty. Within these constraints, it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to determine when he is in a position to submit his advice to me. New procedures under the Companies Act 1989 are to come into force next month under which companies which voluntarily pre-notify mergers can usually expect a decision from the Secretary of State within 20 days of notification.

  The recommendation in paragraph 25.6.3(iii) relates to the role and procedures to be followed by advisers. It contains good advice which I am sure advisers will wish to consider and act upon.

  Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the procedures available to inspectors to ensure the confidentiality of their p
  1.30, p. 12.

  Mr. Ridley
  Experience shows that the circumstances which can arise vary widely from case to case and the need
  589
  for legislation is not readily apparent and in any event might be difficult to enforce. However, in the light of the inspectors' comments, the position will remain under review.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the role of the Secretary of State: 25.6.3.p. 516.

  Mr. Ridley
  I entirely agree with the suggestion that I should reach my decisions on merger situations on the basis of facts found by others. That is what already happens.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the need for a practice note by the takeover panel on the standards of care in the preparation of offer documents: 25.7.9, p. 517;

  (2) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to standards of care in the preparation of offer documents: 25.7.9, p. 517.

  Mr. Ridley
  One of the general principles set out in the takeover code states that any document about an offer must, as is the case with a prospectus, be prepared with the highest standards of care and accuracy. This is supplemented by specific rules about offer documents. These rules are clear and are well understood, including by financial advisers. The question of an additional practice note is a matter for the takeover panel.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the giving of false evidence to Companies Act inspectors: 1.31, p. 12.

  Mr. Ridley
  Where, under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, a court has to determine whether a person's conduct in relation to a company makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, the court will have regard to the matters mentioned in part I of schedule 1 to that Act. Among the matters there mentioned are"any misfeasance or breach of any fiduciary duty or other duty by the director in relation to the company".
  However, schedule I is not an exhaustive list of categories of unfitness and the court could also take other conduct in relation to the company into account in determining a person's unfitness.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations of the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the internal procedures to be followed by financial advisers: 25.4.6. p.511;

  (2) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the position of a financial adviser acting on his client's behalf—specifically: 25.3.7. p.508;

  (3) why he has decided not to implement the House of Fraser Holdings plc report on the recommendations relating to the financial advisers' acceptance of instructions from clients: 25.4.5 p.510;
  590
  (4) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations of the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the process of taking on new clients: 25.4.2 p.509;

  (5) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations of the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the acceptance of written material from other advisers: 25.4.4 p.510;

  (6) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations of the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the process of financial advisers taking on clients' references: 25.4.3 p.509;

  (7) why he has decided not to take any action to implement the House of Fraser Holdings plc report which concluded—25.2.6 p.506—that more care will have to be given in future to defining more clearly the respective roles and responsibilities of each adviser, and to define more clearly what is, or what ought to be, expected of them in the role, in relation to the City code and the interaction with the regulatory authorities and more generally;

  (8) why he has decided to take no action to respond to the conclusion in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report—25.3.3 p.507—that there is a need for a clear definition of the extent of the responsibilities of the financial adviser to be sure of his facts before he makes such statements in the name of his bank.

  Mr. Ridley
  These recommendations are not addressed to the Government. They concern the role and procedures to be followed by professional advisers in relation to their clients. They contain good advice which I am sure advisers and those responsible for setting standards of conduct for advisers will wish to take into account.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the Office of Fair Trading: 25.6.3. p.515 and public interest issues, other than competitions, in a proposed merger.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is already the practice of the Office of Fair Trading to discuss with the parties any public interest issues relevant to a merger, not just competition aspects.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the need for the City code to apply to non-corporate owners of shelf companies: 25.7.2 p.516.

  Mr. Ridley
  The takeover code does not lay down specific rules for offers by non-corporate owners of shelf companies. However, following a review of the provisions of the code, the takeover panel has for some time in practice required non-corporate offerers to provide more information about their finances and the key individuals. I understand that the panel's existing guidance on this will shortly be reflected in amendments to the code.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the powers of inspectors to have access to private bank accounts in order to trace money which has gone out of or into a company: 1.28, p. 11.

  Mr. Ridley
  Contrary to the implications in this question, the concerns expressed by the inspectors have
  591
  been met, so far as is possible under United Kingdom law, by amendments to section 434, 436 and 452 of the Companies Act 1985 introduced by section 56(3) and (6) and section 69(3) of the Companies Act 1989 and by the repeal of section 435 of the 1985 Act.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations of the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the need for a code of standards of responsibility to be observed by advisers appearing before the Office of Fair Trading: 25.6.2. p. 514;

  (2) why he has decided not to implement the recommendations in the House of Fraser Holdings plc report relating to the operation of the Office of Fair Trading: 25.6.2. p. 514.

  Mr. Ridley
  Section 151 of the Companies Act 1989, which will come into effect on 1 April, makes it a specific criminal offence to mislead the competition authorities. This should strengthen the position of the Office of Fair Trading. The question of a code of standards is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Additionally, as paragraph 25.6.3 of the report makes clear, it is the duty and responsibility of advisers to give evidence or references only about facts of which they have knowledge. I am sure that they and their professional bodies will wish to consider and act upon this advice.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he gave in deciding not to use his discretionary powers under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against the directors of House of Fraser plc to whether the public interest aspects were affected by the absence of outside shareholders in that company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 15 March 1990]: I gave appropriate consideration to the shareholder position and to other factors.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions and for what role Kleinwort Benson has been commissioned by his Department since he received the report on the House of Fraser.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: None.

  Unit Trusts
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be able to publish revised proposals for new kinds of authorised unit trusts.

  Mr. Redwood
  A further consultation document including revised draft regulations was published yesterday. Comments are invited by 30 June 1990.

  The draft regulations take account of comments received since proposals for new kinds of funds were announced in 1987. In particular, the earlier proposal for "mixed funds" is to be delayed until experience in operating futures and options and properties funds has been established. Further views are being sought on the scope of the provisions dealing with efficient portfolio management, the idea of two classes of futures and options funds (low and high exposure funds), and a new class of fund investing in warrants.

  EC Aid to Rural Areas
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice he has received from the European Economic Community Commissioner about future levels of aid for rural areas after 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Commission has proposed a total "indicative appropriation" of 335 mecu for 1989–1993 grants to United Kingdom rural areas from the Community's three structural funds under their "objective No. 5(b)" (the development of rural areas). The proposal implies in particular that the United Kingdom rural areas concerned would receive no new European regional development fund assistance after their present programmes of grant from that fund expire in 1991 or 1992.

  The Government have therefore asked the Commission to reconsider its proposal. Discussions between Government Departments and the Commission are continuing, and I cannot predict the outcome. My right hon. Friends and I will make further representations to the Commission, as necessary, at the appropriate stage.

  Grants under the funds' objectives Nos. 3 (combating long-term unemployment), 4 (integration of young people into employment) and 5(a) (adjustment of agricultural structures) are also available in the areas concerned, and are not at issue.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade arid Industry if, during his recent visit to Poland, he raised the potential for the United Kingdom to provide pollution abatement technology and technical advice of how to clean up polluted land and water.

  Mr. Forth
  Yes. This issue was raised by the director of my Department's east European branch during a meeting with Mr. Kwiat Kowski at the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Natural Resources. The problems are daunting, but we made the Polish authorities aware of particular ways in which British companies could contribute to cleaner industrial processes. Both the Davy Group and John Brown plc were represented.

  Aircraft Radios
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the percentage increase in the charges most recently announced by his Department in respect of the licensing of aircraft radios; and why it was decided not to increase the charges in line with inflation.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 15 March 1990]: For nearly 4,000 aircraft the Wireless Telegraph Act licence fee remains unchanged at the level set in 1986 (£25). For about 400 aircraft with maximum approved take-off weights between 2,730 and 5,700 kg the fee was increased by 1,000 per cent. on 1 November 1989, and for about 1,000 larger aircraft an increase of 2,000 per cent. was made.

  These increases were introduced to ensure recovery of the full costs of the work done by my Department for civil aviation use of radio. The needs of commercial aircraft operators account for a large share of these costs. It was therefore considered that those best placed to meet these costs would be the operators of larger aircraft. Because

  593
  there are relatively few aircraft in these categories the sum of money involved, though small in itself (some £600,000 a year), necessarily involved large increases when shared among only 1,400 aircraft.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North on 2 March,Official Report, column 345, what legal basis in the example given the European Commission has to approve or disapprove the sale of land other than the shipbuilding site where closure aid has been allowed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: The wider remedial package for Sunderland was approved under the Commission of the European Communities' sixth directive on aid to shipbuilding and under articles 92–93 EEC. It is under these instruments that the Commission may reach a view on the use of land for shipbuilding in Sunderland outside the immediate confines of the former shipbuilding site.

  Investment
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list, area by area and industry by industry, each case where Her Majesty's Government have a policy of opposing investment in a specific industry in a specific area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: Subject to observance of the United Kingdom's EC or other international obligations, Her Majesty's Government have no such policy, although planning requirements may impact upon specific developments in specific areas.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Charge
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland who are eligible for a rebate of the community charge will not receive the rebate because it falls under the minimum amount payable; and what is the total sum involved in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that 23,000 additional benefit units (approximately 32,000 individuals) might receive community charge rebate in Scotland in 1989–90 if there was no minimum amount payable, at a total cost approaching £450,000.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the amount and (b) the proportion of net incomes after rebates, adjusted for family size, which households paid in domestic rates in 1987–88; and what estimates he has made of what these figures would be if the community charge were in operation in 1987–88, broken down into decile groups.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Figures are not available for Scotland alone. The information for 1987–88, on a Great Britain basis, is set out in the table. The figures requested by the hon. Member for the community charge are not available.
  594

  Average weekly equivalised household rates by decile of equivalised household income 1987

  Decile

  Average household rates

  Percentage of net income paid in rates

  Lowest

  3·30

  8·2

  2

  4·20

  7·9

  3

  4·90

  7·9

  4

  4·80

  6·8

  5

  3·30

  5·3

  6

  4·30

  4·6

  7

  4·50

  4·1

  8

  4·70

  3·7

  9

  5·20

  3·3

  Highest

  6·90

  2·5

  Total

  4·70

  4·4

  Notes:

  1. Household income is defined as income from all sources less income tax and national insurance contributions.

  2. Values are of equivalised household rates, ie adjusted for household size and composition, and scaled so that the rates for a single person household remain the same. Thus the cash figures, though averaged across the whole population, are equivalent to £ per week for a single adult household.

  Source: Family expenditure survey.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individual claims for war pensions are currently outstanding; what is the average interval from receipt of application to decision; and what was the comparable figure in each of the previous five years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At 9 March 1990 there were 20,418 claims for war disablement pension outstanding. The average time taken to clear a claim at the end of February 1990 was 35·5 weeks. War pensions work is complex and it takes time to gather the necessary evidence often going back over 40 years; the obtaining of service documents and consultants' reports in particular take considerable time. Comparable figures for each of the previous five financial years were:

  weeks

  1988–89

  29·5

  1987–88

  27·3

  1986–87

  42·4

  1985–86

  22·6

  1984–85

  20·8

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what compensation other than backdated payments is available to those allocated a war pension after more than two years has elapsed between applications and decisions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There is no statutory provision for compensation when payment of a war pension or a social security benefit has been delayed. However, ex-gratia compensation can be considered in certain circumstances where there has been clear and unambiguous departmental error.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what happens to the backdated payments of war pensions if the person to be in receipt of such payments dies while his Department is processing the application.
  595
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If a claim for war pension is under consideration when a claimant dies the arrears of any subsequent award are normally paid to his next-of-kin.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the longest time his Department has taken between receipt of a war pension claim and final decision to award a war pension.

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

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department received the 13 May 1988 application for war pension of Mr. Joseph Davies of 30 Aspley Park Drive, Aspley, Nottingham; and when he will give Mr. Davies his reply.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Mr. Davies's claim for a war pension was received on 19 May 1988. The Department's doctors advised that in order to give a decision on his claim it would be necessary for Mr. Davies to be examined by a consultant. Unfortunately, considerable difficulty has been experienced in arranging a consultant's examination, but I understand that he is now due to be seen next month. Mr. Davies will be given a decision as soon as possible after the examination. The delay in bringing this matter to a conclusion is very much regretted.

  Benefits
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers and percentages of(a) women and (b) men in receipt of one-parent benefit (i) in 1979 and (ii) in 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Before 1981 one-parent benefit was known as child benefit increase. The information requested is set out in the table.

  Child Benefit Increase/One Parent Benefit: Male and Female Claimants

  Women

  Men

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Total

  1979

  334,000

  87

  50,000

  13

  384,000

  1989

  637,000

  91

  60,000

  9

  698,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for 31 December of each year and are rounded.

  Source Departmental records.

  Hospital Visits (Travel Costs)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on parents of recent changes in the social fund and community care grants reimbursement of travel costs to parents of children in hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  There have been no such changes.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to give a substantive answer to the questions of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, tabled for priority written answer on 5 March, on information on(a) the percentage of and real terms
  596
  increase in spending on benefits attributable to an increase in the number of beneficiaries and (b) the total number of benefit claimants between 1979–80 and 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him today.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 64, what information on the percentage of real terms increase in spending on benefits attributable to an increase in the number of beneficiaries is available to him without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: Increases in the numbers of beneficiaries for particular benefits may have a simple demographic origin, but when more money is spent as a result of a policy change or through a longer effect such as the growth of additional pensions or increasing entitlements to income-related benefits, the extra costs often cannot be attributed simply and straightforwardly to changes in numbers of benefit units. Prior to 1989–90 for instance, real terms increases in expenditure on retirement pension, other than additional pension, will have been primarily attributable to the demographic trend of an aging population whereas for a period from October 1989 changes will have been significantly affected by the abolition of the pensioners earnings rule. Similarly, the introduction of family credit has been associated with a 50 per cent. increase in the number of recipients compared with family income supplement, but it is not easy to categorise the 100 per cent. increase in expenditure that occurred. Full analyses along these lines for individual benefits would involve many arbitrary judgments, and no such analyses are available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he expects to give a substantive answer to the question of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, tabled for priority written answer on 8 January, about the basis of his calculation that average incomes of pensioners had increased by about 23 per cent. since 1979;

  (2) when he expects to provide substantive replies to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West for priority written answer on (a) 26 February about the proportion of women pensioners receiving national insurance pensions on their husband's contributions and an income support pension; (b) 9 February about the savings as a result of the break in the pension uprating and earnings link; (c) 23 January about the additional gross and net cost of uprating the basic national insurance pension and (d) 22 January about the cumulative increase above inflation on the basic national insurance pension in specified periods;

  (3) when he expects to provide substantive replies to the questions of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, tabled for priority written answer on 26 February on (a) pensioners' income after the deduction of housing costs and (b) net income at 1986 prices of pensioner tax units who obtained all their income from state benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am answering today the hon. Member's question about the proportion of women pensioners receiving pensions on their husbands' contributions, and about the costs of uprating the basic
  597
  national insurance pension in line with earnings rather than prices over the period 1980 to 1989. I expect shortly to be able to give him a comprehensive answer covering the available information on his question concerning changes in various components in pensioners' incomes, including state benefits, broken down where possible to deciles of income distribution, using the latest information drawn from the 1987 family expenditure survey data now available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he has any figures available to show the additional gross and net cost of uprating the basic national insurance pension in line with average earnings in each year from 1980 to 1989, inclusive;

  (2) what have been the savings each year to the Government since 1979 as a result of the break in the pension uprating and earnings link both at current prices and at constant 1990 prices; and what has been the cumulative saving over the whole of this period.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answers 23 January and 9 February 1990]: The table shows the gross additional cost of uprating retirement pension in line with average earnings since 1980–81. It is not possible to provide net costs for each year, but in 1989–90 the net cost would have been £3·28 billion allowing for reduction of £ 130 million in income support and £770 million in housing benefit.

  It should be noted that any such cost would attract consequent increase in the national insurance contribution. It is estimated that the necessary increase in contribution rate to support the additional cost in 1989 if divided equally between employers and employees would be 1·15 per cent. on the basic rate of both employers' and employees' contributions, increasing them to 11·6 per cent. and 10·15 per cent. respectively. This would have meant for example a contribution increase for an employee on average earnings of £2·70 per week, together with an additional contribution of £3·20 per week for his employer.

  Gross cost—1989 prices

  £ billion

  1980–81

  0·01

  1981–82

  0·31

  1982–83

  0·44

  1983–84

  0·47

  1984–85

  1·10

  1985–86

  1·24

  1986–87

  2·28

  1987–88

  3·10

  1988–89

  3·86

  1989–90

  4·17

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on 24 January,Official Report, column 702, what was the equivalent increase in pensioners' income after the deduction of housing costs.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: I regret that information is not available in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of women pensioners receive(a) a national insurance pension on their husband's contributions and (b) an income support pension.
  598
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: Latest available information shows that in March 1989 24·1 per cent. (1,549,080) of women pensioners received a national insurance pension on the basis of their husbands' contributions. In May 1988 18·5 per cent. (1,185,000) of single women aged 60 and over were in receipt of income support.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the percentage increase in the total number of benefit claimants between 1979–80 and 1989–90; and if he will break this down to give the figures for(a) the elderly, (b) the sick and disabled, (c) families, (d) unemployed people, (e) widows and orphans and (f) others.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 12 February at columns 84–85. Information is not available in the form requested, since claimants may receive more than one benefit at any one time.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenders the Property Services Agency has been invited to submit for work at 10 Downing street; and what is the number of contracts arising from those tenders which were secured.

  Mr. Chope
  PSA is responsible for building works and maintenance services to No. 10 Downing street. Since 1984, Departments have been free to undertake at their expense some minor work including internal decoration using contractors of their choice. PSA has not submitted tenders for such work.

  Recycled Newsprint
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received to his letter to the proprietors of national newspapers on the percentage of recycled paper in newsprint used by them.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have received responses so far from the following:

  Today

  The Guardian

  The Daily Telegraph

  The Sunday Correspondent

  Daily Mail and General Trust

  Associated Newspapers

  Express Newspapers

  Lonrho

  News International

  The responses to date indicate that there is a substantial variation in the use of recycled paper by newspapers, although differences of definition do not facilitate direct comparisons. We intend to follow up these and any further responses with the proprietors of the newspapers concerned and with the Newspaper Publishers Association and the Newspaper Society.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the safety net figure for(a) Grimsby and (b) Hull on a per capita basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Charge payers in Grimsby will each receive £46 from the safety net. Charge payers in Kingston upon Hull will each receive £74. The difference in the receipts reflects the different effects on the domestic sector in each authority of the changes in local government finance from 1 April. The details of the calculation are set out in the Revenue Support Grant Transition Report (England) made on 21 December 1989 and approved by the House on 18 January.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to substitute a single community charge or a single business rate when the proprietor of a small business lives on the business premises as part of the duties involved in the business.

  Mr. Chope
  The community charge and the uniform business rate are distinct forms of charging; the former relates to individuals and the latter to the use of non-domestic property. There should be no difference in principle between a proprietor of a business who lives away from his workplace paying the community charge at one address and business rates at another, and that of a proprietor who lives and works at the same address. In the latter case rates will be charged only on the non-domestic use of the property, not on any living accommodation.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 7 March, whether he will give the information requested by the hon. Member for Tiverton on 7 March for the financial year 1990–91 only, in respect of(a) England and (b) Devon.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: When setting the level of total standard spending (TSS) and RSG for 1990–91, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took into account our best estimates of the costs of the new burdens falling on local authorities as a whole in 1990–91, as well as all other relevant factors. Neither the total for TSS nor that for RSG separately identifies an amount for these costs.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost of exempting all non-employed YTS trainees with STN endorsements from paying the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 19 March 1990 (Official Report, Volume 169. column 482).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of the number of districts and the number of households in each that will qualify for rebate of poll tax under the Government's undertaking that couples will not be asked to pay more than £156 more than they were paying in rates.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no estimates of numbers qualifying for transitional relief in the areas of individual local authorities.
  600
  My right hon. Friend did not give the undertaking mentioned. With transitional relief two-adult households will pay no more than £156 extra if their community charge is set at or below the assumed charge for their area, set out in the Community Charge Transitional Relief Report (England). Local authority spending decisions may lead households to have larger increases in bills.

  Cycling (Royal Parks)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on making cycle routes across London's royal parks part of the 1,000-mile strategic cycle route network in London.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am happy to consider proposals from the relevant authorities for including the existing cycleways in the royal parks in the strategic cycle route network.

  Liverpool (Funding)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been awarded in grants to Liverpool under estate action in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Chope
  In the last three years no grants, only additional housing investment programme resource cover, have been awarded to Liverpool under the estate action programme. The total amount is £6,642,008 split 1987–88 nil; 1988–89 £200,000; 1989–90 £6,442,008.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to review building regulations to provide better protection for buildings from damage from high winds.

  Mr. Chope
  The Building Research Establishment has been asked to investigate the damage caused to buildings during recent gales, as a specific task under the research programme sponsored by the Department. A detailed BRE report on this subject will he produced in the near future and BRE has already published guidance on inspection and appraisal of buildings with lightweight roofs with a pitch of 25 deg or less. If the BRE investigations indicate that amendments may be required to the building regulations, proposals will be issued for consultation in the usual way. The Department has also been in touch with the British Standards Institution about the implications for codes relating to the structural stability of buildings.

  New Dwellings
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of new dwellings units which will be built in 1990–91 in(a) the private sector and (b) the public sector.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department does not make forecasts of house building completions.

  Pensions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the value at current prices of the average pension received by local government officials on their retirement in(a) 1979 and (b) 1969;
  601
  (2) what was the average pension paid to local government officials who retired in 1989; and what is the average pension currently received by local government officials who retired in (a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not available centrally.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new housing starts there were in the York parliamentary division for 1979, 1983, 1987 and the most recent year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of 209 dwellings were reported as started in the York district council area in 1989. Figures for 1987 and 1983 appear in tables 1.8 and 1.4, respectively, of "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas: 1980 to 1988"; those for 1979 appear in "Local Housing Statistics No. 59" table 4(b). Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 are consistently applied in accordance with directives 84/661/EEC and 86/297/EEC.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 implement the provisions of Council directives 84/631/EEC and 86/279/EEC and two related Commission directives. Enforcement of the provisions is primarily a matter for waste disposal authorities and comprehensive advice is contained in circular 16/89 issued by the Department.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to revise the operation of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988; what discussions he has had; and with whom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 will need modification in due course to implement future changes in Community law which, inter alia, will enable member states to ratify the Basel convention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has raised the matter in the EC Environment Council and detailed discussions within the Community are under way.

  Sports Clubs (Rates)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to give mandatory rating relief for local sports clubs.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has commissioned any studies into the effects on local sports clubs of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave on 19 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).
  602
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to issue advice to local authorities as to how they should exercise their discretion to give rating relief to local sports clubs.

  Mr. Chope
  A practice note on the operation of discretionary rate relief, which included suggested criteria for use by local authorities in considering applications for relief, was issued to authorities in England and Wales in November 1989. A copy is in the Library.

  Ballykelly Army Base
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his response to representations that a paramilitary fraud ring has been operating in Ballykelly army base in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Chope
  This case is being investigated by the police.

  Hindu Temple, Hertsmere
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue his decision on the appeals by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) against planning decisions by Hertsmere borough council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  After carefully considering the reports of the inspector following two public inquiries, I have accepted his conclusion that the current use of Bhaktivedanta manor at Letchmore Heath for large-scale public worship and religious festivals is not appropriate in that location, where the local residents can rightfully expect a way of life without such intrusion and disruption. I have also decided that the much larger facilities proposed at Elstree would not be appropriate in that very vulnerable part of the metropolitan green belt. Those decisions do not of course affect ISKCON's existing entitlement to use Bhaktivedanta manor as a residential college with its own shrine.

  I fully support the aspirations of members of the Hindu community to worship in their own way and in fitting conditions. I also recognise the religious importance of the temple at Bhaktivedanta manor for the Hindu community. I have therefore been concerned that ISKCON shall have ample opportunity to identify a suitable alternative, either on a new site or by conversion of existing buildings elsewhere. Exceptionally, therefore, I have decided to extend the period recommended by the inspector for compliance with the council's enforcement notice to cease using Bhaktivedanta manor for public worship and religious festivals from six months to two years. That period will also provide added assurance to the residents of Letchmore Heath that the disturbance to their way of life will come to an end within a reasonable time.

  I expect ISKCON to make every effort to take advantage of this opportunity to find an alternative which would be more in harmony with its surroundings. I see no reason why such an alternative, with good transport access and satisfactory car parking, cannot be found. It is not open to me as Secretary of State to indicate where such an alternative might be found, but I can assure ISKCON that any application which needs to be referred to me under planning legislation will be considered expeditiously, and with due regard to its special needs. My formal decision is being issued to the appeal parties today.

  Councillors (Employment)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether under part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 a sitting member of a local authority who is employed by a local authority-controlled company will be able to serve his full time on that local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: Further to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on Monday 26 February, I have today written to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), to say that transitional arrangements will be made to allow members employed by a local authority-controlled company who are elected members of that authority when paragraph 21 of schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 comes into force, to remain in office until the end of their elected term.

  River Systems
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the general rate of improvement or decline over the last 10 years in(a) the north-west river systems and (b) the south-east river systems; and if he will make a statement about his additional plans for clean-up and tightening of regulations;

  (2) which pollutants were present and at what level in the River Mersey system (a) in 1980 and (b) at the present time;

  (3) which pollutants were present and at what level in the River Thames (a) in 1980 and (b) at the present time.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: General trends in river water quality between 1980 and 1985 can be established from the report of the 1985 river quality survey of England and Wales, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. More recent information on a directly comparable basis is not currently available, although the National Rivers Authority (NRA) will be conducting another national survey during 1990, the results of which will be published in 1991.

  The classification system used for recent river quality surveys gives an overall measure of the levels of pollution in a river: detailed information on levels of individual pollutants can be obtained from the public registers maintained by the National Rivers Authority. These include the results of the analyses carried out of routine samples taken of river water, and the registers available for inspection at the National Rivers Authority's Thames and North West regional offices contain data obtained from sampling at many sites on the Thames and the Mersey respectively.

  The responsibility for maintaining and improving river quality now rests with the National Rivers Authority, which will be advising my right hon. Friend on the statutory quality objectives he will be setting in 1992. It will then be for the National Rivers Authority to see that these objectives are achieved.

  River Mersey (Pollution)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which companies have consent to pollute the River Mersey; what pollutants they are empowered to 604
  discharge and at what levels; and what fines were levied on companies and individuals responsible for polluting the River Mersey over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The responsibility for issuing consent to discharges of effluent into the River Mersey now rests with the North West region of the National Rivers Authority (NRA). The particulars of discharge consents granted, including details of substances and quantities which may be discharged, are held on the public register maintained by the NRA and available for inspection at the North West regional office, New Town House, Buttermarket street, Warrington.

  Enforcement of water pollution controls under the Water Act 1989 is primarily the responsibility of the NRA. I understand that of those cases brought to court since the NRA's establishment on 1 September 1989, the following fine has been imposed for the offence of polluting the River Mersey:

  Offender

  Conviction Date

  Fine £

  Costs £

  Shell UK Ltd

  22/23 February 1990

  1,000,000

  6,573·79

  (Offence committed under part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.)

  The following fines were imposed for cases of water pollution in the Mersey catchment that were brought to court by the former North West water authority, between 6 April 1987 and 31 August 1989:

  Offender

  Conviction date

  Fine

  Costs

  £

  £

  J. Slack Limited

  6 April 1987

  800

  100

  Manro Products Ltd.

  19 August 1987

  750

  255

  Joseph Pickavance Ltd.

  22 September 1987

  200

  230

  Kooltherm Insulation Products Ltd.

  6 October 1987

  1,000

  250

  UML Limited

  22 October 1987

  1,000

  315

  Broadclough Finishing Company Limited

  18 April 1988

  1,000

  395

  Manchester City Council

  12 May 1988

  1,500

  460

  Brian D. Leever (Poplar Truck Stop)

  22 June 1988

  200

  225

  Panocean Transport and Storage Ltd.

  26 August 1988

  1,000

  235

  John Cooper

  10 November 1988

  300

  100

  Alan Kendrick

  10 November 1988

  200

  90

  Cheshire County Council

  10 November 1988

  250

  200

  Coloroll Limited, Rainshore Mills

  11 November 1988

  500

  —

  Coloroll Limited, Rainshore Mills

  11 November 1988

  1,000

  345

  Wardle Fabrics Ltd.

  28 November 1988

  250

  240

  East Lancashire Paper Mill Co. Ltd.

  30 November 1988

  500

  345

  East Lancashire Paper Mill Co. Ltd.

  30 November 1988

  500

  —

  Featley Products Ltd.

  2 December 1988

  500

  220

  Toby Restaurants (North) Limited

  13 January 1989

  1,250

  180

  Peter Thompson

  26 January 1989

  600

  250

  McPherson Polymers Ltd.

  30 January 1989

  500

  350

  Brown Brothers (Construction Ltd.)

  8 February 1989

  1,500

  260

  Laporte Industries Ltd.

  2 March 1989

  1,000

  197·50

  Information about prosecutions prior to 6 April 1987 is not available.

  Housing Associations (Water and Sewerage)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total cost to housing associations of the new infrastructure charges for water and sewerage.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: A reliable estimate of the total cost to housing associations of the new system of infrastructure charges is not available.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the firms which have now made bids for the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: No; to do so could prejudice the outcome of the sale competition.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultants have been engaged by the Crown Suppliers for the last 12 months; and if he will list the directorships currently and recently held by each individual engaged as a consultant.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The consultants employed during the past 12 months by the Crown Suppliers are listed in the table. Information on the directorships held by their staff is not collected.

  L A Associates—Design Consultancy

  I F F Research—Market Research Consultancy

  Peat Marwick McLintock—Computer Audit Consultancy

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells—The Buying Agency Consultancy—Phase I

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells—The Buying Agency Consultancy—Phase II

  G M S Consultancy Limited—Provision of Marketing Manager

  G M S Consultancy Limited—Provision of Financial Manager

  Accountancy Personnel—Appointment of Finance Manager

  Accountancy Personnel—Appointment of Management Accountant

  Role Management—Appointment of Finance Manager

  J Limington Agency—Provision of two Machine Operators

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells—The Buying Agency Computer Consultancy

  Executive Interim Management—Provision of Sales Representatives

  BIS Applied Systems—Computer Training

  Abraxas Computer Services Limited—Computer Programmers

  Datapool Consultants Limited—Computer Programmers

  Trident Computer Services Limited—Computer Programmers

  Zeda Information Management Consultants—Business Analysts

  606

  W S Atkins Management Consultants—Project Planners

  Yale Management Consultants Limited—Computer Audit

  Link Associates—Computer Programmers

  DPP Limited—Computer Programmers

  Unisys Limited—Computer Hardware

  Mouncey and Partners—Business Analysts

  Unilinx Limited—Computer Programmers, Computer Managers

  OSL—Computer Programmers

  Palmer and Webb—Computer Capacity Planners

  Public Sector Consultancy—Business Analysts and Training

  Steelcase
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from Steelcase Stafor concerning Government supply.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: None.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those firms which have been subject to or threatened with compulsory purchase order by Leeds development corporation; what are the numbers employed by those firms; and what is the consultative process which took place in each case.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 15 March 1990]: Urban development corporations have compulsory purchase powers under section 142 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Procedures for making and processing compulsory purchase orders are described in DOE circular 6/85—"Compulsory Purchase Orders: Procedures." Particular advice on CPOs promoted by UDCs is also contained in DOE circular 23/88, "Compulsory Purchase Orders by Urban Development Corporations." In addition to the statutory procedures Leeds development corporation is offering a personal visit to all parties to explain procedures; is willing to be flexible in giving firms time to relocate; is making land acquired by the corporation available for relocations; and is developing a relocation package to assist companies in their move.

  I am informed that 67 firms, employing 445 people, have been subject to compulsory purchase orders made by Leeds development corporation. Of these firms, 17 have already reached a settlement with the corporation, safeguarding 114 jobs. Negotiations with the remainder are proceeding. I will write to the hon. Member listing the firms.

  Parliamentary Estate
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests for minor repairs to the parliamentary estate were outstanding at 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: I regret that this information is not available.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers — Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Council House Rents
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to mitigate the effects of the substantial rises in council house rents recently proposed by certain local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, housing revenue account subsidy ensures that rents can stay within the reach of council tenants. It is for local authorities to determine their own levels. Rent rebates give assistance to those who need it, and for tenants receiving rebate any increase in rent is fully rebated.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would he care to tell us why three of the highest rent increases have been levied, totally against the Government's recommendations, by Conservative authorities such as Redbridge? That borough will levy a rent increase of £ 15 per week. Reigate will levy £ 9 per week and another borough will levy an increase of £ 7 per week. These increases are totally against the Government's wishes. Can the Minister tell us why these authorities have levied such tremendous increases? Will the increases qualify in full for housing benefit?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall answer first the last part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. Those in receipt of rebate will continue to receive it, whatever the increase. However, I should also point out to the noble Lord that even though he introduced examples of Conservative authorities, many times from this Dispatch Box I am accused, for the Government, of interfering with local authorities. It is not for the Government to interfere but for the electorate to decide.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the further example of the city of Canterbury? It has announced an increase of 54-69 per cent. which raises the average rent of £ 22 to £ 34 per week. How does the Minister justify that for people who do not receive rent rebate?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we face the perennial problem at the Dispatch Box that the decision has been reached by a locally elected authority. I am constantly berated for the Government interfering with local authorities. This is something which the local authority must address to its tenants and electors.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is it not a direct result of government interference in the form of the Local Government Act 1988?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the city of Canterbury is in a unique position? It has to pay for the roads within its boundaries and other facilities in order to attract tourists. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that it is not an ordinary city.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all in your Lordships' House agree that Canterbury is a unique city in our country. However, I must repeat what I said earlier— that two facts are important. First, those in receipt of rebate will not be affected by the increase. Secondly, it is a matter for the local authority to set the level of rent.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord take the time to answer the last question by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with great respect, I believe that I have answered it in the reply that I have just given.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how these government-imposed swingeing rent increases help the Government's fight against inflation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not think that it is fair to describe these as swingeing increases. There are many examples of authorities which have set the levels of rent below the guideline given by the Government. It is important to remember that the average council rent in the country is based on £ 22 per week.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent rent rises are influenced by the rent arrears in certain districts?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is possible, I suppose, to extrapolate debt through to rent arrears. However, the department does not have the figures that specifically connect the two. There is a very wide range. If one examines the London area, the arrears vary from 47 per cent. in Brent to 24 per cent. in Hackney. I believe that my noble friend comes from the North-East. He will be interested to know that of the five lowest authorities, Durham's rent arrears are only 0.6 per cent.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we have been given the answer that the Government will not intervene where large rises in council house rents have been proposed by local authorities because they do not agree with interfering in local government. Will they make a statement now that they will not cap local authorities in connection with the poll tax if those authorities have levied a community charge to pay for local services?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will not be surprised that I am not willing to

191
make the commitment he requires. I can assure your Lordships that for three-quarters of all authorities the new suggested rents will exceed the guidelines only by 3 per cent.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he has worked out how much local income tax would cost if it were put forward by the Opposition? How much would the roof tax cost if that were put on by the Opposition in accordance with its policies?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the Government will have to wait to see the Opposition's proposals in order to provide a reply to that question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is again sheltering behind the pretence that the Government do not intervene in the finances of local authorities. Will he not now acknowledge, as my noble friend Lord Stallard challenged him to, that it is the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the two housing Acts which have caused these vast increases in local authority rents? It is not interference in any individual local authority which is required but interference to restore the level of government support for affordable rents.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is important to remember that we have in this country housing benefit. The fact that the Government have asked authorities to recognise the value of their property and the fact that we ring-fence the housing revenue account does not mean that we are imposing a policy in order to charge more and more rent. It is important to remember that within the calculations reached by the Department of the Environment there is a factor for damping in order to protect.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what the total cost of housing benefit will be now that the Government have forced local authorities to increase rents?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have that figure available today, the reason being that the year has not finished.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling abroad in the borough of Redbridge that the £ 15 a week increase has been deliberately levied because when the tenants of the council estates in Redbridge were balloted on the matter of privatisation they voted to stay with the local authority? The feeling is abroad that this is the Conservative local authority's way of punishing them. Will the Minister give an undertaking that any surpluses that accrue to the housing revenue account because of the substantial increases will not be used next year by these authorities to levy an artificially low poll tax?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to a surplus in rebate, I can assure him that from the department's point of view that is seen only
192
in regard to public housing and not in terms of a cross-subsidy to the community charge.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that council house tenants are not suffering nearly as much as those people the Government have persuaded to buy their houses?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that that question is rather wide of the one on the Order Paper.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in an earlier reply the Minister claimed that the Government do not intervene in the ring-fencing of the housing revenue account. Is it not a fact that rent arrears are not paid for by ratepayers as a whole but are paid for only by those council tenants who pay their rents on time?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that is the case because in the final analysis all adjustments are paid for by all council tenants and all taxpayers.

Dental Checkups
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people have attended dental checkups in the year since the introduction of charges; and how this compares with the previous year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, it is not possible to provide this information in the precise form requested by the noble Baroness. The figures we have show that for England and Wales the total number of examinations for which fees were scheduled in the middle quarters of 1989 was 15.2 million compared with 15.4 million in the corresponding period in 1988.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she familiar with the survey that has recently been published by the Consumers' Association which shows very clearly that in the past year there has been a decrease in people paying dental visits? The people themselves say that that is because of higher charges and check-up fees. In view of the Government's commitment to preventive medicine, will they not reconsider the question of charges for checkups?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the article in Which? magazine to which the noble Baroness refers reports that one in six people were put off going for checkups in 1989. On that basis we would expect to see a fall in the statistics of about 17 per cent. However, according to the statistics we have, that has definitely not happened. The dip in figures is about 6 per cent. We do not accept that that is a long-term trend.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, has my noble friend any information to show whether any dropping off that

193
has occurred recently with regard to people visiting national health dentists is a result of a possible surge in attendances in order to take advantage of the prices that existed before the recent increase?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is perhaps seeking to make a comparison with the sight test charges. We cannot make a direct comparison there because people do not have their eyes tested as frequently as they visit the dentists. The evidence we have of the overall trend year on year is of a slight increase. As I have said, although we recognise there has been a slight dip we do not accept that it is a long-term trend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the figures she has given do not mean much to dental surgeons and other practitioners involved in dentistry? They are concerned about the long-term effects and what will happen to people who should have visited the dentist three years ago to have their teeth examined but who have not bothered because of the charges. Is the Minister prepared to consider that aspect of the matter as well?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are confident that most people accept the general principle that it is right for those who can afford to do so to pay a small amount for the care of their teeth. It must also be remembered in that context that for 40 per cent. of patients all National Health Service treatment is completely free— for example, for young people under 18, students, pregnant women and those receiving income support. As I said, we do not accept that a long-term trend has been established. We believe that the proposals in the new dentists' contract will also contribute to improving vastly the service that is being offered.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the figures that she gave were so different from the figures given by her honourable friend Mr. Freeman in another place on 20th February, which showed a fall from 7-9 million examinations to 7-4 million examinations? Can she explain why there were half a million fewer examinations than before the charges were introduced? Will she also say what she thinks of the views of the dentists themselves and the BDA that people are waiting until they have trouble with their teeth before going for an examination? Finally, can she give an assurance that in April we shall not see a further increase in examination charges?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the figures that I quoted represented the two middle quarters of last year. The figures quoted by my honourable friend, which the noble Lord has mentioned, are those for the final quarter of last year. The diminution from 7-9 to 7-4 million took place in the final quarter of last year. The figures differ from those quoted by the noble Baroness because our records show when dentists were paid for check-ups, which is usually some time after the check-ups took place.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that the figures that were quoted in another place, which showed a reduction of half a million examinations, were the most recent figures, although she gave different figures which showed a much smaller reduction? Why?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord can be happy because he now has all the figures before him.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, instead of juggling the figures can we not accept the word of 40 per cent. of dentists interviewed who said that the number of patients attending their surgeries has decreased dramatically? Can we not also accept that the patients themselves say that that is because of higher charges and check-up fees?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot accept that the slight dip that has been indicated by our figures represents a dramatic decrease.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has not answered my question? Will she please consider speaking to the British Dental Association in order to get the facts straight so that the right action can be taken?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are frequently in consultation with the representatives of the dentists and their various professional bodies. That is particularly so in the case of the new contracts which are proposed for dentists and which we believe will introduce very important changes to the benefit of patients.

Interest Rates and Inflation
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect the present level of interest rates is having on the rate of inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the contribution of the mortgage interest payments component to the annual rate of increase in the retail prices index in January was 1.9 percentage points.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall the many occasions on which we have been informed that the main objective of high interest rates is to curb consumer spending? In view of the most recent official figures on this matter, which show that consumer spending continues to rise at a fairly high rate after 18 months of high interest rates, does not the Minister now agree that using only interest rates is an abject failure?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I do not agree. I accept that the inclusion of the mortgage interest

195
payments in the RPI leads to the perverse result of increased interest rates pushing up the RPI in the short term. However, in the long term a tight monetary policy will bring inflation down.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an indication as to what he means by "long term?" Will he ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be prepared now to amend his slogan, because quite clearly the interest rate is hurting and is not working?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is beginning to work. I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend. As my noble friend, Lady Hooper says, that will probably not be this afternoon, because he is busy with other matters.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the impact of high interest rates goes much wider than mortgages? Is he not aware that the present level of corporate debt, the debt of industry, is at almost its highest historical level? Since the cost of money is a major factor in industrial costs, does he accept that such high interest rates must have an inflationery impact?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the original Question was about the effect of interest rates on the RPI. Mortgage interest payments are the only form of interest payments which are included in the RPI.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister have a different Question from the one on the Order Paper? That does not mention the RPI; it mentions inflation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the RPI is our measure of inflation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister be more statistically accurate? The RPI is not the necessary measure of the rate of inflation. The Question refers to the present level of interest rates— the generality of interest rates— and how that affects the rate of inflation across the economy. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Donoughue made.
Lord Henley: My Lords, our measure of the rate of inflation is the RPI. It is the best measure that we have, and mortgage interest repayment rates are the only form of interest included in the RPI.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the interest rate is working. Is he satisfied, therefore, that one of the criteria for that judgment is that thousands of people can no longer afford to live in their houses, which have been repossessed? Is that what he calls "working"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I repeat what I have said on many occasions and what my noble friends and colleagues in another place have said. Interest rates
196
will remain as high as is necessary for as long as is necessary to bring down the rate of inflation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister seriously trying to tell the House that the retail prices index is the only measure of inflation that this Government use?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we also consider some uprating of the retail prices index without housing costs. On this occasion I am talking about the retail prices index.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord has admitted that there are other measures of inflation which the Government adopt, such as, the taxes and prices index which a previous Chancellor introduced. Will he now answer the Question as to what effect the present level of interest rates is having on the rate of inflation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have answered that Question. I said that I was answering in terms of the retail prices index and I shall stick to that Answer.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, should we perhaps wait for the result of the Budget this afternoon?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, why are high interest rates not curbing consumer spending?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that retail sales growth picked up in the early part of this year. However, retail sales are still much lower than in 1988 and early 1989. Retail sales growth in 1988 reached 8 per cent. compared with a growth rate of 2.25 per cent. in the three months ending in February.
Lord Jay: My Lords, why is it that this Government have been fighting inflation for 10 years and more but inflation still seems to be winning?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that inflation seems to be winning. The all-items inflation rate is lower now than in the middle of 1989. The underlying rate, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, rose by only half a point since the beginning of 1989, and is only marginally above the rate in May 1989.

Single European Market
3 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in the legislative process needed to establish the single European market.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, excellent progress is being made in the legislative process needed to establish the single European market. The Council of Ministers has now adopted, reached a

197
common position on, or secured agreement in principle to, 166 of the 279 measures in the Commission's White Paper. This means that about 60 per cent. of the programme has been completed.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I welcome the reply of my noble friend with regard to the legislative process. However, can he give any further information as to the United Kingdom's position with regard to joining the exchange rate mechanism?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, back in 1979 when I first spoke from the Dispatch Box in an even more junior position than today, I said that we would join the exchange rate mechanism when the time was right. I am happy to say that that remains the position.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the United Kingdom has just about the best record in implementing the directives agreed under the Single European Act and, above all, the best record in keeping the law once we have agreed to it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that because it is indeed the case. I believe that only about six of the directives and other documents emerging from Brussels in that context have yet to be implemented by the United Kingdom. We accept the purport of all of them and will adhere to them as soon as possible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what were the guidelines and what has yet to be achieved for the Government to be able to say that the time is now right? What must happen?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, a great range of factors must be taken into account, all of which receive constant attention.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that joining the exchange rate mechanism will not be a panacea for all our economic ills? They will be cured only by taking the proper and appropriate measures on a national basis. Will he accept that and will he spell it out loudly and clearly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the most important thing that we must do before the time will be right is to ensure that inflation is under control. That was why my noble friend just gave the answers that he did.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we welcome the progress made towards a single market. However, is the noble Lord aware that, as we drive around the country, we see posters which carry such strange inscriptions as:
"The single market est arrivé"?
Is the noble Lord aware that there is such a poster outside the railway station at Llandrindod Wells which reads:
"El mercado unico 1st gekommen"?
198
Those posters appear to emanate from what used to be known as the department for enterprise, but has now, I believe, reverted to the name of the Department of Trade and Industry. Is the purpose of the posters to teach the citizens of Llandrindod Wells a new form of Esperanto and, if so, are they succeeding in their purpose?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to say that I was born in Llandrindod Wells. I have derived great benefit for the advertisements to which the noble Lord referred, which, as it happens, I was intimately involved in preparing.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 7 [Reports to Secretary of State]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 4 on page 4 and insert ("prepare a report for the first twelve months of its existence, and a report for each succeeding period of twelve months, and shall send each report to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable after the end of the period for which it is prepared.
(2) A report prepared under this section for any period shall deal with the activities of the Authority in the period and the activities the Authority proposes to undertake in the succeeding period of twelve months.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has been brought forward by the Government in response to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, at Report. It seeks to meet concerns which he and other noble Lords have raised that the authority should give notice of its plans for the year ahead as well as a report of its activities for the previous 12 months.
While the Government do not believe that the authority would wish to act in such a peremptory way, they are happy to allay such concerns and I believe that that should be satisfactorily achieved by this amendment. Its effect will be to specify that the authority, in producing an annual report, which will of course be laid before Parliament, shall deal not only with activities during the past year but with planned activities during the next year. That is a sensible arrangement which I am sure that the authority would have chosen to adopt of its own volition in order to ensure that the public and Parliament are fully informed of what it plans to do. However, the amendment puts that matter on record on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I wish to welcome the amendment and say thank you to both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for having given effect to an anxiety of mine and, I think of others in the House; namely, that we should know as far as possible every detail not only of what the authority has done in the past but of what it plans for the future. The amendment gives effect to that. It gives us a chance, if after Report we think it appropriate,

199
to debate the matter ourselves or to allow another place to do so. I am deeply grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Licence committees and other committees]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 6, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
("(8) Subject to subsection (8A) below, a licence committee shall arrange for any premises to which a licence relates to be inspected on its behalf once in each calendar year, and for a report on the inspection to be made to it.
(8A) Any particular premises need not be inspected in any particular year if the licence committee considers an inspection in that year unnecessary.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 21 and 23.
The government amendments result from points raised by my noble friend Lord Caldecote during Committee and Report stages. He wanted to ensure that licensed premises were inspected at least annually. He wanted the legislation to ensure that the authority must appoint:
"competent inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority considers necessary to enforce the conditions of the licences granted to the premises and any other relevant provisions"
of the Act. This is also the purpose of Amendment No. 21 which is in his name on the Marshalled List.
After consideration, the Government have concluded that it would be helpful to place an obligation on the authority to ensure that those of its staff who carry out inspections for licensing purposes are of suitable character and are properly qualified by means of training and experience. Amendment No. 23 goes a long way to meeting my noble friend's concerns. However, we do not think it necessary to add further to the Bill about the numbers of its staff that the authority will involve in carrying out its inspection functions. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 already gives the authority sufficient powers to appoint the staff it thinks it will need to carry out its functions, its principal function being to operate the licensing system, which, of course, includes inspecting premises which will be licensed under the Bill or are seeking a licence. I hope that my noble friend Lord Caldecote is therefore assured on that point and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
We do, however, consider that my noble friend's other point on frequency of inspection is not covered to the same degree by the existing provision in the Bill. Whereas it is clear that a responsible authority would ensure that inspections were carried out by properly qualified persons, whether members of the authority or members of its staff, it does not follow from the Bill as at present drafted that such inspections should normally be carried out each year. It is clearly the desire of the House, and the Government fully understand this, that the licensing provisions of the Bill should be strictly enforced. Amendment No. 2 therefore provides that a licence committee must arrange for licensed premises to be
200
inspected once a year, unless the committee considers an inspection unnecessary. While it is clearly important that the authority ensures that the terms of a licence are complied with, the Government consider that a licence committee should have the discretion to dispense with the requirement in cases where it is clear to the committee that an inspection is unnecessary in that particular year.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are consequential to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, broadly speaking, I support the proposals made by the noble Baroness and believe they are an improvement, as was the first amendment that she proposed.
However, I have two concerns. The first, in Amendment No. 2, relates to subsection (8A) which contains the phrase:
"if the licence committee considers an inspection in that year unnecessary".
Obviously, that flies in the face of the concept contained in the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote; namely, that a licensed premises should be inspected at least annually. Perhaps the noble Baroness will give the circumstances that she has in mind in which the rule of an annual inspection, which I thought at one moment she seemed to support, would be thought to be unnecessary. Would it not be difficult for a committee with a large number of premises under its supervision to decide that it did not need to have them inspected without inspecting them to see if they needed to be inspected? Perhaps the noble Baroness could comment on that point?
My other point related to Amendment No. 4:
"An inspection in pursuance … may be carried out by a person who is not a member of a licence committee".
As I understood it, an inspection would normally be carried out by more than one person. We have spoken of the possibility that there might well be included a doctor, a scientist and a lay person. Does this amendment relate to a person who might be part of an inspecting team? Perhaps she could say a little more about what lies behind the Government's thinking on the reference to:
"a person who is not a member of a licence committee".
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, at an earlier stage of this Bill I moved amendments relating to inspection, as my noble friend Lady Hooper said. At Report stage my noble friend undertook to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to give effect to the substance of my amendments.
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and to my noble friend Lady Hooper for the trouble that they have taken to look at this point. The undertaking has been fully carried out in Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 23. They seem to me to be entirely satisfactory and to have achieved the objective of my amendments, albeit in a slightly different way. I do not therefore intend to move Amendment No. 21. I repeat my gratitude to my noble and learned friend and to my noble friend for the great care and trouble that they have taken with their advisers to deal with the point which I raised.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to follow up the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench. It seems rather curious that an inspection is to be carried out by a person. It is almost: casual. It is as though someone just drops in to deal with what is a highly complicated business. After all, we are not exactly talking about a person who is serving fish and chips. The amendment states that:
"Any particular premises need not be inspected … if the licence committee considers an inspection … unnecessary".
That is very unusual legislation. I am sure that the health and safety regulations and matters of that character are not dealt with in such a casual way. It is almost as though the committee will say that there is no point in anybody going. Or is it a matter of seeing who will volunteer to go? It is extraordinary legislation and I am sure that if we look at the Acts relating to inspection of premises for any reason we shall see that this is quite new.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are operating on the premise that the authority which is to be appointed will be a responsible body that will take account of the kind of anxieties expressed by your Lordships. Our intention is and always has been not to impose a straitjacket on this highly responsible body.
In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, there could be some circumstances in which inspections would be unnecessary on an annual basis. For example, the centre which has applied for a licence or has a licence might be closed for a large part of the period. I am glad that my noble friend has recognised that our amendment covers the position.
With regard to Amendment No. 4 and the point raised about "a person", this must be read in conjunction with paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 which, as I have already pointed out, gives the authority powers to appoint the staff that it considers it will need to carry out its functions. We should expect the inspecting group to be composed of suitably qualified people. This amendment simply allows the possibility of "a person" to be part of that group if he is not a member of the licence committee. I trust that noble Lords will accept my response to the questions that have been raised.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will clarify the wording in subsection (8A)? Does it mean that any particular premises need not be inspected in one particular year? The wording is "any particular year". Would it be possible, for instance, for the authority to determine that the premises will not be inspected this year and then next year also to determine that they will not be inspected, or will it be confined to one year only?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding is that it would relate to one particular year. After all, licences will be issued for a certain number of years. I would expect that the extent, if any, of the discretion to be used by the authority would be covered in the authority's annual report, to which
202
we have also just spoken, in terms of what it has done in the past year and what it plans to do in the future years.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 5, line 10, after ("subsection") insert ("or subsection (8) "). Page 5, line 12, at end insert:
("(10) An inspection in pursuance of subsection (7) or (8) above may be carried out by a person who is not a member of a licence committee.")..
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move that these amendments be taken together. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [General conditions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line1, leave out ("payment in money or money's worth shall be made") and insert ("money or other benefit shall be given").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 22. During the Report stage of the Bill I moved two amendments. One made it a condition of all licences granted by the authority that no payment in money or money's worth could be made or received in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos unless the payment was authorised by directions. The other provided that, where a person to whom a licence applies or the nominal licensee makes or receives any payment in money or money's worth, other than a payment authorised by directions, in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos, he would be guilty of an offence.
During the debates on these amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, expressed his concern that the words "money or money's worth" might not cover the case in which a woman is offered private treatment or some special preference if she agrees to donate eggs while undergoing sterilisation. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing this matter to my attention. In response, the Government have put down Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 22.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 make it a condition of all licences granted by the authority that no money or other benefit shall be given or received in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos unless authorised by directions. This will be a matter for the authority to consider but it is hard to envisage that it will countenance any significant payments to donors; but it may, for example, choose to allow the reimbursement of their incidental or travelling expenses. Amendment No. 22 is consequential to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 and provides that where a person to whom a licence applies or the nominal licensee gives or receives any money or other benefit not authorised by directions, in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos, he is guilty of an offence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("the payment is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Conditions of licences for treatment]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 9, leave out ("whose gametes or embryos are to be used") and insert ("providing gametes or from whom embryos are taken for use").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment makes clear that it shall be a condition of all treatment licences that suitable procedures should be maintained for determining which persons are to provide gametes or from whom embryos are to be taken for subsequent use in treatment services. In the Bill as at present drafted the words:
"whose gametes or embryos are to be used"
may be taken to imply ownership of gametes and embryos in a way that the Bill generally seeks to avoid. Schedule 3 of the Bill sets out the system of consents which will be needed before gametes or embryos can be used for any purpose. The amendment ensures that Clause 13 (6) is drafted in accordance with the system of consents. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Directions as to particular matters]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 49, at end insert:
("(10) Where the Authority proposes to give directions specifying any animal for the purposes of paragraph 1 (1) ((f) or 3 (4) of Schedule 2 to this Act, it shall report the proposal to the Secretary of State; and the directions shall not be given until the Secretary of State has laid a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment deals with another point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, during the debates on the Report stage of the Bill. The amendment would operate when the authority proposes to give directions specifying an animal other than a hamster for the purposes of paragraph 1 (1) (f) or 3 (4) of Schedule 2 which deal with treatment and research licences respectively. The amendment requires the authority to report that proposal to the Secretary of State and directions shall not be given until the Secretary of State has laid a copy of the report before each House of Parliament. In practice, this will mean that Parliament will be aware of any such proposal which is made by the new authority.
Having considered carefully the debate last week, I think there was substance to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and that it is right that Parliament should be put in this position should the authority propose to make a direction of this kind. I hope the noble Earl and other noble Lords will feel that this amendment effectively meets their concerns on this difficult matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, again I have to say how grateful I am for the amendment which has been put forward. I was very worried that there was not an adequate safeguard to ensure that before any
204
change were made, if ever any change is to be made, in the type of mixing, of human sperm with other than that of a hamster, we should be aware of it and have the chance to comment upon it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was readily agreeable to accepting the same principle. I want to thank the Government for having given effect to this provision. These few words achieve exactly what we wanted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Meaning of "mother"]:
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 42, at end insert ("unless the embryo placed is not created from the egg of the woman, or the egg placed is not that of the woman, and before the placing in her of the embryo or egg the woman has consented not to be treated as the mother of the resulting child").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has sent his sincere apologies to your Lordships' House for not being able to be present in the Chamber this afternoon to move the amendment. He spoke to me this morning and asked me to explain the substance of the amendment and to move it on his behalf.
The position is as follows. A recent case has caused considerable concern. It involved a lady who did not possess a womb— or a uterus— but who did have functioning ovaries. She was able to have ova, or eggs, removed from her ovaries which were then fertilised in vitro by her husband's sperm and another lady willingly volunteered to carry the baby on behalf of the couple. The result was that the surrogate lady carried the baby, the birth was normal but, of course, the child was genetically that of the original lady from whom the ova were removed and of her husband. However, the legal position was such that at the end of the day they were not able to have the child without going through the full legal process of adoption, even though the surrogate mother willingly undertook to carry the child. Even at this stage, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, wanted this issue to be brought to the attention of your Lordships' House so that the point might be taken into consideration in future legislation. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. It seems to me that as the situation stands at present the law is in danger of looking an ass. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to meet the concerns of my noble friend.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment. It seems to us to address a gap in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it is certainly true to say that the amendment addresses a situation. Clause 27 provides that where a woman carries a child as a result of embryo or egg donation, she is to be treated as the mother of that child to the exclusion of all others. The amendment would qualify that rule by

205
providing an exception where the woman has consented in advance not to be treated as the mother. Such an arrangement might be sought by couples who wish to commission a surrogate mother to carry their child.
The amendment would not achieve what I suspect is the aim; that is, to ensure that the genetic parents of a child born to a surrogate mother have full parental status. Under the Bill as drafted, where an embryo is created by in vitro fertilisation and transferred to the womb of a "host mother", the genetic parents will be both treated as donors. Neither will have parental status as regards the child, by virtue of Clause 27 (1) and Clause 28 (5) (a).
The reason that donors will not have parental status is that in the vast majority of cases they are anonymous and have no social relationship with the child. Parenthood involves, among other things, liability to maintain the child and this policy safeguards those who, in a public spirited act, donate eggs or sperm for the treatment of others, from such liability. The effect of the amendment would therefore be that where the woman had, in advance, consented not to be treated as the mother of the child, the genetic mother would be, in law, the mother. But because of Clause 28 (5) (a), the genetic father would not be treated as the father. I am sure that is not what those who support this amendment intend. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, the amendment has been put forward rather late in the proceedings on the Bill simply to raise the issue.
I should now like to turn to the major matters underlying the amendment. The policy in Clause 27, that the carrying mother should be treated as the mother of a donation child to the exclusion of all others, was recommended by the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and was outlined in the White Paper, Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation (Cmnd. 259). To take the opposite view might fulfil the intentions of those few people who enter into "womb leasing" arrangements, but such a policy would have numerous disadvantages.
Such a view ignores the practical, physical and emotional realities of the post-natal situation and the fact that the only person who can be guaranteed to be present to care for the child at its birth, unless death intervenes, is the carrying mother. It would take no account of the emotional attachment which arises as a result of carrying a child through to term, sometimes at significant physical cost and the "bonding" that occurs between the carrying mother and the child during pregnancy and at birth. Moreover, it ignores the physiological consequences in the mother, such as lactation.
In in vitro fertilisation and egg donation cases, the genetic blueprint of the child is that of the donor. But the flesh and bone that forms the body of the child is entirely formed by the carrying mother. The donor is responsible only for a single cell or small group of cells which is introduced to the mother. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the view that the child is to be regarded as the child of the genetic parent in that situation. It must be wrong and it is at variance with Clause 33 (1) which makes surrogacy
206
unenforceable in law. In principle the amendment makes a surrogacy arrangement enforceable in law by preventing the ordinary result of carrying the child to have its consequence as a result of an antecedent agreement such as is mentioned in the clause.
In view of these strong emotional attachments and the physical consequences, there may well be circumstances in which a surrogate mother does not wish, having carried the child, to hand it over. If the amendment were to be agreed to, I think that the consequence would be that she would be forced to do so. As experience surely has shown, there may also be circumstances in which the commissioning parents prove unwilling to accept the child, for example if it were born handicapped, perhaps as a result of the carrying mother's conduct or an accident during pregnancy. There must never be any doubt about who is responsible for the child. Clause 27 is intended to put that question beyond doubt. By introducing the notion of consent, the amendment would remove that certainty. That can hardly be in the interests of the child. As I say, that would certainly have the effect of giving a surrogacy arrangement the appearance of enforceability.
As a matter of policy we have said that that should not be so and that is one of its consequences. In the White Paper the Government made clear their intention that legislation should not give any encouragement to the practice of surrogacy arranged privately or on a non-commercial basis. In Clause 33 the present Bill provides that surrogacy arrangements are to be unenforceable in law. That is not just because the practice of surrogacy creates a situation in which the interests of the child can never be guaranteed, but also because of the difficulties which the surrogate mother herself may face. For example, she may have to pretend to family and friends that she is carrying her own and her husband's child, and, after the child is born and she has given it to the commissioning parents, she may have to pretend that she has lost the child.
Dr. John Dawson, head of the British Medical Association's professional and ethics committee, was quoted in a newspaper on 4th March as saying:
"We would be appalled if we thought there was going to be a trend towards the widescale use of surrogate pregnancy in this country.".
The Government agree with that view.
Commissioning couples and surrogate mothers should be aware of the pitfalls involved in these arrangements. This is recognised in the ethical guidelines issued last week by the British Medical Association. Under those guidelines, doctors will be required to ensure that couples understand that surrogacy agreements are not enforceable, that the surrogate mother will be the child's legal mother, and that they will have to adopt the baby if they want to become its legal parents.
I should like to stress that the arrangements allow that. Therefore, if there is no obstacle and all goes as originally planned, that legal procedure is available by which a legal relationship can at that stage be established between the genetic parents and the child.

207
The BMA has advised that couples will be advised to seek legal advice and be warned that they may not be allowed to adopt a baby born to a surrogate mother. All parties should enter into such an arrangement with their eyes open and with the welfare of the child uppermost in the minds of everybody involved.
I believe that very few people enter into surrogacy arrangements even in comparison with the few who seek the infertility treatments which the Bill will regulate. The rules laid down by the Bill are intended to benefit those who receive infertility treatment involving donation and the children born to them. Clause 27 as drafted will, in my view, in by far the majority of cases reflect not only the intentions of all involved but also the social reality. The few cases where that proves not to be the case can properly be left to the law of adoption and I believe should be so left.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for raising this point and to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for taking up the torch in the noble Lord's unavoidable absence. However, I strongly suggest to your Lordships that the policy as provided in the Bill is the sound policy. In the very few cases where a difficulty of the kind which this amendment addresses arises, the law of adoption applying after the birth appears to be the best way of solving the problem.
I entirely accept that this is an extremely difficult issue and an important one to be addressed. However, I believe that that is addressed in the Bill and is best left in that form. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. Of course, this issue may well arise as the Bill goes through another place. It is an important general issue, as is the whole question of surrogacy which will no doubt receive attention as the Bill is further considered.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his very full and detailed consideration of this problem. In agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that I would draw this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House, I told him that in my view it raised very considerable complex legal and moral issues.
I say in passing that I too take the view that I do not wish to see any major extension of surrogacy arrangements in this country— a measure to which I personally should be very much opposed. Nevertheless, the problems in this case were such that I believed that your Lordships should be aware of them. With that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 14, line 45, at end insert:
(" (3) Subsection (1) above applies whether the woman was in the United Kingdom or elsewhere at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. Clause 27
208
provides that where a woman carries a child as a result of embryo or egg donation she, the carrying mother, is to be treated as the child's mother to the exclusion of all others. Clause 28 (2) provides that where a child is born to a married woman as a result of gamete or embryo donation, her husband is to be treated as the child's father unless it is shown that he did not consent.
These amendments will clarify the territorial application of these clauses. The effect will be that where the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland applies to determine the status of parents and children born as a result of donation, it will be immaterial whether the treatment took place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. If we do not amend the clauses in this way, I am advised that they will be construed as applying only to treatment in the United Kingdom.
That would give rise to some odd results. Let us suppose that an English or Scottish married couple, domiciled in the United Kingdom, go to live abroad for a short time and obtain treatment and the child is born after their return. The child will not in law be theirs because Clause 28 (2) would not apply as the treatment had taken place outside the United Kingdom. The effect would be that the child was, in effect, rendered fatherless. Strictly speaking, the donor would be the father, but he is most likely to be anonymous.
This is not a desirable result. The answer is that in circumstances such as those I have described, Clauses 27 and 28 should operate to determine who, in law, are the parents. That is the purpose of these amendments.
Perhaps I should add that, as concerns Clause 28, these amendments will only have effect as regards married couples. If the House agrees to Amendment No. 12 the effect will be that unmarried men will in certain circumstances be treated as fathers of donation children. But for reasons which I will explain when we reach that amendment that will only apply where the woman was treated by a person to whom a licence applies. The licensing system can of course operate only within the UK. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I warmly welcome this amendment from the noble and learned Lord. I had not recognised that there was a defect and therefore I am grateful to him for recognising that. The reason that I welcome the amendment is, first, that I believe that anything which removes uncertainties about whether the mother is the mother of the child and the child is the daughter or the son of the mother must be good. With the amendments written in during Report stage, where the interests of the child were always to be taken as paramount, it seems to me that the bonding between mother and child is as important, if not more important, in those births which are not identical to normal and regular births. Therefore, I believe that by strengthening the law in that respect the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made an important contribution to that relationship.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this point but I am rather puzzled. If the woman receives

209
treatment in another country, is there a law which says that she must inform the authorities of that fact when she returns to the United Kingdom? Otherwise, who will know and how will they know?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is the point. If it came to be discovered, that would create an uncertainty about the status of the child. If nothing is found out about that and all is kept private, no problem arises because the child is seen to be born in the normal course of events and no query is raised on that. On the other hand, if a query were raised this amendment would apply and settle the matter.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his comments on this amendment. I believe that it removes the possibility of uncertainty in this area.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Meaning of "father"]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 15, line 10, leave out ("subsections (4) and (5) ") and insert ("subsection (4) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is simply to improve the drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 15, line 13, at end insert:
(" (2A) If no man is treated, by virtue of subsection (2) above, as the father of the child but—

(a) the embryo or the sperm and eggs were placed in the woman, or she was artificially inseminated, in the course of treatment services provided for her and a man together by a person to whom a licence applies, and

(b) the creation of the embryo carried by her was not brought about with the sperm of that man,

then, subject to subsection (4) below, that man shall be treated as the father of the child.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 28 provides that where a married woman carries a child as a result of treatment involving gamete or embryo donation, then her husband is to be treated as the father of that child unless it is shown that he did not consent to the treatment.
In speaking to Amendment No. 12 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. These amendments, in effect, extend the provision of Clause 28 so that where an unmarried couple receive treatment together the male partner will be treated as the child's father. During the Report stage of this Bill an amendment of a similar nature was proposed by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne and by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, supported by others. I undertook to consider further the matters raised by the amendment and my noble friend and his supporters kindly withdrew it.
The conclusion I have reached is that if it is to remain possible for unmarried couples to receive the benefit of treatment to bring a child into being, both should have imposed upon them the responsibility for the child. I was most concerned that this proposal should not be seen as encouraging unmarried people
210
to use infertility treatments, thus perhaps undermining marriage, or leading to children having unsuitable social fathers because of the difficulty in distinguishing partners to stable relationships from more transitory ones. On reflection, having regard to the other provisions of the Bill, these considerations should not deter us from inserting this amendment.
With regard to encouraging unmarried couples to seek treatment, the result of this scheme will be that the man becomes responsible for maintaining the child. That will, if anything, discourage the irresponsible use of the treatments by unmarried couples. Moreover, because the man is not married to the mother of the child, he, like any unmarried father, would receive no benefit in the sense of acquiring parental rights, but only the duty to maintain the child. He could acquire such rights by obtaining a court order under Section 4 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, or under the equivalent provision of the Children Act 1989 when it comes into force, but the existing demarcation between married and unmarried parents will be preserved.
As to the man being unsuitable, as I have said, the imposition of a duty to maintain should discourage irresponsible men and particularly those whose relationship with the mother is not enduring. Furthermore, as a result of amendments which this House agreed to during Report stage, those providing treatment will be required to have regard to the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment and any other child who may be affected by the birth. That will be an added safeguard against the risk of unsuitable fathers.
Conferring fatherhood on the man in these circumstances will have three further benefits for the child. First, an advantage to the child will be that he will be able to seek support from the man's estate if the man should die. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, pointed out during the Report stage, under the Bill as drafted children born to unmarried couples would, in law, have no father. These amendments will mean that there will be fewer fatherless children. And, thirdly, the formal recognition of the man's fatherhood may help to cement and strengthen the relationship within the informal family and reduce the risks of breakdown and its consequences for the child and, indeed, too often the taxpayer. That may well lead to a more formal enduring relationship instead of the informal one from which it started.
These amendments will create a new subsection, the effect of which is limited to those treated together by a person to whom a licence applies. The effect of that limitation is that all persons who seek fatherhood in this way will be subject to the regulatory framework provided by the Bill. In particular, as I have already said, the clinic providing the treatment will have to take account of the welfare of the child. And both parties will be given an opportunity for counselling so that they will be fully aware of the legal and other implications of their actions.
However, the unsupervised use of artificial insemination techniques outside the statutory scheme, including treatment outside the jurisdiction

211
of the United Kingdom, will not be covered by the new provisions. Without the regulation provided by the Bill, it would be extremely difficult to be certain about who is the mother's partner and who is to be treated, for the purposes of this amendment, as the father.
In my view, these amendments give effect to the very important principle that the responsibility travels with the benefit and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this amendment. It goes a considerable way towards meeting very grave concerns as to the fate of the donor child of an unmarried couple should any misfortune overtake the mother and consequently the grave risk that the child might be taken into care because he has no family to care for him. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I welcome this amendment, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord will explain exactly why paragraph (b) is necessary. It seems to me that if the man's own sperm is used, that is all the more reason to treat him as the father instead of his being disqualified by that paragraph.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment and say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord for moving it. It will undoubtedly reduce the number of fatherless children being created. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word with regard to the amendment because once again the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has achieved a very difficult task. When this issue was first debated I took a different view from that of the noble Lady and the noble Lord who has just spoken. One noble Lord accused me of preaching against the significance and value of marriage. I was not doing that; I was seeking to emphasise— perhaps unsuccessfully— the importance of the responsibility which is placed upon someone recognised as a father whether or not that father is married. Quality of parenthood cannot always be judged by whether or not a father and mother are married.
We should seek to minimise, as this amendment does, the number of fatherless children who are born. I make the same remarks about this amendment as I did before; the closer the link between the father and the child, however unusual are the circumstances of the birth, the better will be the family life of that group and the higher will be the quality of life for the child. Therefore, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment, which provides a very acceptable
212
solution to the moral, legal and social problems which arise in a very difficult and occasionally inescapable situation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I can, first, answer the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. Unless the condition in paragraph (b) is fulfilled, this amendment is not required. If the man's own sperm is used, the common law makes that man the father. The reason therefore for inserting paragraph (b) is to make clear that it is only required in the case covered by (b).
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. As the noble Lords, Lord Ennals, and Lord McGregor, have both said, these are very difficult issues. They were brought to our attention and debated at all stages of the Bill. As the debate has developed, so solutions to the important problems have become reasonably clear. I am glad that those who started with perhaps somewhat different points of view are able to see this as at least a possible solution— it may not be the only one— which goes a long way towards meeting all the concerns that have been expressed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 15, line 15, after (" (2) ") insert or (2A").
Page 15, line 17, leave out ("Subsection (2) above does") and insert ("Subsections (2) and (2A) above do").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 12. With your Lordships' leave, I move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15, line 37, after ("time") insert ("or parties to a marriage who at that time had been living apart for not less than three years or were legally separated,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to take a little further a point I raised on Report and to which the noble and learned Lord said that he would give favourable consideration. The amendment seeks to extend the exclusion from being a father to states where not only have couples been legally separated but where they have been living apart for a period of not less than three years. I felt that if the former point was to be considered favourably it should also be extended to cases such as this. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the House knows, and as the noble Lord has explained, subsection (2) of Clause 28 provides that where a child is born as a result of donation to a woman who is party to a marriage, the mother's husband will be treated as the child's father unless it is shown that he did not consent. Subsection 6 (a) makes clear that the references to the parties to a marriage do not include parties to a marriage dissolved or annulled at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has had further thoughts and comes forward with an additional suggestion. He suggests that if the Bill includes parties who are legally separated— that was the

213
position at Report stage— it should also include couples who have been living apart for not less than three years. That demonstrates that one can indicate many conditions which would help to show that consent had not been granted. I had not finished considering the first aspect when along came this second aspect. For all I know, there are a third and further aspects to come yet. Possibly a more radical solution is required. I have not been able to complete my consideration, but if the noble Lord is content to leave the matter with me I can assure him that, though the Bill will pass from this House today, the point will not pass out of our consideration. We shall see how we can deal with it.
There may be scope for some machinery which will deal with this question of consent in a way that will be easy to refer to, but I am not in a position to offer my solution to this problem today. The noble Lord's development of the subject shows that it is not as. easy as at first sight it appeared to him when he moved his amendment on Report.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I realise that he may not have completed consideration of the amendment I tabled on Report. However, this is the last opportunity I have of suggesting this development. Therefore, while I have no intention of pressing the amendment in any way I hope that this additional point will receive consideration for inclusion, perhaps in another place. In the light of the undertaking that the noble and learned Lord has so kindly given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 15, line 42, at end insert—
(" (7) This section applies whether the woman was in the United Kingdom or elsewhere at the time of the placing in her of the embryo of the sperm and eggs of her artificial insemination.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Effect of sections 27 and 28]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 15, line 46, at end insert—
("Provided that this subsection shall apply only in relation to deeds or other instruments or documents executed after the commencement of this Act by a person, other than a person who is by virtue of section 26 and 27 of this Act to be treated as the mother or father of the child, and in the case of a deed or other instrument made in the exercise of a special power of appointment shall apply only where the deed or other instrument creating the power is executed after such commencement.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, this amendment was withdrawn at Report stage because, in rejecting it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment at present. Perhaps the noble Lady … will want to consider the matter. I
214
am certainly willing to consider it further".— [Official Report, 6/3/90; col. 1152.]
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has had time to consider the matter any further, but I have, as has my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey who is unavoidably prevented, by illness, from being here today.
We have read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on Report. My noble and learned friend asked:
"Why should testators and trustors have imposed upon them beneficiaries of whom they might never have conceived and, had they conceived, whom they might not have wished to benefit?"— [col. 1151.]
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied:
"The main reason is that, whereas adoption and legitimation were matters with which the testator or grantor of the deed might be presumed to be familiar, this is a different situation. It is a technique, in effect, for producing a child who is very closely connected with the person in question".— [col. 1152.]
I assume the person in question to be the testator or trustor. Is the child born by sperm donation of the testator's or trustor's daughter-in-law, or the child of his daughter, born by egg donation very closely connected with him? I do not think that he is. If I were a testator and had, in my ignorance of these techniques, left property, possibly family property, to my grandchildren who I naively assumed would be my descendants by blood I should be spinning in my grave with fury at the prospect of a person who is no blood relation of mine taking under my will. Similarly, had I made a trust on the same naive assumption and discovered that, on the passing of the Bill, under the terms of the trust deed my estate would go to the donor child of my eldest son's wife, I should certainly not feel kindly disposed towards that lady. Perhaps I could break the trust and start all over again, but that is easier said than done.
On Report my noble and learned friend gave as examples the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968, the Family Law Reform Act 1969, and the Family Law Reform Act 1987. In all those Acts rights of succession granted to adopted or illegitimate children only applied in the case of deeds executed after the coming into force of the Act.
I am aware that in Section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987— the section concerned with donor children— this precedent was disregarded. I believe that it went by default because no one spotted the implicit effect of the clause when the Bill was being debated in this House. I have read all the Hansard reports of the debates on the amendments to that clause at all stages of the Bill in this House. That aspect was never mentioned at all; nor was it the subject of any amendments. However, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, recommending the clause to the House at Second Reading, said:
"If need be, the clause can be amended later if it gives rise to difficulty".— [Official Report, 27/11/86; col. 652.]
I suggest that the time has come to amend that clause instead of using it as a precedent. I contend that both that clause and the Bill we are discussing

215
may foist retrospectively on a testator or truster a beneficiary he is likely not to have wished to benefit. I beg to move.
4. p.m.
Lord Keith of Kinkel: My Lords, I support this amendment and I am particularly glad to do so in view of the unavoidable absence today of my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle. Perhaps I may give a somewhat exaggerated example by way of illustration of the kind of situation with which this amendment is designed to deal. Let us suppose that a noble Earl dies before this clause comes into operation. He is survived by his widow and he leaves two sons, James and John. Under his will he bequeathed to his widow for life his castle and, after her death, to James, whom failing, his sons in order of seniority, whom failing, to John and his sons in order of seniority.
James pre-deceases the widow leaving one son whom his wife conceived by donation. John is still surviving and inherits the title. If this amendment is not passed the result will be that the donor child of James will inherit the castle to the exclusion of John. That is not the kind of situation which is just, right or proper. The testator died without having in contemplation this particular provision to be passed in the future which confers right of succession on this category of child.
That is an extreme example but others of a similar character could well occur. As my noble friend Lady Saltoun has indicated, and as was indicated at earlier debates in the passage of this Bill, there are provisions in various Acts which confer rights of succession on illegitimate and on adopted children. All these Acts contain provisions which save the effects of deeds executed before the legislation came into effect.
I am aware that Section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 does not have a similar saving clause in relation to rights of succession conferred on donor children. As my noble friend Lady Saltoun has said and as she discovered through her researches, that legislation went through without this particular point of principle being raised and without it being debated in this House. If that is to be a future precedent it is very unfortunate that it should come about without a debate.
I observe in passing that Section 27 of the 1987 Act applies only in England. It does not apply to Scotland, and I believe I am right in saying that there is no similar provision for Northern Ireland. No distinction in principle can reasonably or properly be drawn in connection with this point between adopted, illegitimate and donor children. It is said that if the amendment were passed it would discriminate against donor children. At the moment and without the amendment, there is discrimination in favour of donor children, particularly in relation to adopted and illegitimate children.
I believe it is said that whereas the process of adoption and legitimation might be familiar to a testator who died before the relevant legislation, the possibility of a donor child inheriting would not be
216
in his contemplation. That is a very good reason for agreeing to this amendment. Clearly, one should not bring about a situation where someone inherits who was not in the contemplation at all of the testator in question because it never occurred to him that this piece of legislation might be proposed and passed.
One cannot reasonably infer from that kind of situation that a testator or truster would have wished to include donor children among his beneficiaries. There are some instances and I gave an illustration on opening. That is clearly one of them. Further, it should be kept in mind that this is a purely transitional provision. There is no question of any discrimination in the long run against any category of child. Quite a serious point of principle is raised here and I seriously commend this amendment to your Lordships.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, this amendment was tabled at an earlier stage. Because mainly Scots spoke to it, I believe that your Lordships thought that the amendment applies to Scotland. In fact, it applies to anyone in England as well. There has been a great deal of concern as regards some legislation that it should not be made retrospective. I know that that argument has been used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to prevent certain amendments to various Bills because they might be retrospective.
Without this amendment this legislation clearly is retrospective. I am a trustee of an accumulation and maintenance trust which could be affected by this legislation. The trust was set up a few years ago for the granchildren and it could go to one or several of them. I know that it is certainly not the intention of the grandparents who made that accumulation and maintenance trust that it should go to grandchildren born as the result of donation. The simple reason is that it is a family property involved, with strong emotional ties. Therefore, I believe that this amendment is necessary to the Bill.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I would not wish to see an amendment passed or any piece of legislation enacted which discriminated for or against a child because it had been born as a result of insemination. Discrimination either way is wrong. Once it became known that, in terms of inheritance, there was to be discrimination against a child because of the circumstances of its birth, that immediately challenges the admirable amendment that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor presented.
The interest of this Bill concerns the child. If we create circumstances in which a child is discriminated against because of circumstances over which that child— or for that matter that embryo— had no influence whatever, it would become most unfortunate legislation.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he deal with the point of adopted and illegitimate children? At present they are discriminated against legally and acceptably in this fashion.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if we have a Bill that deals with those issues I might intervene, but they are not affected by this legislation.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am not thinking of voting either for or against this amendment which highlights the stupidity of this piece of legislation. If two people are concerned with the birth of a child the position is clear, but if two others are introduced there will be trouble. The issue is irrespective of whether the property concerned is a castle or something that has been left to the grandchildren. I became very worried about this matter and I shall have to reframe my will. I ask myself who is going to have my estate, always assuming that the Government leave me anything to bequeath and that the inheritance tax has not increased.
There is something totally ridiculous about this legislation. I am sorry to say that. I am not referring to this particular amendment, which highlights the unreality of this legislation. I shall say this again when we come to debate whether the Bill do now pass. I cannot let the opportunity go by now without saying something on the subject.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, happily the noble Baroness is still with us, and I hope that she will remain with us for a long time. She can deal with the contingency to which this amendment is directed by a suitable alteration to her will and no doubt she would wish to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the question of discrimination. There is bound to be discrimination one way or the other. Either one will discriminate against the donor child or one will discriminate against those whom it was the intention of the original creator of the trust or testator to benefit.
Perhaps I may give an example slightly less grand than the one involving castles given by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. It is a perfectly straightforward case of parents or grandparents, father or mother, long since dead, who some years ago sought to benefit their grandchildren and perhaps great grandchildren after their deaths. They created a common form trust. It may or may not have been an accumulator. They died, leaving a son. The son married and had children. The grandson married, but the daughter-in-law who had absolutely no blood relationship with the creators of the will trust then had a donor child. There was no blood relationship of any kind. The whole purpose of trusts, will trusts and so on is to give effect to the intention of those whom the creators of the trust intended to benefit. It is the duty of the courts to do so unless Parliament otherwise intervenes. If this provision goes through unamended it will prevent the intention of those who created the trusts being given full effect. People will come in and benefit whom it was never intended to benefit.
It is perfectly possible to put this right for the future by suitable amendment of wills and trust deeds produced hereafter whether under the law of England or, although I am not competent to talk about it, the law of Scotland. What it is not competent to do is to alter retrospectively trust deeds or wills which may well have been entered into
218
decades ago. That is what this provision unamended will do. It will lead to discrimination against those children who were intended to benefit originally. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the question that arises under this amendment and what is in a way fundamental to its consideration is what a testator or truster would have done if faced with the knowledge that a child was born to his son or daughter by one of these treatments. I said at Report that these techniques were not previously contemplated and that I would find it difficult to believe that it is clear that a parent would want to say that a child born to his son or daughter by this technique was not to inherit with other children born to that son or daughter. That is what I had in mind at that stage. This amendment would take out altogether the possibility of these children being in the deeds.
The problem with which Clause 29 (3) seeks to deal is one of the construction or interpretation of enactments and private deeds and instruments. The problem as I see it with the amendment is that it would limit the rule only to future enactments and instruments. That would be unfortunate enough, in my view, if Clause 28 were an entirely new provision. But it is not. We now have to contemplate three eras, as it were. The first time is before the passing of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, when there was no statutory provision governing the paternity of children born by donation and therefore no need for a rule of construction.
In passing, perhaps I should say a word about the strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on the Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness would like to see these treatments controlled and that therefore she would like to see the Bill enacted; otherwise there would be no control of the treatments. The precise terms on which the Bill should proceed is another matter. I think she may be going too far, having regard to her own wishes, in wanting to destroy the Bill altogether.
Then came Section 27 of the 1987 Act, which conferred social fatherhood in AID cases on the woman's husband. No special rule of construction was included in that Act. I accept that the point was not discussed at that stage but Parliament passed the law in relation to England and Wales. No special rule of construction was included in that Act to exclude children born in this way.
Now we have the clauses of this Bill which in major part repeat Section 27 of the 1987 Act but extend it to all children born by donation to a married woman. On this occasion we have decided to provide a rule of construction. However, unless we are to make distinctions between existing AID children whose paternity is governed by Section 27 of the 1987 Act and future children whose paternity will be governed by Clause 28 of this Bill this Bill, we cannot limit the rule of construction to future cases only. Some rule is required in relation to the past. We have therefore settled so far on a broad rule unlimited in its application by reference to time.
The suggestion has been made, in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that such a rule is

219
retrospective and unfair especially to past testators and those who have executed trusts and other instruments. I doubt that in practice there will be unfairness. The rule in Clause 29 (3) is not an iron rule. It will not prevent a person, if he so wishes, distinguishing between children born by donation and others.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, we are talking about deeds that have already been executed and cannot be changed. This amendment deals purely with deeds and so on that are already in existence. The amendment does not apply to future deeds. The Bill as drafted applies to such deeds retrospectively. The people who executed them cannot change them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am well aware of that point and I am seeking to deal with it by saying that Clause 29 treats the child as related to the mother or father in question. But I am making a different point now. I am saying that that does not exclude the possibility that a person seeking to construe an existing deed might be able to show that it did not contemplate a child born by donation but restricted the children to children who were born by natural methods. It will be perfectly open to any person to argue that the terms of a past or indeed a future instrument showed a contrary intention to that of Clause 29 (3) and therefore excluded children by donation. This seems to be the correct approach and it applies whether in regard to the large estate referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, a castle or whatever may be at issue.
To provide otherwise would mean presuming that testators and others in the past would have wished to exclude from their benefit children born as a result of donation. That is the essence of the amendment. I believe that it is impossible to tell in respect of those who made these deeds in the past whether or not that would necessarily be so. If there are indications in the deed which show that, there is nothing in the clause to exclude such considerations.
If this amendment were passed it would lean towards discrimination against children born by donation. My noble and learned friend Lord Roskill said that you have to discriminate against one or the other. I think that that really is a fundamental truth. If you accept an amendment of this sort, you have to discriminate against one or the other. If that is the problem that is faced, I believe that there is no particular reason why one should discriminate against children born by donation. But I believe that the clause as drafted enables the argument to be open on the terms of any particular deed, or instrument, that the intention of the testator as set out in the deed or instrument would exclude such children. If that is right, then that would be the proper effect.
To provide otherwise, as I say, would lean towards discrimination against children born by donation so that in the same family siblings might be treated differently on a technicality, and it would make the law unnecessarily complicated by distinguishing between the three areas to which I have referred.
220
The three times— the three eras, if one likes— would be the period before the 1987 Act so far as England and Wales are concerned, that during the existence of the 1987 Act, and then that from the time when this particular Act comes into effect.
I am certainly willing to consider this matter further to see whether a better arrangement can be made than we have in this clause. It may be that some saving language would be possible, but certainly as it seems to me at the moment this particular amendment goes the whole way towards discriminating against children born by these treatments, and I believe that that is wrong. On the other hand, I would certainly be willing to see whether there is some way in which it would be even clearer that it is open to argument on a particular deed, or other instrument, what the conclusion should be.
I certainly cannot recommend your Lordships to accept this amendment as it stands. I have sought to consider the matter quite carefully in the light of what was discussed at Report stage and the illustrations given by my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle at that time. I am extremely sorry that he is not able to be with us today for reasons of illness. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that we hope that he will soon be restored to his place among us again. In the light of these explanations I hope that the noble Lady may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I have to say that I simply do not see how someone interpreting a will, or a trust, made many years before this Act— or indeed possibly before some of the techniques now in use were ever thought of— could possibly decide whether or not someone who had not mentioned the possible existence of a donor child in his will, or his trust deed, wished a donor child to take under that deed or did not wish the donor child to take under that deed. With great respect, I think that the most reasonable interpretation would be that he probably did not wish the donor child to take under that deed.
While I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he would consider this matter again and see whether it would be possible to do anything, at the same time I really feel that this is a matter of principle, that retrospectivity is involved here, and that I should very much like to test the opinion of the House.
4.25 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 133.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Brain, L.

Butterfield, L.

221

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cawley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Clitheroe, L.

Perth, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Erroll, E.

Radnor, E.

Falkland, V.

Raglan, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grantchester, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gray, L.

Romney, E.

Griffiths, L.

Roskill, L.

Hailsham of Saint

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Marylebone, L.

Salisbury, M.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hanworth, V.

[Teller.]

Havers, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sherfield, L.

Keith of Kinkel, L. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Killearn, L.

Slim, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Somers, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kuntsford, V.

Strathcona and Mount

Lauderdale, E.

Royal, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Templeman, L.

Middleton, L.

Terrington, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Teviot, L.

Morris L.

Tryon, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Winterbottom, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton. L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Grey, E.

Allerton, L.

Grimond, L.

Alport, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L

Annaly, L.

Hayter, L.

Arran, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Attlee, E.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Aylestone, L.

Holderness, L.

Balfour, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Blackstone, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blatch, B.

Hughes, L.

Blyth, L.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Borthwick, L.

Joseph, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Caldecote, V.

Lawrence, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Long, V.

Colnbrook, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Margadale, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Nelson, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Ennals, L.

Northbourne, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Faithfull, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Parry, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Galpern, L.

Peston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goold, L.

Porritt, L.

222

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Quinton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Reay, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Thurlow, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Tordoff, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Shackleton, L.

Underhill, L.

Shannon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stedman, B.

Walston, L.

Stockton, E.

Warnock, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Strange, B.

Wigram, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winstanley, L.

Suffield, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 16, line 12, after ("dignity") insert (", coat of arms").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. We have dealt with a complicated matter upon which your Lordships have just voted. This matter is simple and relates also to inheritance. At the moment the inheritance rules in this country provide that inheritance is by blood descent when born in wedlock. That is how, for instance, one succeeds to being a Member of your Lordships' House. By the amendment I wish to include "coat of arms" as applying also to England and Wales. It is already included in Scotland in subsection (5). We stupidly left it out when referring to England. The result of the amendment being accepted would be that the position in England would be the same as that in Scotland. The subsection would read:
"dignity, coat of arms or title".
I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, my name is also down to the amendment moved by my noble friend the Earl Marshal. I shall give a textbook answer and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. Coats of arms fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chivalry. Since 1521 the court has always been held before the Earl Marshal or his surrogate. The Earl Marshal's right to adjudicate was recognised and confirmed by letters patent of King James I in 1622 and his grandson King Charles II in 1672.
The court last sat in December 1954, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor relied on the statement of Lord Goddard, sitting as the Earl Marshal's surrogate in that case, that in his opinion the right to bear arms is a dignity. That statement was an aside or technically an obiter dicta— a judge's expression of opinion which is not essential to his decision and therefore without binding authority.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to another statement made by Lord Goddard in that case when he said:

223
"The surrogate of this Court and the advocates who practised in it were always civilians and there seems every reason why the practice which obtained in the Courts of the Civilians should apply here".
That means that the High Court of Chivalry is a civil as opposed to a common law court. That means Roman civil law as opposed to English common law. Dignities and titles of honour are a matter of common law. That is why I have the gravest doubts that coats of arms, which come under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chivalry— a civil law court— are covered by the word "dignities" when dignities are subject to the common law.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to earlier statutes; for example, the Adoption Act 1976, the Legitimacy Act 1976, and the Family Law Reform Act 1987. He said that if coats of arms were specifically mentioned now those statutes might be put into a certain amount of doubt. If a mistake or an omission were made in the past, there is surely no reason to compound it now. We must consider the present legislation. My noble and learned friend has expressed his willingness to include coats of arms, which are generously included in the kingdom of Scotland. I urge your Lordships to define a dignity as including coats of arms.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no difference between us on what the result would be so far as concerns coats of arms. We are all, I believe, agreed that they should be treated under this provision. The only question is whether they need to be separately mentioned or whether they are already covered by the word "dignity". The most modern answer to that point of which I am aware is that given by Lord Goddard sitting, as my noble friend said, as the Earl Marshal's surrogate in the case to which I referred— Manchester Corporation v. The Manchester Palace of Varieties in 1955.
I should like to make it clear that dignity includes coats of arms. I am not keen to include it expressly in the Bill because it is not in the other statutes to which reference has been made where it was obviously intended to be included under dignity.
Therefore, if we insert the provision here it is apt to be thought that the word "dignity" in these Acts does not include a coat of arms. I do not believe that that is what either of my noble friends the Duke of Norfolk or Lord Teviot would like. The question is therefore rather a technical one, and no less an authority than the late Lord Goddard, has been produced. He was sitting in the right place, in the Court of Chivalry, bound by that court's rules. I appreciate perhaps as much as anyone here the distinction between the common law of England and the law derived from civilians. I have views about the matter which I need not express at this moment.
On the other hand, consistency in the way in which these matters are dealt with is important. I believe that consistency dictates that we should not insert that provision. If there is any better authority available than the late Lord Goddard I should be happy to reconsider the matter.
The other possibility is to effect some amendments to the earlier statutes. But it would be difficult to
224
affect the earlier statutes in this statute, for reasons which are clear about its scope. Therefore, unless my noble friends wish to create doubt about the scope of the provision for "dignity" in the other statutes, they would be well advised not to press the amendment.
As concerns Scotland, the matter is clear. We have inserted the provision because we believe that in Scotland it is wise to make it express. So far as I know, there is no corresponding problem there on other statutes. When it comes to settling policy, if a court ever had to consider the matter I believe that would be helpful in reaching the view that this expression was omitted by Parliament in the light of Lord Goddard's statement of the position. There is no policy difference between us; it is only a question of the best and clearest way in which to express that policy in all the circumstances.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, with the assurance from the noble and learned Lord that Lord Goddard's use of the word "dignity" included "coat of arms" I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 16, line 25, at end insert:
(" (5A) In implementation of the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) above where any question arises in legal proceedings as to the right of any person to succeed or transmit a right to succeed referred to in subsections (4) and (5) above, the Licensing Authority may be required by the Court to certify that such person has not, according to their records been born as a result of any egg or sperm donation.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, at Report stage I withdrew an amendment to give the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon King of Arms the right to obtain relevant information from the licensing authority where any question arose under Clause 28 (3), now Clause 29 Subsections (4) and (5). I withdrew the amendment because I accepted the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it was so widely drawn that it would have enabled those two august bodies to obtain confidential medical information far in excess of their requirements, with no obligation of confidentiality.
However, I return to the point that, without some power to elicit from the licensing authority a bare minimum of information as to whether a person might or might not be a donor child and therefore excluded from the right to succeed or transmit the right to succeed under Clause 29 Subsections (4) and (5), no court will be able, should a dispute arise, to determine that person's right to succeed or otherwise.
Upon carefully reading what the noble and learned Lord said in col. 1483 of Hansard of 13th March, I cannot help thinking that he and I envisage the situation from different ends. He said:
"If there is a question about a particular treatment and succession, the person asking the Lord Lyon or the College of Arms to make a grant or declaration could well be asked to deal with the matter. After the age of 18 a person affected has the

225
right to obtain such information. In that situation the College of Arms could make it a condition that the information should be disclosed by the person making the request in order that a check can be made."
I think that the noble and learned Lord envisages a situation where a donor child claims a title, honour, dignity, coat of arms or whatever, possibly or possibly not aware of being a donor child.
I envisage the situation where the heir apparent is a donor child and the next heir, having reason to suspect this, challenges his right to succeed. I presume that where the donor heir apparent has reached the magic age of 18, the body having the duty to decide the case could require him to divulge such information as he had obtained from the licensing authority in support of his claim. However, where the donor or suspected donor heir apparent is a minor, possibly a baby, it would appear that the next heir, possibly an uncle, possibly a cousin, would have to wait for up to 18 years before he could prove or disprove his right to succeed in place of the donor heir apparent. That must surely be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and not one calculated to make for happy family relationships, particularly where property may devolve along with the honour, dignity, title or coat of arms.
The noble and learned Lord said at col. 1479 of Hansard on 13th March:
"The amendment would not affect the question of succession to peerages which is, of course, a matter for your Lordships' House".
In the case of Scots peerages, the Committee of Privileges accepted in January 1964 the matriculation of arms appropriate to that peerage as sufficient evidence of entitlement to that peerage for the purpose of issuing a writ of summons, unless the Lord Chancellor had information which, in his opinion, threw doubt upon the validity of the entitlement. If the Lord Chancellor cannot obtain information for possibly up to 18 years, it seems rather hard on the rightful heir, should the heir apparent turn out to be excluded after all that time. I beg 1o move.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I also put my name to this amendment because your Lordships decided by Clause 29 of the Bill that certain matters should be excluded so that donor children or grandchildren could not succeed to them.
There is no point in having a law unless it can be enforced. There is absolutely no point in having the clause unless it is somehow possible for the barest minimum of information required to make this clause effective to be made available to the courts or someone in order that a proper judgment can be made under it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was worried that many cases might arise where people were forced to produce evidence that they were not donor children or, alternatively, that there would be vexatious cases. Inserting in the amendment that this applies only where any question arises in legal proceedings limits the provision immediately to only those matters where evidence has already been acquired from some other source or aspect that there may be some doubt as to
226
the genetic parentage of the person who claims the title, honour or property. I think that goes a long way towards answering one objection of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the previous version of the amendment which went at an earlier stage.
As my noble friend Lady Saltoun said, it is ridiculous to wait 18 years. We could have problems because I seem to remember that in Scotland if certain things such as clan chiefships are not challenged successfully within 20 years they automatically devolve upon the person who claims them. In the case of a father dying when the child was very young, say a year old, it is possible for a question to have to await resolution until the child is 18 years old. By the time the information can be obtained, the time limit might have run out. That could give rise to a lot of misgivings as to how one should pass on dignities and titles and decide at what stage they had devolved upon the heir apparent. Such a measure as this would strengthen the hand of the court to obtain that information and ensure a speedy resolution of these problems so that proceedings were not dragged out. I cannot see why making the minimum of information available to the court could possibly be objectionable. We are not seeking information to reveal the identity of the parents, but merely to state whether it is all right for the person involved to inherit. That is the only information that needs to be divulged.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has pointed out, this amendment brings us back to ground that we have to some extent trodden before. It would require that where a dispute arose in the course of legal proceedings about a person's right to succeed to a dignity, title of honour or entailed property, the licensing authority would be required to provide where appropriate a certificate stating that according to its records the person had not been born as a result of egg or sperm donation. We are therefore considering an amendment which is concerned with the disclosure of information. Of course, if the person had been born after donation the authority would not be able to provide the declaration and one supposes the conclusion would be drawn by the outside world that the child had been born as a result of donation. For the reasons I have explained on earlier occasions "after" does not in fact necessarily mean "as a result of, but the inference would be there. That is rather a technical aspect of the matter. In other words, the authority is not really in a position to certify exactly what is provided there. That is the first point.
As I pointed out on Report, under the Bill as it stands, the disclosure of information held by the licensing authority is very strictly controlled. Clause 31 provides for the special case where the Registrar General is concerned with a claim that a man is not the father of the child. With this one exception, release of information which shows that an individual was or may have been born as a consequence of treatment services may be made only to a person who was or may have been born as a result of licensed treatment services in two types of case. The first is when, after age 18, the child seeks

227
information about his or her genetic origins. The second is if the child needs information about whether he or she and an intended spouse are genetically related. There is no provision for the disclosure of information to individuals who are "third parties", if I may use that expression.
It is important that we should be clear that Clauses 27 to 29 of the Bill do not affect the fact that dignities and titles of honour pass through the blood line. We must also remember that the information which we are discussing is personal medical information and we must therefore ask ourselves if its disclosure can really be warranted when the price to pay is interference in the rights of the individual to privacy. It might also be helpful to consider what, in real life, leads to infertility treatment. A couple only seek treatment when they have not succeeded in having a baby by natural means: that fact will often be known to their family and friends. When undergoing infertility treatment there is likely to be a long journey between referral to a specialist and having a baby. Drug treatment and corrective surgery may be among the steps along the way to egg or sperm donation. By the time the journey has been completed the wider family will often be aware of the treatment. Yet an isolated infidelity, a night— or less— of adultery, could easily remain unknown forever to everyone except the two people involved. We have no way of compelling disclosure of the traditional method of corrupting the purity of the blood line.
In view of that I think it would be wrong to invade the privacy of a record kept by the licensing authority to check on the intimate details of a modern method which will, in most cases, already be known in substance to the family.
I have already mentioned the point about the certificate that is predicated by this amendment. The best thing to deal with is the question of whether a person was or may have been born in consequence of treatment services. The certificate would tend to undermine the presumption that a child conceived in a marriage is a child of the marriage— a presumption which can be important in holding a family together.
It is also important to note that there are other ways of obtaining information about this matter than going to this public record. The people who are involved, the parents for example, are witnesses who could be forced to attend the court and give evidence in the situation that is contemplated here. In a sense, the records of the licensing authority are only records of matters which will be available to be attested by others.
I referred to the age of 18 as being the age at which a person could obtain access to the information concerned. However, as regards someone else proving this information, which is the point with which the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was particularly concerned, the information which is available would also be available to the court, whether or not the child whose antecedents were in question had reached the age of 18. It seems to me that the evidence involved in this issue, as in any other issue, would be available.
228
The only question that arises here is whether the register that is compiled for public purposes in order to control these treatments adequately— that is the purpose of the licensing authority— and which is essentially private in relation to the individuals concerned, should be made available to the court. Nothing has been said as regards the fact that in a good case there may be other evidence available which may be better, more direct and first-hand than the evidence in question.
I suggest that the same approach would be taken in cases involving donation as would be taken in any other case where there is a question about the right of succession. Information about the circumstances surrounding the birth would be useful but not conclusive in reaching a decision. That information would have to be considered as a matter of inference from all the surrounding circumstances. It is not as if the register was the only way of dealing with this matter. I hope that the noble Lady may feel in the circumstances that she should not press her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should say that I am still not quite clear how he would envisage enforcing Clause 29 (4) and (5). He said that a minor would have parents who could be forced by a court to disclose information. However, in such circumstances certainly one parent would be dead, and very possibly both. I am not quite clear how, in those circumstances, the clause would be enforced.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it does not necessarily follow that the parents would be dead when the question arose, as the earlier amendment of the noble Lady shows. The question might arise, for example, in relation to a trust under an existing deed. However, the evidence that would be available in the ordinary case of a question about an illegitimate birth would be available in the same way in this case. I do not think that one should make special provision for this situation just because we happen to have created a record for the purpose of controlling these treatments.
The amendment of the noble Lady seeks to use these records for another purpose; namely, for determining a matter of succession. The purpose of these records is to ensure that the treatments are being properly supervised by the licensing authority to ensure that the conditions set out in the Bill, and as set out by the licensing authority in its carrying out of the Bill, are being properly complied with. That is the principal purpose of the records. The records are made available for the child himself or herself to determine his or her own status in this matter so far as the records can be helpful for that purpose. They may also provide information about whether a prospective spouse is or is not genetically connected with the person in question.
The amendment goes outside that purpose and I believe, that, just as in other cases where questions of this sort arise, the evidence that should be used is evidence that is available from some other source.
5 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I think that I understand what the noble and learned Lord is getting at. I am not altogether happy, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Offences]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 22, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("authorised") in line 3 and insert ("gives or receives any money or other benefit not").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Authority: Supplementary Provisions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 26, line 34, at end insert:
(" (1A) The Authority shall secure that any employee whose function is, or whose functions include, the inspection of premises is of such character, and is so qualified by training and experience, as to be a suitable person to perform that function.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
5.1 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I predict that the Bill which now leaves us will need major amendment or repeal quite soon. I shall give the reasons. The first is the lack of knowledge we have suffered from in discussing the Bill. We lack knowledge of three areas. I shall take them in turn.
The main benefit that we have been offered in return for breaking our taboo on using humans for experiments has been the circumvention of infertility. However, we have been given no proper information on the prevalence, the causes or the nature of infertility in this country. The Warnock Committee did not find that evidence, perhaps because it did not look for it. The Medical Research Council does not have it, nor has the interim licensing authority. The only available paper, of 1985, is statistically primitive: infertility is defined as not conceiving within 12 months of attempting to do so, and it therefore shows a substantial number of "patients" going on to conceive normally, without
230
any treatment. Figures are now, incidentally, to be collected by OPCS, but that can be no substitute for a medically informed survey. The lifetime of any law made in such ignorance is likely to be short.
The second area of ignorance is the possible drawbacks of IVF/ET treatment. We have had no information of any medical follow-up of IVF/ET children or of their families, although in 1987 the Medical Research Council was saying that that would be desirable. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is chairman of the MRC, has very courteously written to me recently saying that a joint survey with the Economic and Social Research Council might indeed be a good idea. I am glad of that. However, at the moment there is, I understand, no centrally held information, or if the data are there, they have not been analysed. They ought to be, before the law is made. We also have no account of any psychological problems after IVF/ET procedures, either successful or unsuccessful. I gather, from the papers of the great Euro-meeting on these issues held in Paris last October— of which again we have heard nothing— that those problems have been studied in other countries.
The third area is costs. We have had no account of the inclusive costs of the procedures— neither the ILA nor the MRC seems to have them: all they have disclosed is the marginal cost of securing a pregnancy in one NHS clinic, in the Hammersmith Hospital. That includes the cost of salaries, drugs and materials, but no other overheads. The true cost would also include the apportioned share per healthy baby born of accumulated research costs, the cost of special post-natal care whether in the clinic or later, of extra care for the higher incidence of multiple births, of any defects which may later turn up, and of anything else one can think of. I have asked both the MRC and the ILA for the UK costs comparable to the £ 25,000 published by Wagner and St. Clair in the Lancet last October, but they have not been able to produce them. They have produced only the Hammersmith Hospital's figure of £ 1,600 per pregnancy achieved. Why is there that colossal gap?
So on all those three points we have passed this Bill in the dark, and ignorance makes bad law.
We should note that we have heard very little indeed from those practitioners in the field who believe that much of what is now being done is both bad science and bad medicine. We have heard so little that we have forgotten the existence of those practitioners. I shall not try to express their argument for them, but I appeal to them to have it put in the House of Commons before it is too late, and put with all the vigour with which the pro-researchers have put their case. We passed this Bill because of a barrage of exhortation from the pro-researchers, to which there can be no objection, but one-sided information makes for bad law.
The Bill is incompatible with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, as revised in 1975, which makes recommendations guiding medical doctors in bio-medical research involving human subjects. It says:
"the interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the wellbeing of the subject".

231
The declaration also requires the:
"investigator or the investigating team to discontinue the research if in his/her or their judgment it may, if continued, be harmful to the individual".
The research which the Bill, as it leaves this House, proposes to permit is conclusively harmful to the embryos.
The Bill is also out of step with the law of comparable countries. Information about that is contained in the Gunning Report, published by the Government only last month, when the Bill was well on its way. Belgium, Canada, Italy, and the United States have not yet come to grips with the problem. Australia, France, Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany have all in one way or another decided to permit less embryo research than this Bill allows, or none at all. Only Sweden permits as much as this Bill. Our practitioners will have a good flow of business from abroad, but a law which contains major discrepancies with the law of one's friends and neighbours is a bad law.
The Bill is flawed in logic, and public opinion has a way of catching up with illogicality in time. The flaw is this: the humanity of the human being between conception and various subsequent, genetically programmed, events such as its implantation or the emergence of the primitive streak, has been obscured by the use of the neologism "pre-embryo". The purpose of that coinage has been to obscure the fact that the conceived embryo at one day or six days is no less human, and no less genetically complete, than at 14 days or 14 years. If you kill him or her before 14 days you kill a genetically complete and thus unique human being as surely as if you killed him or her at 14 years.
Lord Ennals: Absolute nonsense!
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will forgive me. The rules about speeches on Third Reading have been contravened by almost everything that he has said. I wish he would confine himelf to reviewing the Bill as it has been treated in this House, at great length, rather than making these points, which he might well have made at Second Reading, instead of in a very long speech at Third Reading. It is quite out of order.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am of course in the hands of the House in this matter as in all others, but reviewing the Bill is precisely what I am doing and I have only one or two more points to make. I hope that the House will bear with me while I make them.
We should put one question to ourselves: will biology textbooks now be rewritten using the newspeak word "pre-embryo"?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, that word is not in the Bill. My noble friend brought in that word. That is the first time that it has been mentioned in the debate.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it is true that it is not in the Bill, but it was used in the Warnock Report and in discussions.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. That word was not used in the Warnock Report. We certainly did not use the word "pre-embryo".
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I must apologise to both noble Lords who have spoken. I have made most of my points. Only a few remain. The House decided not to address the question of whether an IVF embryo is a person or a chattel, despite the fact that it has already tied the courts in knots in Australia and the United States. A Bill lacking foresight is bad law. Parliament should have settled the matter rather than leaving it to the courts.
Most of all, I believe that the Bill is bad law because it enjoins deceit. People who are not the genetic parents of individuals are to be deemed to be their parents. The Bill enjoins the concealment from individuals until the age of 18 of their own identity and enjoins the writing of false names on birth certificates. There is enough lying and concealment in the world without Parliament making it a duty to lie.
The best hope is that the Bill will prove easy to alter in the future, preferably immediately in the House of Commons. If not, we shall surely have to replace it within a few years.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Benches on which he now sits, but that is the only welcome I have for anything that he has said this afternoon because I totally disagree with every word that he has said.
As to the knowledge of the House on this subject, none of us is an expert, but we have sought to do our homework. It was as long ago as 1982 that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was asked to establish her committee and it was in 1984 that the report was published. There was a succession of White Papers, debates and Bills and we have at our disposal a great deal of evidence if we are prepared to take it. We have been able to draw upon the experience of the Interim Licensing Authority and of individual researchers. Any of us could have visited, as many of us did, the research centres which will be licensed by the Bill. I ask my noble friend: did he visit any of the research centres? If he did not, and his silence suggests that he did not— —
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give me an opportunity to say that I did.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in that case I am surprised that my noble friend is so ignorant. He said that we are all ignorant. We have had the benefit of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who has brought into the House refreshingly genuine knowledge. All the rest of us have learnt as we have gone along. We have also had the benefit of the advice of the Medical Research Council. We have tried to understand the Bill as best we can. I want

233
to say how delighted I am— I express this as a personal point of view, not on behalf of all my colleagues; I have said that every time I have risen to speak— that we are passing the Bill to another place in a substantially improved form on the Bill that we received.
I want, first, to thank and congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ennals: The noble and learned Lord is already held in high regard in this House, both personally and for his professional qualifications. His reputation has even been enhanced by his performance during our debates. We have seen him at his very best— clear in his presentation of a difficult subject and firm in his handling of contentious issues. Every time that he took away an issue which was of concern to a noble Lord and came back with it, he came back with it in an acceptable form, sometimes bringing together those who had profoundly disagreed when the issues were first debated. We have today had an example of the way in which he has enabled the Bill to be improved as we have gone along. I thank him deeply for what he has done because part of our task is to send to another place a Bill in the best possible form.
In congratulating the noble and learned Lord, I must of course congratulate his noble friend Lady Hooper who, in a personal sense, has had a difficult problem and has dealt with it in just that humane and modest way that we expect of her. If I give her that applause, it gives me some hope that we shall see those same qualities when we deal with some of the difficult issues in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
The Bill will bring hope that medical science will be able to make a major contribution to those twin scourges of infertility— I almost said infidelity; that has perhaps been touched on in the last debate— which affects roughly 10 per cent. of couples, and the large number of children born with major genetic defects to their own disadvantage and the disadvantage of their parents who bestow upon them so much love but whose lives are tragically affected. If we can bring some relief in the future, that will be a relief for all of us.
I thank God that new obstacles were not created to dash those hopes. I take great pride in the quality of the embryo research effort in this country. I have felt it a privilege to have worked during the passage of the Bill with some of those who are at the forefront of the research— men and women of the highest integrity. It would have been a tragedy for them if we had told them to pack up shop and move on to some other field. I understand that there is a shortage of accountants in the National Health Service. They could have been retrained, but they would instead have taken their skills abroad. I am glad that they are refreshed. I hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, it will be improved yet further, if that is possible.
I am also pleased that we have established a well-conceived system of statutory controls. That
234
has brought satisfaction to all sides of the House who want to ensure the continuance of that strange work. I am thinking of the contributions made by my noble and very friendly friend Lady Phillips who finds it all very confusing and difficult to understand and accept. Like all of us, she wants to see the research strictly controlled by legislation.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may correct my noble friend. I do not find the matter confusing; I find it totally repugnant and unnecessary.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have a long way to go yet. This is a very important Bill. I am pleased that we have dealt with that part of the Bill.
On the issue of research or no research, it is another area of satisfaction that the forces of progress— with a capital "P" if one wishes or a small "p"if one does not— led to two resounding voting victories of 232 to 80 and 216 to 80. Their importance is not just that they followed significant and well-informed debates, but that they give to another place a certain leadership in the strength of feeling and conviction which has existed in this House. Had the attempt to ban research gone ahead— and indeed the attempt, with which we had expected to deal last week, to ban research on the preparation of contraceptive vaccine to meet needs at home and abroad, particularly as it affects third world countries— we should have seen another major victory. We have not heard from the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi as to why he decided not to proceed with his amendment. We do not know whether it was a change of heart or a serious rethink, or whether it was the prospect of a heavy defeat. But I suspect that it might have been the latter and I do not blame him. To me it is no wonder that these major victories have taken place because of the sincerity and conviction of all Members of this House. Although I disagreed with the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, on many amendments, I want to say how much I felt that his interventions were guided by sincerity and conviction. He conveyed that to us all. In our debates none of us has lost respect for the point of view presented from another side. It has been done with such dignity and conviction. That too must make us all proud.
I have only one disappointment; namely, that the Bill goes to another place with a heavy price tag on funding the authority. As we improved the Bill, we added to the costs of the research. As we insisted that there should be annual reports, properly trained and qualified inspectors and many other conditions, we piled costs on to the authority. We did so rightly because we want to ensure that the work is done properly. But we have done nothing to assist the new statutory authority, the clinics which they will license and inspect, and the patients who will be treated. I am very concerned about it.
There is to be a chairman of the authority and a full-time secretary who will have to be paid. There could not be fewer than 10 members of personnel. There will be sums needed for computing, supplies,

235
telephones and other sundries. We are talking in terms of at least £ 300,000 or £ 400,000 for the running of the organisation. When it comes to the inspections if we send, as I think we must, a clinician, a scientist, a lay person and a secretary, we are probably talking of about £ 500 a visit. Every time that we improved the Bill, we added to the cost. It is very sad that the Government have not given an inch on providing more resources to enable this hopeful research to be carried out, and the costs not piled on to the patients.
We had an assurance from the noble Baroness that National Health Service patients would not have to pay. I am afraid that in most cases it means that many National Health Service clinics will find their work restricted. If the patients do not pay— and I am glad that they do not— the health authority has to pay. The health authorities are strapped for funds for other aspects of patient care. By the care with which we set up our licensing authority we may have made it more difficult for this work to progress as it should do.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for receiving the representatives of those who have argued from all sides of the House that there should be no fees. We have not at all changed our views. Clearly the noble Baroness has not changed her views. She has not given an inch. She said that they were a listening government and they listened. That is all they did.
We must now consider the costs that we have imposed and how all this will be paid for. We must not have a situation in which the work which should expand will be forced to contract because of the overall costs. That is my only sadness about this legislation. My hope is that in another place it will be looked upon very seriously.
Finally, my thanks go to all those who are involved in this fascinating and, in my view, deeply moral research. My thanks go to the new statutory health authority for the many thousands who will be able to afford treatment that may greatly improve their future. I hope that another place will show the same sense that noble Lords have shown by not allowing this issue to be befogged by a debate on abortion, however important it may have been. I think that we have been wise. I hope that the other place will show the same wisdom.
I nearly tabled a manuscript amendment to the Long Title of the Bill on Third Reading, but then I thought "No, it will create trouble. They will not like it". So I did not do so.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, at this stage in our consideration of the Bill I feel that we should discharge some debts of gratitude. First, our thanks go to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for the report of her committee which defined many of the significant issues of this tangled subject in such a manner that they could be determined, as they had to be determined, by public policy. Her report was certainly the forerunner of the White Paper of 1987.
Secondly, we owe a debt of gratitude for the high sense of responsibility which has been demonstrated by the bio-medical and scientific community in its
236
acceptance of a main recommendation of the Warnock Committee's report in establishing the voluntary licensing authority for human in vitro fertilisation and embryology and subjecting research workers to a self-disciplinary regime under the authority's rules and guidance. Under the chairmanship of Lady Donaldson that authority became the model for the licensing authority which will be created by the Bill.
Throughout the passage of this Bill many noble Lords have emphasised the critical importance of the statutory authority in providing for Parliament and the public regular and reliable information about the research and therapies which it will license. Such information will be the foundation for building general confidence in the control system and giving security that the provisions of the Bill will be rigorously enforced.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his fairness and neutrality from his speech on Second Reading onwards. His cooling stream of even-handed and lucid exposition, did much to ensure that our debates achieved a dignified atmosphere of tolerance for conflicting views. I should also like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said about the sincerity and fairness with which the noble Duke dealt with his opponents on this issue. It is to be hoped that the example of this House will be followed in another place.
The Government deserve high praise for bringing forward this important legislation which I hope and expect will result in much reduction of suffering of parents and children in the future.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised many issues with which we have been grappling over the past few weeks. We have wrestled with our consciences and with very difficult medical and legal issues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I believe that we have greatly improved this Bill during its passage through this House.
The big issue has been about research on embryos. We said yes to that question, subject to strict control and regulation. But in connection with the importance of strict control and regulation, several people have commented to me that it is not much good having regulation and control because clever people can get round the conditions of such regulation. They can easily be avoided. Illegal activities can be concealed by clever scientists. Such have been the arguments. I believe that that is a view held by many people in this country.
It may be true, and I do not know to what extent it is true, but, to a small extent anyway scientists and research workers in this field may, under the provisions in the Bill, have had tremendous responsibility imposed upon them. The vast, overwhelming, majority of scientists and those involved will discharge their responsibility legally and honestly. But, of course, there are a few black sheep in every sector of society. The onus is on the scientific and the medical community and on their professional bodies to expose and disown anyone who tries to contravene the provisions of the Bill

237
either in the spirit or in the letter or who tries to chip away at its changes.
It is most important that this should be done both for the sake of the high reputation of the scientific community and also in the interests of the nation as a whole. I hope that that plea will be taken to heart because so much of what we have done during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships House has been to ensure that the provisions of the legislation will be strictly enforced.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness for their inestimable patience in replying so fully to such manifold and varied amendments; for their attempts to meet our many concerns where they and the Government saw fit to do so; and for their scrupulous fairness and even-handedness throughout the proceedings. I should especially like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the pains he has taken with regard to the welfare of children born as a result of gamete donation where the parents are not legally married. I hope that by this evening, as a result of announcements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, there will be a lemming rush of cohabiting couples to the altar or at least to the registry office.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, we have improved the Bill considerably but that is not to say that there is no room for improvement. I hope that Members of another place who may contemplate trying to amend the Bill further will read the Hansard reports of our debates on similar points. I also very much hope that the Government will look again at the question of wills and trusts made before the Bill is enacted. I think that there is an unacceptable element of retrospectivity in that area. I further hope that the noble and learned Lord will keep a very sharp eye on the functioning of Clause 29 (4) and (5) because I have serious misgivings as to whether those exclusions, so generously conceded by him, will turn out to be enforceable. Finally, I should like again to express, my grateful thanks.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I spoke for a few moments on Second Reading— which seems a long time ago— but I have not troubled the House since that time. Before the Bill leaves this House I should like to offer a few remarks. I speak not as a theologian, a scientist or a lawyer, but as a rank and file Christian and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, on some occasions has called "the man in the pew". I speak without the authority of any of the Churches and, if they were represented today, perhaps they would repudiate me. As I said, I speak as the man in the pew.
However, what does the man in the pew do in such a situation? He is faced with all these incredibly difficult topics which carry him into the very depths of law, theology and science. No doubt he follows his conscience; but his duty is to inform his conscience. I think that he will, if he belongs to a Church, pay much attention to the guidance given by the head of his Church. It was not difficult for me to be
238
convinced by a very powerful argument against research on embryos presented by Cardinal Hume last week. However, if I came before the House and simply repeated his words I might be regarded as an obsequious acolyte. Therefore, I would rather turn to the Church of England, to which I belonged about half a century ago.
Thus I turn to the Church of England. Powerful speeches have been made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. However, the problem for the man in the pew is that they took diametrically opposite positions. Therefore he is still left thinking for himself.
There is one aspect about all this which must be cleared up. At one stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, introduced the evocative name of Galileo. We were given to understand that if we voted against research on embryos we would be adopting the attitude of the Pope who silenced Galileo. We were even told we might be following the example of those who strangled Wyclif for translating the Bible. Such terrible examples were presented to us.
In one of his interventions, the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi pointed out that everyone who had taken part in the debates was in favour of banning research and that it was just a question of when we did so. Everyone is in favour of introducing criminal law but, again, it is just a question of when it is to be done. One of the champions in this respect is my much admired noble friend and active leader, although in an unofficial sense today, Lord Ennals. He would ban the embryo research after 14 days. Therefore everyone is on the same footing; it is just a question of when it is done.
Thus the man in the pew is left feeling very uncertain. He may turn to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and take note of something he said. As we know, the most reverend Primate was a scientist before he became an archbishop. In regard to an amendment put forward by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, he said that he would ban research after 14 days because at that point, but not before, one can say,
"that those cells will eventually develop, again given the right conditions, into a human person".
He meant that the research should be banned but not before 14 days.
On the other hand, great scientists have pointed out that the embryo is in one sense living from the beginning. On Second Reading I quoted a famous scientist who said that from the very beginning it represented what he called "nascent life". That is the point of view which I take. Therefore, in my opinion, if research is carried out on an embryo from the beginning it is research on nascent life. Thus, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said on an earlier occasion, in the end this is not a question of facts; it is one of values, and we must all follow our values.
A prominent man, one of our leaders— or a potential leader, if not actual at present— has told us that he cannot imagine any circumstances in which he would take a certain course. Some noble Lords may know to whom I refer. He is a very

239
prominent gentleman. Likewise, I cannot imagine any circumstances in which I would support the Bill. There is tremendous room for argument. Such honest people— Christians, non-Christians or whatever— can disagree so much on the ultimate merits of one course or the other.
There is one point upon which I am most dogmatic. I am quite sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was right when he implied— although he made very plain what he thought— that if the Bill is passed the pressure from scientists to carry the period of research beyond the 14-day limit will never stop. Whether or not it is resisted will depend upon how sure we are: whether we are wiser when that issue arises than we are today. In the meantime, I can only hope that for once the House of Commons will show itself to be wiser than this House which, with all its vast merits, is not infallible.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill as it introduces an element of regulation in an area where regulation is sorely needed. If noble Lords will cast their minds back, they may remember the debate which took place on the Warnock Report in the summer of 1984. I recall the occasion well. It was on the last day before the Summer Recess. The Bishop of Norwich, as he was then, Maurice Wood, said how remarkable it was that there were 40 or 50 noble Lords who had put their names down to speak in the debate when it was the last day of the Session and when in normal circumstances people would be slipping off to their castles in Scotland. Indeed, I expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, would certainly have slipped off to fill her moat or oil her drawbridge. And yet, the interest was such that there were 40 or 50 Members in your Lordships' House. I have been disappointed. As the Bill has gone through this House it seems to me that it has developed into what I may describe as a medical extravaganza. By that I mean that we have gone into the medical details in incredible detail. It is quite clear to me that many of your Lordships are three or four volumes ahead of me in Teach Yourself Gynaecology, obstetrics or whatever it may be.
As noble Lords will know, we are made up of three elements: body, mind and spirit. I believe that the House has not done itself justice by focusing on the medical aspects to almost the complete exclusion of the other two elements.
Furthermore, I have been very disappointed that the clear spiritual lead which I had hoped might come from the Church of England has been so evidently lacking in this Bill. It is true that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York made a powerful speech on Second Reading. It is for noble Lords to judge for themselves, but it seemed to me that he spoke more as a medical specialist than as a Primate.
Noble Lords: Oh, no.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, that was my view. As I say, noble Lords must judge for themselves, but that was my judgment on the matter. I felt that that
240
was a grave shortcoming and may have been the reason why our discussions developed into a medical extravaganza at the expense of the mental and spiritual facets of the problem.
I end by saying how much I appreciate the wise guidance and counsel of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As has been said before, he has steered us adroitly and skilfully through the many ramifications and pitfalls of the Bill. We are all tremendously grateful to him for that and for the way in which that was done.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I too welcome the fact that we have legislation to control human fertilisation and embryo research. I also join with other noble Lords in thanking and paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his sensitive piloting of this measure.
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, about the absence of a clear spiritual lead from the Church of England on a matter which has involved some of the most important ethical questions since the Abortion Act 1967. I hope that the consequence of this Bill is rather more happy than the consequence of that Act, but that is another matter.
There are a number of flaws in the Bill; namely, the creation of embryos for research purposes only and the surprising fact that there is no lower age limit on donors. That seems to open the way to schoolboy donors, which I believe we shall find to be unappetising and unsuccessful.
I concentrate my remarks on the central issue of the Bill, which has tended to be submerged by unnecessary preoccupation with detailed amendments. That issue is whether it is morally acceptable to perform experiments on embryos which can have no therapeutic consequences for them.
I listened very carefully to the debates and, unless I am mistaken, no Member of your Lordships' House has said that he wishes to jettison the time-honoured principle that a human being should not be used as a guinea pig. If that is so, embryos can only be used for research if they are not human beings and if we do not see in them the beginnings of human life. The emphasis is on people who wish to do research to prove their point. It is no good thinking that human life is not present in the embryo. You have to be absolutely 100 per cent. sure.
To emphasise that point I offer your Lordships an illustration of what I mean. Imagine that you are an army recruit doing bayonet practice on a sack which you know is filled with straw and nothing else. You would have no compulsion about plunging your bayonet into the sack. However, if a seed of doubt were to be sowed in your mind that there might be a chance— albeit a very slim chance, perhaps one in a 1,000— that there could be a live child in the sack, not even the most ferocious sergeant major could persuade you to use your bayonet on the sack.
I fail to see how, in the face of the biblical and scientific evidence, anyone can be 100 per cent. sure that the embryo is not the developing human being made in the image of God which I consider it to be.

241
Accordingly, I do not believe that we have been right to incorporate into this Bill a clause legalising research on the human embryo.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I only wish to make a few brief, simple and, indeed, simplistic comments and I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech. First, I should like to associate myself with what other speakers have said in thanking the Ministers responsible for their handling of this very difficult Bill. Above all, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack for his masterly piloting of it.
Secondly, I shall be giving up the chairmanship of the Medical Research Council in a few months' time after eight years' service. I feel very honoured to have been able to serve that council. In that time I have seen a good deal of its work in the field of molecular biology, cardiology and expanding our knowledge of that mysterious mechanism, the human brain. I cite those entirely as examples.
I have also seen a good deal of the work in the field of embryo research. I have been deeply impressed by the quality of that research, as have other noble Lords. I have been equally impressed by the quality of the researchers— the men and women engaged on that research. I have been impressed by their dedication, their seriousness of purpose, their gravitas— if I may use that word— and not least by their respect for the sensitiveness of others who may take a different view as to the viability of that research. I am very glad to be able to say that those dedicated men and women will be much heartened by the discussions and decisions in your Lordships' House. I hope that they will mirror discussions and decisions to be taken later on in another place.
That said, I add only one small caveat. Those who, like me, favour this research favour it subject to one very strong qualification; that is, that it is subject to the strict control of the proposed new statutory authority. I must confess— and here I am following the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote— that I am just a bit worried about the attitude which I think I detect in the Government towards the proposed new statutory human fertilisation and embryology authority, be it as to arrangements for the transfer of responsibility from the Interim Licensing Authority to the new statutory body, be it as regards the adequacy of the resources which that new authority will be given, be it financial, be it as regards people or be it in the context— again mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals— of the levying of fees. I have a certain distinct anxiety on that score.
I very much hope that between now and when this Bill becomes law— as I hope it will— the Government will give close attention to this matter and will hearken to the advice of somebody who has almost more practical experience in this field than anybody else, Lady Donaldson, who has successfully chaired the interim licensing authority since its inception. I should also like to repeat my thanks to my noble friends the Ministers responsible for the Bill for the way in which they dealt with it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to join issue with a man I much respect and whose absence from our proceedings I regret but who, for constitutional reasons, cannot be here. I refer to an article in The Times of Friday last by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, which attributes motives to your Lordships by which I do not believe your Lordships were activated during the course of our debates, which debates were of a very high quality. He produces the theory that your Lordships were activated by myth. He describes these myths as follows:
"The first is the notion that freedom to experiment on human embryos is necessary to help infertile couples".
I have been at great pains to explain that in helping infertile couples IVF is a procedure of last resort. It is an experimental procedure, not on an embryo but on an ovum which turns into an embryo, which will either be implanted and, it is hoped, lead to the production of a human baby or, alternatively, will die in vitro after between seven to eight days. I do not accept therefore the first myth to which the Cardinal refers as being either characteristic of your Lordships' opinions during our debates or of the capacity of your Lordships for myth-making.
I also took some trouble to explain that there was an alternative to IVF, known as GIFT. It is not unique. Both I and my noble friend Lord Walton proposed amendments to bring GIFT within the provisions of the Bill. It is therefore not right to describe your Lordships' frame of mind in those over-simplistic terms.
The Cardinal continues in the article:
"The second myth is that embryo experimentation is necessary in the fight against inherited genetic diseases".
I and others have taken great pains to explain that the diagnosis and establishment of the genetics of these diseases are not performed by research on embryos, but on somatic tissue. Genetic tissue can be obtained in abundance because for every birth there is an after-birth, if one is interested in experimenting on embryonic material. It is only in the matter of selection that experiments on embryos are carried out. Selection and implantation are themselves experiments on embryos. I very much regret that my amendment to try and define "experiment" for the purposes of the Bill was not acceptable to the Government. The second "myth" therefore in which your Lordships are alleged to believe is again an over-simplification.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way. Is it really appropriate for the noble Earl to comment on an article which appeared in a newspaper which has been referred to and which is of great importance? In a sense it relates to the Bill, but the Cardinal is not here to reply. It is something I would commend to noble Lords to read, and to reach their own conclusions, and leave it at that. It was the article of Friday 16th March.
I hope that the noble Earl will think my suggestion is a better course, rather than trying to answer an article which many noble Lords may not have read and which does not directly relate to this Bill at this moment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as to whether I should give way or continue I am in the hands of the House. I arranged with the noble Duke that he would follow me and be the spokesman for the Cardinal, who is not present. I am certain that his counsel will weigh heavily in your Lordships' deliberations.
The third "myth" attributed to your Lordships is described as follows:
"The third, and probably the most mistaken and dangerous, notion is that the medical and scientific establishment is not violating the sanctity of human life, but taking welcome advantage of the new-found possibility of researching into fertilized cells before they attain human status".
I do not believe that that is true of the medical profession. It is not my belief and I disclaim the attribution of that belief to myself. The period of gestation of a human being cannot be divided into two stages, in one of which it is not human and in the other of which it is. Everything involved is human. A sperm is human; an ovum is human; an embryo is human; and the fetus which results is human. They are all human through from beginning to end. It is quite wrong to suppose that you can divide the period of gestation into these stages.
I assure the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that extending experimentation beyond 14 days— because we have allowed the thin end of the wedge to enter— in the light of present knowledge is not possible. Embryos do not survive more than seven to eight days in vitro.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, there is one point which has not been sufficiently emphasised in this debate and for that reason I rise to speak.
In Britain we live in a mixed and pluralist society containing different people of different backgrounds with different beliefs, many of whom will inevitably be wholly opposed to the work discussed during the debates on this Bill. However, the Bill does not oblige anybody to participate in this work. That point needs to be underlined. What does the Bill do? It merely enables research— which has been going on for 20 years now— to continue, but to continue under statutory, strict and careful control. It does not compel anybody to participate or acquiesce in that research; it merely allows it to continue.
I believe it is right that that research should continue, but it must be controlled, supervised and monitored by a statutory body. It is that which we have introduced in this Bill. By doing so we have done a service to all; not merely to those who support the Bill enthusiastically, but even to those who were opposed to the Bill. There is no conflict in my mind between people opposing this kind of research and yet believing that it is right that the Bill should go through.
I can pay no higher tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor than to say that in all of his many admirable and lucid speeches on this Bill it has not been possible to tell precisely what his own views are. I can pay him no higher compliment. I hope that the Bill continues in the same way.
6 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if I may say so we are in danger of becoming a little too cosy about this Bill. When the Bill leaves our care for a stormy passage elsewhere, it will meet with misrepresentation, abuse, and a ferocity which no sergeant major in my experience has shown. There is no ferocity to compare with that of doctrinaire and fanatical religious persuasion. We will get that on this Bill. It is only passing out of our care temporarily. It has to return and we are all deeply concerned as to its future progress through Parliament.
I rise for one purpose only, and that is to appeal to noble Lords in this House, who have influence elsewhere, to try and transfer to another place and to bodies outside some of the knowledge, experience and restraint shown in the controversy over this Bill in the past few weeks. It has been a model of how a working Parliament should carry out its business. However, it is not one that is easily copied by the representative House of Commons.
I shall not take up the time of your Lordships' House quoting from a recent circular sent to members by the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child. It has just had a mammoth lobby outside this place. We all saw it last week. The instructions that have gone out to its members in that connection and for the future warfare on this Bill are indeed disturbing.
There are noble Lords who, wittingly or otherwise, have given their names to declarations made by the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group and by the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child. Surely they should have considered with greater care before giving their names to tendentious propaganda and misleading and savage comments about the Bill and its proposals, not to mention the attitude towards this House. In those circumstances I hope that the 23 noble Lords who signed the SPUC manifesto, which was published in The Times and the Independent newspapers in January 1988, will not repeat it. I sincerely hope that any Members of your Lordships' House who are members or officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group will endeavour to persuade the group to restrain its activities to the same sense of responsibility as we have shown in this House.
This is an important Bill. It is a turning point in medical research and in the destiny of mankind. Nothing like this Bill has previously been placed before Parliament. That is why there is deep concern about it. I have supported the Bill throughout its progress, and I still do. I hope that what is good in it and in its intentions will be seen before any of the disquieting aspects emerge. Surely we all mean that, now that the Bill has reached this stage. But this is not the end of the road. The Bill has to come back here if it is amended in another place. We have allowed free entry of the House of Commons to this Bill on the subject of abortion, so it will certainly come back here, probably containing an amendment on abortion and other amendments.
The time may come when we have to be steadfast as well as self-congratulatory on our activities on

245
this Bill. I hope there will not be any weakness if that occasion arises on this important matter. Therefore, I take leave of this Bill with very grateful feelings indeed to all concerned who have taken part in the debates upon it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor fully deserves all that has been said about him.
At this moment my thoughts go to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who probably brooded over this problem before we had given it any serious attend an. In those circumstances I am sure she must feel that the end of her task has at least brought the ship into port; but what happens to the ship when it sets sail next week, we cannot be sure. However, our good will and our influence should go with it. Whether or not we agree with the Bill, we should certainly try to have some regard for the reputation of Parliament on this shambles that we have witnessed in Parliament over these moral issues for the past 10 years.
Let us get these matters in order at last and conduct our business in a spirit of high responsibility. In those circumstances I believe that we can part with this Bill with an easy conscience in the sense of duty done; otherwise, we are only passing into another phase of parliamentary controversy, abuse and mischief on matters of great importance to the people.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to endeavour to restore a moment of calmness. First, I want to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I honestly believe that he made a considerable difference to our debates as a mastermind. He was able to explain matters that we wanted to understand and he did so all the time. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. I know that many noble Lords have already said that, but I must say it too.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord McGregor, kindly said something nice about me and I should like to say something nice about them. However, I fundamentally disagree with them on the simple point— I cut out all repetition about the embryo being a human being, and so on— that research on embryos has cured genetic diseases. So far no research on embryos has cured a genetic disease. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Walton, or at least he agreed with it. I believe that the only way to cure genetic diseases is to have research on, as I put it, grown-ups— on born, live people.
There is very good news in that respect, As recently as 8th March, Professor Sir David Weatherall, at a lecture to the Royal College of Physicians, said that progress has been made on blood diseases such as haemophilia and thalassaemia. This is to correct genetic abnormality by inserting healthy genetic material into adults who have these diseases and who have consented to the treatment.
The second example of light at the end of the tunnel is Professor Le Jeune who is trying to neutralise the influence of the extra 21st chromosome that causes Down's Syndrome by treating born patients who have this affliction. There is an attempt to try
246
to deal with the third extra chromosome which should not be there.
Thirdly, Professor Williamson hopes to cure cystic fibrosis, using gene therapy, by correcting the defective gene in the lung cells of those patients born with this disease. All these experiments are carried out without using embryos. I understand that medical authorities have set up the Clothier Committee of which I gather the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is a member. The purpose of that committee is to set ethics on gene therapy being practised on adults. That illustrates that we are moving towards curing genetic diseases by experimenting on those who suffer from them and not by the sterile path of believing that it can be done by experimenting on embryos. I greatly welcome that progress and I hope that when the Bill goes to the Commons it will become better knowledge and more often quoted in debates.
I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have taken my speeches in this Chamber. I remain in total agreement about certain points. I should add that I do not speak for the Cardinal. I am not the Cardinal's poodle and I should like to make that quite clear. The Cardinal may have poodles in this House but I am not one of them. He is a great man, a great cleric and a great spiritual leader, and I am sorry that the article caused such concern to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I do not think it was as bad as he suggested and I hope that he will treat it as an article that was not intended to be all that controversial.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, one person to whom gratitude has not been expressed this afternoon but who has played a considerable part in keeping us informed on this delicate and difficult matter is my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I do not agree with him and have not done so since the moment he used a description of the embryo, "a mere dot". However, he went to considerable trouble to make sure that anyone interested could visit one of the schemes of in vitro fertilisation. I took advantage of that invitation and I was much instructed. I came away deeply impressed with the sincerity, moderation and sense of responsibility of all who are engaged in that research.
Other noble Lords have referred to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor but I must add my own little piece. I salute him for his wonderful clarity, his sparkling ingenuity in dealing with amendments and for such exemplary impartiality that none of us can have known his own views from anything he said. I also express my thanks and of all those who support, and who overtly support, the Pro-Life Group, for the leadership shown by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. He has been moderate; he has gone to great trouble to brief himself on the subject. He has worked himself to the bone to make himself very familiar with the subject and to deploy his arguments. We are greatly in his debt.
At the beginning of this process my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor invited us all to make up our minds, each one consulting his own conscience. He used the words "in stillness". Despite

247
the cosy mood to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred— though he quickly broke it himself— of the debates in this matter, my conscience requires that before we send this Bill to another place so I make my protest as briefly as I can.
Quite apart from organised lobbies and so on, the public at large are surely horrified at the enormity of what is proposed, albeit by a three-to-one majority. I believe that this has opened a Pandora's Box of difficulties for the future. My conscience requires that I say that I believe that this legislation is playing God in the most intimate and sacred centre of life itself. If the embryo were not human then experimentation would have little purpose. Thanks to what we have consented to here, life may now be created simply for laboratory experimentation, however noble the purposes of that experimentation may be. The ethics of human vivisection have been condemned ever since classical Alexandria, and I believe that they are implicitly at work here. In exchanging the ethics of the farmyard for those of the family, I believe that human debasement has plumbed new depths. By what astonishing intellectual devices have scientists folded about themselves the mantle of prophecy and have actually foretold what is going to be discovered. The Hippocratic oath has been turned inside out. On the pseudo-moral plane the best we can offer is that prospective patients for treatment services are to be offered what is called "counselling". But counselling in terms of what ethics? What version of right and wrong? That is left open to chance.
I speak not as a Roman Catholic, though I am mistaken for one sometimes. I am simply a traditionalist Anglican. I applaud the final paragraph of the article written by Cardinal Hume which reads as follows:
"This is an issue of life and death, of fundamental human dignity and of the basic and unconditional respect we are bound to have for one another. Until recently our society has consistently recognised these values. Without them it will in future suffer incalculable damage".
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, your Lordships have decided that the human embryo can, up to 14 days, be used for medical research. I remain deeply sad at the consequences for the future of this position. I wish to express one very strong hope, and it is this: if the Bill goes through more or less in its present form in another place I hope that it will in no way discourage or lessen the other avenues of medical research as instanced by the noble Duke who spoke about experimentation on grown-ups. Because medical research is possible on embryos, it would be tragic if there was less research conducted into other avenues. I wish to make that point most strongly.
I was further dismayed at the rejection of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, at Report stage which prohibited the creation of human embryos specifically for experimental research. I do not quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said in that respect. I believe he said that it was a pity
248
that my noble friend Lord Jakobovits did not follow it up. The amendment was taken to a Division and it was defeated.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. There was a third amendment tabled by the Chief Rabbi which he did not move and which he did not take to a Division. That would have prohibited research in an attempt to improve or create a vaccine for contraceptive purposes. He did not press that amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I still believe that he did all that was appropriate, but I am not going to speak for the Chief Rabbi. I am extremely unhappy at what is going forward to another place. I shall not rehearse my reasons for that. It is well known that I am a Roman Catholic and, like a lot of other people of other faiths, I have been upset at what is going forward.
I commend what should not have been debated here; namely, the article written by Cardinal Hume. However, I leave it at that. I have expressed my unhappiness. I want to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, as many others have done, for listening to all the suggested amendments that were put forward from all sides of the House. It was very noticeable that not only did they listen, but where they thought that there was any good reason for what we were asking, again and again they would say: "Please let us think about it; let us take the matter away and see whether we can produce an amendment to give effect to what you are saying at another stage". That happened again and again. I, and I am sure all noble Lords, are extremely grateful for that.
I refer, for example, to two amendments about which I was most anxious in relation to the licensing authority. My concern has been very well put forward in amendments today. I am happy at the thought that Parliament will have a chance in future to comment on whatever the licensing authority is doing. I believe that is of great importance and significance. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for having done what we asked of them.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, before the noble Earl resumes his seat I wish to give him this assurance: he expressed the hope that if Parliament in its wisdom were to decide that research on the early embryo should be continued, subject to strict statutory control, this would not diminish other research which is designed to improve genetic conditions.
I cannot speak for the medical community as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, is better able to do that. I shall chance my arm and speak for the Medical Research Council. I can give the noble Earl my assurance, as chairman of the council, that in no way will this legislation diminish the kind of research which we would be keen to undertake into those conditions.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I do not wish in any way to prolong what has already been an exceptionally lengthy debate. I had no intention of speaking at Third Reading today, but I wish to make one or two points. The first relates to the article to which my noble friend Lord Halsbury has referred, written by my friend Cardinal Hume. I share with him the honour of being an honorary freeman of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, a city from which we both come, and I also share the honour of being a lifelong supporter of Newcastle United. I have to say, however, that I disagree most profoundly with his views as promulgated in the article to which reference has been made. He is fully aware of that because we have discussed it on a number of occasions.
I also wish to make the point, as I have said before during our debates, that I myself am a committed Christ: an. I am a lifelong member of the Methodist Church and have authority to say that the Methodist Church is making public before long a report in which it will express views almost identical to those expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in relation to this issue. It will confirm the view of many other theologians, including several of the Roman Catholic faith, who are in no doubt in their minds that the group of cells produced by the fertilisation of a human ovum by a human sperm within that first 14 days does not develop the individuation in which the first evidence of an individual can be discerned until the primitive streak appears on the 14th day. But it would not be my wish to prolong this argument, save to reply to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, about the issue of the treatment of genetic disease.
Of course every member of the medical and scientific community wishes to see treatment developed for genetic disease. There are indeed many inherited diseases for which treatment is now available; for example, the condition of phenyl-ketonaria which causes severe mental retardation if not identified and treated early in life. There are many other conditions where treatment has become available as a result of research. I would certainly support research being done towards the treatment of genetic disease by gene replacement. This is already happening, as has been said, in diseases like thalassemia, the blood disease to which Sir David Weatherall referred. But in some of the most devastating genetic diseases this will not be possible for at least another 10 or 20 years. In the interim, the prevention of inherited disease by embryo research is becoming feasible and is a possibility. Behind it lie the hopes of many parents who have had disabled children.
Surely it is preferable to identify within that group of cells resulting from fertilisation the presence of a harmful gene and to allow that group of cells to degenerate naturally than for the woman to carry a child with a major, fatal, crippling disease. Surely it is preferable to allow the pregnancy to proceed to 10 or 12 weeks and then to see whether or not the gene is present and carry out an abortion at that stage.
With these few remarks I hope that the Bill, which has been so widely and I believe wisely amended in
250
your Lordships' House with, if I may add to all that has been said, the wonderful advice and support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will have a fair wind in another place.
6.24 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I should like to make some comments on the results of the Bill as it goes forward in its present state. I start with an obvious remark. Without conception this Bill would not have been necessary. We spent the whole of the several days discussing it dealing with the results of conception. Indeed, without conception, noble Lords would not be here.
At Second Reading the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York set out the process of gradual evolution. He said in this connection:
"The 14-day rule, with all the safeguards surrounding it, seems to me to be a workable basis for such a consensus".— [Official Report, 7/12/89; col. 1022.]
Thus he pointed out that the proposed 14-day rule is in the nature of a compromise. That does not seem to me a very sound way of dealing with the origins of life. It could have major implications for the future. Moreover the decision was not reached as a result of a deliberate attempt to settle this important point but merely as a result of the desire to allow scientific research. Does this decision now mean that life does not begin until after the 14th day?
The most reverend Primate emphasised that he was speaking purely for himself when he said:
"I think it is fair to say that the Church of England has not yet taken a definite position on these matters". — [Official Report, 7/12/89; col. 1019.]
Surely the Church of England ought to have done. It ought to have a view on this important matter. I cannot but wonder whether it has funked the issue and is deliberately waiting before expressing a view until after the Bill becomes law. It is not a very happy record for the Established Church. I rather fear that it is one more nail in the coffin of this more or less moribund institution.
One can but compare the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church, which was very definite in the views which your Lordships rejected so decisively. I should like to add my tribute to those already paid to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who I thought presented his case with great sympathy and moderation. Despite all that has been said— I listened carefully to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and of other noble Lords— I still believe that the view expressed by the noble Duke is a sound one.
I should also like to refer to the decisions taken with regard to AID. First, the proposals seem to be based on a fiction. It is simply not true to say that a child born by AID is legitimate. The fact that the mother carries the child does not mean that it is genetically hers any more than it would be in the case of a surrogate mother. Yet the law now says that it is. Perhaps I may give an example of what might happen. A case involving this issue comes before the courts. We know that, despite advice to the contrary, many litigants will bring such a case. The judge in his summing up will be bound on this

251
issue to direct the jury that the child has to be considered legitimate, knowing that, in the accepted sense, this is not true. The jury, knowing this also, will have no option but to find accordingly.
Secondly, the Bill makes it difficult or impossible to trace the real parents. It also gives parenthood a new dimension. No longer is it only a genetic connection with children born of mothers. Children like many others will want to know who their parents and grandparents are. The House took the view that it was not in their interests to know. I find that hard to accept. Indeed, one very experienced social worker told me the other day that she and many of her colleagues felt that this was one of the worst aspects of the Bill.
Thirdly, children treated as legitimate are entitled to inherit property. One reason given is that the testator might have wished to include them had he known what was in the Bill. In this connection I must differ from the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It seems to me much more likely that the settlor would have excluded the cuckoo in the nest. Fourthly, there would be two categories of AID children— those catered for under the main provisions of the Bill and those who have special rights of inheritance, who are treated differently.
The need for this Bill has arisen for two reasons. One is because the advances of science have made some regulation essential. I think that everyone in this House has accepted the need for it. The second reason, I would suggest to your Lordships, is that the teachings of the Church no longer have the support of the vast majority of the population. In the past, although the rules were often broken, they were accepted as the standard, and breaches were frowned upon. So long as this was so, it proved a satisfactory arrangement. There are many ifs and buts on this matter that are really not suitable for legislation, and what we have decided in the last few days must of necessity have been decided on a degree of uncertainty. However, since the Church has largely lost its influence, Parliament has stepped in. It remains to be seen whether the decisions we have made will turn out to be wise ones.
There is one area to which I would refer as particularly important, and this is the survival of the family unit. This to my mind is of paramount importance. It is already under pressure, and I fear that this Bill will not help it. Certain provisions that have been made force me to this conclusion. One is allowing for AID to unmarried women, and the other is allowing AID to unmarried couples, however long they have associated together.
For all these reasons, while I hope that the Bill will find the answers to the many questions to which it addresses itself, I fear that it may raise more problems than it solves.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a highly important and complex Bill and one which the Government introduced after a long consultation and deep and careful consideration. It follows from the work of the committee chaired by the noble
252
Baroness, Lady Warnock, which reported in 1984. I should like to join those of your Lordships who have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her committee for the valuable work which they did then. There followed two further rounds of consultation before the White Paper was published in 1987. The issues have been exhaustively debated in public. Our debates in this House therefore have been the culmination so far of a long but nonetheless essential period of preparation.
It is right to begin by reminding ourselves of the existing position. At present there is no statutory control at all on the new scientific and medical procedures which have developed in the past decade or so in relation to in-vitro fertilisation and gamete and embryo donation. When some who have spoken have suggested that the Bill is undesirable, I think we have usually meant in some of its aspects. I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House believes that it is wise to go ahead without a statutory regulation of these matters.
Nor at the moment is there any adequate statutory framework governing the status and legal position of children born as a result of such treatments. We may differ, and in some cases differ quite markedly, about the form of statutory provision and especially on issues of embryo research. But I believe I am speaking for the whole House when I say that it is both necessary and right that this vacuum should be filled, and that there should be an adequate statutory framework in these new areas of scientific and medical development.
It is for this reason that while, in your Lordship's House and in another place, the Government have listened and will continue to listen very carefully to all that is said on matters of detail and remain committed to the principle that the question of embryo research should be decided through free votes, nonetheless, the policy that there should be an Act governing this area of our national life is a Government committment. The Government are anxious to secure, through the debates and decisions in this House and another place, a settled and acceptable framework on these matters.
It is partly for this reason, and partly out of respect for your Lordships, that my noble friend Lady Hooper and I have listened carefully to all the anxieties that your Lordships have expressed, and have endeavoured to find, so far as that is possible, common ground on these difficult issues. It has not been possible to find common ground on all issues. There are some that are still the subject of debate. They are matters of detail. Let me just take one example.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, earlier today took to a Division a question about existing settlements and wills. I had said that we might consider that further, but we had a Division about it at the present stage. Of course that does not preclude our examining these matters further in the hope that, out of the differing views expressed today, it may still be possible to distil a common ground which would satisfy both parties.
On the principal issues in relation to research, and the extent of research, there are diametrically

253
opposed views which it would be impossible to believe could give rise to a common ground. The reason for that, perhaps particularly in the spiritual dimension, is that very different views have been expressed. As one of my noble friends remarked, the Church of England has indicated that not all of those who hold high office in that Church have the same view on these matters. We have had the benefit in our debates here of hearing these different views cogently expressed. Your Lordships have had the benefit of the spiritual dimension as appreciated by these Members of this House and others in considering these questions.
It is against the background that I have just described that I go on to consider briefly the main features of the Bill as it has emerged from the long and thoughtful debates which your Lordships have given to this measure. The Bill seeks to establish a licensing authority' to control and license centres providing certain infertility treatments and, subject to the views expressed in another place, centres undertaking embryo research. This system of control is the centrepiece of the Bill and the new authority will have a very significant and sensitive task to perforin in ensuring that the licensing system operates effectively, and that the public has full confidence in its independence and soundness of judgment in a field of fast moving medical and scientific development. The Government fully support that, and I hope that the very slight doubt expressed by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on that matter will be resolved.
Thanks to your Lordships' thorough consideration of the authority and its functions, and in particular to my noble friends Lord Jellicoe and Lady Platt of Writtle, the noble Lords, Lord McGregor of Durris and Lord Ennals, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the Bill now provides that the authority's reports will be produced annually, and that they should be prospective as well as retrospective. Following the raising of the subject by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, the Bill now provides for annual inspections of licensed premises, and that the people who carry out the inspections should be of such character and so qualified by training and experience as to be suited to perform that function. I could not leave an account of the role and functions of the new authority without pausing to pay tribute to the work of the voluntary (now interim) authority under the distinguished leadership of its chairman, Dame Mary Donaldson.
I am sure that in our work on this Bill we have a great occasion for gratitude to that authority as well as to the scientific and medical community that have voluntarily placed themselves in this field under the guidance of that authority. That is a measure of the responsibility shown in this delicate area by those engaged in this work.
It is not on the issue of embryo research that opinions are most widely divided; and most strongly held. It was the conclusion of the House that the possible benefits of research on human embryos justified its being conducted up to 14 days subject to the strict controls provided in the Bill. The careful scrutiny to which your Lordships subjected the Bill, and the amendment put down by my noble friend
254
Lady Elles, which the House debated, have ensured that it is now drafted to make clear that the controls on research apply from the beginning of the fertilisation process until the 14-day period has expired. Both those who spoke in favour of research and those who took the contrary views— that the possible benefits of research could not justify the violation of the humanity of the embryo— debated their arguments lucidly and with admirable calmness and tolerance.
I was also pleased to see that support which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and the noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, Lord McGregor of Durris and Lord Ennals, gave to the amendment relating to the welfare of children. It is clearly a matter which should be most seriously considered by those providing infertility services regulated by the Bill. That will be dealt with in more detail in the code of practice which the authority is required to prepare under Clause 25. That amendment also fits in well with the Children Act 1989, which your Lordships considered in much detail last Session, which makes the welfare of the child the paramount consideration. The Bill also provides that all patients receiving treatment must be provided with the opportunity to receive counselling so that they are fully aware of the implications of the procedure they are undertaking. That is the primary purpose of the counselling. That, too, will help those concerned to focus on the future welfare of any child who may be born as the result of treatment.
A further issue which commanded a great deal of your Lordships' attention was that of information to be given to the children who were, or may have been, born as a result of the treatment regulated by the Bill and to third parties. With the exception of the special case where the registrar general is concerned with a claim that a man is not the father of a child, release of information is for the benefit only of the person who was or may have been born as a result of licensed treatment services in two types of case. The first is when, after the age of 18, the child seeks information on his or her genetic origins. The second is if he or she needs information about whether he or she and an intended spouse are genetically related. That basic policy of the White Paper that only non-identifying information should be revealed, and then only to the person born as result of the treatment to which the information relates, has found favour with the House, subject of course to the possibility that as matters develop that information may be enlarged.
This is an important Bill which deals with questions of great moral, ethical, spiritual and religious significance for our society. It is indeed fitting that those issues have been addressed by those in the House who lead or represent religious opinions such as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits the Chief Rabbi and many others. These have often been difficult matters which have aroused much interest and attention. I believe, however, that your Lordships' House has explored very carefully the many issues involved and has debated them skilfully and with a thoroughness

255
that ensures the Bill is now ready for its passage to another place.
I should like to thank all the noble Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Baronesses who have participated in the consideration of this Bill. It would be invidious to mention individual contributions more than I have done already, but I have always been impressed by the unfailing determination of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, to improve the drafting of the Bill, and of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Zuckerman, to increase our scientific and medical understanding. It is through their efforts that the Bill leaves the House much improved and that is a tribute to the skill, courtesy and tenacity with which all the debates have been conducted.
My noble friend Baroness Hooper has been the Minister with primary responsibility for the Bill. It has been my great privilege to promote the Bill with her on behalf of the Government. I should like to thank on her behalf, and mine, all of your Lordships who have kindly made reference to our efforts. We have sought to obtain the maximum possible agreement on these delicate matters so that the statutory control goes forward on the basis of the maximum possible agreement.
Some of your Lordships have remarked that I have sought to be impartial on the issues where the Government have said that a free vote is appropriate. I have sought to maintain that impartiality. It was clear to me that the main issues would be decided by a large majority. I have felt it right therefore to preserve my own counsel. There is always the possibility that matters will return to the House in a delicate situation, and there may be advantages in that from my point of view. I have therefore imposed that degree of self-restraint on myself. I have the greatest pleasure in moving that the Bill do now pass, without in any way committing myself on the issues upon which a free vote has been given.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (The Lord Advocate.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Information as to recognised charities]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, after ("Advocate") insert ("any").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 has been grouped with Amendment No. 6. For the convenience of the Committee it might be appropriate to add Amendment No. 2 to the group because it relates also to Clause 1.
The purpose of this part of the Bill, which deals with charities, is said in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to provide for the protection of charities in Scotland. The Bill deals with the regulation of charities. The long-term objective is to identify charities in Scotland, to provide a check on their activities and to provide information on those activities to the Lord Advocate in the public interest and to a lesser extent to members of the public. It is therefore important that no relevant information should be withheld from the Lord Advocate.
Amendment No. 1 is a one-word amendment. It releases the Inland Revenue from any restriction on disclosing to the Lord Advocate what might previously have been regarded as confidential information. With the amendment the clause would read:
"No obligation as to secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise shall prevent the Commissioners of Inland Revenue … from disclosing—
(a) to the Lord Advocate, any information"—
instead of, as the clause now reads "information".
The purpose of that small amendment is to give statutory force to the requirement that the Inland Revenue must give "any" information requested by the Lord Advocate and not merely some information. It is important that the Inland Revenue should not be allowed to take advantage of any loopholes in the statute through which it might avoid disclosure of all material matters relating to the malpractices of charities which is what I understand Clause 1 (1) (a) strikes at. I have no particular reason to think that the Inland Revenue would behave in that way, but it can be, as we have all experienced, an awkward squad— if I may put it that way— with which to deal. It would be unfortunate if the absence of a statutory requirement led the parties into expensive litigation. The amendment will remove any doubt about that matter.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 is to supplement the information in general which is already required to be given to the Lord Advocate and to any person who makes inquiries to the Inland Revenue. At the moment any person will be supplied with the name of any recognised body and the address last used by the commissioners for any communication. The amendments would add the words:
"and the names and addresses of places from which the said body claims, or has claimed, to operate and the names and addresses of any persons concerned, or claiming to have been concerned, in the management or control of the said body".
That is of some importance from the criminal point of view where suspicion exists of long-term fraud and where a far-reaching inquiry may be required. That is from the public interest point of view on the part of the Lord Advocate. That information will also assist a member of the public who may not be involved in a criminal investigation but may just

257
wish to judge the status and quality of the charity to which he wishes to donate or from which he wishes to receive money. He may need to judge whether he wishes to become involved with that charity. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope that this amendment is not acceptable to the Government because it seems to me to be unnecessary. The purpose of the first amendment, I should have thought, was covered by the lines that follow, that it is restricted to information regarding misdemeanours, if I may put it like that.
I see no real point in the Inland Revenue being under a duty under the Act to give the names and addresses because without that information the Lord Advocate would certainly ask for and obtain it. The position is all covered. It seems to me that the Bill is complicated enough without adding to it.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to say a word on Amendment No. 6. There are a number of charitable bodies where the trustees may be ex officio under the legislation for trusts in Scotland. I do not wish to go into detail but I belong to one society which is partly charitable. In the last 20 years we have had at least 10 different trustees. That is why I feel that Amendment No. 6 creates rather a complicated issue.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that on this clause it is important that the Inland Revenue should be discharged from the duty that it owes of confidentiality in respect of this information. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, indicated, the provision in Clause 1 (1) (a) is more than sufficient for my purposes.
There is a further consideration which will apply to the next amendment that we shall consider, Amendment No. 2, that the Inland Revenue does not hold all the information in the form that is set out in the amendment. It could not provide all the addresses that are suggested. The scheme we put forward is that the Inland Revenue should be relieved of the duty of confidentiality. Once the name and address of the body concerned has been acquired from the Inland Revenue, information can be obtained from the body itself of the kind which the noble Lord is considering and which is dealt with in the next amendment.
It may be a little obscure at this point but where, for example, the names of trustees are sought the information on the current trustees may not be with the Inland Revenue. If noble Lords turn to Clause 4 (3) there is reference to the Secretary of State determining what should be the contents of a report. Should there be any difficulties about obtaining these names and addresses, then steps could be taken by that route to ensure that the information is made available to members of the public.
As regards my interest in Clause 1 (1) (a), in regard to information it is important that the Inland Revenue should be relieved of the duty of confidentiality. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and for his assurance to your Lordships' Committee that he is satisfied that he has sufficient powers under the clause. I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
(" (b) to any person who is maintaining a register of bodies recognised as charitable with supporting information including the address, accounts and the names of trustees and the purposes of the trust").
The noble Earl said: The amendment examines the charity side from a slightly different angle. The central issue through most of the early passages in Clause 1 of the Bill is for the benefit of the Lord Advocate. I am not opposed in any way to the Lord Advocate obtaining information, but it is not the only side of a charity; there is another side. The side which I am trying to outline in Amendment No. 3 is that the charities available in Scotland should be better known so that people can obtain benefits from them or perhaps make a contribution to them.
I shall leave the curious position of charities in Scotland for my more learned colleagues to explain if at any time they wish to do so. I shall not attempt it myself. The only people who really know what charities exist are the Inland Revenue. Nobody else knows. I think it is important that the Inland Revenue should be free to pass on the information that I mention in the amendment; that is, information including addresses, accounts, the names of trustees and the purposes of the trust so that these can be put together in a register.
I do not say that my amendment is ideal for that purpose but it covers the issue. I should be happy to accept any amendment or make any change which my noble friend wishes to suggest, provided it goes towards making a Scottish register. That is important and it is in the interests of all trusts, all charities or whatever they may be, that this should happen. The provision is far-reaching; this has never been done before. I believe now is the opportunity for it to be established. I do not need to say any more at this hour. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I have great sympathy with the purpose of the amendment. In a recent case I tried to help someone who was looking for support for a very good purpose. I had great trouble in finding out where anybody existed who could help. I failed miserably to obtain that help and I have no doubt that if there had been a register I should have been able to do something.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I wish to add my support for the purposes of the amendment. I have been a trustee of at least two charities in Scotland and believe that people who know their way around can generally find the appropriate charities to support their interest. However, the people who are perhaps

259
in the greatest need do not necessarily know their way around the charities. As a result they fail to obtain the benefits for which the charities are available. In the circumstances, I hope that we can obtain some reassurance that a proper register will be available. It would be of great advantage to the people who require assistance.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with the spirit of the amendment. I said on Second Reading that I felt that it was important to have a register in some form. I have since spoken to a number of people and also thought about it. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Selkirk would agree, but what is needed is not just an enormous list of every charity in Scotland arranged alphabetically. That would be a confusing document. What is really needed is a list of the kinds of charities that people will want to look up, probably grouped according to interests. There would be charities interested in youth work, disabilities, old people, overseas aid and similar subjects. Such a register would have to be composed by a body which was capable of making this form of grouping. It would be necessary to anticipate what people were likely to seek when they consulted the register. I do not know how this situation could be arrived at— whether the amendment would cater for it. However, it seems to me that that is what is needed. It would not necessarily need to be a register of every single charity.
7 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 20 which stands in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Macaulay of Bragar. However, the debate has opened somewhat wider than Amendment No. 3 and it takes in the purpose which Amendment No. 4, which is in my name, also covers. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to that amendment and to the related Amendments Nos. 19 and 140.
As has already been pointed out, for the first time in legislation we are attempting to produce a scheme for supervision of charities in Scotland. It is important to realise that, as the Bill stands, what is proposed is merely the production of an index to be in the hands of the Inland Revenue. It is rather like a telephone directory in that if one does not know the name one is seeking it is of no use.
We can look South of the Border to what already exists in England and Wales. I take comfort from what is stated in the Government White Paper which followed the Woodfield Report. Chapter 3 of the White Paper deals with the register which is kept by the Charity Commissioners. One sentence of that paragraph encapsulates all that we have been talking about. Paragraph 3.4 states:
"The Register provides potential donors and other interested members of the public with access to basic information on the existence of registered charities, their purposes and their administrative structure".
We should observe the word "purposes". In that same part there is reference to the kind of volume of inquiries that such a register receives. It is said
260
that the register includes in the order of 170,000 entries and that,
"the Commission has received roughly 30,000 enquiries a year from members of the public relating to information on the Register".
That quite clearly indicates the scope of the interest of the public South of the Border.
I must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that some Members of the Committee will have received a memorandum from the Law Society of Scotland on this matter. That memorandum makes reference to the fact that solicitors who administer trusts and who attempt to seek charitable bodies to which to make donations can find no reference point from which to begin their inquiries. The suggested index does not provide any such reference point. The inquirer is given no clue as to the nature of the body or bodies which he is referred to, even if he knows their names. Indeed the only information he can obtain which is of any assistance is through his own research thereafter by writing and paying fees to such of the recognised bodies whose names and addresses have been given to him. That is not sufficient and I venture to suggest that the commissioners of the Inland Revenue have that information. I cite Section 9 (1) of the Charities Act 1960 which provides that the commissioners of the Inland Revenue may furnish the Charity Commissioners,
"with information as to the purposes of the institution and the trusts under which it is established or regulated".
Since at least 1960 the commissioners of the Inland Revenue have been accustomed to gather in that information.
In those circumstances it seems important to have a register in our own jurisdiction where the consultative document and the White Paper issued by the Secretary of State as the precursor to this measure suggest that of the order of 15,000 charities exist and that around 400 new charities each year are being established. Therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, it is important that we should have a register. That register should be flexible.
What I have sought to do in Amendment No. 4 is to provide for the fact that the commissioners of the Inland Revenue cannot provide the register itself. Therefore, it must be provided by a body or bodies which have been designated by the Secretary of State. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 19. The flexibility there is that there may be more than one body which is designated to carry out that task. Therefore there may be a general register or one which is intended to reflect a distinct class or classes of charities.
The body which is designated to carry out that task, may be a voluntary body, such as the one of which I have the honour to be president, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was my immediate predecessor as chairman of that body. The body may also constitute someone from within a government department. I believe that a registrar exists at the moment for educational endowments within the Scottish Office. It seems to me that the proposal would cover many of the anxieties which Members of the Committee have already expressed.

261
I now turn to another aspect of this matter which is encompassed in Amendment No. 20. In that amendment I seek to give powers to a specific authority, a local authority, to carry out a not dissimilar exercise. But here the division is not necessarily that of class but one of geography. It takes its origin and genesis from Section 10 of the Charities Act 1960. I make no bones about the fact that the amendment reflects precisely the terms of that section. In that section Parliament has already provided in England and Wales the basis upon which the index is to be prepared, and for the publication of that index as well as its availability for public inspection and other matters. It provides that a voluntary organisation may be used as an agent to provide the index.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may counter that by saying, "Ah yes, but we have similar powers in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973". He may instance Sections 87 and 88. However, a careful perusal of those sections will reveal that that is not their purpose. They deal simply with the services offered by charities, among other bodies and do not deal with the basic point of information of the kind which is dealt with in Section 10 of the Charities Act 1960. Parliament recognised that as in the Local Government Act 1972 one finds precisely the same powers accorded to English local authorities. Therefore it cannot have been considered that those sections were simply duplicating what had already appeared in 1960.
I apologise for having taken up the time of the Committee, but I believe that this is a most important point. I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that this is a glaring omission in the Bill. It must be covered in some way and I have suggested another way of covering it which is not dissimilar to that which the noble Earl has produced. However, there is a sting in the tail in my Amendment No. 19. I am really leaving it to the Secretary of State to undertake the burden of this designation, and with it the hope that perhaps some money will be available from Government funds to enable that to be done.
We are looking to legislation which is intended for the future to regulate the whole of the charity scene. In my submission, powers of this kind are essential in such a Bill. When I come to Amendments Nos. 4 and 2C I shall consider my position in the light of the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to Amendment No. 3.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may briefly add a little to what my noble and learned friend has said in support of the necessity for an index of charities. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to assist charity— to assist people who wish to give money to charity and to assist those who are entitled to receive money for charity. However, it seems to me that the list— wherever it is held and whoever compiles it— is an essential item of any such provision. It also seems to me that it is quite easy for the Inland Revenue either to prepare the list itself, including the purposes of charities, or to make the information available to anyone who should receive it.
262
Under Clause 1 (7) of the Bill any charity which wishes to operate will require a certificate. Before issuing the certificate the Inland Revenue will have to be satisfied as to the purpose of the charity, otherwise it would not be a charity. Therefore, at the time of issuing the certificate the Inland Revenue knows the purpose of the charity. It can put that information onto computer or microfiche, or record it in some other way so that it is available. I should have thought that it was not beyond the wit of this Committee to suggest that since all the charities which are now recognised will want a certificate there is no difficulty whatever in producing a list of charities within the time which is no doubt to be allowed for this part of the Bill to come into force.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I should like to support what has been said by he noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, concerning Amendment No. 3 and by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Campbell of Lochbroom and Lord Morton of Shuna.
As has already been pointed out twice in Committee, the purpose of the Bill is the supervision and regulation of charities. The absence of a national register of charities leaves a large gap in the structure. I endorse the view that it should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Civil Service and others to get together and give Scotland a proper list of charities to which the public can have access. Such a list would allow the public to see readily what is going on in the charitable field so that they can make any inquiries they wish to the Inland Revenue in connection with alleged charitable activities by named bodies. Therefore, I support the spirit of Amendment No. 3.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, recognised that Amendment No. 3 is rather widely framed. It would give to any person maintaining a register of charitable bodies the right to such information. That would mean that if 60 people decided to keep a register of charities in Scotland they could pester the Inland Revenue for details of the charities. That would lead to great duplication of effort. I believe that it would be more satisfactory if the amendments were taken on board by the Government and the matter was looked at seriously with a view to meeting the concerns that have been expressed in Committee.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to make one comment on Amendment No. 20. The last subsection of the proposed new clause states that:
"A local authority may employ any voluntary organisations".
Do we really want local authorities to take on board the job of maintaining an index? Local authorities might seek information from voluntary organisations. However, in many cases such organisations are run by people who are unpaid and provide their services voluntarily. Very often the only person in a charity who deserves to be paid is the secretary; that is the most difficult position to fill. I feel that the suggested new clause, "Index of local authorities", is not drafted satisfactorily.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I believe has been appreciated, as the consideration of the amendment has proceeded we have ranged rather more widely than the matters encompassed by the amendment. The amendment and those which follow centre on the issue of whether or not there should be an index or register to facilitate greater access to charities in Scotland. While I do not accept my noble and learned friend's description of that as being a glaring omission from the Bill, it is primarily intended that there should be supervision of charities in Scotland which I believe we all appreciate has been a glaring omission from the law in Scotland for some considerable time.
The Government indeed symphathise with the idea behind the amendments that a directory or index of charities in Scotland would be very useful. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, indicated, there are some 15,000 charities in Scotland which have been recognised by the Inland Revenue. In the scheme put forward in this part of the Bill disclosure by the Inland Revenue of the names of those charities which it recognises is the key to unlocking the information which is essential in order to build up a directory. I suggest that that disclosure, combined with the requirement under Clause 4 for charities to publish an annual report and accounts, will enable anyone wishing to publish a directory to identify candidates for inclusion.
While it is no doubt correct, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, indicated, that if the Inland Revenue recognises a body as charitable it ought to know something about the purposes for which it is established. However, I should be cautious about suggesting that the Inland Revenue would necessarily have all the information that would be useful to those who wish to find out more about an individual charity. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, indicated, there are often individuals who wish for very good reasons to have information about such charities. It is unlikely that the Inland Revenue would know when meetings of a charity were being held. More particularly, it would be unlikely to know the size of grants which a charity might make to individual applicants and the information that it requires of applicants for grants. We suggest that by providing a right for members of the public to obtain copies of a charity's objects directly from the charity itself, together with the information which it is suggested should be provided under Clause 4, there is a greater opportunity to provide a directory of charitable bodies which would contain the information that members of the public might want.
To do as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morton and Lord Cameron, have suggested and require the Inland Revenue to release, in addition to names and addresses of registered bodies, a summary of their principal objects would be a major undertaking for the revenue. As I have indicated, it may well be that the information would not be very helpful. Prudent drafters of trust deeds for charitable purposes generally include two or three broad heads of charity to preserve, for good enough reasons, maximum flexibility for the trustees. As I understand
264
it, in most instances the name of the charity is likely to be more informative than the objects of the trust itself.
It may help if prior to the first listing of charities all such bodies received a letter explaining the intention to publish. I hope that, given that suggestion, noble Lords might consider withdrawing their amendments. We are willing to consider including in the mailing a questionnaire, the completion of which would be voluntary, with a view to assisting the compilation by others of a directory.
I have asked Scottish Office officials to arrange further meetings with the Inland Revenue and the organisation to which reference has already been made— the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations— to explore the possible involvement of the SCVO in such a venture. The Inland Revenue will also consider, in the light of the volume of inquiries, making much more widely available copies of the microfiches containing the index.
As I indicated, it seems to me that it is a matter of first unlocking the information from the Inland Revenue and then seeing how we can best put together, without imposing it on the Inland Revenue, a directory which will contain all the information desired by those who have indicated their support for it.
Turning to Amendment No. 20, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, has modelled his amendment on Section 10 of the Charities Act 1960, and has also made reference to the provision under Section 88 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Although there may well be a duplication in England, it appears to me that, if any local authority in Scotland wished to take on the responsibility of providing a local directory in its local public libraries, for example, it is already so empowered to do.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, envisaged that in a small district council such as Angus there are often a large number of small local charities. It would be helpful if that information were to be collated by the local authority— something that has not happened or has been difficult to complete in the absence of information from the Inland Revenue. I believe that that can be done, and it is an objective well worth pursuing.
Given the various bodies that are interested in that field, the correct way forward at this time is to have the further investigation and discussion that I suggested, to see whether a scheme can be properly developed which will allow that information to be made available. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lords will consider that their amendments can be withdrawn.
Lord Kirkhill: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help me. I have asked this question before. Some noble Lords may have decided what they will do, or not do, with the various amendments that they have tabled. The noble and learned Lord has used such phrases as "We shall consider" and "We hope to

265
discuss matters with". We want to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will be involved and whether he will designate a body.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not suggest at this stage that there should be designation of a body, but I thought that I had given a pretty clear hint of a body that might be suitable for taking on just such a task.
Perhaps I may emphasise an important point which the noble Lord may not have picked up. Although the Inland Revenue is in possession of a considerable amount of information which might be useful to those who seek to put together such a directory, it does not have all the information that will be useful. For example, it might not know at any particular time who are the current trustees. It might not have had contact with a body for some time and information might therefore be restricted. The Secretary of State becomes involved as a result of the provisions in Clause 4. Clause 4 (3) states:
"The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe—
(a) the form and content of the balance sheet and income and expenditure account and of the report".
I envisage that information would be provided within that report which would be of use to those who sought to make application to the charity for a grant.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will help me on this point. A number of years ago, the citizens of Kirriemuir left money to provide a ton of coal a year for the poor of the parish and a pound a year to the local pipe band in addition to a number of other similar requests. Has that trust been registered?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not know about that trust. It is certainly conceivable that it is registered and, from the noble Lord's description of the provision of fuel for the poor in Kirriemuir, it appeals at first blush that it has every possibility of being accepted as a charitable trust. However, once this part of the Bill is in place, it will be possible not only for organisations but for individuals to make inquiries and to discover whether it has been so registered.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We are all grateful to a certain extent to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his reply, but there is a feeling that he has for some reason or another failed to grasp the nettle. Why is it that in England the charity commissioners are required to keep that register whereas he has suggested that, in Scotland, local author: ties might do that? That puzzles me. Will the local authorities have power to demand from the Inland Revenue lists of all the charities in Scotland? The noble and learned Lord then went on to speak of the SCVO perhaps doing that job. As an outside, non-statutory body, would it have power to ask the Inland Revenue to supply the information?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appears to be making rather heavy weather of the matter. There are books on the subject. I have been associated with a number of organisations which
266
have looked for charitable donations. They are reasonably well indexed. The books list what I believe are called grocery charities and chocolate charities, for example. They are helpful as far as they go, but there is always a feeling that some charities might have been missed. As has been suggested, lawyers often look for places to which people wish to make donations. In addition, there is the possibility that good, reputable bodies, which need money for specific purposes, cannot easily find out where to go. A local authority might be suitable for the smaller charities such as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned. However, there is a plethora of larger charities, for example, universities and medical charities. There are all kinds of groups to which one could go.
Why can we not have a single register such as exists in England? It puzzles me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is seeking a voluntary organisation for that purpose. One presumes that a grant would be made to the voluntary organisation for that purpose unless there was a charge for making inquiries, which I do not believe applies south of the Border. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will enlighten me on that point. From what was said after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke, other noble Lords seemed a little disappointed in the Minister's reply. I certainly was. I am sure that his intention is good. Will he not take back the amendment and consider it a little more thoroughly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have told noble Lords that there are reasons for discussing the matter further. If the noble Lord consults the paper which we prepared before the legislation was introduced, he will see that we made it clear that we did not wish to go down the road of establishing a charities commission such as that which obtains in England at present. I think that those who have some familiarity with it will appreciate that the Charity Commissioners have had very real difficulties and have been subjected to considerable criticisms in recent years. A slavish following of that model did not appear to me to be the most appropriate way of proceeding.
What in my view is worthy of further exploration is whether there would be any value in somebody simply keeping a list— I see the attraction of someone drawing it together who has a real interest in charitable matters— precisely for the reason given by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Simply to have a complete list of 15,000 charities in Scotland setting out their purposes might be of pretty limited value to those who wished to obtain grants from those charities.
It seems to be much more desirable— and this is why I think there should be much more opportunity given for discussion with a body like the SCVO— to have such a directory or register broken down, as my noble friend would wish, into charities that are interested in, say, overseas aid, mental health or whatever it might be. That might be of greatest value to those who wish to make application to those charities. It seems to me that that is the way in which this matter should be approached.

267
I should like to clarify one final point. When I indicated that local authorities might be involved, it would certainly be in duplication, if they so chose, of their own local authority. I do not suggest— I accept that that is the criticism that the noble Lord made— that it would necessarily be appropriate to make the only registers that one can get at the ones that are made up on a local basis. I am sure that the noble Lord could readily rattle off a considerable list of charities which had an all-Scotland or all-United Kingdom application and which are not simply there for a local purpose.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate suggested that the need for this Bill was the supervision of charities, as if the majority of charities was some kind of group of delinquents. I suggested to him that what was needed was help for charities. It did not appear to me from anything said by the noble and learned Lord that he was taking any course other than being the teacher keeping the naughty boys in line.
However, the need is there. The charities which are doing a good job should be assisted to do a better job by having that type of list readily available. I cannot see the difficulty. The Inland Revenue will have to issue the certificate and therefore will have to know the charitable purpose. The Government should realise that it is a help to know which charities deal, say, with medical research, which deal with education, which tackle poverty and so on. That kind of basic division is of interest.
If the noble and learned Lord will take that point on board and consider putting out a list— as he appeared to suggest at Second Reading when he spoke about the Inland Revenue having all this information on microfiche— we can take the matter a little further without prolonging this debate.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I am bound to tell the noble Lord that regrettably supervision in Scotland has been sadly lacking. I do not in any way suggest that anything other than a tiny minority of charities in Scotland may be abusing their positions. At risk of repeating myself, I emphasise that we shall look very carefully at making much more widely available the information that is held on microfiche so that it is available to those who want access to it.
I believe that if there is to be a directory which is of value to people who seek grants and so on, as the noble Lord appears to want, then much more information will be needed. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head. However, I should have thought that the information contained in a report, such as the type of grants available and the amounts that will be given, would be just the kind of information that individuals want. In my time as a Member of Parliament, that is the information for which I was repeatedly asked. I was asked, "I know that there is such and such a trust. Is it worth my while applying? Will I only get £ 25 or a contribution that will make a significant difference?" I believe that it is that kind of information that would be very useful to the public in Scotland.
Lord Grimond: Am I right in thinking that such a registry is in existence, at least for England? It is a private enterprise registry which indicates where one can obtain grants for various purposes. Would it be worth inquiring whether that covers Scotland, or indeed encouraging a similar registry in Scotland?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not know about any English one. I find it difficult to believe that it would have the full information, given the duty that is imposed upon the Inland Revenue not to reveal information. It cannot be all-revealing. There are many respectable and worthwhile charities which go out of their way publicly to make clear their purposes and what funds they have available.
The Earl of Perth: The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is quite right. In England there is a charitable list. One could set up a charity and want it to be secret, but one cannot do things that way. One has to answer certain questions. I know about this in a very small way because my wife and I set up a small charitable trust. Very soon we had a request from the registrar to explain it, which is a voluntary procedure. The first year we paid no attention to it; the second year we found that we had to act.
I do not see why, if that has been the experience in England, the same should not happen in Scotland. All the information is there. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, it first has to be unlocked. He said that one could do that. But then— and I did not fully understand it— he spoke about having a meeting with the Inland Revenue and the charities. I do not know when he contemplates that meeting taking place. Will it be during the course of this Bill, in six months' time or when?
The other point that I would like to make concerns his words— I noted them very accurately— "anyone wishing to establish a register". Is that trying to dodge the fact that we are inclined to think that it should properly be done by the Scottish Office itself or some other body under the direction of the Scottish Office? I hope that he will be able to help us on those questions.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for supporting the purpose of this amendment. I think that we have to make somebody do it. But that is the problem. I do not know how far the Scottish Office is prepared to go. However, I see no reason why this should not be commercially viable. It is a book that many people want. Goodness knows the number of magazines and so on that come every day into our offices. It is quite appalling. This is something that could well be done. I could even give the noble Lord the address of someone who would do it but that would be in England.
Will the noble and learned Lord undertake to find out what the Scottish Office will do and whether the Inland Revenue is prepared to play? It would mean some work for them. I do not think that they would maintain the register themselves.
The noble and learned Lord said that a register is not of much use. However that depends on the

269
editor. If the editor knows how to put it together he will turn it into a useful book which many people will want to have. I shall have no difficulty in withdrawing this amendment if my noble and learned friend will promise to look at these problems and bring forward a scheme to put a register into operation. I want him not just to talk about it but to do something. If he does, I shall be glad to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I have already indicated, I cannot come forward with what the noble Earl wants as a complete scheme. I have repeatedly said that the information held by the Inland Revenue is held on a list or index— whichever word one wants to use— on microfiche in Edinburgh. That complete list will be available to anyone who calls at the offices and wishes to see it. I may be wrong but I should have thought that further information in greater detail was wanted. I urge that upon noble Lords. But I believe that there is better access to that information through other provisions. However, if it is simply a matter of obtaining the information from the Inland Revenue, large portions of which may be out of date or quite inaccurate, that information on the microfiche index will be available in Edinburgh.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is not the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asking the noble and learned Lord to go a little further in this respect and take charge of the indexing and the setting out of the list— that is, apart from just publishing the list itself?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Is not the difficulty about which we are talking that subsection (1) (b) of the clause does not permit someone like me to look at the list? It seems to me that it only permits me to ask about one particular charity.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am getting very close to the risk of being repetitive. I thought that I had just clearly indicated to the noble Earl that if he chooses to spend his leisure time at the offices of the Inland Revenue in Edinburgh, he will be able to see the listing of charities on microfiche. That may not be spelt out in the clause, but I would not have thought that that was truly a criticism of the drafting of the clause.
The Earl of Selkirk: On the understanding that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will take steps in this direction and produce something, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Karl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I think that we have reached a convenient moment at which to adjourn. Perhaps I may suggest that we do not return until 8.30 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8.30 p.m.]
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 11 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 16, after first ("person") insert ("upon tender of such reasonable charge as the body may stipulate").
The noble and learned Lord said: I speak also to Amendment No. 67. This is designed to discover whether there may be a lacuna in the subsection referred to. It would be unfortunate if a person were able to complain to the Lord Advocate when he had requested information but had failed to tender the reasonable charge. When he had not so tendered it would be unfortunate that he should be able to complain. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I accept the spirit of the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord. The amendment is introduced to ensure that a charity should not be in danger of being listed for failing to produce a copy of its trust deed until it has been paid for the reasonable cost of its production. With the undertaking that I shall bring forward an amendment to achieve that aim, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am most grateful and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("Court of Session") and insert ("court")
The noble Earl said: It seems to me that all cases should not necessarily go to the Court of Session, simply for reasons of expense. I should like to leave the choice to the Lord Advocate whether the case should to to the sheriff court or the Court of Session. The object of this amendment is to leave that choice entirely with him.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 26, which is in similar terms, and also with Amendment No. 136 which covers the same ground. With the leave of the Committee, I speak to Amendment No. 136. That amendment makes an amendment to Clause 10 about where applications should be made. Instead of the Court of Session it suggests that in addition a sheriff court should have jurisdiction over the place in which the trust has its principal place of business at the time of the application.
This amendment relates to charities with an annual income of £ 1,000 or less. The clause refers to proposed expenditure of capital and enables the Lord Advocate to go only to the Court of Session to stop the expenditure within the terms of the clause. The general view taken is that with a trust income of £ 1,000 per annum or less there will not be much money in the fund in any event, and to restrict the access of any application, particularly an application at the instance of the Lord Advocate which the trustees may have to defend, may make great inroads into the trust funds. In fact, we are all agreed that the object is to preserve the trust funds.

271
Broadly speaking, this theme of Court of Session and/or sheriff court arises throughout this part of the Bill. It may save some time if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could indicate whether the Government are prepared to take away that issue of venue of applications and consider whether, where Court of Session appears, they will consider extending access to the sheriff court at the discretion of the trustees.
I appreciate that the suggestion covers amendments to Clause 8, but if the noble and learned Lord can give that undertaking in relation to Amendment No. 136 and other similar amendments, I should be prepared to withdraw them in the course of the proceedings.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward this amendment. The thinking of the Government is in line with that of the noble Earl and, indeed, that of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. In principle we accept these amendments. It is my intention to provide by amendment on Report for a choice of court in all cases where I have power to apply for an interdict or order. Those occur at Clause 1 (5), Clause 2 (3), Clause 4 (11) and Clause 10 (4).
I must make clear one proviso as regards Clause 6. In view of the complexity of the controls allowed for there and the serious nature of the penalties which may be imposed under that clause, the Government intend to insist that in relation to that clause specifically the jurisdiction of the Court of Session should remain exclusive.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 23, after ("Advocate") insert ("or any person who has made a complaint in terms of subsection (4) above").
The noble Lord said: This amendment allows any person who has made a complaint under Clause 1 to make an application as well as the Lord Advocate. Since the Bill gives any person power to ask for the accounts, it seems illogical that he should not have the follow through power to take the matter to the court. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment seeks to provide that any person who has a complaint that a body has failed to provide under subsection (4) a copy of its founding deed may apply direct to the court to interdict that body or a person involved in the management or control of that body from engaging in any activity specified in the application to the court.
The subsection, as the noble Lord indicated, provides that I may apply to the court for interdict. I would not be in favour of giving this power to any other person. What needs to be appreciated is this
272
If there has been what might be described as a minor breach of what is required under the clause, in those circumstances under subsection (4) it would be open to me to require of the Inland Revenue that the failure be noted on the record held by it.
If under subsection (5) it were permitted for any other person to go to the courts, there is a serious risk of confusion. If it is a minor matter, the scheme is that it should be dealt with by noting; and if it is an issue of interdict, it should be left to me. Otherwise, it is not difficult to envisage a curious circumstance in which an individual might come before the court seeking interdict and the Lord Advocate of the day would come into court opposing it saying, "This is a matter that has been satisfactorily dealt with by way of a note".
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he will confirm that nothing in this subsection will derogate from the common law, so that if an individual was able to show an interest, he would still be entitled to use the remedy of interdict if that were appropriate.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: So far as the common law is concerned, there is nothing in these provisions which is intended to deprive any individual in Scotland of the rights that he would have before the courts.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. But it seems to me to be a rather unusual state of affairs when one compares subsection (4) with subsection (5). In subsection (4) the Lord Advocate,
"on a complaint being made to him by such person, may direct that the fact of such failure shall be noted".
However, the reason that this amendment was inserted was that when we come to subsection (5) there is no obligation, mandatory or otherwise, on the Lord Advocate to take any note of any desire on the part of the person who has complained to interdict the body or person presumably continuing in the activity complained of. That is why the amendment has been tabled.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord wishes me to consider whether it might be made clearer that following on a complaint under subsection (4) I might take the more draconian step of approaching the court for an interdict, I shall undertake to consider that and write to him if necessary, to ensure that it is clear that such a complaint might lead the Lord Advocate of the day to take such steps.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for that reply, and I am satisfied with that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 23, after ("body") insert ("if incorporated").
The noble and learned Lord said: When speaking to this amendment— if the grouping is correct— I should also speak to Amendments Nos. 27 to 29, 94 to 96 and 98.
What has been omitted from this provision is the recognition that many bodies which are charities are unincorporated and are not legal persons. The court therefore has no power to interdict them because the court can only interdict a legal person. My noble and learned friend and I sought to correct this by inserting "if incorporated". I raised this matter at Second Reading. The absence of an amendment dealing with it means that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate does not consider there to be anything in it. However, I can assure him that my noble and learned friend and I consider there to be quite a lot of difficulty in it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand now for the first time what the noble and learned Lords are driving at. I confess that I had taken from it a rather different message: that they sought quite specifically to restrict powers of interdict to bodies which were incorporated, and they were not dealing with unincorporated bodies. That is clearly contrary to my intention. I wish to be in a position to take action against a wider range of bodies than that. Given the point that the noble and learned Lord raised, I shall look at that again. With the greatest respect, I am not entirely sure that I agree with what he says, but given the power of the heavy duo in the middle, I should like to look at this matter again.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for looking at it again. However, does he really think that either the Court of Session or the sheriff court can interdict a committee or a trust? The only way that can be done is to interdict the trustees or the individual members. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 27, after second ("body") insert ("not being an exempt charity")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment should be grouped with Amendments Nos. 21, 23 to 25 and 141. It deals with exempt charities. In this amendment, they fit into two classes: one is Church charities, and the other is small charities.
The difficulty with regard to small charities is that there are many of them which are not registered with the In and Revenue because they do not see any need to do so. They raise their money by collections, by sales of work and so on. They are not interested in covenants. To put the whole paraphernalia of this part of this Bill on a committee which runs a sports day in a village each year, or something of that nature, is absurd. It is also absurd to put it on to a charity with a very small income because the whole
274
income will be absorbed in the auditing of its accounts.
The small charity level we have suggested is one which has no permanent endowment or income from property amounting to more than £ 500 a year. That suggestion was merely plucked out of the air with some view on the similar provision in the 1960 English Charities Act, which has an exemption, and applying an inflationary table to that figure.
There must be some point at which small charities are exempt. I do not claim that our figure is right, but there must be a point when it is not worthwhile to take this sort of issue. The Church is in a different position. It is different from almost all other charities in that it is the members of the Church who subscribe the money which is used to run the Church. That makes it different from charities concerned with prevention of the cruelty to children or the cruelty to animals organisations or the relief of poverty abroad, where one gives money to a charity and has no say in what happens to it. Anybody who is a member of a Church gives money to it and there is a regulated body which deals with it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I are both sons of the manse and we know the position in regard to the Church of Scotland. It has a special position in that it is, of course, protected by the Act of Union. It is also covered by the Church of Scotland Act 1921. One has the amazing situation in the Bill that, apparently, the Lord Advocate is assuming to himself a power to go to the Church of Scotland and inquire whether it is fulfilling its trust purposes. Moreover, any person can go to the Church of Scotland, or any other Church, and inquire about the deed constituting the trust. That may well be difficult, whether one starts with the Westminster Confession, or the Church of Scotland, or the Bible, or wherever. I do not think that that is intended.
There is also the statutory problem that I know has been raised and noble Lords will have seen what the Church of Scotland has circulated about the statutory powers which Parliament has given to the Church of Scotland, or recognised that the Church has always had in the 1921 Act. One would not have thought it necessary in a Bill to control charities to raise a Church/government conflict on powers. However, that is special to the Church for Scotland and the same issue arises in a different way with all the other Churches. Almost every minister or priest is, ex officio, the trustee of his parish fund, or congregational fund, however it is done. There is a statutory inside-the-church organisation. It seems that this is a necessary exception if this part of the Bill is to have any practical effect.
There is a matter of practicality. I am told that the number of trustees— of course, they change every year— for the Church of Scotland alone would be 65,000. By the time one adds all these elders and members of congregational boards and ministers, and changes them about each year, the eight people in the Lord Advocate's office who are supervising all this will be in some difficulty. As a matter of practicality, it cannot work. It is not necessary, and as the Procurator of the Church of Scotland suggested, quite absurd. Therefore, I hope the noble

275
and learned Lord will undertake to take this away and reconsider it.
If he does do so, I would say that what is listed in the clause is far from complete if one compares it with the exemptions in the English Act, because that excludes, among others, universities and friendly societies and various other organisations. Clearly, if a little more thought had gone into the drafting of this Bill, and someone had looked at the English provisions, they might have thought of the difficulties that no doubt will arise. I suggest it is absurd that where Parliament has laid down— or the national Church has laid down by its legislative process— control of the accounting there should be another control added to it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: This group of amendments, so ably presented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, covers mainly the Churches but also includes, in paragraph (e) of Amendment No. 21, the very small charities. Perhaps I may say immediately that I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said in that respect and I hope the Government will have some arrangements for what one might call a de minimis principle so that there is a cut-off point for small charities.
I should like to deal with the main part of the amendment as I see it— exempting churches from these provisions. Of course, it is not only the Christian Churches because Amendment No. 21 refers to,
"or other body established for the advancement of religion".
I therefore presume that synagogues, mosques and similar institutions are covered.
The Christian denominations in Scotland have got together in this respect and clearly are worried about the effects of the Bill. As I understand Amendment No. 21, which is the effective amendment in the group, the exempted charities will be the Churches themselves, or their equivalents in other religions, but not trusts set up by the Churches unless they deal with buildings.
I declare an interest because I am chairman of a trust of the Nairn Church of Scotland parish church. I have sympathy with the aims of the group of amendments. I am sure that we would not wish the Churches and other religious institutions to be encumbered with unnecessary and time-consuming tasks and burdens. I also ask why they should be exempted from a system which is to apply to other respectable and respected bodies which need to keep administrative staff to a minimum; that is, other charities with which this part of the Bill is dealing.
The question raised suggests that the system proposed in the Bill will be a considerable burden to those who come within it. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to consider carefully the position of the Churches and other religious institutions as they would be affected by this part of the Bill. Perhaps he will also tell the Committee whether he foresees a great deal of extra
276
work being created by the Bill which might impose the burdens on the Churches which at present concern them.
To summarise, therefore, I agree entirely on the point about the very small charities and I hope the Government will consider that aspect. However, I am in two minds about exempting Churches because I understand their concern and I have a sympathy for the purpose of the amendment; but I am sorry to think that that has been caused by a feeling that the Bill will impose a heavy burden, because that burden will fall on other charities as well.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I too am wholly in agreement with the purpose of the amendment. I believe that the Churches are a special case. The memorandum from the Scottish Churches Committee gives the members. They are enormously respectable: the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Union, and so on.
However, the wording of Amendment No. 21 refers to,
"any Church or other body established for the advancement of religion".
There are some enormously suspect bodies of that sort. I give an international example; the church established by Mr. Moon in Korea, which now has a hereditary head appointed by himself. It raises enormous amounts of money by very doubtful means. Clearly such a church should not be exempted. In fact, that is exactly the sort of charity which should be looked at extremely closely. I do not think I need to say more. The Minister takes my point absolutely.
In addition, the phrase "any Church" is the wrong expression. The phrase should perhaps be "a Church recognised by the Lord Advocate". I do not know how it should be worded but certainly the present definition cannot be right.
The Earl of Balfour: I raise one further point. I do not want to pour cold water on the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, but I ask the Committee to look at the wording in paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 21:
"maintaining, repairing or managing ecclesiastical buildings".
As I understand the position, the repairs and maintenance of such buildings are not usually considered in connection with the charitable side of its activities. If a church has a building and maintenance fund, that is subject to tax, as opposed to the welfare side of its activities. I hope that repairs can be exempted from tax. With all these wonderful buildings, be they art museums, churches or anything else, the cost of upkeep is an ever-increasing burden. As I say, as I understand the position they are not exempt from tax and certainly not from VAT, when necessary repairs have to be done.
9 p.m.
Lord Grimond: I have the greatest sympathy with this amendment and certainly with the very important point that has been raised about the churches. I certainly support what the noble and

277
learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said about them, subject to the provisos of my noble friend Lord Mackie. I hope that we shall not forget about small charities. I have some connection with them. We already have considerable difficulty in getting people to run them. I hope that this Bill will not impose any more and unnecessary burdens on them. If that happens, I am certain that we shall lose what voluntary aid we have. I am sure that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: As regards small charities, Members on this side of the Committee support the amendment. The figure of about £ 500 a year seems to be reasonable. It has the added advantage, with reference to the earlier part of the debate, of excluding these small charities. The register that was discussed would become a little smaller. It would make it easier for the Government to establish their own records.
Amendment No. 21 raises real practical difficulties. One of those is that once an exception of this kind is made within the context of a Bill of this nature, there is bound to be set up some form of jealousy among other groups such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. People who are running a perfectly respectable charity might look at the exemption and ask themselves why another organisation should get it rather than them. That would seem to drive a hole in the protective wall, so to speak, and in the regulatory procedures.
If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, has not told us that the Church of Scotland is absolutely protected by the Act of Union and that the Act presents a bar to the burden of this kind of legislation being placed on it. Neither has it been indicated that there will be any particular administrative difficulty in the church dealing with the matters involved in the Bill. I refer in particular to the question of producing accounts and the deeds of trust and whatever may be required. Like other Members of the Committee, I have other reservations about this particular amendment. I shall listen with interest to what the Lord Advocate has to say in response.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is one further point which has not been made. In attempting to differentiate between the churches and other charities and in saying why they are different, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said that the Church of Scotland had a particular position. He referred to other churches as being somewhat different. He said that the churches were different to other charities because their members subscribed to the money which financed them.
I remind him and the Committee that bodies like the Girl Guides Association and the Scouts Association are entirely funded by their members paying subscriptions. I refer also to the Women's Royal Institute and many other organisations which I can think of. I do not believe that difference will wash. It is a very difficult problem. I can understand why the churches feel as they do. They also wrote to me. I am very sympathetic.
278
We have to be extremely careful what we do about this issue. It may be that the constitutional position of the Church of Scotland precludes the same treatment as that given to other churches. My own church, the Episcopal Church, and I should think also the Roman Catholic Church, is not in that position. I am not sure whether the law may treat them differently. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on the matter.
The Earl of Perth: I want to make a few remarks on the question of churches. I believe that they are in a different category to other charities and that in some form or another that difference should be recognised. It is not so much a question of their being burdened by new responsibilities or anything else: the fact of the matter is that the parishioners of any particular individual group of churches will already discipline themselves. If something goes wrong one can be quite sure that the minister or the parishioners will know about it. They will put the matter right themselves.
I do not wish to put this in too derogatory a sense, but I feel sure that they will feel anxious if Big Brother is overlooking what they are up to. In some way or another the churches are almost locally governed already. That is particularly true in England and Wales. They follow very closely what is happening to their money and the charity which is given to them. I hope that fact will be taken into account in any amendment even if the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is not accepted.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Other than setting up a directory I believe that this is the most important point which arises during the Committee stage on Part I of the Bill. I hope I shall be forgiven for taking a minute or two to explain the position as I see it. I indicate immediately that I understand the aim of the new clause and the amendments and what lies being the idea; namely, that clearly very important religious organisations in Scotland may be afforded special treatment.
Officials from the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Crown Office recently held a useful and informative meeting with the Scottish Churches Committee. I understand that it has as its chairman and secretary the Church of Scotland, though the committee is by no means restricted exclusively to the Church of Scotland itself. The purpose of that meeting was to explore the problems which might arise if the Bill were to be applied in its entirety to religious bodies. It was the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who put his finger on the great difficulty here.
While these many great and fine churches are central to our national life, if anyone wishes to set up a scam or a fraud it is not unknown for people to retreat behind the pursuit of a religious objective. I make no comment on any particular organisation but it is not unknown in the Crown Office to hear complaints of fraud and the like in relation to bodies which hold themselves to be religious. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is absolutely right in his appreciation that if any church or other body

279
established for the advancement of religion were to be exempted, a coach and horses would be driven through Part I of the Bill. It would mean that anyone with an ulterior purpose would simply have to contain among a number of other purposes the advancement of religion. Part I of the Bill would not then apply.
I appreciate the fact that the Scottish Churches Committee which discussed these matters also understands the difficulties. It is right to place on record that it is also sensitive to the fact that religious organisations other than Christian ones might well be afforded a comparable degree of respect and arguably even privilege. It is important that these often unpleasant cult-like sects should not escape control. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, referred to what is undoubtedly the special constitutional position in Scotland of the Church of Scotland. Like him, I am a member of that Church. But in the 1990s I have to confess that I would be very uneasy about conferring on the Church of Scotland exclusively a special status in dealing with these matters. There are equally fine and equally important other religious bodies in Scotland whose position ought properly to be recognised.
A distinction needs to be drawn between taking action to intervene in a church's affairs or to enforce compliance, and simply including the churches within the purview of those provisions concerned with disclosure, accounts and my right to investigate. I have in mind to consider before the Report stage government amendments which will enable major churches, both Christian and non-Christian, to function without fear of state intervention but which will retain appropriate control over lesser bodies with religious objects. I am aware that the Procurator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has suggested that I might find myself in an invidious position if I were to exercise the powers vested in me under this part of the Bill and that I might have to appoint a minister to administer the sacrament in a parish. I do the best I can to reassure him that I have no such megalomaniac tendencies in that direction. They are difficult issues and I am sure that they are appreciated. I should like the opportunity to consider them further. In those circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred to the maintenance of church buildings and asked about their eligibility for tax relief. Expenses which are in furtherance of religious objects— that would include buildings— are eligible for income tax relief. I think he must have had in mind the position regarding VAT. Value added tax is payable on such repairs and maintenance.
I turn now to the amendment concerned with small charities. I appreciate the de minimis point which is advanced in the amendment. But it would be inappropriate to approach it in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord by fixing a figure on the face of the Bill. Powers given under Clause 3 (4) would allow for small charities to be exempted, for example, from accounting requirements. It is certainly intended that there should be very much
280
less demanding requirements for such bodies. I would suggest, understanding what he is driving at, that that is rather a better way forward than the way that he has suggested.
Perhaps I may pursue one example that the noble and learned Lord gave. A single purpose charity that the law would recognise as a charity might not necessarily be a charity that wanted to hold itself out as a charity— which is at the centre of this Bill— and would not be one that would seek to have itself registered or recognised by the Inland Revenue.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Of course I shall not press the amendment until I see what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am grateful to him for answering the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, about tax on the maintenance of church buildings. The amendment was specifically drafted with a view to include religions that were not Christian. I quite see that there may be some difficulties with certain groups of people who call themselves religions. However, the special position that I was attempting to put about Churches— I shall deal with the special position of the Church of Scotland later— is that they have rules and they have set government, set procedures. In many of the Churches this is done by legislation— quite often by private legislation through these Houses of Parliament. If they set down one way of doing accounts, for example, does this mean that under this scheme everyone has to produce two sets of accounts: one to fit one body, and the other to fit the other body of legislation?
Putting it shortly, the difficulty about the Church of Scotland is that Parliament recognised in the 1921 Act the Church of Scotland's position as having exclusive— that is exclusive from the courts— authority in matters of government and discipline in the Church. If the Bill goes through as it is one is going right into straightforward argument as to the constitutional levels between one and the other. I do not think anybody suggested that the noble and learned Lord was going to appoint a Minister. He was going to appoint a judicial factor who would have the duty of conducting sacraments, and that would be a very surprising idea. I would be interested to know whom he would select to do it.
This is a particularly fraught issue. It is an important issue. I hope that something constructive may come out of it. It is perhaps unfortunate that this part has come through with so little time for real thought among those with a crucial interest in it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("and a recognised body shall be entitled to describe itself as "a Scottish charity" ").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 1 (6) defines the term "recognised body", which is used throughout the Bill, as a body established under the law of Scotland or managed or controlled in or from Scotland, which has been given intimation by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that tax relief

281
will be due under Section 505 of the Act of 1988. The amendment makes clear that bodies which have been so recognised may represent themselves as Scottish charities.
This amendment takes account of representations which were made by the Law Society of Scotland— for which I am grateful— to the effect that as "charities" and "charitable" are used without definition throughout the Bill it is desirable to make plain that the legislation is concerned with the broad tax meaning of charity and not some common law concept. By stating on the face of the Bill that a recognised body is entitled to represent itself as a Scottish charity this intention is made evident. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wonder what the point of this is. Why should anybody suggest that something that is recognised by the Inland Revenue and has a base in Scotland should never call itself other than a Scottish charity if it wanted to? Why does Parliament need to give it permission to call itself a Scottish charity? I rise not to suggest merely that this is unnecessary, but to ask the noble and learned Lord to explain what he asserted at Second Reading— if my memory is right at col. 210— that this made no change in the Scottish law of charity.
As lie will know, the recognition by the Inland Revenue means that it applies the English law of charity. What we are doing in this clause is to say that only a body established in Scotland which fits the English definition of charity can all itself a charity. Is this really what we are doing? What is left of the Scottish law of charity, which all the teachers of Scots law say is different from the English law? Where are we going?
There are various bodies which the courts have recognised in various litigations over the years as having; charitable purposes, but, because of the word "only" in the Inland Revenue legislation, they do not receive Inland Revenue recognition. Will it be an offence to call oneself a charity if one does not have recognition from the Inland Revenue? I believe that that is what the Bill's intention is. Can one get around that by saying, "Oh, our purposes are charitable"? If so, who will be able to understand the difference between saying, "I am a charity." and saying, "My purposes are charitable"?
Throughout the Bill we are missing any definition of what we talk about as a Scottish charity. We are missing any explanation as to whether anything of the existing old Scottish law of charity will exist after the Bill is passed, if it is passed.
The Earl of Selkirk: I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said. I do not know whether someone will ask the question, but may we have a definition? As far as I am aware, there are at least three separate forms of charity. They should be defined at some point. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will consider that matter.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I should love to consider that point. However, I am reminded of the leading case or charity law in Scotland, The Glasgow Police
282
Athletic Association, which came to this place back in 1952 and 1953.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will not mind me reminding him that was not a definition of the Scottish law of charity. It was a case which provided that one had to apply English law to obtain Inland Revenue exemption.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble and learned Lord had given me a moment, I should have given him the quotation, which was:
"It has never yet, for example, been found possible to define in generally accepted terms what is the precise meaning of a charity in Scottish law".
If the noble and learned Lord goes back through the authorities he will find that their views are wide-ranging. One extreme is that the law of charity in Scotland is restricted to the relief of poverty. I believe that was in Baird's Trustees. It goes through to the late Sir Thomas Smith's explanation that in Scotland it was not uncommon to find that the word "charitable" is used as a synonym for "public trust". The noble and learned Lord will appreciate that there is no clarity of definition.
I suppose that we are altering the law of charities in Scotland to this extent: if there is to be a body that wishes to represent itself or hold itself out as a charity, it must secure that recognition by the Inland Revenue. However, I do not consider that there is anything in the Bill which, for example, would alter the power of the court, or the favour that the court in Scotland shows to charities, to ensure that a trust is not more quickly described as void for uncertainty because its objectives are charitable. That is unaltered. Nor indeed, when we come to the later parts of the provision, will the power of the court to apply its cy prè s jurisdiction be altered by what is contained in this part of the Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Of course I accept that the cy prè s scheme has nothing to do with the matter, because a public trust does not necessarily have to be charitable, despite the late Professor Smith. We do not have a definiton of "charity". We could have one. What we now have is English Law.
The noble and learned Lord has not dealt with the point about what happens to bodies such as the Trades House of Glasgow. In the 1970 case it was held that its main purposes were charitable, but it could not obtain Inland Revenue recognition because that was not its only purpose. Will they commit an offence if they say, "We are a charity"? They do not do so up to now. But will they not commit an offence when they say, "Mainly, our purposes are charitable"? If so, does the noble and learned Lord think that the people of Scotland will understand the subtle distinction?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Non-recognised bodies]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("charity") and insert ("recognised body").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment raises the same issue as we have discussed before. Clause 2 (1) states:
"A non-recognised body shall not be entitled to represent itself or hold itself out as a charity."
The aim of the amendment, which is linked with Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, is connected with the idea of an exempt charity. I shall not press the amendment but obviously the noble and learned Lord must work out for himself whether we are suddenly changing the meaning of a word in ordinary use and saying that it is an offence to use it unless a body has a certificate from the Inland Revenue.
The small committee which runs the local village sports day or sets up a little fund to redecorate a hall, or some similar activity, may well say, "We are a charity doing this; we are a charity for public benefit". Everybody will agree with that. Will the members of that committee be sent to prison for a month, or what will they do? How do we publicise the fact that people must suddenly appreciate that the dictionary meaning of "charity" has changed?
There is a big problem here on which we touched when we dealt with the last amendment. We are suddenly confining the word "charity" in Scotland to something which the Inland Revenue seems to understand but which is purely English law. Everybody who has been concerned with it says that it is so complicated that it cannot be defined, but they can define which body falls or does not fall within the definition. Therefore in order to obtain a reply from the noble and learned Lord, I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the debate which I have already had with the noble and learned Lord about what is or is not a charity in Scotland.
Perhaps I may restrict my observations to this amendment. I do not believe that it would be very relevant to the public in Scotland to be told that a body was a recognised body. People would wish to know whether or not it was a charity. That is exactly the complaint that comes from people repeatedly by asking, "Is this group or are these people those who responsibly represent a proper charity?" That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to restrict those people who hold themselves out to be or represent themselves as being a charity. We hold them to the test that the Inland Revenue would apply. This may be an incorporation of English law into the law of Scotland, but I should have thought that the test set out in the case of Pemsel was what the popular mind would recognise as being a charity.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I think most of us would have some difficulty in recognising someone as charitable who, for example, left his books to the
284
officers' mess. However, the noble and learned Lord will discover from Pemsel's case that that constitutes an act of English charity. It surprises the Scots, but perhaps that does not matter. Surely the answer is to stipulate that a charity must be certificated, or some such provision so that to be recognised by the Inland Revenue a charity must have a certificate. I believe this is a serious problem which the noble and learned Lord and those who instruct him have not considered. All I can do now is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 29 not moved.)
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 2 (4) states:
"any person concerned in the management or control of a non-recognised body which represents itself or holds itself out as a charity shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale".
I suggest that that provision is totally unnecessary as the common law can deal adequately with that matter. If someone was trying to obtain money that would constitute a case of fraud or attempted fraud, and if he was not trying to obtain money there is no point in the offence. It is unnecessary to add additional offences when the common law deals adequately with them. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This amendment raises an issue which arises in later parts of the Bill. Speaking from this side of the Chamber, I oppose the amendment. I think it is proper that if we are setting up a statutory code of conduct so to speak, people examining it should know precisely from reading the Bill just what they can or cannot do and what the penalties would be for contravening the provisions of the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: With great respect to the Deputy Chairman, I should point out that if this amendment is accepted, Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 cannot be moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Earl is perfectly correct. I apologise to the Committee. I should have mentioned that if Amendment No. 30 is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 cannot be moved.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: With that helpful indication, it will be apparent that I join the Opposition Front Bench in saying that I consider that if we are to have these provisions it is important that there should be some policing of them. We must therefore necessarily provide some sanctions. I think it is right that we should have those, although I would say to the noble and learned Lord that I accept that there will clearly be some circumstances where the common law would provide an offence under which to charge those persons who are representing themselves to be a charity. Nevertheless, in spite of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has said, I

285
think it is still appropriate that we should have these policing powers.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord a simple question. It has been suggested that one should be able to understand what is meant by the Bill by reading it, and also the penalties involved. However, I think I shall not be alone in not knowing exactly what level 4 is. I know the principle behind it, but for my own sake and perhaps for the sake of one or two other Members of the Committee, I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will tell us where we can find reference to the different levels. Perhaps he could also say, when they are changed, whether it is in line with inflation or for some other reason. It is a simple point but it causes some confusion.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The matter arises under Amendment No. 31. Perhaps I may more appropriately reply to the noble Lord's question in connection with that amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry that both the Opposition and the Government seem determined to create totally unnecessary offences. No doubt the courts will be able to deal with them as they see fit. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 2 (3) provides that any person involved in the management of a body which has not been recognised which represents itself to the public as a charity shall be guilty of an offence. Clause 2 (4) sets the penalty at a fine, on summary conviction, not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, currently £ 1,000.
In view of the amount of money which might be involved that could prove only a relatively minor deterrent. The amendment seeks therefore to provide for a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale (£ 2,000) or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or both a fine and imprisonment. As a further deterrent there is provision at Clause 6 (4) for further sanctions against the body by the court, on application.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said at Second Reading that he thought that the Bill contained too many offences— and he has just repeated that remark— and suggested that that would add to the difficulties in finding people to take on the task and duties of trusteeship. It might therefore be helpful to the Committee if I take this opportunity to comment on the various amendments which I should like to make affecting offences and penalties in the Bill and to explain the reasoning behind them.
Besides the provisions mentioned above, there are three other possible offences in the Bill, contained in Clauses 5 (7), 5 (8) and 7 (3). Clause 5 (7) provides that it shall be an offence to fail to comply with a
286
court order to provide information to my nominated officer. Clause 5 (8) provides that a person who wilfully alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys any record which he is required to provide under this section will similarly be guilty of an offence. Clause 7 disqualifies certain persons.
I hope that the Committee will accept that those offences are reasonable. As I have said, it really is not possible to police any system or supervision without some sanctions. Such sanctions have an important role under the charities Acts in England and Wales. Trusteeship of a charity is an onerous task and should not be entered upon lightly. Those involved in trusteeships have nothing to fear from those provisions provided they operate in a trustworthy manner. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Can the noble and learned Lord explain whether, if there is a body of trustees and somebody in the trust represents that the trust is a charity, every trustee is guilty of an offence? That, as I read it, is how the clause is framed. If that is so, has he considered Section 3 of the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921? If he has considered it, why has he not amended it?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Perhaps I too may put two questions to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He mentioned further offences in the Bill, particularly those in Clauses 5 (7) and 5 (8). Clause 5 (7) simply makes a criminal offence of what is plainly a contempt of court. The civil courts have a speedy way of dealing with those who fail to comply with any order which has been made. It seems to me to be otiose to add a criminal sanction as well, particularly as that would involve the necessity of raising further proceedings rather than dealing with the failure to obtemper the order in the particular civil process in which the failure appears.
My point in relation to Clause 5 (8) is a matter of criticism of an amendment which appears under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. It bears to be an offence by any person who wilfully alters any record. That is a deliberate alteration of a record which he may be required but is not necessarily required to furnish.
I fail to understand how any criminal offence can be committed by wilfully altering something which, at the end of the day, one is never required to furnish or transmit under Clause 5. It appears to me that perhaps that offence, which I suspect is intended to preserve the deliberate destruction or alteration of records for which a requirement has been made, is a more understandable offence, although I should have thought that it might have been dealt with under the common law. I raise those points at this time because it may save time later.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The amendment standing in my name is Amendment No. 66 and the same principle applies. Perhaps I was reading it slightly differently from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. I was reading the word "may" in the sense of having been required in terms of the subsection because it follows on from

287
the requirement by the nominated officer and the subsequent failure. My amendment states:
"Any person who wilfully alters, supresses, conceals or destroys any record which he may be required to furnish".
If it is meant to be a consecutive, chronological series of events, the word "may" could be changed to "has been". I shall be interested to know what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has to say on the matter. I should have said that, as a matter of consistency, I again hold to the principle that statutory sanctions should be imposed within the framework. No doubt the common law can run alongside it, but it does not do any harm to have that provision as part of the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We are moving quite widely around the provisions regarding offences. I hope that I have followed them all as I should have done. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord in respect of Clause 5 (7) that failure to comply with an order of a court would attract a sanction from that court. I might look at that point again. I see what the noble and learned Lord was driving at.
On Amendment No 66, to which we appear to have drifted, I again take the point made by the noble and learned Lord. As I understand it, Clause 5 (8) would allow for an offence to have been committed whether or not there had been a requirement. However, if that is not clear, I wish to clarify it and shall look at it again.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months or to both such fine and imprisonment").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may raise the question of this clause standing part of the Bill, although I know that we are trying to make progress because of delays on the other matters. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did not deal with the issue— I am surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, agreeing so heartily with this point which I tried to raise in dealing with Clause 2 (4) — that someone will apparently be guilty of an offence because someone else has done something about which he does not know. That person will have done nothing. If one person in a trust holds out that the trust is a charity, all trustees are, according to subsection (4), guilty of an offence and liable to go to prison. Is that what the Government intend? I cannot ask the Opposition whether that is what they intend. It seems a surprising intention. It is quite contrary to Section 3 of the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921, which states that a trustee is liable only for his acts and not for the acts of others. Is that truly what the Government mean, or has the whole question of criminal intent gone and this is an absolute offence if somebody does it?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may briefly answer that question. First, however, I should apologise to the noble and learned Lord. He raised this matter in the last amendment and I omitted to answer him. One has to understand the scheme that we are setting up. If one is to hold oneself out as a charity, one has to go to the Inland Revenue and secure the recognition that is allowed for under this Bill. The terms used are:
"any person concerned in the management or control of a non-recognised body which represents itself or holds itself out as a charity shall be guilty of an offence".
It is absolutely right that if one is to be part of a body which is not recognised, one should ensure that there are not others in the management or control of that body who are holding it out as being a recognised body.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I may be being obstinate. I am sorry; no doubt I am. However, there are trusts which meet once a quarter. There are trusts which have ex officio trustees in them and they have a director. If the director by mistake says, "We are a charity", do all the trustees find themselves automatically liable to imprisonment for something for which they have had no responsibility and could not avoid because someone else did it? If that is what the Government intend, so be it. It is quite draconian. Do we really want to discourage everybody from ever becoming a voluntary trustee for any form of charity or public trust?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may make one observation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, said that I endorsed this clause with enthusiasm. I must say that I was endorsing the principle of having statutory offences within the Bill, not necessarily with enthusiasm but as being necessary. Having heard what the noble and learned Lord had to say about the use of the word "concern", I must express some reservations. I should like to think about what it entails. The use of the word "which" governs the body rather than the person— any person who holds the body out as a charity. That may be the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, is making. Speaking for myself, having heard the argument, I can see some substance in that criticism.
On Question, Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Duty to keep accounting records]:
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("or control").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely probing amendment to which no doubt all Members of the Committee, and certainly all legal Members, know the answer already. However, I should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate if he could just clear my mind on this point, which arises several times in this Bill and has already come up in discussion on a previous clause.
What is meant by "control"? Our last debate may have some bearing on this matter. The clause says:
"any person concerned in the management"—
I take that to be the director, the executive committee, the secretary and so forth—
"or control".
I suppose that the control of a charity normally rests in the trustees. But all charities do not have trustees. If there are no trustees, who exercises the control? By joining whatever body or office exercises control, one is taking on considerable responsibilities and may become liable to certain penalties. I took on what is normally called the presidency of a certain charity. Before I knew where I was I found myself summoned to appear before the Court of Session. It had nothing to do with charity. I was summoned for wrongful dismissal. I said, "It is nothing to do with me". They said, "You are the president of this outfit" I had some difficulty in wriggling out of that situation.
It is not only a question of fault in the management of the charity itself; there are other responsibilities. I am sure that the Government can easily tell us what the word "control" means here. Of course it may differ from body to body, but I think it is essential that those who are taking on charitable work for the highest motives should be made aware of what they are letting themselves in for. I would never join another charity now without being quite certain about what I was supposed to be doing. Therefore I ask the Government, at least for my sake, to make clear what the word "control" means in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was to be allowed it would restrict the duty to maintain accounting records and prepare annual accounts to those concerned with the management of a charity. This is narrower than the requirement under the Bill which lays the duty on those concerned with the management or control of the body. If restricted to management there may be a risk that a situation could arise where the managers have been dismissed leaving only the controllers in place. I concede that that may not be a very likely situation, but it may be prudent to retain the words "or control" against the possibility of unscrupulous controllers dismissing managers to avoid any obligation being imposed by the provision. It is for that limited purpose that the wording has been used.
Lord Grimond: I am much indebted to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. However, my mind is still not clear on the matter. Who are these controllers who are in control if the management is not responsible in this respect?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think I can elaborate on the response I have just given. As I indicated, it may be that people would seek to delegate the management to someone else, although they were effectively in control. However, if the noble Lord's amendment was allowed, thus restricting the provision in this way, only those responsible for the management would suffer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could be a little more explicit on the
290
matter. For example, would the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as honorary president of a charity, be liable for such matters? It is quite important that we should be told what sort of office bearers would be liable.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not want to protract the argument any longer than I need to, but I do not think that I can give a check list of what offers the noble Lord ought to accept. It would be for him or anyone else who became involved in such organisations to determine whether the office he assumed was one which imposed upon him some degree of control or, alternatively, management. The purpose of the provision is that one should not be able to escape from one's responsibilities by appointing managers and then pulling out of the organisation.
Lord Grimond: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I cannot say that I am convinced by his arguments or that my mind is much clearer. Nevertheless, as it is late at night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 34 I should remind the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 35.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("time") to end of line 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment deals with accounts and in a sense it is linked with amendments to which I shall be speaking at a later stage. However, perhaps I may leave speaking to those amendments until that time. Subsection (1) (b) is really unnecessary, if accounting records disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the body at that time. At that stage, before one starts to look at what annual accounts are to be produced, that is all one needs. Therefore I suggest that it is unnecessary in this part of the clause to include paragraph (b) which deals with the balance sheet and expenditure account. The main argument about accounts is dealt with by Amendment No. 43, to which I shall speak later.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord seeks to remove the requirement under Clause 3 (1) (b) which requires bodies to keep accounting records enabling them to meet the accounting requirements specified in Clause 4. The maintenance of proper and adequate accounts is central to the Bill's object of ensuring that charities are publicly and openly accountable for their actions. The removal of the requirement at Clause 3 (1) (b) would be in effect to permit charities to keep records in any way they chose irrespective of whether they were capable of enabling compliance with the requirement at Clause 4. This would have a seriously detrimental effect on the effectiveness of the Bill.
I hope that that is a sufficient reply to the noble Lord although I agree that the more important point on accounts arises in relation to the amendments which he has tabled. I hope that he will accept that his amendments are inferior to those which I shall move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If one looks at Amendment No. 43 one can see that I am there abolishing balance-sheets and income and expenditure accounts. Therefore, I do not want them in in Clause 3 (1) (b). Having given that sort of warning shot, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account") and insert ("statement of accounts").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall make reference also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, 47 to 50, 53, 57, 59, 61, 63 to 65, 68 and 71. Amendment No. 44 introduces a phrase, "statement of accounts" which it defines in terms of the existing Clause 4 (1) (a), (b) and (c). It thus paves the way for the introduction of the lower level of accounting requirements thought essential for the smaller charities. Consequently, there is a new definition of accounts which has the effect of removing the rather lengthy references to:
"balance sheet, income and expenditure account, and report"
which occur in various places throughout the clause. There are consequential amendments to change these references to the shortened form "statement of accounts". One of those consequential amendments is Amendment No. 35.
The amendment also introduces the important proviso at subsection (1B) which we are seeking to introduce which will enable my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to prescribe different accounting requirements for classes of recognised bodies.
Amendment No. 45 is an important amendment because it enables my right honourable and learned friend to give to such classes of recognised bodies as he may prescribe— and we particularly have in mind here small charities— a choice of preparing either full accounts in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1A) or of producing a simple statement of balances and a receipts and payments account in accordance with (1B). Whichever kind of account the body elects to prepare, the accounts will be required to include a report as to their activities having regard to their charitable purposes.
I would bring to the Committee's attention the fact that by the terms of subsection (2) the balance sheet and income and expenditure accounts are required to show a true and fair view. This is not required in the case of the modified accounts under (1B), "true and fair" being an accounting term of art.
Subsection (3) enables my right honourable and learned friend to make regulations which prescribe the form and content of the statement of accounts, any additional information required by way of notes to the accounts, and requirements as to auditing the accounts. I wish to make clear that it is the Government's intention that there should be a threshold above which it will be a requirement for accounts to be examined by a professional auditor while those below the threshold will only require examination by an independent examiner.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may add Amendments Nos. 43 and 46 and others in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron and myself to the rather lengthy list given by the noble and learned Lord so that we can discuss them all at the same time.
294
The amendment relates to the type of accounts, and it seems to me that there is an issue of principle. We shall have to look at the detail and perhaps come back on the issue of principle. If one has the lower level of accounting suggested in Amendment No. 45— which is what, in essence, we sought to set out in Amendment No. 43, both having reports and statements showing income, expenditure and assets— there is no difficulty with regard to audit.
That is what we set out in Amendment No. 43; and, as I understand it, what is set out in Amendment No. 45 is the normal account charge and discharge system that trusts use. They are normally audited by fully qualified chartered accountants. Why is it necessary to insist on Companies Act type of accounting? That is the purpose of Amendment No. 43. Certainly larger charities will use that form of accounting anyway. Why is it not sufficient merely to have simple accounts? Other organisations, for the most part, are already companies limited by guarantee; they come within subsection (12) of Clause 4 and therefore already account in that way. Why do we need to add this additional cost to charities so that in effect the charitable purpose becomes the benefit of chartered accountants? On the whole they do fairly well and there is no need for this rather exotic level of accounting.
There is also no need for the Secretary of State to classify the standard of accounting. It is part of a scheme which is becoming more complicated and more onerous for people who are taking on these jobs largely unpaid and largely in their spare time. If the noble and learned Lord and the Government want to abolish voluntary charities and people acting as trustees, they are going the best way about it. It seems to me that they are taking far too heavy a hammer to crack this particular problem.
10 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can set out whether the Government, in the regulations proposed for accounts, would have in mind following the spirit of the statement in the White Paper Charities: A Framework for the Future. It states that the Government believe that all statements of accounts should give details of grants made by charities out of their income or property, and that in particular they should disclose the names of institutional beneficiaries together with the amount of grant paid.
If that is considered to be important for openness, which is what is said in the paragraph concerning England and Wales in the White Paper, perhaps we should know what the Government policy is for Scotland in that regard.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord has added a further amendment to the very lengthy list which I considered might be appropriate. I agree that it might be helpful if I deal with it now by commenting on what he has said, on Amendment No. 43 and others that come with it.

295
I have spoken to the amendments which I considered should be accepted. However, it might be helpful if I were to stress that the type of accounts which Clause 4 will require is based on the Standard of Recommended Practice Reports (SORP) which was prepared by the Accounting Standards Committee and which is contained in their SORP No. 2 report on accounting for charities. At the same time the committee issued an accompanying guide, Accounting by Charities: A Companion for the Smaller Charity — I emphasise the word "smaller".
Over the past few months an informal committee of accounting experts and officials, including officials from the Charity Commission, the Home Office and the Scottish Office, have been giving detailed consideration to these reports and it is our intention to have similar legislative requirements North and South of the Border. If the amendments I have put before the Committee are accepted, that will provide for the production of accounts complying with those recommended. The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lords will make that more difficult to achieve.
I should like to confirm, however, that much of the detail included in the noble and learned Lords' amendments will be covered in the regulations which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make under the provisions of Clause 4. I understand that it is my noble and learned friend's intention to circulate these regulations in draft form to interested bodies for comment before they are laid.
There is one important point in the noble and learned Lords' amendments on which I should paticularly like to comment. Subsection (2) of the amendment requires disclosure in the report of any institutional beneficiaries and the identity of the recipient. It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to include such a requirement, but this will have to be subject to qualification. Some charities involved in giving international relief have pointed out that disclosure of such information could in certain circumstances put the lives of their agents at risk. This is a particular risk in cases where international aid may be going to both sides engaged in a civil war. It is not difficult to think of one country where that is happening. Clearly, that is a point that will have to be carefully considered in drafting regulations.
I singled out that point because I do not think that there is a great deal between us. That example seems to me to indicate how carefully regulations will have to be prepared, following the best accounting advice.
The Earl of Selkirk: Does my noble and learned friend recognise that there is a terrible problem of accounting? Some people are good at accounts. I happen to be very bad, and I know it. This can make a big difference. It is all very well to talk about accountants. I have a great respect for them. They are well trained. However, there are many small bodies for whom the simpler the requirement, probably the more honest it is. The noble and learned Lord has taken that point because to go back to
296
the standards we had previously is not absolutely necessary in certain cases.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: As I said previously, nearly all the small bodies with which I am connected have their accounts audited by a friendly bank manager or a solicitor but not necessarily by a firm of accountants. Some form of accounting does take place in small bodies.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful for that observation. I suggest that a choice might be given to a trust or the trustees because they may have friendly people who can help them to present their accounts in the best possible form. At the same time provision should be made for smaller charities to do this without the same degree of accounting detail that might be necessary for, say, a very large charity— one can think of a number— whose income and capital runs into thousands, if not millions, of pounds. In such circumstances clearly such large charities should be subjected to the most strenuous of accounting requirements.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 27, after ("preserved") insert (", without prejudice to any requirement of any other enactment or rule of law,").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 3 (3) requires a recognised body to keep accounting records for six years from the date on which they are made. The amendment is simply a saving provision of the general law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("for six years from the date on which they are made").
The noble and learned Lord said: We have made this clause rather longer than it need be. Not having opposed the previous amendment, I do not think I can move this one. The sense is the same except that the Government have taken three lines to say something for which I would have taken one line.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 30, after ("where") insert ("and the person is by whom").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 3 (4) presently empowers my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the place where accounting records are to be kept. In the interests of clarity the amendment seeks to empower my right honourable friend also to prescribe who shall keep the records; for example, the trustees or the agents of the trustees. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 31, after ("bodies") insert ("including bodies which have been wound up or have ceased to be active").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 3 (4) enables my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulation where accounting records should be kept. Typically that will be at the address of any of the trustees or the treasurer of a trust or at the office of an agent. The amendment ensures that the regulations may extend to the records of bodies which have been wound up or which have ceased to be active. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the obligation under subsection (3) to preserve the records for six years continuously beyond the winding-up of a body. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Does the noble and learned Lord really mean that the trustees of a trust which has been wound up will have to keep the records? They will have ceased to be trustees at that point. I read the subsection to mean that the trustees had to send the records somewhere so that they would be available. It seems an extraordinary suggestion that the regulations are to say that some poor trustee will have to keep the records of an organisation which has ceased to exist and that he will have to do so for six years or longer.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The purpose is not to impose this duty on any particular trustee but indicate the type of places where the records might be kept. That might be either with the trustee or, as I have indicated, with the treasurer. I anticipate that in such circumstances the greatest likelihood is that the records will gather dust in some solicitor's safe.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 32, after ("that") insert ("any such recognised body or").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is to provide for more flexibility in what the Secretary of State may do by regulations. In any individual case which may be special he can provide for exemption as well as in a class or classes case. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble and learned Lord has clearly indicated in moving this amendment, there is already provision to exempt classes of a recognised body from the requirements of this section. I cannot conceive of any circumstances where he might wish to exempt any particular body other than possibly the Church of Scotland, which we discussed in connection with another amendment. If that is what is in mind, I rest on what I said earlier; namely, that we have to look at the matter in a broader context.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am not going to press the matter. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord might wish to consider the matter. We are making provision for legislation which is to cover all kinds of
298
situations which we cannot perceive at the moment. I believe that this is a flexibility which is available in the English Act. I do not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 3, line 34, after ("section 4") insert (" (1) (a) and (b) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is simply to provide that exemptions shall not apply to the provision by a recognised body— that is to say, one which would appear on the register or index— of a report. That is linked up with something which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said earlier today in relation to where information is to be obtained. He said that material regarding the purposes of a recognised body might not be available from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but that it could be obtained through the medium of a report from a recognised body. In that event it would seem to be self-defeating that the Secretary of State could then kick away the prop— which would be the only means whereby the interested body or party could find out what the purposes of the recognised body were.
There might be an answer to this but I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give an explanation. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The effect of this amendment would be to restrict the exemptions which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could make with respect to Clause 4 to the preparation of a balance sheet and income and expenditure account. As I have already indicated, under my Amendment No. 44 I shall be seeking the approval of the Committee to provide a choice for smaller charities to prepare accounts which will not comprise a balance sheet and income and expenditure account. It may be that my right honourable friend will wish to exempt classes of bodies from that requirement too. That might fit in with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, indicated with regard to the smallest of charities. The acceptance of this amendment would preclude that.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I shall read what the noble and learned Lord has said. I simply observe that Clause 4 provides for the preparation by a recognised body of three things, two of which are concerned with accounting and the third of which is a report on the activities of the body, having regard to its charitable purposes. It would seem unfortunate that that should be exempted. I can understand the exemption in relation to accounts. However, I do not take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the noble and learned Lord will consider this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Annual accounts and report]:
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert ("a statement of accounts.
(1A) Subject to subsection (1B) below, the statement of accounts of every recognised body shall comprise— ").
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
(" (1B) As regards such class or classes of recognised body as the Secretary of State may, by regulations prescribe, a recognised body may elect that in respect of any financial year its statement of accounts shall, instead of the requirements of subsection (1A) above, comprise—
(a) a statement of balances as at the last day of the year;
(b) a receipts and payments account; and
(c) a report as to the activities of the body, having regard to its charitable purposes.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 49:
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account and of the report") and insert ("statement of accounts").
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ("statement of balances,").
Page 4, line 7, after ("account") insert ("and receipts and payments account").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): I have to tell the Committee that I need to call Amendment No. 51 before I call Amendment No. 50 because of infelicity in the marshalling.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account and report") and insert ("statement of accounts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account and report") and insert ("statement of accounts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("10") and insert ("3").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 54 refers to the period within which the recognised bodies have to produce their accounts for the preceding financial year. Clause 4 (6) allows the recognised body up to 10 months from the close of the financial year to have the balance sheet, income and expenditure account and so on prepared. Under Clause 3 the obligation on the bodies requires them to keep accounting records showing from day to day all sums of money received, and so on, and the record of the assets and liabilities of the body. It seems to me that 10 months is an extraordinary time to allow a charity to produce proper accounts.
The amendment is designed to reduce the period within which the information can be made available to the public and to anyone wanting the information to three months rather than 10. I do not say that three months is exactly right, but a leeway of 10 months after the end of the financial year, particularly in relation to any unscrupulous people running charities for the wrong reasons, gives these people ample time to depart with, or dispose of, the assets of the body and flee outwith the jurisdiction. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Ten months is not a period that was selected at random, as it were. It is the period permitted for the production of accounts under the Companies Acts. Larger charities are as large, or larger, than many companies. On that basis it was considered reasonable that they should have the time to prepare their accounts. I would certainly suggest to the noble Lord that the three-month period that he has suggested was a tight period. If 10 months has been the accepted period in relation to companies legislation, I would suggest that it is the one that we ought to hold to here.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In fact in three months there is plenty of time to skip— if he wants to— as well as 10 months.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for that observation. That was precisely the point I was trying to make, but perhaps I made it rather badly. I am not very happy about the proposition of equating charities, particularly the charities that might be under investigation, with large companies. I shall not press the amendment, but the Lord Advocate may wish to give the period some further consideration between now and the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("Lord Advocate") and insert ("the court, on the application of the recognised body shall, on cause shown").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the same subsection. It is designed to remove the Lord Advocate's discretion to allow a further period of time and to put that discretion in the hands of the courts. There must come a time in the regulation and supervision of charities when the Lord Advocate should not be allowed to stand alone making important decisions which might affect not only the future of the company but people affected by the activities. If the amendment is agreed to, the phrase the "Lord Advocate" would disappear and the Bill would read:
"Where any recognised body fails, within 10 months, or such longer period as the court, on the application of the recognised body shall, on cause shown allow … ".
The purpose of that provision is to put the obligation on the recognised body which has failed to come up with the accounts within what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate considers a reasonable time; namely, 10 months. The body

301
should be forced into the courts so that people with an interest in what is happening within the charity that has failed to produce the accounts within 10 months following the end of the financial year will have a chance to hear in public why such a simple accounting exercise has not been complied with. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While I accept that the amendment is not strictly consequential upon the previous one, I had anticipated that if the noble Lord had been successful in achieving a three-month period he would have wanted this further arrangement, before involving the courts, to allow a further extension if the three-month period could not be met. It is a somewhat unnecessary amendment which goes against the thrust of his earlier amendment. It would allow for a further extension by the court rather than restricting power to me where a 10-month period is allowed for under subsection (7). If the body cannot do it within 10 month;;, it is appropriate that the matter should be left to the Lord Advocate to deal with without necessarily involving the courts. It is merely a matter of administration.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. If the charity is to have a leeway of 10 months, it is difficult to see what criteria the Lord Advocate might apply when judging whether an extension should be allowed, what the length of that extension might be and the reasons for it. With the greatest of respect, that is something which the court, being neutral in the matter, might be better fitted to determine rather than to leave the decision to be made by the parties who have failed to comply with the legislation and the Lord Advocate who may be interested in investigating the body.
It may be counter-productive if the Lord Advocate comes to suspect that the body is up to no good if then he is asked to allow that same body a further period of time to produce accounts which might never be produced if the time is allowed. The amendment is in a similar position to the previous one. It is put before the Government for consideration. They may wish to give it further thought between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account or report") and insert ("statement of accounts').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 4 line 23, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account or report") and insert ("statement of accounts'').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account or report, as the case may be") and insert (a "statement of accounts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 4, line 29, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: There is just one point I wish to raise with regard to the amendment. In the subsection— I use the words in line 41— there is provision that the persons,
"responsible for the management or control of the body shall be personally liable jointly and severally for the expenses incurred"
in preparing a balance sheet and income and expenditure account by a person appointed by the Lord Advocate. It is not clear who those persons are who are to be personally liable. Is it intended that they should be the persons referred to in subsection (7)? I merely observe that the requirement in subsection (7) is persons concerned in the management or control of the body and not persons responsible for the management and control of the body. I do not know whether that difference of wording tends to have any importance or whether it is a reference back to subsection (8) (c):
"any person concerned in the management or control of the body to give … such information".
It would be unfortunate if it made those persons who are not the same as those in subsection (7) responsible for the expenses incurred in a failure to carry out a requirement. I ask in the spirit of inquiry; I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord is correct that subsections (7) and (8) should be the same.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am happy, and I have no doubt that this can be put right at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 65:
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account") and insert ("statement of accounts").
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("do so") and insert ("prepare a balance sheet and income and expenditure account, or, in the case of a body to which subsection (1B) above applies, if it appears to such person more appropriate to do so, a statement of balances and receipts and payments account").
Page 4, line 32, leave out from ("for") to end of line 33 and insert ("that purpose").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 66:
Page 4, line 44, at end insert—
(" () Any person who wilfully alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys any record which he may be required to furnish or transmit under this section shall be guilty of an offence and

303
liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was dealt with at an earlier stage. I do not propose to press it at this time of night. However, I ask the Government to take note that there is apparently no penalty in Clause 3 in relation to destroying or concealing accounting records. The importance of accounting records is that they often constitute valuable evidence not only for obtaining a conviction but for clearing an innocent party in the running of a charity. It may be that the Government will give consideration to inserting a similar provision as appears in Clause 5 (8), subject to the reservations which were expressed in the debate earlier on.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): I have to call Amendment No. 69 before Amendment No. 68 because of incorrect marshalling.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 5, line 3, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account") and insert ("statement of accounts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("balance sheet and income and expenditure account and report") and insert ("statement of accounts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Powers of Lord Advocate to investigate charities and to suspend trustees]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 5, line 29, after ("purposes") insert ("including a reasonable complaint by a person having an interest, financial or otherwise, in the administration of the aforementioned bodies").
The noble Lord said: This amendment might conveniently be dealt with together with Amendments Nos. 83, 85, 91 and 99 which deal with the same type of amendment in different parts of the Bill.
The purpose of the amendments is first to widen public interest in the operation of charities, and to encourage the public to take an active interest in any suspected misconduct or mismanagement of a charity as indicated in the Act. It is to widen the class of persons who, having suspicion or proof of such misconduct or mismanagement which is reasonably based, may take that information to the
304
Lord Advocate for his consideration and, if necessary, investigation; further, to enable the complaint, if deemed reasonably based, to be investigated, thereby ensuring that the cost of investigating does not fall on the individual with the suspicion. I appreciate that the wording of the amendment may not be satisfactory in the use of the phrase,
"having an interest, financial or otherwise",
as that is always a difficult phrase to interpret. However, its aim is really to highlight the fact that a person need not be a donor or a recipient in connection with a charity to have an interest or otherwise in it. Someone may have a connection with similar charities or societies in the same field— for example, charities concerning children, animals, housing or other matters— and have an interest in seeing that the similar charity is properly run. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate that the amendment of the noble Lord is intended to be a clarifying amendment to make clear that I may make inquiries in consequence of a complaint from a person having an interest in the body. However, the clause provides that I should be able to act on information from any source, be it a person with an interest in the charity, the Inland Revenue or whoever it may be.
As I have said, while I appreciate the purpose behind the amendment, it is in my view unnecessary as regards the powers that I require. However, it may be worse than that. It might be construed as restricting my ability to make inquiry generally or as a limitation of particular purposes only to where the complaint is from a person with an interest in the body.
As I understood it, the noble Lord also considered it helpful to make some comment on Amendments Nos. 83, 85, 91 and 99. The basis of Clause 6 is that the court may take various actions on application by the Lord Advocate. These powers are sought specifically to enable me to act in the public interest. If we were to accept the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, members of the public would have a direct power to ask the court to act. In asking the court to act, I would be bringing before the Court of Session— as I indicated, I would hold it at that— information received from members of the public or that as Lord Advocate I had received from the Inland Revenue in terms of Clause 1 (1) (a).
In many instances I would have carried out full and thorough investigations under Clause 5. I very much fear that if we extended these particular powers to members of the public it could lead to some overloading of the court and could detract from the structured approach which I believe we have sensibly adopted in Clause 6. I am concerned that confusion would be more than likely to arise as there is no obligation in the amendment for service upon me of a copy of the application. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. However, I should say that the purpose

305
of the amendments was not to allow members of the public direct access to the court. Perhaps it is not happily worded but the reasoning behind the amendment was to allow members of the public to feel free to approach the Lord Advocate so that he may take up a complaint and follow it through, whether under Clause 5 or 6. However, having heard the explanation that the noble and learned Lord has given, I appreciate particularly the argument in relation to restriction. Perhaps we shall have to give the matter further consideration if that approach is to be pressed. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 5. line 44, after ("any") insert ("wilful").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment seeks to add the word "wilful" to line 44, where there has been any wilful misconduct. There can of course be accidental misconduct or unintentional misconduct, depending on one's view. If these draconian measures are to be taken, in my view they should be taken only if one can say that there has been deliberate misconduct rather than a failure to act, so to speak. That is the purpose of the amendment. In Part II of the Bill there is a frequent use of the word "wilful" where it is quite clearly appropriate. In my view, it would be equally appropriate here.
I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. They are rather different in a sense. Amendment No. 77 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 76.
As presently written the Bill gives power to the Lord Advocate to suspend a person involved in the management of a body. The amendment suggests that he should apply to the court and the court should make the decision as to whether or not the suspension is appropriate. For that rather draconian power there should be supervision of the Lord Advocate and that supervision should be undertaken by the court. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: A balance has to be struck between protecting the individual and protecting the assets of the charity and the public who support it. It may be of little comfort to either the charity or the public if money is frittered away through incompetence and I was unable to act because such action is not "wilful". The object of my having powers to suspend by order is to enable me to act immediately in order to protect the property of a charity or a purported charity. The purpose of that suspension might be to establish whether or not that action was wilful.
My powers are, however, very limited. I may only suspend for 28 days, during which time I am able to undertake investigations. If I wish the person to be suspended beyond that period or to seek more permanent remedies, I must apply to the Court of Session. I acknowledge that that is absolutely right. I believe that those powers strike a reasonable balance between protecting the public interest and protecting the rights of the individual concerned. They are
306
powers that will not be exercised lightly, but they appear to me to be necessary powers if I am to meet effectively my responsibility to act in the public interest.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I recognise that a balance has to be struck. As the noble and learned Lord is well aware, he can get to the court at any time. Within recent years he has gone to the court at an even later hour than this in the evening in order to obtain an interdict. Therefore if any Lord Advocate wished to go to court for a temporary suspension he could do so without any great difficulty. I should hope that the noble and learned Lord might reconsider whether he has the right balance. In the hope that he will at least look at the issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 5, line 47, after ("property") insert ("including its funds").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 75 adds the words "including its funds" after the word "property" in this clause. It is intended to provide clarification. It might be considered superfluous and that the word "property" includes funds. However, the word "property" is not defined in the Bill. It might be safer for all concerned, particularly if the Lord Advocate is to take the actions which have just been discussed, if it is made clear that the funds are included in property. Usually, the greatest assets requiring protection are the funds rather than property, which many charities do not have. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This amendment seeks to extend "property" in Clause 5 (2) (a) (ii) to include "funds". To give effect to this amendment, similar consideration would need to be given to the use of the word "property" throughout Part I of the Bill. I consider that "property" is wide enough to include "funds" and on that basis I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged for that explanation. However, I still think it might be worth while, as on so many other clauses, at this stage to give consideration in the absence of a definition to including the word "funds" in this clause and if necessary throughout the Bill. But, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 78 not moved.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("3") and insert ("5").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 6, line 45, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 6, line 46, leave out ("3") and insert ("6"). On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ICRP REPORT: RESPONSES
  ICRP REPORT: RESPONSES
  PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY AND PLANNING LAW
  PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY AND PLANNING LAW
  DAIRY PRODUCE QUOTAS
  DAIRY PRODUCE QUOTAS